March 20, 2012

Should Churches Hire Family Members?

by Url Scaramanga

The post mortem on the Crystal Cathedral continues. The iconic southern California megachurch pastored by Robert H. Schuller once represented the innovative and market-savvy dexterity of American Christianity. Schuller started his church at a drive-in movie theater, allowing visitors to stay comfortably inside their cars. Then he utilized television with the “Hour of Power” ministry broadcast. Its success allowed him to build one of the largest churches in the country.

But last year the church filed for bankruptcy, the soaring glass building was sold to the Roman Catholic diocese, and the ministry is in shambles. What happened?

Some view Schuller’s ministry as the canary in the megachurch mine. It was one of the first megachurches in the country, and does its demise forecast the fate of others? Others point to demographic shifts. When built, the Crystal Cathedral was in a young and affluent community. But today the area is more economically and racially diverse.

But there is another aspect to the Crystal Cathedral’s story worth exploring: family.

Robert Schuller’s children were deeply involved in the church and television program. When the senior Schuller stepped down as senior pastor in 2006, his son, Robert A. Schuller, took over both the church and “Hour of Power.” Eventually he also resigned amid disagreements over the direction of the ministry.

Then Schuller’s daughter, Sheila Schuller Coleman, was installed as the pastor. The decline continued. Staff has dropped by 150, the building has been sold, and conflict on the board has resulted in Robert H. Schuller and his wife leaving the ministry they started over 50 years ago.

A former Crystal Cathedral board member believes family dynamics led, in part, to the decline of the ministry. "If you have a family ministry, the health of the relationships within the family is key to whether the governance of the ministry is going to work well or not," said Rev. Wes Granberg-Michaelson. He acknowledges there was a family dispute in 2006 over who would lead the church when Schuller stepped down.

"I think that Robert A. could have carried that ministry and could have continued it," said Granberg-Michaelson. "I also think that it would have been possible to find a person from the outside that would make that a mission-driven ministry and essentially a ministry that moved beyond the family. But neither one of those things happened."

There are many stories of fathers passing their ministries on to their children: Franklin Graham, Jonathan Falwell, and Joel Osteen all inherited their famous fathers’ pulpits. Last month we even featured an interview with James and Jonathan Merritt, a father and son combo on the pastoral team at Cross Pointe Church in Duluth, Georgia, about the shifting generational values around outreach.

But is mixing family and ministry a good idea? In many non-ministry organizations, this kind of thing is rejected as nepotism. It creates a shadow of doubt around a person’s gifts, abilities, and calling. Are you really qualified for this role, or did you get it because of your name? And, as Granberg-Michaelson points out, is it wise to link the fate of a ministry to the strength of fragile family relationships?

What do you think? Would you want your children on staff with you? Would you want to be part of a church that's essentially a family business? Are there strengths to this model we may not recognize? And what can be done to ensure ministries with leaders from the same family do not suffer the same fate as the Crystal Cathedral?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 20, 2012 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

February 29, 2012

Ur Video: Dave Kraft on Celebrity Pastors

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 29, 2012 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

February 27, 2012

Linstant Leader

by Robb Ryerse

Normally, February is the dullest month in the sports calendar. The NFL season concluded with the Super Bowl. March Madness is not yet on the horizon. Pitchers and catchers haven't reported. And games in the interminably long basketball and hockey seasons feel meaningless.

But not this year. This February has been more exciting than ever, dominated by Linsanity, the phenomenon surrounding the improbable rise of New York Knicks point guard Jeremy Lin.

In his first six games in the starting lineup, Lin has been unstoppable. He scored more points than any other NBA player ever had in his first five starts. In his fifth game, Lin hit a game-winning three pointer with less than a second left on the clock. In his sixth start, he had a career-high thirteen assists. Six starts, six wins. It has been Linsane.

The Lin story is so compelling, not just because of the endless puns based on his name or what he has accomplished on the court, but also because of who he is as a person and the road he has traveled to get to this point.

Lin is Taiwanese-American, the very rare American born Asian player to make an NBA roster. He went to Harvard University, which is not exactly known as a basketball powerhouse. In fact, he is the first Harvard graduate to play in the NBA since 1954. When people imagine great basketball players, they don't normally picture an Asian-American from Harvard.

Lin was undrafted coming into the league, but was able to work his way onto an NBA roster last year. This season, Lin was cut from two other teams before ending up on the Knicks bench. He was reportedly just five games from being let go by the Knicks as well, before an injury forced him into the lineup. Linsanity is proof that he has made the most of his opportunity.

The meteoric rise of Jeremy Lin from unheralded, undrafted benchwarmer to international sensation is nothing short of remarkable. ESPN analyst Tony Kornheiser captured the sentiment while discussing Lin on his radio show, "The thing that stands out is how this guy has gone from non-factor, on the bench, not even going to play, to without question, the leader of a team."

Continue reading at LeadershipJournal.net.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 27, 2012 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 16, 2011

Inside the Battle at Coral Ridge

Interview by Drew Dyck

Tullian Tchividjian knows all about filling big shoes. Not only is he the grandson of Billy Graham, but in 2009 Tchividjian (pronounced cha-vi-jin) stepped into another pair of Shaq-sized sneakers. He succeeded the late James Kennedy as pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Tchividjian's church plant, New City, merged with the larger Coral Ridge, but the honeymoon was short-lived. Seven months later a group of church members, headed by Kennedy's daughter, circulated a petition calling for his removal. On September 20, 2009, Tchividjian survived a vote to remove him from leadership.

Today Coral Ridge has largely moved past the conflict and is thriving. Tchividjian's energy and enthusiasm (some Coral Ridge staffers call him "the tornado") belie the recent ordeal. Drew Dyck sat down with Tchividjian to discuss how he endured those dark days, what he learned, and how he found light on the other side.

Some of the reasons you were opposed seem trivial. You didn't wear a robe, like Dr. Kennedy did. You weren't political enough from the pulpit. Was there something beneath those objections?

Not preaching politics was a big one. But yes, I'm sure there was something underlying those complaints. Part of it may have been an old-fashioned power struggle. There were people who had been in places of power under Kennedy who felt that this was their church, and they should be in charge of running it.

I think some of them probably saw in me a young guy who would be wide-eyed by coming here and would basically do whatever they said. What they underestimated was that we had prayed and thought hard about what God wanted this church to be, and we were very determined to get there.

What was your initial reaction to the resistance?

Well, we expected it. But it's one thing to talk about war and another to be a soldier on the ground when the bullets are flying. It was hard. It was the first time in my life where I was leading a church where I knew many people didn't like me.

Things started blowing up pretty quickly because there were things that had to change immediately. There were issues on staff that had to be addressed immediately, dangerous things. Yet if you're not in the know, all you see are these changes taking place. To some it looked like we were just being disrespectful, that we were bulls in a china shop. We were coming in as the guest and taking over. So there were a lot of those kinds of accusations. They weren't accurate, but we couldn't disclose all the reasons we had to make the changes.

It was tremendously uncomfortable coming to worship every Sunday morning during that time not knowing who liked you and who hated you. There were people in the choir who, when I would stand up to preach, would get up and walk out. People would sit in the front row and just stare me down as I preached. It was extremely uncomfortable. People would grab me in the hallway between services and say, "You're ruining this church, and I'm going to do everything I can to stop you." I would come out to my car and it would be keyed. Some people would stop at nothing to intimidate.They put petitions on car windows during the worship service. They started an anonymous blog, which was very painful. Here we were trying to build consensus and there's this anonymous blog fueling rumors and lies. The blog almost ruined my wife's life. Anonymous letters were sent out to the entire congregation with accusations and character assassinations. It was absolutely terrible.

Did you ever question yourself and think, Was I really called here?

Oh, definitely. The shelling got so bad I thought to myself this was a huge mistake. Two churches are ruined now. I could hardly eat, had trouble sleeping, and was continually battling nausea. I felt at the absolute end of myself.

Read the full interview at LeadershipJournal.net.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 16, 2011 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 7, 2011

Catalyst 2011 Final Message with Andy Stanley

Matt Woodley

Andy Stanley’s final message at Catalyst stressed one big idea: the vitality of Christian leadership depends on apprenticeship. Stanley defines apprenticeship as the process of “selecting, modeling, and coaching for the purpose of replacing yourself.” As Stanley said in an earlier talk, most of us have a problem with that word selecting. It seems so unfair. But Jesus wasn’t "fair"—in the sense that he didn’t spend the same amount of time with each disciple. According to Stanley, "Our job is to look behind us and pour our lives into a few selected people.”

This leads to another implication for every leader: “Your responsibility is to empty your cup. It is not your responsibility to fill someone else’s cup.” That should take a huge burden off of us as leaders. We don’t have to know everything. We don’t have to be experts. We don’t have to fix people and fill their cups. For Stanley, “If you are one step ahead of anyone, you have something to offer to someone who is one step behind you.” What a great—and liberating—goal for every leader.

Stanley shared the following personal story.

He was meeting a friend for lunch. The friend, a circuit judge, has incredible power and works long hours. But when Stanley went to his office, he had to wait for his friend who was talking on the phone. As he talked, three young people sat on a couch in his office, frantically taking notes and trying to keep up with the judge’s conversation. When Stanley’s friend got off the phone, he turned to his interns and asked, “Okay, based on that conversation, what did you learn?”

It struck Stanley that this is exactly what Christian leaders should be doing every day, apprenticing younger leaders. This isn’t a program or a curriculum. You do it by inviting people to walk beside you as you complete different aspects of your leadership. In other words, don’t do your ministry alone. Don’t interview alone. Don’t budget alone. Don’t design, prepare, or create alone. Bring someone along with you. Again, you don’t have to fill their cup; just empty your cup.

So as the conference ended, Stanley gave every leader one more specific assignment: “Replace yourself.”

Posted by Matt Woodley at October 7, 2011 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 6, 2011

Catalyst 2011 Andy Stanley: Be Present

Matt Woodley

BE PRESENT. That’s the theme for Catalyst 2011. I love the theme. I’ve spent most of my life learning how to show up—I mean really show up—and be present to God, my own heart, and of course people—church people, lost people, happy people, anguished people. But how do you pull that off, especially given the frenzied demands of ministry? Andy Stanley opened the day by offering one small step on the journey of being present.

He started with a simple premise: “The more successful you are, the less accessible you will be.” For instance, now that my senior pastor oversees 1,000 people, he can’t be accessible to everyone. Given this reality, Stanley says we have two options: (1) Ignore it and burn out being accessible to everyone; or (2) Face it and hide yourself from everyone. But here’s a hard-edge truth of ministry: we can’t shut out all the needs around us but we can’t take them all on either. According to Stanley, that’s the fundamental tension of ministry—a tension you’ll never resolve.

So what do we do? Here’s his advice: “Do for one what you wish you could do for everyone.” That is how you can manage your limits in ministry. For example, you might not be able to do ALL the marital counseling in the church, but you should be knee-deep in at least one troubled marriage. Or you might not be able to do ALL the funerals, but you better be walking beside at least one grieving family.

Stanley offered a few maxims that go with this principle:

1) Don’t be fair. Be engaged. (Because if you’re “fair,” you could you ever justify doing marriage counseling for one specific couple but ignore all the other couples in crisis. You can’t be “fair” to all of them, but you can be engaged with a few of them.)
2) Go deep rather than wide.
3) Go long-term rather than short-term.

Sometimes God will nudge you to be extraordinarily present to one. Stanley gave a moving personal example about God’s nudging in his own life. Although Stanley’s church ministered to a lot of homeless people, he couldn’t help all of them, but he did feel a nudge from God to help one of them—a severely broken, addicted woman named Jane. After working with Jane for over twenty years (with incredible heartaches and relapses), Jane finally came to a point where she was pouring out God’s grace to help other female victims of sexual abuse. What we do for “one” often ends up having a greater impact than trying to help everyone.

So how are you dealing with the tension of too many needs and not enough time? Do you try to ignore the tension and meet everyone’s needs? Or do you disengage and become completely inaccessible? Has God nudged you lately to pour your life into one person (or a few people)?

Posted by Matt Woodley at October 6, 2011 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 5, 2011

Catalyst Lab with David Platt

Matt Woodley

Okay, so I've never read any of David Platt's books. And, quite, frankly, I didn't know what the fuss was all about ... until tonight. I'm not sure what happened, because I came here to "cover" Catalyst--as a detached, objective, non-participating blogger--but by the time Platt got done preaching, God had brought me to my knees, weeping. The talk was pretty simple--a four-point sermon based on Exodus 32 about the pitfalls of pastoral ministry--but it bowled me over (and I'm not a pastor at this point in my life). So what happened?

First, there's Platt the guy, the ordinary, humble, broken fellow-sinner and struggler who just stands up with a Bible and starts preaching. David started the message by reminding us a few times, "I'm way over my head in every area of my life. My life in ministry is filled with so many weaknesses." Then he proceeded to preach a message that was laced with prophetic zeal, but here's the amazing thing: I never once caught a whiff of anger or self-righteousness from him. As a matter of fact, at every stage of his message he was on the verge of tears. I'm not given to Christian celebrity name-dropping (as a matter of fact, it repulses me), but this guy reminded me of a modern-day Jeremiah, exuding tenderness and tough truth at the same time.

Now for the four points of his message. Based on Exodus 32, Platt identified four "golden calves" of our leadership (and, again, he stated them with such biblical integrity, simplicity of speech, and with so much tenderness of heart that I couldn't argue with anything he said):

1. We have become leaders without convictions. We have created an entire leadership culture where the name of the game is giving people what they want. But Platt urged us that "God is more interested in the sanctity of his people than the success of your ministry."

2. We have devised salvation without dedication. But Christ is worthy of our total abandonment.

3. We have manufactured worship without humility. Where is the brokenness in our worship? Where is humility in our worship? Where is Isaiah's cry of "Woe is me" in our worship? If brokenness and humility have no place in our worship, then God will have no place in our worship.

4. We have created a God without retribution. But by doing so we have minimized and undercut the mercy of God and the beauty of the cross. Because at the cross Jesus drank the cup of God's retribution. That's why Jesus agonized about going to the cross.

So the question for us isn't just, "What are the golden calves in our culture or in our church?" This is the first question we need to ask: "What are the golden calves in my heart and in my approach to leadership?"

Posted by Matt Woodley at October 5, 2011 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 19, 2011

Skye Jethani: Recipe for Church-365 (Part 1)

by Skye Jethani

A few weeks ago I had lunch with Darren Whitehead from Willow Creek. Darren is a great bloke (I can say that because he’s an Aussie), and we talked candidly about our experiences in the church, in leadership, and the way we see church adapting to the shifting culture. Toward the end of our lunch he asked me if I’d ever considering working on a church staff again. “I’ve learned never to say never,” I replied, “but it would have to be a very different kind of church.”

“Like what?” he asked. I rattled off some half-baked answer, but his question has lingered in my mind. What kind of church would I want to help lead?

As I’ve ruminated on that question, I’ve gone back and read a number of articles, blog posts, and editorials I’ve written in the past few years–pieces about the church’s narrow definition of mission, the tendency to over-institutionalize church, the false-belief that perpetuity equal success, rediscovering a theology of vocation, and the danger of making mission an idol at the expense of communion with God.

With all of these ingredients now in the mixing bowl of my mind, I’ve decided to give a more than half-baked answer to Darren’s question. What follows is not a complete recipe but an experiment. It’s my way of welcoming other cooks into my mental kitchen. I want your thoughts and feedback. Am I on to something, or am I completely out to lunch? And please don’t take these ideas as a criticism of other models of church. God has used, and will continue to use, many different churches to accomplish his purposes.

I am calling this experiment Church³⁶⁵, and so far I've outlined 5 ingredients. Here's the first:

Ingredient One: Institutional Impermanence

Elsewhere I’ve written about the “perpetuity problem”–the belief that if something lasts it’s a success. This cultural bias leads us to believe that an institution must endure, and too often churches allow this assumption to dictate decisions that may be contrary to the Spirit’s leading and unhelpful to God’s mission.

Similarly, some church leaders can fall into the trap of believing their calling is to perpetuate a 501c3 organization we call “the church,” rather than to empower and equip the people of God (a.k.a., the church) to bless the world. Originally we established buildings, budgets, staffs, structures, and programs to serve and empower people, but somehow the tail starts wagging the dog and people come to serve and empower the organization.

But how do we avoid this trap? Some believe the answer is to jettison the organization altogether. The organic church movement rejects these structures as a hindrance to mission and authentic community. But I don’t fully subscribe to this belief. I think structure is important, and depending on one’s setting a building, or programs, or staff may be entirely prudent. But how do we properly employ organizational structure while avoiding the slippery slope into institutionalism?

My time last year with Bob Goff gave me an idea. Bob is utterly crazy, wonderful, and inspiring. He told me about the difficulty early in his legal career of practicing law while keeping his family his priority. When it proved impossible, Bob quit the firm he had been working for and started is own. But he knew the danger. Law firms, like churches, feel the insatiable need to expand institutionally. And before long he would exist to serve his firm rather than his family. His solution? Shut down the firm every year.

Everyone at Bob’s firm understands that at the end of each year the organization will close up shop. Bob then decides whether or not he wants to keep the firm going. If he does, and there is no guarantee, he literally gets down on one knee and proposes to each of his employees by saying, “Will you practice law with me for one more year?” Like Bob, they are each free to say yes or no. This one-year-at-a-time approach keeps the perpetuity problem in check.

What if a church operated that way? What if leaders gathered to prayerfully discern whether it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to them to continue the church for one more year? If the answer is yes, then they commit to one another for another 365 days. If the answer is no, they celebrate what God has done, reallocate people and resources, and anticipate a new call trusting the mission will continue even if this organization does not.

This 365-days-at-a-time approach would put significant boundaries in place to keep organizational creep from occurring. It’s pretty hard to secure a mortgage, incur debt, or rehab a facility in one year. And good luck hiring a large number of full-time employees when job security isn’t part of the package. But this approach also honors the Holy Spirit by holding our institutional structures with open hands, knowing that when the wind of the Spirit shifts we are ready and willing to shift with it. And this model honors church members by keeping them from becoming too dependent, both temporally and spiritually, upon the institution. It forces everyone to remember that church structures are a transient means to an end, not an end in themselves.

But what about those good and necessary programs and structures that require a more permanent organization? I’m thinking about church-based community programs, shelters, food banks, etc. I’ll address some in later posts, but if God does lead some within the church to begin these kinds of programs they can be launched as independent 501c3 organizations linked to, but not technically part of, the church.

Another objection I've heard is that institutional impermanence will fuel church-shopping and perpetuate the lack of commitment that plagues Christian communities. But I'm not sure that's the case. After all, it's entirely possible that a Church³⁶⁵ could exist for 20 or more years...if leaders discern that's God's leading. They just wouldn't assume this is God's will.

Stay tuned for ingredient two of Skye's recipe for Church³⁶⁵

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 19, 2011 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

September 14, 2011

Leadership Lessons from Superman's Underpants

by Skye Jethani

For years I’ve been trying to help people see that popular consumer culture is a form of religion. It offers us a sense of value, identity, and context that traditional religions once provided. Similarly, pop culture has sacred symbols. How do I know this? Because when one of these symbols is altered the faithful will rise to protest the act of irreverence.

The Coca-Cola Company learned this lesson in 1985 when they released New Coke. And earlier this year when Gap changed their logo, hoards of angry white females rioted via social media. Gap relented and the retail deity’s image was restored.

The latest victim of pop-culture blasphemy: Superman. Photographs have leaked from the production of Warner Brothers’ new film Man of Steel showing actor Henry Cavill wearing a blue Superman suit without red trunks. When the film debuts in 2013 it will be the first time the character is depicted on screen without the red under(over)pants. Nerds are enraged.

The question I have is this: After 73 years of wearing his underwear on the outside, why has Superman decided to hide his Hanes?

I did a little snooping and discovered that when Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster created Superman in the 1930s his design was derived from two sources–science fiction comics and circus strong men. The former gave Superman his blue one-piece uniform (all advanced societies wear one-piece uniforms, it’s a Hollywood fact), and the latter his red Speedo. The look has remained largely unchanged for seven decades–including five feature films.

But when Warner Brothers handed the responsibility for penning a new Superman script to Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, the same team behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, they wanted to bring the same realism to the Man of Steel they had brought to the Caped Crusader. But the Superman character, unlike Batman, is utterly unrealistic. He’s an alien who can fly, repel bullets, and fire lasers from his eyes. If we are to accept all of that, is it really too much to ask a modern audience to believe Superman would wear red underwear over his pants?

Yes, it is.

At least that was the filmmakers’ conclusion, so they ditched the drawers. Now fanboys’ panties are in a bunch over the decision and they’re tearing up chat rooms and message boards about it. Online petitions have even started to pressure Warner Brothers to return the super shorts.

What lessons can we learn from the skirmish over Superman’s skivvies? Here are a few thoughts:

ONE: Don’t underestimate the power of symbols
The strong reaction to Superman’s costume change is coming from a community that is highly invested in the character. To many of them he represents something iconic, good, pure, and nostalgic. Some hold Superman to be a patriotic symbol in the same category as the Stars and Stripes and George Washington. He stands for “truth, justice, and the American way.” For others, and I must put myself in this category, he is a symbol of childhood that triggers positive memories of backyard action figure battles and treks to 7-11 to buy comic books.

When we invest symbols, like Superman, with this kind of meaning and significance, we expect them to remain timeless and unchanging. They serve as vessels that hold something precious–our nation, our childhood, our memories. And the permanence of these symbols only increases in weight as cultural changes accelerate. So when the symbol itself changes–by having his underwear removed, for example–the values and memories we associate with it suddenly feel insecure or worse, attacked. One of the fixed points of reference in our universe unexpectedly shifts, and we lash out at the person who moved it.

In your leadership, if you face an unexpected backlash for what you thought was a minor change, you may have underestimated the identity-value of the thing you changed. It may seem silly to you, but the power of symbols is very real to those invested in them.

TWO: One generation’s “cool” is another’s “creepy”
During the Great Depression when Superman made his comic book debut, the popular culture was familiar with circus acts and their flamboyant costumes. The strong men that inspired Siegel and Shuster to put red trunks on their Superman were admired by school boys for their heroism and daring acts of strength. Fast forward four generations, and school boys today aren’t going to circus side shows anymore. And the once innocuous red knickers now draw snickers (try saying that three times quickly).

If we are seeking to lead multiple generations, either simultaneously or over time, we must be mindful to not infuse highly-contemporary symbols with meaning. Otherwise, when cultural norms change, and they always do, we will either be ill-prepared to lead younger people or face the painful and traumatic process of divesting meaning from older forms. Many of the “worship wars” seen in congregations can be attributed to this tendency.

A better option is to use much older symbols that are largely immune to the whims of popular culture. Consider church buildings. No one enters a Gothic cathedral or Puritan meeting house and says, “Uh, this is so out of style!” Those forms are so old that they get a pass, and may actually be admired for transcending the ever-shifting trends of the culture. But a facility that may have been designed to be highly relevant in 1985 is another matter. And if your church is determined to stay on the leading edge of technology in worship, be prepared to shell out enormous amounts of time, money, and energy for decades to come (and with a diminishing return, if my guess is right).

THREE: Sometimes compromise is just dumb
When Warner Brothers decided to scrap Superman’s shorts, they were actually following the lead of DC Comics. Earlier this year DC announced a reboot of the Superman storyline with a redesigned character. Their contemporary take on the Man of Steel also had no red trunks, but to retain some aesthetic link to the past, and to avoid nerd-fury, they gave Superman a red belt.

It didn’t work. Fans still freaked out about the loss of the undies, and others questioned the purpose of the belt. Why does he need a belt if he doesn’t have any pants? And unlike Batman, whose utility belt holds his gadgets, Superman doesn’t carry accessories. By compromising DC Comics neither pleased fans nor advanced the character’s realism. By dodging the bolder decision they actually created a bigger mess.

I’m not saying compromise is always bad (heaven knows we could use a little more of it in Washington DC from time to time). But leaders need to be discerning enough to know when compromise is actually a chocolate covered turd–it may look good on the outside, but take a bite and you’ll regret it.

In my opinion, Zach Snyder was smarter than DC Comics when he not only ditched the red underpants for his Superman movie but also lost the belt. He is sticking to an internally consistent and plausible narrative. Superman is an alien with an alien suit–no belt is necessary.

FOUR: The people, not leaders, decide what’s important
The first official image released by Warner Brothers of Henry Cavill in the new Superman suit was a tease. The studio wanted to create positive buzz for the film, particularly after their last Superman movie in 2006 was considered a letdown by fans. The photo showed a grittier, more aggressive Man of Steel the fans had been hoping for. But the photograph kept part of Superman’s midsection hidden in shadow. Speculation began immediately about whether or not he would retain the red trunks.

WB may have calculated that a clear photo showing the costume change would have distracted both fans and the media from the message they intended to convey–that Superman is back and ready to rumble. And they may have hoped to delay the inevitable backlash by the nerds. But by keeping part of the suit hidden, it only kept fans guessing and distracted from what Warner Brothers intended to communicate. By not wanting the underwear to become the story, it actually became the story.

Ultimately the people will decide what’s important and not the person with the microphone. President Obama, for example, has learned through plummeting poll numbers that while he wanted to talk about health care reform, the rest of country wanted to focus on unemployment. And Anthony Weiner may have wanted to talk about reforming the financial sector, but everyone else wanted to discuss his Twitter pics. Bill Hybels is fond of saying that the first job of leaders is to define reality. But doing that means taking the time to listen to the people and what they’re saying is important.

So, there are four leadership lessons I’ve taken from the controversy surrounding Superman’s underpants. What do I think about the decision to abolish the briefs? I will withhold my opinion until I see the movie. In the end, if it’s a great script with strong acting and fantastic action, I will forgive this blasphemy against my childhood hero. Good storytelling covers a multitude of sins.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 14, 2011 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 7, 2010

Catalyst Day One: Soul and Skills

Marshall Shelley

Daniel Pink is the author of "Drive," a new book about motivation. He brought his core message to the Catalyst crowd.

Money is a motivator, he admits, but it is limited. (You can’t pay someone unfairly. But once you pay people enough, you don’t get additional satisfaction or motivation. The application: Pay them enough to take the issue of fairness off the table.) You need to provide three other motivations to bring out the best efforts in people.

1. Autonomy. “Management is a technology” (Gary Hamel) -- organizing for productivity. Managemeht leads to compliance. But we don’t want compliance anymore. We want ENGAGEMENT. And management doesn’t lead to what we want them to do.

People perform better when they know they have some freedom of their time, technique, team, and task.

2. Mastery. Desire to get better at stuff. An inherent desire. Single most motivating thing is “making progress.” The only way to measure that is feedback. How am I doing? That’s not neediness, that’s seeking immediate feedback. DIY feedback (do it yourself). Effective teams do this themselves. What’s going well; what’s not.

3. Purpose. Profit motive is insufficient. When profit motive is unhitched from purpose motive, bad things happen. Marry the two, good things happen.

“Carrots and sticks are so last century. For 21st century work, we need to upgrade to autonomy, mastery, and purpose.”

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 7, 2010 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 9, 2010

Small Churches = Big Impact

Brandon O'Brien, associate editor for Leadership Journal, has written a new book, The Strategically Small Church. In this work, he seeks to demonstrate how small churches are uniquely equipped for success in today's culture. Ed Stetzer interviewed O'Brien about his book and why being small may be more missionally strategic.

Ed: What do you mean by "strategically small church"? Is this a new church model, like "simple" or "organic" church?

Brandon: A "strategically small" church is one that has learned to recognize and leverage the inherent strengths of being small. Being strategically small means that instead of trying to overcome your congregation's size, you have learned to use it to strategic ministry advantage.

In other words, I'm not advocating a new model of doing church. Instead I'm hoping that by telling the stories of some truly innovative and effective small churches, other small congregations will stop viewing their size and limited resources as liabilities and begin thinking about them as advantages.

Ed: What keeps small churches from becoming "strategically small?"

Brandon: Many small churches try to operate like big churches. The idea seems to be that if we imitate what the megachurches are doing--if we do ministry like them--then we'll grow like them. The trouble is, operating like a big church can undermine the inherent strengths of being small.

For example, as I explain in the book, research suggests that one of the factors that contributes to whether or not young people stay active in church after high school is intergenerational relationships. The students who have more and deeper relationships with adults other than their parents are much more likely to remain in the church in college and beyond. Now, smaller congregations offer tons of opportunity for developing these intergenerational relationships. But the hallmark of large churches is age-segmented ministry, programs designed to separate children from youth, youth from adults, young adults from seniors. When small churches imitate this model, they undercut their advantage for fostering intergenerational relationships.

Ed: So are you arguing that small churches are more effective than larger ones just because of their size?

Brandon: Absolutely not. I have been involved in healthy big churches and unhealthy small churches (and vice versa). But I believe that small churches have some real advantages over larger ones, advantages that could make them more effective in some important aspects of their ministry. That doesn't mean, though, that small churches will be more effective just because they are small. A congregation has to recognize its strengths and learn how to leverage them in order to be effective.

What I'm trying to say is that small churches aren't ineffective because they are small. Size isn't the problem. The problem is being star-struck by mega ministries so that we fail to recognize all the wonderful things the small church has going for it.

Ed: Some people will argue that if a church isn't growing numerically, it isn't healthy. How do you respond to that?

Brandon: First, I would say that there are many ways to gauge the health and vitality of a church. Instead of measuring success in terms of the number of people we attract, we can judge success in terms of how many people we equip and send out for ministry, for example.

Second, in many places, perpetual numerical growth will be impossible: in rural areas where there aren't many people to attract or in urban areas where the cost of real estate prohibits growth. We need to learn to be more creative--and more biblical--about the ways we measure ministry success. The churches I highlight in the book determine their success based on the percentage of their youth and young adults who stay active in church life after high school, the number of people they are training and sending out to launch sister congregations, the percentage of congregants who are involved in ministry outside the church, or the congregation's ability to reach people on the margins. These things may, and sometimes do, result in numerical growth. But they definitely contribute to kingdom growth, which is ultimately much more important.

Ed: Is there any content in this book that would be interesting to pastors of larger churches?

Brandon: It's funny--my uncle is pastor of a megachurch, one of the fastest growing churches in America at the moment. When he found out about my book, he said, "I'll read your book because we're family, but I wouldn't be interested in the topic otherwise." Fair enough.

I've noticed a trend in my work at Leadership journal: large churches are finding ways to channel a small church vibe. Some megachurches are building small chapels where they offer quieter, more intimate worship on Sunday mornings; they are hiring staff members to facilitate intergenerational relationships; they are moving away from programming and focusing more on developing people. I think this book could help pastors in those churches make these adjustments with greater clarity of vision.

In fact, one of my favorite chapters in the book highlights the ministries of two churches who approach ministry in exactly the same way. One has 200 members. The other has 2,000. Again, I'm not talking about a church model; I'm talking about the way we understand ministry success. That applies in churches of all sizes.

Ed: What is the one main point you want readers to take away from this book?

Brandon: If readers take nothing else from the book, I want them to hear this: your church--whatever size--has everything it needs to be used in extraordinary ways for the Kingdom of God. You don't need more resources or more volunteers; you just need the imagination to see how God has equipped you uniquely to carry the gospel to your neighbors.

Order your copy of The Strategically Small Church.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 9, 2010 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 20, 2010

Who Speaks for Evangelicals?

by John Ortberg

One of the advantages of being Catholic is that, whether you agree or not, at least you know who speaks for you. When a controversial subject needs to be discussed, there are vehicles and forums to help it get a hearing with the right people around the table.

Who coordinates the discussion for evangelicals? When we have difficult issues to ponder, who makes sure they get talked about by the right voices, with conviction and civility?

I think it was Mark Noll who wrote that at one time you could pretty much define a person’s relationship to evangelicalism by how they would respond to the name Billy Graham. There was a pretty clear sense—not just of what evangelicalism stood for—but that its core leaders and organizations were tied together by a thick strand of overlapping relationships. The leaders often had gone to school together, done ministry together, or served on boards with one another. The evangelical community had large deposits of what Robert Putnam would call social capital—relational interconnectedness.

This didn’t mean that every issue got consensus—or even politeness. We have always had a fair number of cranky characters. But there was generally a sense that the main players around the table at least knew and understood each other.

It’s not clear that the players know each other so well today.

It’s not clear they’re all at the table.

It’s not clear we have a table.

Scot McKnight, that thoughtful New Testament professor/author/blogger, said recently that evangelicalism seems increasingly divided into different factions. The centrifugal force is greater than ever. And emotions around factional identity seem to run hotter. (Scot said, in what came as a surprise, that the single topic that will draw the highest number of responses in a blog is not sexual orientation or politics, it’s mentioning John Piper.)

One of the reasons for the controversy around Ted Haggard was that the national media often seemed to assume that his position as the head of the National Association of Evangelicals was a little like being the pope of that branch of the church, that he had been chosen by evangelicals as their voice. That wasn’t exactly the case. Current NAE head Leith Anderson has brought terrific leadership to that position, in part by maintaining a more under-the-radar profile.
Why is there a decline of social capital among evangelical leadership?

One reason is that evangelical leaders tend—like our society generally—to be more narrowly niched. Some are leaders of local churches—Bill Hybels and Rick Warren and Andy Stanley. Some work in spiritual formation—Dallas Willard, Eugene Peterson. Some of them are New Calvinists; some head up parachurch organizations (in the 1940s and ’50s, this was a disproportionately large part of evangelical leadership—beginning with Billy Graham himself.) Today some are identified more generationally. Scot mentioned the names that his college students are highly aware of and in tune with—including Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, and Donald Miller.

I expect another reason why the ties that bind evangelicals are becoming looser is the change in church/faith landscape. When I was growing up in the 1970s, a large part of evangelical identity was who we were not: we weren’t Catholic and we certainly weren’t mainline, liberal, establishment, pipe-smoking, sherry-drinking, hush-puppy wearers.

But those distinctions are no longer quite so clear. Some Catholics are quite evangelical. And the mainline is no longer the adversary it used to be. (Although as Christian Smith has noted, many of the values of the mainline church now dominate our culture--tolerance, individualism, egalitarianism, etc.--at a certain point of theological vacuity you no longer need to attend church to have the values.)

Part of what kept the NATO countries allied was the Cold War; once the USSR ceased to exist, the unity of NATO actually became a bigger challenge. One presidential discussion in 2008 took place at Saddleback Community Church. Such a site would have been unthinkable thirty years ago. Today it’s almost impossible to imagine a classically liberal mainline church that would host such an event.

So who does speak for evangelicals? We produce diverse voices: Jim Packer; Jim Bakker; Jimmy Draper, Jimmy Swaggart, James Kennedy, Jim Wallis, Jim Dobson—the Jim’s alone will make your head spin.

I suppose ever since Moses and Aaron the struggle to find the right faith spokesman has been chronic.

These days, who speaks for you?

Posted by Marshall Shelley at July 20, 2010 | Comments (29) | 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 (3) | TrackBack

May 26, 2010

Small Churches are the Next Big Thing

by Brandon J. O'Brien

In a conversation last week about the virtues of small churches, a pastor friend of mine, Chuck Warnock, quoted a passage from John Zogby’s 2008 book The Way We'll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream (Random House). Zogby prophesies that “The church of the future will be a bungalow on Main Street, not a megastructure in a sea of parking spaces. It’s intimacy of experience that people long for, not production values.”

On the face of it, I couldn’t be more pleased with that prediction. I’ve pastored two small congregations and am now a member and deacon in another, where my wife serves on staff. My experience with these churches has led me to believe that small congregations are uniquely positioned to carry the gospel into the world in the 21st century. Few things would make me happier than if the “next big thing” in Christian ministry conversations was the small church.

But the context of Zogby’s forecast gives me pause.

Zogby is a political pollster who checks the nation’s pulse during elections and that sort of thing. He has also worked in consumer polling—researching what kinds of products people like to buy. His book, The Way We’ll Be, is an account of the changing values of Americans as those are evidenced in voting and purchasing patterns. So when Zogby says that the “church of the future will be a bungalow on Main Street,” what he means is that religious consumers of the future will prefer small congregations. He isn’t making any claims about the inherent value of small churches, about intentional philosophies of ministry, or about the role of the church in God’s vision of redemption. He is simply talking about consumer patterns and preferences.

I don’t fault him for that; this is what he does. What concerns me is that it is easy to imagine how the consumer appeal of small congregations could quickly become a motive for keeping a congregation small. Right now, most of the conversation about organic and simple and house and, increasingly, traditional small churches is dominated by voices that advance theological and ecclesiological reasons for thinking mini instead of mega when it comes to ministry. But American Christians love polls; and when word gets out that the average church shopper prefers a small, intimate worship experience, it is very likely that we will lose sight of our theological and philosophical principles and start appealing to pragmatics. Instead of celebrating small churches because they are better positioned to reach people at the margins, better equipped to empower the laity for the work of ministry, and more inclined to cooperate, rather than compete, in ministry, we’ll be touting small size as a strategy to get people in pews.

This is already happening on a smaller scale. A couple towns southwest of where I grew up, there is an ever-growing megachurch led by a celebrity (well, at least a local celebrity) pastor. Ten or twelve years ago, they planted a satellite church near an upper scale neighborhood in my hometown. This is a gated community full of multi-million dollar houses. And just outside the gates there’s an upper scale shopping center, complete with boutique cheese shops, delis, and couture stores—you know, snooty places. This large church planted its sister site in this shopping center, and the little congregation (who hears preaching via satellite) fits in nicely with the other boutique stores. Now, I’m not judging motives but from an outsider’s perspective, this small satellite campus feels like an effort to attract a high-end clientele that would not be inclined to attend the larger church, made up of mostly middle class folk, but who are attracted to the boutique style of this small site.

My point is this: if we start favoring small churches because of their consumer appeal, we’ll be doing just what many of us accuse megachurches of doing—giving the people what they want. In this case, shifting from mega to mini ministry would require some changes in strategy, but no real re-thinking of our philosophy or theology of ministry.

In the interest of full disclosure, I agree with Zogby: I think that the future will belong to small churches. But I want to be darn sure that we begin to favor small church ministry for the right reasons and not simply because we think we’ve found a way to win a new share of the religious market. Some of the current shifts in consumer mentality spell good news for small churches, to be sure. People who value intimacy and authenticity, for example, will be drawn to smaller, local congregations. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But I hope we perceive these trends not as a strategic boon, but as an opportunity to reclaim a biblical vision for our ministry.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 26, 2010 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

January 27, 2010

What's Changing, What's Not

by Marian Liautaud

Dave Travis, managing director of Leadership Network, offers his state of the church in America, based on recent research and his own observations looking through the "keyhole" of large churches.

Things That Are Changing

1. Multi-site churches. According to the book Multi-Site Roadtrip, an estimated 2,000 churches in America use the multi-site model. Travis: "If you're a large church, you're thinking multi-site."

2. Social media. According to the Pew Research Center, 85 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds use social networking at least once a week. Senior pastors under 40 who are leading large churches all use social media. Travis: "This is a radical shift in how we understand leadership. Fifteen years ago, pastors were wondering how they could be less accessible. Today, younger pastors want more access."

3. Internet campuses. Turnkey solutions are being developed that make it cheap and accessible for all churches to incorporate an internet campus. Travis: "For some this will be a fad, but for others this is going to be a big part of their reaching strategy going forward."

4. Online giving. It's here, and it's growing. If churches want to encourage donations from people in the pews, they're going to have to provide more natural ways for them to give. Travis: "Younger leaders recognize that no one carries cash or checkbooks anymore."

5. Declining mobility rate. Americans have stopped uprooting (that is, relocating at least 10 miles from their current home) at the pace they used to. According to a Nielsen study, the percent of the U.S. population that moves is at an all-time low. This could spell trouble for churches whose growth is tied to the turnover rate.

Things We'll See Changing Soon

1. Women as teaching pastors. Travis: "Currently, only 8 percent of churches have women teachers. They'll soon be part of multi-teacher teams."

2. Missionaries coming to the U.S. from developing countries to plant churches here. Travis: "This will not be just for their kinship group but under the wider mandate of the Great Commission."

3. Funerals. Travis: "We are seeing more cremations. And funerals are becoming more of a community experience, not pastor- or funeral parlor-led." More evening funerals have implications for church facilities. Wise funeral homes will not build chapels and instead partner with churches.

Things That Should Be Changing by Now But Aren't

1. Greener churches. Travis: "Going green adds credibility in the community. I would have thought more churches would have embraced this opportunity by now."

2. Ministries to the "encore" generation (55+). Travis: "With the huge baby boomer population in this demographic, I'm surprised we're not seeing growth for this sector." Of course, many are boomer churches.

3. Remote church offices. "More churches should be looking at moving their administrative offices out of the church building and into less expensive office space. This could help churches gain much-needed ministry space instead of having to build or relocate."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 27, 2010 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

November 30, 2009

Scrutinizing Church Leadership

by Skye Jethani

Last week I came across one of those news articles that makes you wonder if we’re all just flying upside down. This headline comes from the UK Telegraph: ”Council sets up scrutiny panel - to scrutinize its scrutiny panels”

A spokesperson from the Wealden District Council said a working party was established in July to oversee the decisions of its three existing scrutiny panels and to “scrutinize the Council’s scrutiny arrangements.” It sounds to me like the citizens of Wealden District are the ones getting scrutted…but I digress. The article continues:

Mark Wallace, from the Taxpayers Alliance, said: “Whilst it may be well-intentioned the council appear to have wrapped themselves up in knots and ended up in an absurd situation. By all means they should review their procedures but there’s no reason why a separate committee to scrutinize the scrutiny panel should be any better than the original body itself…. Local residents would probably prefer they were asked how the council was run instead of adding this extra layer of bureaucracy.”

If my interest were primarily political this article would be raw meat for those who believe government is wasteful, bloated, and inept beyond redemption. But my interests are not primarily political but ecclesiastical. This wonderfully tongue-twisting article offers the opportunity to question how many of our churches are organized and governed.

We like to make cracks about the inefficiency of church committees almost as much as Fox News likes to ridicule congressional sub-committees. But committees have their place-both in church and congress. The creation of an “extra layer of bureaucracy” in Wealden to scrutinize the three existing scrutiny panels reveals a value that permeates governments and churches alike-distrust.

The separation of powers was a principle of wisdom embedded into our Constitution by its framers, and it was born out of the abuse of power evident in monarchs over the centuries. The checks and balances embedded into our form of government was predicated on distrust-the fear that power will be abused and those with it will run amok. But when “checks and balances” is taken to an absurd degree the result is scrutiny panels for scrutiny panels for scrutiny panels.

Unfortunately the same fear permeates many church governing structures. We worry that a pastor, a board, a staff, a committee will amass too much power and that abuse will surely result. To keep power in check, some churches construct numerous committees, panels, teams, policies, processes, bi-laws, and clauses to ensure power is diffused and its implementation scrutinized.

But at what cost?

Do all of these fear-based structures end up hindering the mission of God’s people by creating stable but ultimately unresponsive church bureaucracies? Do they inhibit the nimble (what is now called “missional”) engagement of the church with its community? And do we occupy people on so many boards that they have little time left to engage the world outside the church institution? And might these unending layers stifle new ideas in a black hole of church oversight committees.

To be fair church history has no shortages of stories of abuse, and it only takes one wayward pastor to leave a lingering distrust of power in a congregation for decades. Structures of distrust are usually born out of the pain from earlier mistakes. And there have been occasions when I have been very thankful for the structures of oversight within my own church and denomination that have prevented or limited abuse. As long as people are sinful we will need structures that protect us from the damaging power of their sin.

But should our structures be predicated primarily on the sinfulness of our leaders, built on the premise that abuse is inevitable, the same way secular government or business structures are? Or should they be predicated on trust that God’s Spirit is at work in and through our leaders? Is there anything that ought to distinguish leadership in the church from that of leadership among unregenerate communities?

Let me just come out and say it: Church structures predicated on distrust are pervasive because we adhere to a system that selects church leaders based on quantifiable performance rather than evidence of godly character.

In Paul’s pastoral epistles to Timothy and Titus, his instructions regarding church leadership is focused on getting the right people on the bus-to use contemporary language. He says to appoint leaders who are undeniably godly, mature, and proven, in good standing with everyone, and trustworthy. In other words, find leaders filled with God and put your trust in them. When we find ourselves trusting church systems and structures it’s probably a sign that we don’t trust our leaders.

Perhaps if godliness, character, and evidence of the Spirit’s fruit were the prerequisites for leadership in more of our churches, rather than performance and quantitative output, we’d need fewer committees and oversight panels to sniff out abuse and corruption. Committees and structures are not beyond redemption. As I stated earlier, they do have a useful purpose in the church. They can be very beneficial if predicated not on a fearful distrust of leaders, but as an aid to equip and empower church members to “do the work of ministry.” Until that day, let the scrutinizing continue.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 30, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 20, 2009

Scot McKnight's Top 10 Leadership Books

by Scot McKnight

What makes a leader? Ideas. Courage. Contact with great thinkers. What makes a Christian leader? Great ideas, courage, and contact with great thinkers shaped by the gospel. So, I offer to you a list of my top ten books for leaders, and none of the titles of these books have the word “leader” or “leadership” in it. Some of these are overtly Christian classics; others are not. These books have the ability to swell the chest, flood the mind, and reshape how we see the world around us – and a gospel-reshaping of these great works can inspire a leader to new levels.

From the classical world, though one could choose all sorts of great works, I recommend a soaking in Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, to see how the great philosopher constructed a set of ethics that shaped the Western world. Homer told the story of Odysseus and Virgil in The Aeneid. Homer’s story came into the Roman world and gave to all of us the power of a journey into ideas and ideals, sanctifying place and history. Dante took Homer and Virgil to the next level in his Divine Comedy, and if you follow him all the way down into the inferno, up through purgatory and then climb into the swirling glorious presence of God you will find new dimensions to life’s journey.

I’ve heard the case made that St. Augustine’s Confessions reshaped the entire Western world, not least in his probing of his own soul and conscience, but I’m confident that the great North African can lead each of us to the potent truth of original sin and the need to read our lives before God. Not long ago I began to re-read John Milton, Paradise Lost, and was mesmerized not only by his language and meter, but by the brilliance of his vision for the cosmic battle of human life.

No one on this side of the Atlantic can fail to be captured, humbled and even humiliated before God by Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It brings into living reality the evil of slavery and the heart of darkness, a heart that was eschewed by the arch-individiual, Henry David Thoreau in On Walden Pond. Americans need to dip into this classic work of human independence and freedom if only to capture again what makes so many Americans still tick.

Hemingway said Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was the great American novel. I’m not expert enough on American novels to pose such a conclusion, but I can say that very few have probed more deeply the foibles of the human heart, whether Twain does so with withering wit or raw finger-pointing.

For some reason few today have read C.S. Lewis’ Dymer, his first work, a saga, a journey, and a portrait of human hubris at its apex – and the work provides for us a revelation of what Lewis was like, what his yearning was like, before it became Surprised by Joy. I confess to being one of the few who have not read all of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – I have read The Hobbit – but I return regularly to his short story, “Leaf by Niggle,” and often wonder if there is a better way of describing our vocation and its relation to eternity.

Every summer, somehow, I find my way to Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea, and whether it is the combination of the hunt with baseball in the old man’s musings or not, the struggle to catch and never show what one found … Hemingway reminds me of the intangibles of the human struggle.

Probably the deepest and most penetrating book I read during my seminary days was Martin Buber’s I and Thou, a philosophical, theological essay into the relational nature of what matters most.

Not your usual list of books on leadership, but I wonder sometimes if leadership might best be described by those who are leaders instead of by those who talk about it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 20, 2009 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 15, 2009

Quiz: Determine Your Ministry Age

by Jimmy Long

In recent years we have entered into lengthy discussions about how worship, spiritual formation, and evangelism are transitioning in the church. However, the most crucial area of transition, leadership, has received minimal attention. For more than 35 years, I have been overseeing the ministry of young InterVarsity staff and college student leaders. In that time I have seen a significant swing in how these young leaders view leadership. The emerging generation of leaders desires a context that fosters community, trust, journey, vision, and empowerment.

If we are going to transition the church to the next generation, both existing and emerging leaders will need to understand and appreciate each other's values. This quiz, developed in conjunction with the editors of Leadership, is a helpful start.

This tool is intended to foster dialogue between older and younger leaders about their divergent views and contribute to greater understanding between the generations. No test can fully reveal the nuances that exist within an entire generation, and you may agree with more than one answer for a question. Mark the answer that best fits your approach to leadership.

Take the quiz at LeadershipJournal.net and then come back to Ur to discuss your findings.

How did you score?

Tally your ministry age by adding the numbers for each of your answers. (For example, if you selected answer number 3, that equals 3 points.) Your total score will determine your ministry age.

My Ministry Age _______________

Ages 25 - 41 Younger Leaders
Ages 42 - 58 Pragmatic Leaders
Ages 59 - 75 Traditional Leaders

Your Age, Our Analysis

It is possible that your "ministry age" is incongruent with your actual age. This is precisely the intent of the quiz. Ministry perspective may, or may not, be a direct product of one's generation. A younger leader may fall into the Traditional or Pragmatic categories because he or she is more concerned about doctrine or effectiveness. Similarly, an older leader may discover he or she has more in common with those younger in spirit. In either case a better understanding of one's own leadership style is critical for healthier team dynamics.

This begins by understanding the context from which each leadership style emerged and the different strengths each brings to the church and its mission. The Traditional leaders were at the forefront of the church from 1950 to 1970. They came into prominence soon after World War II, when people longed for stability and when the church was embroiled in significant theological battles. These leaders wanted to ensure the church's survival, remain doctrinally pure, and lead in an orderly manner.

By the 1970s, a new generation of leaders was less concerned about denominational stability and more concerned with helping the church become more effective in a rapidly changing culture. These Pragmatic leaders dominated church leadership from 1970 until 2000. They incorporated the successful management practices of companies like GE and IBM to assist in church expansion. Excellence in programs, effectiveness in strategy, and relevance in teaching that led to numerical growth was the goal of these leaders.

In the late 1990s, younger leaders began to question the pragmatism of the earlier generation. These leaders have been increasingly influential in the church since 2000. They are more concerned about authenticity than excellence, recognizing that churches need to be loving, vulnerable communities if they are going to draw a skeptical generation toward faith. For them, leadership needs to stem more from cooperation and trust than from individual competency or measurable effectiveness. These values have made the Traditional leaders nervous that the Younger focus too much on belonging and not enough on believing. And the Pragmatic leaders are concerned that Younger leaders are not as committed to quantitative growth as they are to qualitative growth.

The church needs all three types of leaders, and they need each other. We need the church to remain doctrinally pure, and we should desire more people to become followers of Christ. However, as I continue to work with younger leaders, I am convinced that if the church is going to thrive in this emerging culture, then we who are more traditional and pragmatic need to willingly and gradually hand over the leadership of the church to the younger generation. But the Younger must also be willing to listen to the wisdom of those who have preceded them.

As you discuss the results of the quiz with others on your leadership team, I hope the sharing will lead to an ongoing dialogue about why you lead the way you do, why divergent values may be the root of some conflicts, and ultimately what type of leadership is needed to carry the mission of the church into the future.

—Jimmy Long is the Blue Ridge Regional Director for InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and author of The Leadership Jump.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 15, 2009 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

October 9, 2009

Ed Stetzer Releases New Research on Pastors

by Kevin Miller

Ed Stetzer, president of Lifeway Research and adviser to www.BuildingChurchLeaders.com, released new research on pastors, which will be published soon in our sister publication, Leadership:

Pastors still believe in the church
Almost all pastors--88 percent--strongly agree that "If I had a friend who wanted to make a difference, I would encourage him or her to do so through their church."

Pastors are investing in developing leaders--but the church may not be doing a good job at this

Among Lifeway's respondents, 67 percent say they “strongly agree” and 26 “somewhat agree” to "I am intentionally investing in leaders who will emerge over the next 10 years." However, those percentages drop (to 52 percent and 26 percent) for "The church does a good job fostering and developing new leaders." Maybe this explains why so many pastors agreed (38 percent strongly, 37 percent somewhat) that "Our church struggles to reach young adults."

Pastors feel they're fulfilling their calling
When asked to respond to "I am currently in a season where I am living out my calling and making a difference," 86 percent “strongly agree.” Lower but still strong percentages (53 percent "strongly agree" and 35 percent “somewhat agree”) respond to "I am satisfied with the way I am currently fulfilling my calling."

Pastors' roles and churches are changing
Lifeway asked for response to the intriguing statement: 10 years ago, I would not have expected to be in the ministry I am today. 30 percent “strongly agree” and 9 percent “somewhat agree.” And the future? "I expect to be in a very different role ten years from now" caused an almost even split:
33 percent strongly agree
23 percent somewhat agree
18 percent somewhat disagree
20 percent strongly disagree

And finally, "I expect my current church to look very different ten years from now": 57 percent strongly agree, 26 percent somewhat agree.

What is next? Lifeway is doing initial research of 7,000 churches; find out more at www.transformationalchurch.com.

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 9, 2009 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Chuck Swindoll's 10 Lifetime Leadership Lessons

by Drew Dyck

Chuck Swindoll was given a Lifetime Achievement Award at Catalyst 09, and spoke on "10 Things I Have Learned During Nearly 50 Years in Leadership":

1) It’s lonely to lead. Leadership involves tough decisions. The tougher the decision, the lonelier it is.
2) It’s dangerous to succeed. I’m most concerned for those who aren’t even 30 and are very gifted and successful. Sometimes God uses someone right out of youth, but usually he uses leaders who have been crushed
3) It’s hardest at home. No one ever told me this in Seminary.
4) It’s essential to be real. If there’s one realm where phoniness is common, it’s among leaders. Stay real.
5) It’s painful to obey. The Lord will direct you to do some things that won’t be your choice. Invariably you will give up what you want to do for the cross.
6) Brokenness and failure are necessary.
7) Attititude is more important than actions. Your family may not have told you: some of you are hard to be around. A bad attitude overshadows good actions.
8) Integrity eclipse image. Today we highlight image. But it’s what you’re doing behind the scenes.
9) God's way is better than my way.
10) Christlikeness begins and ends with humility.

Which of these lessons strikes you most? Why?

If you were to add an 11th lesson, what would it be?

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 9, 2009 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

October 8, 2009

Andy Stanley on How Leaders Make Their Mark

Andy Stanley opened Catalyst 09 with an illustration from the Ridley Scott movie, Kingdom of Heaven. In this movie, set in the medieval Crusades, the blacksmith has a phrase inscribed in his shop in Latin: “What man is a man who does not leave the world better?”

Andy then set up this tension: If you have the leadership gift, you want to make a mark, to leave the world better. But you won’t know your legacy, even your greatest mistake, until years later. The defining moment will happen when you don’t know it’s happening. So the problem/challenge for leaders is you don’t know the thing you’ll do that will make the biggest difference.

What to do? Andy drew insights from the Book of Joshua:

When Joshua enters the Promised Land, he is on the verge of making his mark. The incident that I believe marked Joshua is when he's a couple of days out from attacking the city of Jericho. In Joshua 5:13, Joshua saw a man in front of him with a drawn sword. Joshua asks him, "Are you for us or against us?" The man (angel) answers, "Neither. No." In effect, he's speaking for God: “I have not come to be a part of your story; I’ve come to see if you’re willing to play a part in my story.”

Later, when Joshua was 110 years old, he addresses the nation and says (23:8), “Cling to the Lord your God as you have done this day. … Take diligent heed to yourselves to love the Lord Your God…. Choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Why this is so challenging to me: I would like to think that at the end of your life you will be able to look back and see that you have made your mark. To be able to love the Lord your God and to say to the generation behind, “There is no greater thrill and joy in the world than to lean your leadership gift into the will of God for your life.”

I learned from my father, “God takes full responsibility for the life wholly devoted to Him.” Even when he was literally punched in the face during a church conflict, even when he was verbally attacked, he devoted himself to God.

Be consumed not with who’s for me or against me but whom I’m for. That brings freedom:
Thy will be done, thy kingdom come.

Making our mark isn’t worth our life. Living to make my mark is too small a thing to give my life to. But to be positioned to be open to whatever God wants to do through me, IS something worth giving your life to.

Honesty time: Are you energized by making your mark, or devoting yourself to God, allowing Him to do His work in and through you?

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 8, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 7, 2009

Nancy Ortberg on the Seduction & Myths of Influence

Nancy Ortberg, founding partner of Teamworx2 and editorial advisor and contributor to Gifted for Leadership and Kyria.com, spoke on powerful themes inspired by her books, "Unleashing the Power of Rubber Bands" and "Looking for God."

1. The Seduction of Influence
It's tempting to do it for all the wrong reasons. In our lives, there may be a tearing away of the seductions and a refining of the right reasons.

Word 1: Ego. We've brought the celebrity culture into our church and overlook people who are so like Jesus. We attribute more to up-front people than we should, more to attractive people than we should. The solution is to live more deeply into our brokenness.

Word 2: Burden. We place on ourselves a burden in leadership--our numbers, the highs and lows of leadership--it's about power, control, and outcomes, and Jesus didn't talk fondly about any of those things. Free leaders--free of the need for certain outcomes--are the best leaders.

2. The Myths of Influence
Myth 1: "There are no limits to my influence." No matter how much I want to influence and shape someone, though, the reality is that there is still space between us. The best thing we can do is to plant seeds, to put the truth and grace out there, and let God work in the other person over time. Parker Palmer talks about the tragic gap: we live between the potential and the reality of what we are. It's painful to live in that gap.

Myth 2: "Be like me." Saul dresses David in his armor, but Saul is a warrior and David is a shepherd. David said, "I cannot go in these, because I am not used to them." He took them off. A great parent lets each child develop uniquely.

3. The Power of Influence
Good influence is deeply based in relationships. List the people who have most influenced you, and most will be people who personally invested in your life.

Principle 1: Reciprocity. I became the leader, following a hip young leader, of a ministry to postmoderns--and I was a middle-aged woman. After a few months, a staff member said to me, "Your meetings suck." He said, "When you first got here, probably because you knew you had an uphill battle to fight, your meetings were fantastic, creative. I don't know what happened, but recently, meetings have been so bad, we don't want to come." I said, "You're right." That was painful, but there had to be reciprocity--give and take. Older leaders have to pull back to let younger leaders do what they're called to do.

Principle 2: Authenticity. People will walk through fire for an authentic leader. We connect more deeply through our brokenness. As Henry Cloud says, "Failure is the norm" and if we can be honest about that, about our doubts, our seeking, our brokenness, we attract. Authenticity comes through suffering; we should not lead in the church until we have suffered.

---

What Nancy's session reminded me of was this wonderful interchange with Richard Foster and the late Henri Nouwen (from Christianity Today Library). The interviewer asked, "How can ministers accept their insecurity that way?"

Nouwen: ... Let me paint a picture. You're in a big room with a six-inch balance beam in the center. The balance beam is only twelve inches off the fully carpeted floor. Most of us act as if we were blindfolded and trying to walk on that balance beam; we're afraid we'll fall off. But we don't realize we're only twelve inches off the floor. The spiritual director is someone who can push you off that balance beam and say, "See? It's okay. God still loves you. Take that nervousness about whether you're going to succeed and whether you have enough money — take the whole thing up on that narrow beam and just fall off."

Foster: That's one of the great values of reading the saints. They had this utter vulnerability to fail by human standards.

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 7, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mark Batterson on his new book "Primal" and on "Altar Building"

>

Skye Jethani, managing editor of Leadership and www.OutOfUr.com, introduced Mark Batterson, lead pastor of National Community Church in Washington, DC. Batterson described his forthcoming book, Primal (Multnomah):

"A couple of years ago, my wife and I celebrated our anniversary in Rome--historic, romantic. We visited the Colosseum, at Trevi Fountain we threw a penny over our shoulder. But the highlight for us was a little church, The Church of San Clemente, not in our travel books, nondescript, weather-beaten. We just walked in one day into this 12th century church, remarkably preserved with frescoes and marble, and it was built over a 4th-century church, which was built over ancient catacombs. For 5 Euros, you could take the underground tour. I will never forget walking down those stairs--like the wardrobe in Narnia, a portal to a different place and time. The air got damp, the lights got low, and the space got claustrophobic, and then you're standing in a place where people risked their lives to worship God. You feel a little uncomfortable with how comfortable you are. When you strip everything away, what is the core of what you believe? The church has evolved in lots of ways--with cathedrals, organs, and more. But what is primal is loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength."

"We're known for what we're against, not for what we're for. Shouldn't we be known for what Jesus said was primal?"

--------

Batterson's main talk was self-confessedly not nuts and bolts, but more devotional / challenging, from 1 Samuel 14:35ff.: "Altar building is a lost art. We don't celebrate enough what God has done right. We need to mark an experience so we have something to go back to."

What is an experience in your life in which God moved? How have you celebrated and commemorated that? If you haven't, how could you?

In contrast, one chapter later Saul builds not an altar to God but a monument to himself.

Why do you want your ministry to thrive--to celebrate God or to build your own reputation?

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 7, 2009 | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 4, 2009

Rocking the White Citadel

By Greg Taylor

My life and worldview will never be the same after living seven years in Uganda. My wife and children, our mission team members, and I all made friends with and learned from people who were struggling out of poverty but still lived full of joy and hope.

Unfortunately, few Western Christians have the opportunity to learn from believers in other cultures. As a result, we impose our own perspective on Christians worldwide.

In The Next Evangelicalism, professor and pastor Soong-Chan Rah says the evangelical church has been held captive to Western-white power and must be released in the same way the early Christian church was released from Jewish ethnic control. Nearly 95 percent of Christian churches in America have more than 80 percent of one particular ethnic group. Most evangelical churches are white monoliths.

"Racism," he says, "is America's original sin." Our culture and economy were built on the backs of Native Americans and black slaves. But American individualism and consumerism keep Christians from understanding and confessing corporate sin.

According to Rah, today's "slavery issue" is immigration.

Rah says church leaders maintain a "conspicuous silence" on the issue of immigration. Though some view immigration as a huge problem, Rah interprets law changes as far back as 1965 as catalysts for making immigrants the next hope for evangelical churches.

But the road to change is long and full of pitfalls, and the cards are stacked against non-whites. A 2005 Time story featuring 25 influential evangelicals included only two non-whites. Rah tells stories of churches resisting ethnic change in their communities, but has hope for a few shining examples of churches learning from and embodying ethnic change in their neighborhoods. He says the "colorblind American" approach is superficial and serves only to cover over and hide racial hatred.

Korean-born and raised in a Korean immigrant community, Rah is critical of the modern church growth movement and repudiates the homogenous unit principle, saying God never intended church leaders to target a particular race of people. Rah claims that race itself was never used in the Bible but "nations" is the preferred category, that slave trading states created the concept of race to perpetuate manifest destiny.

The author also finds the term "emergent church" offensive, saying "the real emerging church is the church in Africa, Asia, and Latin America," which now makes up 60 percent of the world's Christian population. He says these immigrant communities form a social network that cannot be extricated from their religious practices. The community helps people find jobs and homes, and white Americans can learn much from immigrant communities.

Many churches, meanwhile, have preferred numeric growth to hearing prophetic and diverse voices. Yet only a small group of churches are multi-ethnic, and the melting-pot-turned-salad-bowl of cultures has been covered with a "creamy ranch" that makes even kimchi or jalapeno all taste like salad dressing.

The next evangelicalism, Rah says would embrace a theology of suffering as well as celebration, intentionally give up power, and follow the lead of liminal (in-between) second and third-generation immigrants.

This will require that white leaders intentionally give power to Hispanic, Asian, black, and other minority cultures.

The Next Evangelicalism resonated with me because I grew up white, rich, and Christian. I'm still all of those things, but in a changing world. This book describes the world as we know it today and a vision for what churches could look like tomorrow. Rah warns us that if we fail to wake up and realize the center of the Christian universe is not white America, then we will become increasingly irrelevant and, more tragically, unfaithful to our task to take the gospel to all nations.

While Rah's tone is challenging, his message is ultimately one of hope. The curse of Babel was reversed at Pentecost, he says. If we heed his message, a renewed vision for this kind of multi-cultural Christianity can bring new life to Christ's church in the United States.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 4, 2009 | Comments (25) | TrackBack

July 8, 2009

Ministry Lessons From a Muslim

By Skye Jethani & Brandon O'Brien

Eboo Patel is not the most likely seminary professor. His credentials are not the issue. Patel earned his doctorate from Oxford University, and he is a respected commentator on religion for The Washington Post and National Public Radio. He has spoken in venues across the world, including conferences for evangelical church leaders.

What makes Eboo Patel an unlikely seminary professor is that he is Muslim.

The editors of Leadership first encountered Patel at the 2008 Q Conference, where he challenged 500 Christian leaders to change the rules of interfaith dialogue. "Muslims and Christians might not fully agree on worldview," he said, "but we share a world." Patel spoke of his enduring friendships with a number of evangelicals and his desire to move beyond the "clash of civilizations" rhetoric that dominates Christian/Muslim interaction. While holding firmly to his belief in Islam, he also affirmed church leaders. "Even though it is not my tradition and my community," Patel wrote after the conference, "I believe deeply that this type of evangelical Christianity is one of the most positive forces on Earth."

We were intrigued, so we contacted Patel to talk more about the ramifications of increasing religious diversity in America, as well as his outsider's perspective of the church's response. Patel gave us more than we bargained for. He invited us to attend a class he was teaching on interfaith leadership at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago.

Patel is not on the seminary faculty. He serves as the executive director of the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC) - a Chicago-based international non-profit that brings together religiously diverse young leaders to serve their communities. The seminary invited Patel to co-teach the course on interfaith leadership with Cassie Meyer, a Christian who serves as the training director at IFYC.

Be more Christian

When we arrived in the class, which included twenty seminarians - men and women from diverse racial and denominational backgrounds - the students were discussing a newspaper article. Patel and Meyer were using the report about tensions between Somali Muslim immigrants and Latino workers at a meatpacking plant in Grand Island, Nebraska, as a case study. The Muslims wanted the factory's managers to adjust production schedules to accommodate their prayer times and holidays like Ramadan. Others in the rural community admitted being uncomfortable with the influx of so many Muslim neighbors - particularly after September 11, 2001.

"Imagine you are the pastor of a church in Grand Island, Nebraska," Patel says to the class. "A reporter from The New York Times calls you because he is working on a story about the conflict between Muslims and Christians at the meatpacking plant. The reporter asks you, 'What should Christians do?' How would you respond?" After a few moments of reflection, a student answers.

"I would talk about the fact that this country was founded on religious freedom," he says. "We have to respect other people's beliefs."

"Yes," interjects another student. "But if they allow the Muslims to take breaks for prayer, it will disrupt the factory's productivity. There is an economic reality to consider. If the plant shuts down, the whole community will suffer."

For fifteen minutes the students debate the matter, fluctuating between constitutional rights and economic realities. Finally, Patel interrupts.

"I'm hearing you articulate two grand narratives. First, the narrative of American freedom. And second, the narrative of capitalism and productivity. But remember, the reporter is not calling you because you are an expert in economics or constitutional law. He's calling you because you are a minister. Don't be afraid to answer the question as a Christian. Answer out of the Christian narrative."

The irony of a Muslim challenging a group of pastors to be more Christian was not lost on the students. Heads dropped as they contemplated a different response to the case study. Cassie Meyer assisted the students by adapting the scenario.

"Imagine you're the pastoral intern at the church in Grand Island," Meyer says, "and you've been given the responsibility to preach a sermon this Sunday addressing the conflict between the Christians and Muslims. What would you say from the pulpit? What would you use from Scripture?"

"The greatest commandment is to love God and love our neighbors," says one student. "Whether we like it or not, these Somali Muslims are our neighbors and we are called to love them."

"But many in the town don't view the Muslims as their neighbors," says another student. "They view them as intruders, unwanted outsiders, or even their enemies."

"Do you think referring to the Muslims as 'enemies' in your sermon might inflame the problem?" Patel asks.

"I don't think so," the student responds. "Jesus calls us to love our enemies and to show kindness to aliens. But that would have to be made clear in the sermon. The story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind." Patel is out of his chair, energized by what he is hearing.

"I want you to see what just happened," he says. "I want to affirm this. You are using the grand Christian narrative to respond to an interfaith conflict. First, I heard the Christian story of loving God and loving your neighbor. Second, I heard the Christian story of the Good Samaritan and the call to love the stranger. By using these stories, you are defining reality through the Christian narrative.

"Remember, the three most powerful narratives on the planet are narratives of religion, narratives of nation, and narratives of ethnicity/race. You cannot afford to forfeit that territory by talking about economics or the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Don't be afraid to be Christian ministers. If you don't use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative."

Patel's call to stand firmly on the Christian narrative isn't what most students expect to hear from a Muslim professor.

"The more theologically conservative students are usually uncomfortable at the beginning of the course," says Patel. "But they leave feeling affirmed. It's the liberal Christians that are more challenged. They're not used to being told to 'be more Christian.'"

Continue reading "Ministry Lessons From a Muslim" on Leadership's website.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 8, 2009 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 17, 2009

The Sometimes Surprising Price of Success

No, this post isn't about growing pains as your church gets bigger and bigger or what to do with the budget surplus all that extra tithing is leaving you with (though if your problem is the latter, email me).

I've been thinking this week about the cost we pastors and our communities pay when people actually begin to do what we're asking them do to: "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord."

So far this year, we've had a hard time making budget just about every month. And as a smaller church, that matters. As I looked at the numbers, I began to wonder what was happening. Were people giving less because of the financial crisis? Were we angering people and provoking a "hold back" response in giving?

But as I tried to see the big picture of where our community is, I realized we're actually just paying the price of success.

Recently we've sent some wonderful folks around the world - One family to Glasgow, Scotland, for church planting. One couple to Sudan to do medical and relief work for some of the poorest of the poor. Another couple to Bangladesh to rescue women from the sex trade and to help people begin businesses that will enable them to pull themselves out of poverty.

All these people have taken with them not just the hearts and prayers of our community. They've taken our financial support and the financial support of many members of our community.

In other words, giving isn't down. I have a feeling that, on the whole, we're actually giving more. It just doesn't show up on our books.

We started a Kiva group to enable Evergreen people to participate in micro loans to the poor around the world and so see the standard of living of some of the world's working poor increase. What can a $25 or $50 dollar loan do in Africa or South America? A whole lot, it turns out.

But that's $50 that won't come through our church's budget, right?

Of course, the cost isn't simply financial. These folks we've sent out represent some of the most committed, most Jesus-loving people I've met yet. We recently sent one of our elders to be the teaching pastor of a church in another state. Another is working in Pretoria. For each, a unique hole has opened in our community. Our community won't benefit from these wonderful, Jesus-and-people-loving folk anymore. But other communities will.

And there's more. I began to realize that often the reason we have a hard time getting folks out to things, to commit to serving here or there, is that they are already busy serving elsewhere, here in our own city. Our people are running community gardens, they are helping establish low cost counseling centers, providing medical and dental care for the poor. Beyond serving in places as far and wide as Haiti and South Africa, they are praying and working for the peace of our city, right here. Looked at that way, it becomes a bit harder for me to ask the question "When are we going to DO something?" We're already "doing" a lot. Just not in a way our church may be able to take credit for.

We ask people to love their neighbors. But what if that means they need to be less involved in church activities? Is that okay? Of course it's okay. But for us - internally - is it okay?

I remember a lot of talk in seminary about the 80:20 problem. You know, 20 percent of the people do 80 percent (or more) of the work in a church community, leaving the other 80 percent doing...not much. It had been my hope in starting Evergreen to do church in such a way that turned the 80:20 thing on its head. The picture in my mind was of a community where 80 percent of the people did about 100 percent of the work of ministry and the other 20 percent was comprised of new folks on a journey towards Jesus and just getting started, people recovering from significant hurt, or in some other situation that made our community say, "Just rest right now. Don't feel like you have to do anything."

It's a great mental picture, but it's just not reality. Why? Because the fact is many of those people you consider part of the 80 percent of folks in your church who don't do much are someone's 20 percent. That is, they may be in the 80 percent of folks in our community who don't make much happen, but that's probably not true in every area of their lives. Whether at work, in their extended family, in school or civic organizations, I'm finding these folks are doing a lot that matters there. And that means they can't do it here. They are out there, living out the love of Jesus in very practical ways. And more and more I'm realizing that it is okay. In fact, it's fantastic, and I'm trying to find ways we as a church community can highlight, support, and celebrate missional living by our people.

If you are truly successful as a church, the result may not necessarily be "more people" and "bigger budgets." It may even, at times, look like the opposite.

Jesus describes the Spirit like a wind that blows where he wills, and blows us where he wills. Sometimes he blows people into ministry within the church "walls." And sometimes he blows them (and their money) out into a needy and broken world.

Be careful before you challenge people to follow God out into that broken world to "live missionally." They may just take you up on it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 17, 2009 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

May 11, 2009

Tony Jones: We Ordain Everyone

Do you believe in ordination? Or, more accurately stated, do you believe in denominational structures that regulate who is ordained for ministry based on prerequisites, credentials, and education?

Tony Jones, author and a leading voice of the emergent church, has started a ruckus on his blog about the legitimacy of denominational ordination after watching his friend, Adam Walker-Cleaveland, endure a slow and difficult ordination process. According to Jones, Adam has "suffered abuse" through the ordination process of his denomination. Jones wrote:

Few things piss me off as much as the sinful bureaucratic systems of denominational Christianity. When rules and regulations trump common sense, then the shark has officially been jumped.

But what gets to me even more is that bright, competent, and pastorally experienced persons like Adam continue to submit themselves to these sinful systems. They assure me that it's not for the health insurance or the pension. They do it cuz they feel "called." And if I hear another person tell me that they're sticking with their abusive denomination because, "They're my tribe," I'm gonna go postal.

Jones' frustration led him to launch an online petition calling Adam to circumvent his denomination and accept ordination by "the body of Christ."

The petition states:

Adam Walker-Cleaveland, having watched you be ritually abused by the ordination process?we beseech you to forsake ordination in said bureaucracy.And please accept the following: We, the body of Christ, hereby ordain you as a Minister of Word and Sacrament, and we grant you all of the rights and responsibilities thereto. May God bless your ministry.

In a follow up post, Jones outlines some of his own thinking about ordination. Referring to the practice in his church, Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, he says:

We ordain everyone. If you want to be ordained to perform a wedding, or to be a lawnmower repairman, we'll ordain you to that ministry.

This is not to vaunt everyone to a high position, but to subvert and deconstruct the very notion of ordination. It is NOT like what John Wesley did (although there are some interesting parallels) or like what the fundamentalists did or the Lutherans or the Calvinists. We ordain everyone, and I started an online petition to ordain Adam, to be ironic. It's to point up what I consider to be the arbitrariness of the bureaucratic systems, and, to be honest, the tax benefits, of ordination. In other words, this is the opposite of a YoungLife leader who writes away to some dude to get ordained for the housing allowance write-off. This is, instead, to show how that entire system leads to such ridiculousness.

I realize that both Jones' style and theology is a lightning rod for some Urbanites. But he is opening the floodgates on a very relevant question. What is ordination? And what makes an ordination legitimate?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 11, 2009 | Comments (44) | TrackBack

April 24, 2009

Andy Stanley: Live (and Uncertain) at Catalyst West

Marshall Shelley

Ever faced a leadership decision, and didn't feel you had all the information you needed to decide? For instance, to hire or not to hire? To discipline or extend more grace?

Andy Stanley opened the Catalyst West conference with the best leadership talk I've ever heard from him. He clearly connected with the 3,200 attenders by describing the inescapable fact of life for leaders: you have to lead even when you don't know for certain what to do.

Or, as Andy reframed the issue: "uncertainty is why we need leaders." "God gets more out of chaos than out of wrinkle-free days." If every situation were clear, no leadership would be needed. "Uncertainty underscores the need for leadership. Uncertainty is the arena in which leadership is recognized." For leaders, "Uncertainty is job security!" The crowd laughed. Nervously.

Those of us who've followed Andy for a while recognize this theme as one that he first explored in 2003 in an article in Leadership ("The Uncertain Leader") and in his book The Next Generation Leader. But Andy has continued to develop his thoughts nicely since then. And with the current economy, the awareness of uncertainty has, uh, certainly been heightened.

When you're uncertain, Andy told the assembled leaders, focus on two elements:

Those elements are clarity and flexibility. Then he unpacked those concepts.

Clarity means focusing on your original calling. What's the essence of your ministry? That can and should remain crystal clear even amid confusing circumstances. Andy's biblical reference was Joshua clearly telling the Israelites to pack their provisions and organize themselves to approach the Jordan River even though he was uncertain exactyly what would happen when they got there.

Flexibility means knowing the difference between your vision and your plans. Don't mistake your plans for your vision. Your plans can and must change frequently. But the vision remains the same. Are you an evangelist? Keep presenting the gospel even as your methods change. Are you a disciple maker? Keep developing converts into well-grounded followers of Jesus even as the starting points and the pressing applications change.

"Be confident even in uncertainty," Andy said. "Admit that you don't know the future, but you can confidently follow what God has told you to do."

Andy was spot-on in reading the times, reading the audience, and reading the need of the moment.

Andy also provided a synopsis (and a great example or two) of clarity amid uncertainty in his article in the new digizine Catalyst Leadership which you can find at www.CatalystLeadershipDigital.com

And now, I'm not certain how to end this post, but it's clear I must.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at April 24, 2009 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 22, 2009

Live from Catalyst West and...

by Brandon O'Brien

Today Marshall Shelley and I were at Mariner's Church in Irvine, California, for the pregame show of the first ever Catalyst West Coast conference. Led by Erwin McManus and the rest of the Mosaic team, the Origins Labs (as they were called) were an opportunity for some smaller group, interactive sessions on topics related to engaging culture, reaching the hard to reach, and other perennial challenges. Catalyst West begins in earnest tomorrow, and you'll here more from us about that then.

Erwin used the opening session to explore a familiar story from Acts. For Erwin, Acts 17:16ff provides a framework for understanding the church's spheres of influence. In Athens, Paul first speaks "in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks." This is the "first space," where the church reaches religious people. Paul also speaks "in the marketplace day by day." Our marketplace is where we work, eat, and play. This "second space" is where we reach people most like us. Finally, Paul was invited to speak "to a meeting of the Areopagus." This, Erwin said, is the "third space." This is where you're reaching the world. Jesus thrives in third space.

Thursday will also be the day of unveiling for a new publication produced jointly by Leadership and Catalyst, the Catalyst Leadership digizine. This hybrid publication will (we hope) provide a blend of the very best of Leadership and the Catalyst experience. You can read it here.

When you've had a chance to read the digizine, come back here and let us know what you think.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 22, 2009 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

April 9, 2009

Q & A: Rick Warren

Sarah Pulliam at Christianity Today has just posted her interview with Rick Warren. He talks about the controversy surrounding his invocation at President Obama's inauguration, the uproar over his support of Proposition 8 in California banning same-sex marriage, and the thousands being baptized at his church. Here's an excerpt:

I know a lot has been happening recently at your church. Just a few weeks ago, you baptized 800 in one day.

I was in the water for over five hours. I had webbed feet. It had to be a record. You know, it says in Acts that at the day of Pentecost, 3,000 were baptized and added to the church that day. We had 2,400 added to the church that day. The world belongs to Saddleback. When we started Saddleback, it was a white suburban church. We speak 65 different languages. It's the United Nations. I baptized an Egyptian General; I baptized probably 50 or 60 nationalities.

After you posted an invitation to the baptism and membership, some bloggers criticized the promotion. In the promotion, you said new members could have their photo with Pastor Rick and get a free one-year subscription to The Purpose Driven Connection. Why did you advertise the event that way?

In the first place, I think every person should take a picture with the pastor who baptizes them. That's a memento, that's a spiritual hallmark. That's not anything new. It wasn't like, oh, this is something we've never done that's going to attract people. In the past 10 years, Saddleback has baptized over 20,000 new believers. We are, without a doubt, the most evangelistic church in America. There are churches that are bigger than Saddleback, but there are no churches that reach more people for Christ than Saddleback. There are no churches that send as many people into the missions field. There's not a church that has sent 8,000 people into the missions field.

Read the entire interview here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 9, 2009 | Comments (19) | TrackBack

March 24, 2009

The Poetry of Pastoring

by Scot McKnight

"What the congregation needs is not a strategist to help them form another plan for achieving a desired image of life, but a poet who looks beneath even the desperation to recover the mystery of what it means to be made in God's image." So says pastor-professor, and poet, M. Craig Barnes, in his new book: The Pastor As Minor Poet: Texts and Subtexts in the Ministerial Life (Eerdmans, 2009).

Wisdom needs to be the name of the pastoral game. Wisdom finds its way into the poetic (not as in rhyming and verse), and not enough of us are committed to a life intent on wisdom. I wish more pastors (and Christians) were committed more to wisdom than to success.

How can the pastor get beyond the ordinary, the routine, the boring, the mundane, and the concrete realities that (sometimes, often) numb the joy out of life? What perspective can the pastor find that leads behind and beneath and beyond?

If this is what you are wondering, this is the book for you. The prose is graceful, the thoughts emerge from experience, and the perspective as fresh as it is old: the wisdom of the poet.

"When an exhausted pastor is entertaining serious thoughts about applying to law school, it's usually not because the theology failed. Often it's because somewhere along the way it became impossible to make sense of that theology in the midst of the ordinary and relentless messiness of congregational life" (18).

Barnes distinguishes truth (the deeper issues) and reality, and sees reality as a portal into the truth. President Lyndon Johnson was a realist; Martin Luther King Jr. was the poet.

When the pastor is poet, she (or he) looks for the portal of reality to peer deeper into life - into the soul of it all. Most pastors are "minor" poets and not "major" poets. They unveil particular truths to particular people in particular places. The major poets are the Biblical authors, and in a lesser degree, the greats of the Christian tradition.

In a not very elegant, and clearly not condescending, manner, Barnes describes the pastoral task as being the poet to the un-poetic. The task is to bid the parishioner to search for the mysteries beneath the surface of the ordinary.

But the poet must delve deeply into his own soul, and here he refers to pathos and gravitas. Gravitas "refers to a soul that has developed enough spiritual mass to be attractive, like gravity. It makes the soul appear old, but gravitas has nothing to do with age" (49). Scars make the pastor's soul attractive. He reveals that the "fishbowl" factor is small potatoes; the real issue is having "spiritual visibility" (53).

The first half of this book is the theoretical "what is a poet-pastor?" part; the second half is about the craft of being poetic, and here he focuses on preaching.

Poets don't make arguments, they reveal mysteries. I like that. I hope you do.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 24, 2009 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

January 28, 2009

Out of Context: Eugene Peterson

by Eugene Peterson

From "Having Ears, Do You Not Hear?" in the current issue of Leadership.

"As a pastor, I'm not a theology policeman...But if we are part of a community where the Scriptures are honored, I don't think we have to worry too much. The Spirit works through community. Somebody will have a stupid, screwy idea. That's okay. The point of having creeds and confessions and traditions is to keep us in touch with the obvious errors."

To read the rest, pick up the Winter '09 issue of Leadership journal.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 28, 2009 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 21, 2009

What Rick Warren Prayed for a New President

Our previous post was Mark Labberton's reflection on how to pray for a new president. Rick Warren had the opportunity to do exactly that in a very public way as he offered the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. Here's the text of his prayer.

Almighty God, our Father:
Everything we see, and everything we can't see, exists because of you alone.

It all comes from you, it all belongs to you, it all exists for your glory.

History is your story.

The Scripture tells us, "Hear, O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one." And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today, we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time, we celebrate a hinge point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where a son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity.

Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, O God, to remember that we are Americans - united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you - forgive us.

When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone - forgive us.

When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve - forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes - even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve, and to seek the common good of all.

May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy, and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet.

And may we never forget that one day, all nations--and all people--will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life - Yeshua, 'Isa, Jesus [Spanish pronunciation], Jesus - who taught us to pray:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name.

Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at January 21, 2009 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

September 16, 2008

Joining the Green Revolution

by Dave Gibbons

We are witnessing what some are calling the greatest transfer of wealth in human history. The McKinsey Global Institute has shown how assets are moving primarily from Europe and America to the oil countries of the Middle East and the manufacturing giants of Asia.

At the end of 2007, these oil producing countries owned about 4.6 trillion dollars of assets. That's about 1.6 times the whole economy of the UK. The six Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council are receiving 1.5 billion dollars a day. Those are pretty staggering numbers.

Our "dangerous dependence on foreign oil" and the transfer of wealth it is producing, is moving both political parties to emphasize a new green agenda. This includes new technologies, further exploration into alternative energy, clean energy, drilling off-shore, and conservation.

As we consider conserving energy resources for environmental and economic reasons, maybe we should reconsider how we steward our resources in the church.

Around the country, there is growing concern with diminishing giving because of the state of our economy. People are giving less because they are earning less, and because they're having to pay more for things like gas. But this trend may prove to be good in the long run, especially if it teaches us to better manage church resources.

The largest expenses for most churches are facilities and staff. First, let's consider the stewardship of our space. Is it really the best to buy as much land as possible and erect large buildings, when the same dollars could be better deployed in other initiatives that prove more impactful? How much of our space is actually utilized during a given week? In expensive urban centers, every square foot comes at a very high purchase price, and we can't forget about the cost of furnishing and maintaining the space.

I'm not saying buildings are bad, but are we being good stewards? I asked our director of operations who helped build three of the largest church facilities in America, to assess our space usage. I discovered that we use our facilities about 30 percent of the month - mostly on weekends. So how much were we spending for facility space that we didn't use? Around $60,000 a month; $720,000 a year! In ten years that's over $10 million dollars!

How about staffing? As culture moves from a hierarchical model to a more flat, open, or wiki model, how should we staff? When I looked more closely at our budget, I realized that over 55% of our budget was staff related. While our staff is amazing, it had unintentionally created a bottleneck in our mission - it impeded the development of our people because we were "staff-driven."

Our first instinct to address needs in the church tends to be hiring professionals. The economy is going to force us to re-examine that practice. Look at a church website. How many of the leaders listed there are lay people? How many unpaid people function as pastors/leaders in the congregation? Am I saying we should do away with pastors? Of course not. But we must see the congregation as the leading edge of the church and redefine our pastoral role to support and resource them. The movers and shakers should be in the congregation, not the professional staff. We serve, support, and at times lead - but we lead in the way Paul defined it?equipping our people to do the work of the ministry.

Can you imagine what would happen if the bulk of our resources focused on the development of our people rather than on staff and facilities? Can you imagine the impact that would have on our mission? It might just result in the greatest transfer of wealth in church history.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 16, 2008 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

August 5, 2008

Multi-site the Low-tech Way

by Bob Hyatt

Evergreen, our small church here in Portland, Oregon, has just gone multi-site. But not video venue.

We started in a pub in southwest Portland, outgrew that space, and moved to another pub across town. Outgrowing that one, we moved up to yet another pub in northwest Portland. Yes, we are the church on a pub crawl. When things got crowded there, we knew we had some decisions to make.

Our goal has always been multi-faceted. First and foremost, we want to see people come to and come back to Jesus. That implies growth. Second, our worship gatherings are highly interactive. We never want to lose the dialogical vibe in our teaching. Third, knowing that, according to statistics, people are reached best by newer (under 10 years old) and smaller congregations (as they grow from 100 to 200), our ultimate goal has been planting.

For various reasons, we're not quite ready to plant another separate community. So what to do? Consistent with the greatest number of our values, we invited some Evergreeners to start another worship gathering in one of our previous pub spaces. We're now one church in two locations. One or two more gatherings like that, and I think we'll have reached a size at which we'll have the people and resources to start planting churches around Portland.

So why didn't we do what many growing, multi-site communities are doing and pipe my teaching all around town and beyond? Here are a few reasons:

1. We believe good things happen when worship is kept small and interactive. We want people to be able to talk to one another and to the one who is teaching them. We also want things kept at a size where people can know one another and be known by those teaching them.

Some say that video venues are no different from a large service where parishioner number 3254 has to sit in the 50th row and watch the whole thing on the big screen anyway. It's not like she can raise her hand and ask a question. It's not like the one teaching knows who she is anyway... Exactly. To me, video venues simply magnify what's already a problem of megachurches.

2. Many advocates of video venues say there simply aren't enough church planters and talented teachers to go around. And my response is that in a video venue world, there never will be. Pursued as a large scale strategy, video venues will inevitably lead to fewer and fewer gifted and experienced lay and vocational preachers. The gift of preaching - already suffering from over-professionalization - will become ever more the work of the celebrity.

At Evergreen, our seven elders rotate teaching responsibilities at both sites, though there's a primary teaching elder at each. As a result, the church isn't driven by a single personality, and several people are developing preaching experience at once.

3. Though many video venue churches also do traditional church planting, I worry for congregants who may see a campus pastor but are lead in large part by elders who live miles, and sometimes even towns, away.

Ultimately, I believe what's best is not to come up with new and creative ways to put space between the people teaching and those being taught. What's best is to shrink that space as much as is humanly possible. If the problem is a lack of qualified teachers, do whatever you can to find, call, equip, and send teachers. Don't install a screen and beam teaching from 200 miles away. If you must install that video venue, call it what it is - a necessary and temporary compromise until your prayers for more workers are answered.

Some churches grow faster than they can find, train, and send church planters who have the same teaching talent as the "main guy." But what if instead of asking "Can he preach as well as me?" you ask, "Can he or she, with a team of others, lead a Christ-centered community that starts small and grows, reproducing itself before becoming unmanageable and outgrowing the gifting of its leadership?" You might find more gifted/qualified people than you dreamed.

I know, a lot of people love your preaching and want to hear it. Let them get saved and discipled at your community, or spend a season there, and then point them to your pod/vodcast, sending them as missionaries to reach their local communities. But don't say, "Well, people just want to hear me, so we must make a way for everyone to either sit in one room and watch me or my video representation." That simply makes no sense when we're talking about maturing Christ followers who will live self-sacrificially in communities centered on Jesus, not a preaching personality.

One of the main justifications for video venues is that upwards of 70 percent of church plants fail. Giving people a "brand name," proven communicator makes more sense. But do church plants fail because of the planter? Or is it because of unreasonable expectations, unsustainable "big launch" methods in which thousands of dollars are pumped into new churches in an effort to make them big, fast... because of the consumer mindset of many who look at the big churches down the street with not a small amount of envy?

Ultimately, video venues strike me as a poor compromise. They may be necessary at times, but are certainly not a strategy to be pursued, even alongside traditional church plants. They focus entirely too much on the preaching gifts of one person, a trend even we small "emerging" types need to counter.

The celebrity church must die. And doing anything - like video venues - that prolongs its life, even in the name of the lost, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and small, and its mandate to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained, and sent.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 5, 2008 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

July 21, 2008

Cartoon: Biblical Literacy

by Nick Hobart

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 21, 2008 | Comments (10) | TrackBack

June 25, 2008

Out of Ur Repents?

In October 2007, Out of Ur posted what has now become a much read and much quoted commentary that we titled "Willow Creek Repents?" It was based on comments that Bill Hybels and Greg Hawkins, Willow Creek's executive pastor, presented at The Leadership Summit 2007, announcing the release of Reveal, a book emerging from an extensive study of Willow and other churches.

Earlier this month, Bill Hybels and Jim Mellado, president of the Willow Creek Association, posted a video on YouTube objecting to the "misinformation" published by Out of Ur and our sister publication Christianity Today regarding Reveal.

The week following the release of the video, I went to South Barrington to meet with leaders of Willow Creek to hear their concerns face to face, which was a very helpful experience. They shared with me new approaches to ministry prompted by Reveal that are in process and things they are not ready to have published. I will honor their trust. I certainly affirm the steps Willow is taking to more effectively turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ.

I do need to respond publicly to two items that were aired in the YouTube video.

1. What does it mean to "repent"?

In the video, Bill Hybels says of the title "Willow Creek Repents?":

"I wondered, What horrible, immoral thing have I done? I think it was a poor choice of words, actually. . . . I don't think when you make a strategic adjustment, it qualifies under the term repent. I think every evangelical knows that's kind of a loaded-up term, and I think someone wanted to get some action on a blog, and I think it was very unfortunate and quite disingenuous to title the article that way."

Okay. It did get attention on the blog, and the term provided Willow critics in the blogosphere a chance to gloat. But the gloaters were misreading both the blog post and the Reveal study. We have high regard for the ministry at Willow Creek and feel terrible that our wording led to a misrepresentation of what was actually happening. For that we apologize.

At Out of Ur, a blog for pastors engaging today's culture, we assumed our readers would know that repent means (literally) "to turn" or "to change your mind." Our editors have been reading authors in spiritual formation that suggest repentance is not just a dramatic shift "from sin to holiness," but instead repenting is a daily realigning of life to follow Jesus, a shift "from off course to on course." This is the meaning that comes to our minds first.

Yes, a common connotation of "repent" is "to renounce sinful ways." That's NOT what we meant, as the blog post itself bears out. Out of Ur intended the word repent to refer to a mid-course correction to follow Christ, which is the way Greg Hawkins took it in his follow-up post when he wrote, "repenting is not a new experience for us. We've made a number of major course corrections over the years."

We do NOT think Willow Creek needs to "renounce sinful ways" for their pre-Reveal strategies. The real breakthrough of the Reveal initiative is in fact the discovery of a better way to evaluate the effectiveness of strategies to reach people far from God and equip them to live Christ-Centered lives. Willow is using this information to get better at that mission.

We thought our readers would understand our use of the word repent. But many took it differently.

2. Is Willow shifting from its seeker orientation?
.
The YouTube video emphasized Willow's 32-year commitment to the same mission statement: "to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ." The video also suggested that Out of Ur's coverage was written "without a proper understanding of what we're actually doing these days."

That's true. Things are different now than when we wrote our October blog post. And we did not present the whole picture. We emphasized the changes that Willow was announcing at the Summit; we did not give sufficient space to the things that were not changing. That's a besetting sin of us journalists, I'm afraid - assuming that change is more newsworthy than continuity.

When Christianity Today wrote recently that "After modeling a seeker-sensitive approach for three decades, Willow Creek Community Church now plans to gear its weekend services toward mature believers," we did not describe the church's approach with enough precision.

In Greg Hawkins' October post, he wrote:

"Is Willow re-thinking its seeker focus? Simple answer ? no ? Willow is not just seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed. The power of Reveal's insights for our seeker strategy is the evangelistic strength uncovered in the more mature segments."

In April, Hawkins commented further on the ways Willow is including mature believers in its approach to reach seekers.

Our coverage was based on statements in the Reveal book and on Hawkin's comments in the April post. Turns out we were wrong, however, to interpret those comments to mean that Willow's services were shifting focus from seekers to more mature believers. Now, in hindsight, we see that what's changed is not the focus on seekers, but the assumptions of what a "seeker service" is. For thirty years, the prevailing assumption has been that seekers want anonymity and do not want to participate in worship. Now we understand that Willow is as seeker-focused as ever, but the definition of "seeker service" is changing. Willow is now finding ways for seekers to participate in worship, to be connected and known. And even more innovations are in the works.

The story of Reveal's implications is a work in process. In the future, we will be more precise in our descriptions of what Willow is doing, and we look forward to telling more of the story as it becomes available. We're determined to get it right.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 25, 2008 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

June 20, 2008

Church Pirates Beware (Part 2)

UrL: Some people are taking issue with the idea that a pastor's sheep can be stolen because the sheep really belong to Christ. Where do you think the church member's loyalty should reside - with Christ, the church, the pastor, or all three?

Ed Young Jr.: I agree that church members and attendees don't belong to the pastor. They are God's people, called by him to serve him above all. Pastors are called to shepherd them, not own them.

The issue of pirating, though, isn't about the members' loyalty or about attendees finding another church. We tell people all the time that if Fellowship Church isn't for them, they should leave. And we lovingly direct them to any one of the phenomenal churches in our area.

The issue with pirating is all about what happens in the church leadership - specifically the staff. I've discovered there are several types of people around you: those who are with you, those who are for you, and those who use you. Pirates are the ones you thought were with you, but who end up using you for their own agenda. They are the people you, as a leader, pour your heart into. They're the people you laugh with, cry with, and share your life with, the ones you mold and shape.

Pirating rears its ugly head when those leaders that you cultivate work behind your back (and the church's back) maliciously and intently to gather their own "kingdom" and head out the door. The real issue is betrayal.

I have no problem with leaders being cultivated in the church and then being sent out to start new churches. But the key is that they are sent. When someone on your staff usurps the authority of the church, starts a rogue movement, and does their own thing, then you are dealing with a pirate.

UrL: Employees leaving a corporation to begin their own business often sign a non-competition clause requiring them to operate a predetermined distance away. What do you think is an appropriate geographic distance for a church planter to operate who was nurtured and given their start at Fellowship Church?

EY: This is an interesting question, because it brings up a core issue that many people seem to be missing in this whole thing: ethics.

In the corporate world, it is illegal to work for someone and, at the same time, work to steal their clients. You are getting paid by that person and pulling the rug from underneath them at the same time. You will go to jail for that. And that's why there are non-competition clauses.

I'm not saying that the church should be run like a business. I'm not saying that we should model everything we do after the corporate world. I don't think we need to sign non-competition clauses. I'm simply pointing out that the ethics of this situation are all out of whack.

In the church, our ethics should be so far above the corporate world that competition isn't even an issue ("above reproach" sound familiar?). To use the old adage, there are plenty of fish in the sea. It's not about placing some building in a certain position on a map. It's about ethics and how you go about fulfilling your call.

UrL: Is competition always bad? Lyle Schaller wrote a book titled From Cooperation from Competition in which he calls for more churches to compete in the same area for the same people. This, he says, will cause all the churches to improve their ministries. (It's free-market capitalism meets seeker-driven church.) Should we be upset by the presence of a competitive church down the street, or should we celebrate and welcome it?

EY: Simply put, no, competition isn't bad. I believe it helps us become better at what we do. It's the thing that drives us. Everything we do at Fellowship is about competition. We're in competition against the evil forces in the world to reach lives. That's the same battle we all face. But pirating has nothing to do with competition.

We celebrate every church that is preaching and teaching God's Word and going after those far from God. We're all called to depopulate hell by making it hard for people to go there.

But so many of these comments are about sheep swapping; they are so concerned about the competition down the street that they miss the point of reaching the lost. I'm not worried about competition. Again, there are plenty of people for every church.

We are here to reach the lost. And I think every church leader would agree with that. But when someone in your staff becomes a pirate, the mission is jeopardized. The focus shifts from reaching out to the world for Christ. Instead, we have to deal with issues that Christ never wanted us to face when he prayed in John 17, "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."

It ultimately comes down to one question: who are you reaching? Because pirates are all about reaching into the church first for their own agenda rather than reaching out to the world to save lives and fulfill Christ's agenda.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 20, 2008 | Comments (35)

June 15, 2008

Cartoon: Church Pirate

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 15, 2008 | Comments (10)

June 13, 2008

Ed Young Jr: Church Pirates Beware

When I posted the "church pirate" video on my blog last month, I knew there would be response. I hoped there would be. And based on the amount of response I've received, this topic is one that reaches deep and cuts close for many, many church leaders.

I didn't shoot this video as a personal vendetta. This wasn't based on some fleeting emotion. It wasn't done out of spite. I did this video because pirating is something that I have seen happen to far too many churches.

Too many people have joined the movement of a certain church only to later siphon resources (staff, money, etc.) from that church and begin their own work just down the street. Rather than partnering, they are pillaging. And it has led to the damage and destruction of many good churches and great church leaders.

My hope is that as light is shed on this controversial and often taboo topic we, as church leaders, can have some healthy discussion about the reality of planting versus pirating. And as the dialogue continues, I pray that we can all join together to support those leaders who are truly starting new churches the right way and finally keep the pirates at bay.

-Ed Young Jr. is the founding and senior pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 13, 2008 | Comments (134)

June 12, 2008

Audio Ur: Multi-Ethnic Church Staff

How multi-ethnic should your church staff be? Should churches have hiring quotas to ensure diversity? In the spring issue of Leadership, Mark DeYmaz, pastor of Mosaic Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, discusses the importance of being intentional about diversity.

In this podcast Skye Jethani , David Swanson , and Matt Tebbe discuss DeYmaz's article and what happened to all of the racial reconciliation rhetoric from the 90's.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 12, 2008 | Comments (1)

June 6, 2008

Bill Hybels Responds to REVEAL

In a video released on June 5, Bill Hybels discusses the "unfortunate" reporting that has revolved around Willow Creek's REVEAL survey. The video refers to a recent Christianity Today article and Out of Ur posts as examples of "misinformation." You can watch Hybels' full interview with Jim Mellado, the president of the Willow Creek Association, here.

After watching the video you may want to read the articles in question and post your feedback:

Willow Creek Repents?: Why the most influential church in America now says "We made a mistake."

Willow Implements REVEAL
Greg Hawkins tells about the big changes Willow Creek is making.

Willow Creek's 'Huge Shift'
Influential megachurch moves away from seeker-sensitive services.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 6, 2008 | Comments (17)

May 26, 2008

Cartoon: Team Leadership

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 26, 2008 | Comments (2)

May 21, 2008

Audio Ur: From Top-Down to Team Leadership

The theme for current issue of Leadership is "Teams," and that is the subject of our first Out of Ur podcast. Teams have always been a critical part of ministry going back to the 12 unlikely men Jesus assembled and then sent out in pairs to reach the villages of Judea. But today teams are taking on new significance.

In this podcast Skye Jethani (managing editor of Leadership), David Swanson (Community Life Pastor at New Community Covenant Church in Chicago), and Matt Tebbe (pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois) discuss the ministry implications of team leadership based on the recent interview with The Next Level Church in Denver.

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 21, 2008 | Comments (4)

May 20, 2008

Jesus is Not a CEO

Beware of any literature that starts with these words: "Jesus was the greatest leader of all time." The sentiment behind those words may be true, but the point they make is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if Jesus was the greatest leader of all time. Jesus is our leader (and, in a holy sense, we're stuck with him).

The issue at hand is far from nit-picky. Evangelicals have long been accused of domesticating Jesus - making him one of "us" (often white, middle-class, socially respectable, and politically conservative). The glut of Jesus-as-leader books runs a tremendous risk as it attempts to introduce Jesus into the economy that surrounds 21st century leadership.

Jesus the leader endangers our view of Jesus the savior. Frankly, Jesus the leader is less threatening. He's an organizational director that would fit in wearing business casual and sitting in a conference room. I believe wholeheartedly that Jesus wants to control how I behave, think, and lead in when I'm in the conference room, but I don't have much confidence in Jesus as the teacher of strategic leadership lessons.

I'd like to get back to Jesus the savior, the one who sends the Holy Spirit to lead us. I'd like to bring the Jesus-as-leader genre of books along with me. I have a number of such books on my shelf right now. Several of them misrepresent Jesus the Messiah as Jesus the executive director; the others more or less get him right.

The major problem with the books that get him wrong occurs in the area of interpretation. Take John 10:10, Jesus saying, "I came that they might have life and have it abundantly." Let's evaluate the reflection on that verse published in Jesus, CEO: Using Ancient Wisdom for Visionary Leadership:

Many times leaders and managers expect their employees to leap through the flames for them but do not define what the purpose or reward will be. Then they wonder why nobody is leaping?. As Harry Pickens, a marketing seminar leader, said, "People are tuned in to one station: WIFM. And those letters stand for "What's in it for me?"

Jesus clearly defined his staff's work-related benefits.

No. Jesus was not demonstrating any principle about the year-end bonus, revenue sharing, or 401(k) matching. In the cosmic battle between God and Satan, John 10:10 sets up Jesus, the sacrificial Good Shepherd, against Satan, the thief. Jesus wasn't talking about - and never meant to imply - anything about "work-related benefits."

Reading the Gospels for leadership principles like team building, vision casting, or "seeing the potential in others" makes a mockery of authorial intent and historical-cultural backgrounds. Such readings appear to take the Bible seriously, but they don't do it justice; they simply create anachronistic interpretations. Could Jesus-as-leader book be flirting with recreating Jesus as one of us (or one of who we hope to be)?

Jesus has much to say to leaders, but we (especially those of us who lead) can only hear him clearly when we remember that Jesus is not primarily a leader. He is God's Anointed One, the Suffering Servant, the prophet greater than Moses.

The Christian leadership books that get Jesus right operate in that realm, never assuming that there is a "leaders track" in discipleship. Instead, they believe there to be a "servants track" for all Christ-followers. Our leadership books should move us toward this, challenging us to go down to Jesus' level, not attempting to bring him up to ours. As Henri Nouwen writes in In the Name of Jesus: "I am deeply convinced that the Christian leader of the future is called to be completely irrelevant and to stand in the world with nothing to offer but his or her own vulnerable self."

That resonates with Jesus' teaching about leadership in Mark 10: "?[T]hose who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all."

Contrast those quotes with this (albeit cherry picked) reflection on Jesus' "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" statement in Mark 2:27, appearing in a forthcoming book on leadership. The context is stagnant "traditions" in organizational cultures:

Whether your area of leadership is home, school, church, civic? or business, how you handle the traditions that exist will help to determine how effective you are as a leader. A good manager makes the existing system work to his or her advantage; a good leader questions the system, making the changes necessary for improvement. In Jesus, the old things have passed and all things have become new.

Brothers and sisters: Yes. Great leaders challenge the status quo. Let us do that.

Brothers and sisters who hold the Scriptures in high regard: That is not what Jesus wants us to get out of the "Lord of the Sabbath" teaching.

Jesus' defiance of first-century tradition is not a justification for us to defy our church's traditions. They may need to be challenged, and good leaders will do so; indeed, may we. The statement "In Jesus, the old things have passed and all things have become new" is not a principle for us to take into our management portfolios; it is a statement that the world has been re-ordered in Christ. It is a truth that stands above and beyond a leadership strategy.

Let's move back toward Christian leadership studies that move us this direction. Let me propose a few criteria for the next book any of us pick up (or write) about Jesus as a leader:

1. Try to find one in which Christ is not first-and-foremost a leader with a message for you, but rather a savior who loved the world enough to die for it.

2. Seek one that takes the Bible so seriously that it dare not misrepresent the teachings and actions of Jesus.

3. Make sure it is distinctly Christian - not full of principles that could have been thought up by Jim Collins's crackerjack research team.

4. Let it be consumed with the idea of servanthood.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 20, 2008 | Comments (27)

May 16, 2008

Church Celebrity Deathmatch

I haven't seen MTV in years, with no regrets, but I recall a show on the network that impacted me like a train wreck. It was awful, gruesome, and terrible - but I couldn't look away. "Celebrity Deathmatch" featured clay-animated celebrities in a wrestling ring where they pummeled, grinded, or dismembered each other into a bloody pulp of scarlet Play-Doh. It wasn't exactly wholesome family entertainment.

We can pick apart the moral depravity of the show (which is all too easy), or we can talk about why it was so popular with the young (which is probably related to its moral depravity). Let's simply draw this conclusion - the younger generation isn't enamored with celebrities. They aren't cultural gods to be worshiped and respected. They're more like rodeo clowns trying not to be impaled by the paparazzi beasts we unleash to devour them for our own entertainment.

The anti-celebrity sentiment of the younger generation, and the culture as a whole, may be taking root in the church as well. There are two seemingly opposite trends occurring among evangelicals that relate to this. One is the movement away from hierarchical leadership structures. The other is the movement toward hierarchical leadership structures. Let me explain.

The spring issue of Leadership includes an interview with the pastoral team at The Next Level Church in Denver. After building a booming church around the dynamic gifts of a senior pastor, TNL imploded. The senior pastor/preacher left amid controversy and the church's attendance dropped like Wiley Coyote from a cliff. In the aftermath, the remaining pastors reorganized TNL sans senior pastor. They've opted for a team approach with leaders sharing equal authority and responsibility.

They're not alone. Other young church leaders are forgoing the traditional senior pastor model. They prefer a flattened structure with shared responsibility where a team, rather then an individual, has the steering wheel. Thus no one achieves celebrity status in the congregation. Even in next-gen churches with a visible leader there is a trend away from the "Senior Pastor" title. The reason is linked to the scary rate of failure seen among senior pastors. Like "Celebrity Deathmatch," the evangelical church seems littered with the corpses of leaders who've been beaten beyond recovery.

Brian Gray from The Next Level Chuch says, "I wasn't at TNL during that crisis, but I also saw a senior pastor model entirely fall apart at my previous church. It got really bad. I began thinking there had to be a better way to do church. There is something systemically unhealthy about becoming dependent upon a single leader."

Having a single "face with the place," a senior pastor who fills the pulpit and whose personality permeates the entire congregation, has been the popular model for evangelicals, but these ecclesial celebrities crash and burn at a rate greater than a sub-Saharan airline. As Gray points out, the problem is the system and not just the pastors. So many younger evangelicals are seeking churches liberated from the celebrity death spiral.

But this is only half of the phenomenon.

In my area we are seeing a striking number of younger evangelicals move toward high-church traditions - particularly Anglican. This has been discussed in the pages of Christianity Today as well as U.S. News & World Report. Some are calling it the "return to ritual." At first glance one might see this as being completely out of phase with the trend outlined above. After all, high church traditions are all about structure and hierarchy. There are priests, and bishops, and even archbishops.

But a closer examination reveals that this trend may also be coming from the same discontentment with personality-driven congregations. Anglican worship is built on a time-honored liturgy that emphasizes prayer, Scripture, and the Eucharist. While preaching is certainly present, the preacher and his/her personality does not dominate corporate worship. The same could be said of the worship leader. Personality takes a backseat to tradition.

Similarly, while some churches are trying to minimize risk through a team structure, high-church traditions protect congregations from the failures of a single leader through a hierarchy that stretches far above the local church. This is one example where the much-derided denomination still has an advantage over non-denominational churches.

What does all of this mean? Here are a few thoughts. First, a lot of churches are itching to jump on the liturgy bandwagon. They think that incorporating these traditional worship practices will attract and/or retain young people. Before making a radical shift in your church's worship format do some deeper investigation. Are the young people in your congregation/community really hungry for liturgy (which is certainly possible), or are they actually reacting against a personality-driven, celebrity pastor culture?

Secondly, don't assume every problem in your church is related to personnel. Believe it or not, the senior pastor may not be the issue. It could be the leadership system or structure your church uses. Most churches simply expect way too much from a single leader - that may lead to burn out, isolation, and even moral failure. A structure of shared authority, both in the board room and the pulpit, may prove much healthier for everyone. And it may keep the younger folks engaged in the church by allowing them to have an influence.

Finally, be willing to ask yourself and your church why there is an instinctual desire to elevate one pastor? Why do we put our leaders on a pedestal and then stand in horror, and sometimes amusement, when they fall? The younger generation of evangelicals seems willing to put this culture of church celebrities to death, and that may not be as unwholesome as it sounds.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 16, 2008 | Comments (31)

April 11, 2008

Live from Shift: Willow Implements REVEAL

Here we go again. Willow Creek's REVEAL study has been a very hot issue on this blog. Rather than recapping all the history, I encourage you to review a few previous posts.

Willow Creek Repents?: Why the most influential church in America now says "We made a mistake."

Willow Creek Repents? (Part 2): Greg Hawkins responds with the truth about REVEAL.

REVEAL Revisited: One sociologist says Willow Creek's research may not be as revealing as we think.

Today, Greg Hawkins, executive pastor at Willow, recapped the study and then shared some changes that the church is now making in response to the research. He said they're making the biggest changes to the church in over 30 years. For three decades Willow has been focused on making the church appealing to seekers. But the research shows that it's the mature believers that drive everything in the church - including evangelism.

Hawkins says, "We used to think you can't upset a seeker. But while focusing on that we've really upset the Christ-centered people." He spoke about the high levels of dissatisfaction mature believer have with churches. Drawing from the 200 churches and the 57,000 people that have taken the survey, he said that most people are leaving the church because they're not being challenged enough.

Because it's the mature Christians who drive evangelism in the church Hawkins says, "Our strategy to reach seekers is now about focusing on the mature believers. This is a huge shift for Willow."

One major implementation of this shift will occur in June when Willow ends their mid-week worship services that had been geared toward believers. Instead the church will morph these mid-week events into classes for people at different stages of growth. There will be theological and bible classes full of "hard-hitting stuff." Hawkins said most people are very enthusiastic about the change.

On the seeker end of the spectrum, Willow is also changing how they produce their weekend services. For years the value people appreciated most about the seeker-oriented weekend services was anonymity. This is what all their research showed. People didn't want to be identified, approached, confronted, or asked to do anything. But those days are over.

"Anonymity is not the driving value for seeker services anymore," says Hawkins. "We've taken anonymity and shot it in the head. It's dead. Gone." In the past Willow believed that seekers didn't want large doses of the Bible or deep worship music. They didn't want to be challenged. Now their seeker-sensitive services are loaded with worship music, prayer, Scripture readings, and more challenging teaching from the Bible.

Willow has been wrestling with the research from REVEAL since 2004. Hawkins said, "We've tried incremental changes for four years, but now we know we have to overhaul our whole strategy." Small steps are no longer the method; Willow is revamping everything. "It would be malpractice for us to not do something with what we're learning."

In the larger REVEAL survey taken by 200 churches, people were asked what they want most from their church. Three of the top four responses were:
1. Help me understand the Bible in greater depth
2. Help me develop a closer personal relationship with Christ
3. Challenge me to grow and take the next step in my faith

Hawkins said that sometimes Willow gets accused of managing the church based on market research; of simply giving people what they want. "Look at what they want!" he said while pointing to the screen. "They want the Bible, they want to be close to Christ, they want to be challenged. Yes, I will give them what they want!"

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 11, 2008 | Comments (22)

April 9, 2008

Live from Shift: Broken Ministry

The second session at Shift began with a plea from Bo Boshers, the Executive Director of Youth Ministries for the Willow Creek Association. He shared that a survey of this conference's attendees showed that 67% of the youth leaders and students are not being mentored. "Folks, we've got to get this one right!" he said. It seems that the need for one-on-one relationships in youth ministry is one of the shifts the conference organizers are concerned with.

Mark Yaconelli, who just finished speaking, pointed out another major shift he believes must happen. Through a wide-ranging talk Mark kept coming back to his theme of emptiness and brokenness. Given the many resources, curriculum, and programs available at the conference, it was almost ironic to hear Mark tell youth pastors, "You don't need anything. You need less. You can come to a conference and get so overwhelmed that you forget you already have everything you need. Your love of your kids and your desire to love God is enough."

UPDATE. Here are some video highlights from this session.

Mark began his session by reading Luke 5:1-11. He pointed out that Jesus' first would-be disciple only had empty boats and their time to offer. Mark contrasted this passage with a fictional story of a youth pastor who decides to put on an event for his youth group on Cinco de Mayo called "Cinco de Jesus." As he humorously described this frantic leader making preparations and inviting students to the event, it was evident from the audience's laughter that they understood this scenario. The guy behind me muttered, "I've been there," when Mark finished his story by saying that only two kids showed up to this spectacular event.

It is the tension between the desire to do big things and the reality of our brokenness that Mark kept returning to. Youth leaders first enter the ministry because they desire to serve as spiritual guides to students. According to Mark, the demands of church ministry quickly can distract from that initial simple calling.

The calling gets switched when you get into a church. The calling was to be a spiritual guide, a spiritual leader. Which feels different than what the church and families are asking us to do. To be a spiritual guide you have to spend time in the Spirit, and when we spend time in the Spirit we realize God is asking us to be broken- to be free of our own plans and agendas.

Has this been the case for you? Does your initial calling into ministry seem different than what you actually spend your time on? Do you agree with Mark that your calling is primarily to be a spiritual guide?

It was clear from this session that Mark does not think a large youth ministry is the same as a successful youth ministry. In fact, ministry that is small and challenging may actually be what God has in mind for a leader.

What if our youth ministry is our spiritual discipline? All our weaknesses are exposed in youth ministry. Thank God for those kids who are bringing out those things that are unhealed in us, the broken things. Without them you might think you didn't need God, that you didn't need to pray.

While I love what Mark is getting at, I wonder how it would "work" in a local church. Let's hear from you. Is it possible to have a youth ministry that regularly allows room for brokenness and emptiness? How grateful are you for the types of weaknesses that are exposed in you because of your ministry? Finally, are you able to take a regular Sabbath break that might allow for an awareness of the brokenness Mark described as essential for ministry?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 9, 2008 | Comments (11)

March 27, 2008

We're Going to "Shift"

In two weeks the Willow Creek Association is hosting a different kind of student ministries conference. Shift 2008 will address the cultural changes that are impacting the way we think about reaching the next generation. Out of Ur is excited to be hosting the online component of the conference.

From April 9 - 11, Ur contributors will be reporting live from South Barrington, Illinois, and moderating an online conversation based on what's presented at Shift. The lineup of speakers should give us plenty to talk about. They include: Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Mark Yaconelli, Kara Powell, Dan Kimball, and many others.

If you'll be attending Shift, we hope Out of Ur will be a resource to further your learning. And if you not going to be at the conference, then check out this video for an idea of what Ur will be addressing in the weeks ahead.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 27, 2008 | Comments (8)

March 4, 2008

Let the Work Begin

The pastors who attended last week's National Pastors Convention have now returned to their churches across North America. David Swanson presents his final reflections on the convention and the issues it brought to his attention.

Now that the National Pastors Convention has ended, I'd like to offer my highly unscientific observations about some trends I observed this past week.

The Denominational Dilemma
During the conference, the Pew Forum released its U. S. Religious Landscape Survey, which demonstrates the ease with which people move between denominations. According to the survey, 44 percent of Americans have made a significant shift in their religious affiliation, whether moving between faiths and denominations or detaching completely from any tradition. This week different presenters have noted that this survey presents trends many of us have experienced in our churches.

In many ways, this conference, with its speakers and worship leaders from many denominations and backgrounds, reflected the Pew research. Some there considered this fluidity a positive development because it allows people to experience more of the Christian tradition. Others were wringing their hands, claiming this "pick and choose" mentality keeps believers from being deeply rooted in the Faith. What most agreed must be addressed is number of those reflected in the survey who leave the faith all together.

A Place for a New Generation
On Wednesday I attended a session about how churches can attract and retain the younger generation. I was surprised to find this session absolutely packed: church leaders were standing in the back of the room and sitting on the floor hoping for some insight into this generational dilemma. From my vantage point I watched the room of mostly 40 and 50-year-olds furiously scribbling notes as the two 30-year-old presenters spoke about the traits of their generation.

It was clear from the popularity of this session, and others like it, that pastors and other church leaders have awoken to the disconnect between their church subcultures and those who have grown up in a postmodern environment. But what will this interest lead to? Will churches look for new programs and methods to attract this generation? Or will they be willing to adapt at significant levels, so that a new generation will see the church as a worthy investment of their lives? Time will tell.

The Global Church
Throughout the week, we were we addressed by church leaders from South America, Europe, and Africa. We had the choice to attend seminars with titles like: "Redefining Power: Finding Our Place in a Global Church"; "Hispanic Integration in the USA: We Can be United Under the Cross"; "Two-Way Mission: When Globalization Changes the Way We Think." It appears the American church may be realizing that the influence of the global church has shifted away from the West.

The issues these global leaders presented raise many questions for those of us who have now returned to our churches in America's small towns, suburbs, and cities. How do we lead our congregations in ways that honor Christian family around the world, whose experience of faithful discipleship may be radically different from ours? How do we equip our churches to face the realities of a globalized existence? How might we engage with the vision and leadership of the church in the global South?

I look forward to your comments.

- David Swanson

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 4, 2008 | Comments (13)

February 28, 2008

The Glory and the Grief

In his second report from the National Pastors Convention, David Swanson describes how two Anglican bishops helped him recognize Christ's presence among all the convention glitz and kitsch.

May I confess something? I've experienced a bit of cynicism at this conference over the past few days. Everywhere I look, I see another Christian item for sale. I'm writing this post in front of a TV showing the latest installment of a hip teaching series. Off to my left is a display for the new Narnia movie, and to my right is a recruiting station for Army chaplains.

My cynicism is probably not helpful. But I have nevertheless found myself wondering, "Where is Jesus in all this stuff?" One answer to that question has come in the form of addresses from two Anglican bishops.

The main session on Tuesday evening featured Anglican Bishop John Rucyahana. "Bishop John" became took leadership of a diocese in northwest Rwanda in the aftermath of the genocide. A Rwandan refugee who spent most of his life in Uganda, Bishop John was "accepted by Jesus" when he was 21. His journey as a leader in the Anglican Church began shortly thereafter.

Bishop John spoke to us of our calling into God's glory and excellence from 2 Peter 1. I would imagine that most of us in the grand ballroom that evening have had very different experiences in our ministries. Surely few, if any, of us have preached to a congregation filled with those who have known both sides of genocide.

In his sermon, Bishop John repeatedly assured us that he does not follow a distant Jesus, a Jesus who is trapped in history. Rather, he pursues the Jesus who is present now: "I now preach to those who have lost their families and to those who are guilty of killing the families of others. And Jesus is there!"

I couldn't help but wonder if those of us whose lives and ministries have been easier, in so many ways, could say the same thing with the same conviction. Certainly Jesus is present in our lives and churches, as He is for Bishop John. But do we experience that presence with the same clear-eyed conviction as our brother from Rwanda?

This morning I attended the early bible study with N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham, England. Bishop Wright is widely known for his historical Biblical scholarship, including the "new perspective" on Paul. This morning he led the two hundred or so of us in the room through the book of Acts. Like Bishop John, Bishop Wright continually pointed us to Jesus. Encouraging us to come to Acts with first-century eyes and 21st-century questions, he showed how the story in Acts is all about the risen Jesus establishing the Kingdom of God through the power of the Holy Spirit.

While Bishop John has experienced first hand the collision of the Kingdom of God with our world, Bishop Wright claims that the Western church is moving into a "strange and dangerous world" where we, too, will experience this collision. And while Bishop John has answered the costly call of discipleship to our Lord Jesus, Bishop Wright asked us this morning, "When was the last time someone accused you of proclaiming another president, namely Jesus?"

Jesus is undoubtedly very present at this conference, despite the marketing overload and my own cynicism. But I'm grateful to the English and African bishops for reminding me of this. And I'm grateful that the conference organizers invited these men to address us American church leaders who probably cannot be reminded enough of both the glory and the cost of proclaiming the risen Jesus.

- David Swanson

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 28, 2008 | Comments (7)

February 27, 2008

A Big Can of Worms

David Swanson agreed to leave frozen Chicagoland to labor in sunny San Diego at this year's National Pastors Convention. He'll be sending us updates throughout the week of the goings on there. This is his first post.

I arrived at the National Pastors Convention in California a day early to catch one of the pre-conference seminars: Emerging Critical Issues Facing the Church. (For this Midwesterner, the sunny blue skies of San Diego were another reason to come early.) The seminar featured four panelists - Scot McKnight, Phyllis Tickle, Andy Crouch, and Tony Jones - addressing four critical issues: the role of Scripture, the church and politics, homosexuality, and religious pluralism.

These issues are as controversial as they are critical. This was clear from the spirited conversation between the panelists, the passionate questions and comments from the audience, and our moderator's repeated requests for civil interaction. Allow me to summarize two of these conversations.

Scot McKnight introduced the section on the role of Scripture. "Since high school, I've been perplexed about how we [Christians] read the Bible," he began. Specifically, Scot was puzzled by how we decide what parts of the Bible were for "then" and what is for "now." He went on to define four ways Christians make these decisions. The "return to restore" method believes we can return to a New Testament form of Christianity in order to restore the Biblical texts to their original meanings. A less idealistic version of this is the "return and retrieve" method, through which the reader approaches the text in order to decide what can be retrieved for our lives today. The panelists agreed that every Bible reader does this to some degree. The question, of course, is how we decide what to retrieve and what to leave behind. Still others approach the Scriptures through his or her "sacred tradition," allowing their particular tradition to shape their understanding of the text. Finally, Scot described the "primacy of Scripture" method of biblical interpretation. Rather than reading through the lens of tradition, this method reads with tradition. Scot believes this is the most helpful way of reading the Bible, for it allows the church to be constantly reforming.

If Scot is right that we read the Bible in these different ways, and if he's correct that reading with tradition is the ideal, then how do we preachers and teachers help our church members read this way? Is it enough to allow our preaching and teaching to be formed by the primacy of Scripture, or must we be more blatant in explaining our methodology?

Reading from an article he wrote in 2003, Andy Crouch introduced the third critical issue facing the church: homosexuality. According to Andy, "Humankind is not divided into homosexual or heterosexual categories. We are all sexual beings who tend towards self-satisfaction." Additionally, many churches rally around these categories, "which leads to a double standard: chastity for those who are gay and a don't-ask-don't-tell policy regarding sexuality for the rest of us."

While the panelists disagreed on whether or not homosexual practice is sinful, they were clear that the church must do a better job of pastoring those who are gay. Phyllis counseled the pastors in the room to "remember the human side - these are people, not theories, we are talking about." Scot added, "The challenges for those pastors who are more traditional is how to create a safe environment for those who are gay to worship." The evangelical church, he said, "has mostly failed in this area."

Tony stated that the critical question for most churches is not whether to care for those who are gay. The question many in church leadership are wrestling with is, "Can a gay person can serve in leadership? And at what level?"

Can churches that understand homosexual practice to be a sin actually provide a safe space for gay worshipers? And regarding Tony's question, should gay members of your congregation be allowed some opportunity of leadership? At what level?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 27, 2008 | Comments (25)

February 11, 2008

John Ortberg on Hope Management

Ronald Reagan once gave this nugget of advice, "Surround yourself with the best people you can find, delegate authority, and don't interfere." Recently, John Ortberg read the biography of another president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and through FDR's story he came to the realization that there is one aspect of leadership we should never delegate - hope.

I don't have a problem with delegation. I love to delegate. I am either lazy enough, or busy enough, or trusting enough, or congenial enough, that the notion leaving tasks in someone else's lap doesn't just sound wise to me, it sounds attractive. But I am coming to the conclusion that the one task a leader can never delegate, especially in the church, is hope.

I have been reading Doris Kearns Goodwin's wonderful biography of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, No Ordinary Time (Simon & Schuster, 2004). She notes that Franklin was not the most intelligent president of all time (Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously called him a "second-rate intellect but a first rate-temperament.") He was surrounded by leaders who were more educated, more accomplished, more gifted, and more knowledgeable. But he had one gift that mattered more. "No factor was more important to Roosevelt's leadership than his confidence in himself and in the American people," she wrote.

The White House Counsel, Sam Rosenman, observed that FDR had a capacity to transmit this confidence to others; to allow "those who hear it to begin to feel it and take part in it, to rejoice in it - and to return it tenfold by their own confidence." Labor Secretary Francis Perkins noted that, like everyone else, she "came away from an interview with the President feeling better, not because he had solved any problems?but because he had made me feel more cheerful, stronger, more determined."

In the middle of a Great Depression, or World War II, or a capital campaign, or a staff crisis, people inevitably wonder: "Can we get through this? Is it worth all the effort and confusion? Can we really overcome this challenge?" They inevitably look to the person at the core; the man or woman leading the charge, the one who sees the big picture. When people see a leader with this kind of vital optimism, who radiates a sense that together we can do what needs to be done, then people tend to decide not to waste their energy wondering about "if" but focus their energy going after "how."

On the other hand, when Eeyore is at the helm the whole ship is in trouble. Eeyore may be the most intelligent, gifted, attractive, educated, credentialed person in the room. But if he or she is easily deflated, sensitive to defeat and criticism, and de-motivated by setbacks, the whole community begins the long slow spiral downward.

The church is in the hope business. We of all people ought to be known most for our hope; because our hope is founded on something deeper than human ability or wishful thinking. Martin Luther King was fond of citing Reinhold Niebuhr's distinction between hope and optimism. Optimism believes in progress; that circumstances will get better. Hope, however, is is built on the conviction that another reality, another Kingdom, already exists. And so hope endures when hype fades.

And yet, even ministry can be hope-draining. Churches can become places of cynicism, resistance, and pessimism. Spiritual resistance, my own sinfulness, and the sheer gravitational pull of the status quo can drain away the power to dream. Both hope and pessimism are deeply contagious. And no one is more infectious than a leader.

For this reason I've realized that I must learn the art of hope management. I must learn about the activities and practices and people who build hope, as well as the activities and practices and people who drain hope.

When I looked back at my old journals it came as a surprise to me how often they were simply chronicles of failure. I would write down how I felt inadequate as a pastor, incompetent as a dad, and not-all-that-great as a Christian in general. These weren't so much confessions with absolution and forgiveness; they were vague general expressions of discouragement that left me more discouraged. They were the opposite of what David did when he "encouraged himself in the Lord." I was "discouraging myself in the Lord."

So now I try to steward my hope; not by avoiding thinking about my sin, but trying to confess it, learn from it, and live in the reality of newness and grace. I have identified people in my life who breathe energy and hope into me, and I try to get large doses of time with them - especially on Mondays.

Psychologist Martin Seligman, though not religious himself, notes that not only does faith produce hopeful people, but more robust faith produces more robust hope. For all the great hopers are mystics. And long before FDR said we have nothing to fear but fear itself, a great hoper known as Julian of Norwich sang her song from the depths of the Black Plague-infested fourteenth century:

But all shall be well,
And all shall be well,
And all manner of things shall be well?
He did not say, "You shall know no storms, no travails, no disease,"
He said, "You shall not be overcome."

You can't delegate hope.

John Ortberg is editor at large of Leadership journal and the pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church in Menlo Park, California.

LISTEN to John Ortberg's sermon about hope at PreachingToday.com.

LEARN to lead with hope by downloading the case study, "Hope for the Dry Times," at BuildingChurchLeaders.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 11, 2008 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

January 17, 2008

Disarming the Boomers (Part 2)

David Swanson is back with the second half of his post about working with a church leadership team dominated by Boomers. He believes there are a few simple strategies that can help a younger leader not only survive in a Boomer church, but even begin to influence the congregation toward change.

This morning I met one of our church leaders, a self-identified Boomer, for breakfast. We talked about the tendency for younger leaders within established churches to eventually leave for greener (more exciting, more like-minded, more missional) pastures. As one who has remained, I shared how lonely it can be as a young leader whose priorities and passions are often not shared by the congregation or its Boomer leaders.

I imagine loneliness is not a unique experience among young leaders. Not long ago a youth pastor in his twenties visited me from out of state. His first year in ministry was going well, but he was beginning to feel like a fish out of water in a church dominated by older leaders. After commiserating, I shared with him the limited wisdom I had gained from working with Boomers.

Paint pictures of the future
In Part One I pointed out the need to repeatedly earn the trust of older leaders. Skepticism was often expressed when I shared new concepts and ministry ideas. Whether it was fear, resistance, or simple misunderstanding, many conversations would end with those dreaded words, "You're just going to have to be patient with us."

One day I summoned the courage to share a very specific and, in my mind, risky ministry initiative. Bracing myself for the usual hesitancy, I was amazed by the enthusiasm of one leader's response. So I shared the idea with another leader, and then another, and finally to an entire team of Boomers. Each time the response was the same, "We could do that!"

This new ministry initiative was informed by the same concepts and ideas that had met with such uncertainty before. What had changed? The difference was that my co-leaders could now imagine the future I was talking about. What seemed radical as a theoretical concept now looked reasonable as a specific ministry initiative. Their inconsistency didn't seem rational to me, but I was not about to argue with their enthusiasm.

Answer the questions being asked
There is a line in a song by Over the Rhine that reads, "You need questions, forget about the answers." It's a judgment about the tendency to give simplistic responses to complex realities. Many young church leaders can relate to this lyric. Call it a generational shift, deconstruction, or good old-fashioned rebellion; the fact is that many young leaders are not satisfied with the overly-pragmatic Boomer mentality.

We are more comfortable with questions and ambiguity. As a result, we present ideas based on a way of seeing the world that may seem peculiar to the previous generation. As to be expected, our ideas are met with raised eyebrows and lots of practical questions - questions we believe often miss the point.

In Part One I related how the disconnect between a young leader's ideas and a Boomer's questions is often rooted in the battles the older leader fought a generation ago. But this doesn't make their questions illegitimate. That is a lesson I am continuing to learn. We may not like the Boomers' questions about our ideas, but they still need to be answered. Our new initiatives will have a greater chance of success if we take the time to address the concerns of the older leaders, despite their apparent irrelevancy and no matter how often they are asked.

Drink a lot of coffee
Those of us who itch for change are faced with the fact that, in most cases, it is the senior leadership's prerogative to initiate those changes. This can be a frustrating reality for a young leader. Our options are to give up on large-scale change, disconnect from the church to attempt our own new thing, or drink a lot of coffee. Tea works too.

A couple of years into my time as an associate pastor I began scheduling regular breakfasts, afternoon coffee breaks, and evening conversations with some of our church's Boomer leaders. These conversations were agenda-free. It was a chance to talk about past experiences, current challenges, and future possibilities for our church. The only measure of success was that coffee was consumed and good conversation was had.

Over time, as relationships developed, it became apparent that my ministry ideas were being met with more acceptance. Some of my new ideas even became conversation topics among our older leaders. It was deeply satisfying to participate in a strategic vision for the church that had begun as a conversation over coffee. Don't underestimate the importance of investing in relationships.

I still have a lot to learn about working with Boomers, and I'd welcome stories and wisdom from other your leaders reading this blog. What has been helpful to you as you initiate change among your Boomer congregation? And to the Boomers among us, what council do you have for the next generation other than, "You're just going to have to be patient with us."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 17, 2008 | Comments (8)

January 14, 2008

REVEAL Revisited

The research conducted by Willow Creek and published last year in the book REVEAL: Where are you? has generated a great deal of conversation on this blog. Some have heralded the findings as conclusive evidence that Willow's popular philosophy of ministry is fatally flawed. Others have applauded Willow for the courage to be transparent about its shortcomings and seek more effective methods of making disciples. While the discussion has been stimulating, most of us lack the credentials to offer anything more than a layman's opinion about REVEAL. But not Bradley Wright. He is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut, and has written an 11 part analysis of Willow's study on his blog. Wright has summarized his take on REVEAL below.

When I go to my physician for a check-up, he starts with a series of simple tests - shining a light in my eyes, looking at my throat, listening to my breathing, and so forth. If the results of these don't seem right, he then orders more sophisticated tests, such as blood work, a biopsy, or x-rays. I would hope that he wouldn't cart me off for surgery or chemotherapy based solely on the initial, simple tests.

This illustrates how we might think about the REVEAL study conducted by Willow Creek Community Church. As described in the book REVEAL: Where are you?, this study collected data from about five thousand respondents in seven different churches. Its results have caused quite a stir. Critics point to them as evidence against the Willow Creek model of ministry. In the foreward to the book, Bill Hybels, senior pastor of Willow Creek, describes the findings as almost "unbearably painful." The findings of REVEAL, he writes, "revolutionized the way I look at the role of the local church." Coming from as successful a pastor as Bill Hybels, this is a powerful statement.

Is such a strong reaction warranted? I would say probably not, and here's why...

The type of survey used by REVEAL has its uses, but it's not well suited for evaluating the effectiveness of a complex institution like a church. It's not that REVEAL's findings are wrong, rather they are highly inconclusive. In fact, if I had to make a judgment, I would interpret the findings as generally supportive of what Willow Creek is already doing.

Technically, REVEAL used a cross-sectional survey with no comparison group and no randomization. This means they surveyed people once during a given period of time - it's like taking a snapshot of a group of people. It's the tongue depressor of survey methodology - a good place to start, but not a very powerful tool. While this type of survey does a good job in describing peoples' characteristics, it doesn't explain them. It describes "what" but doesn't explain "why." Findings from this type of survey are open to multiple interpretations, and the data themselves can't distinguish the correct one. To illustrate, let's consider some of REVEAL's findings.

Involvement in church activities does not predict spiritual growth.
REVEAL finds little correlation between involvement in church activities and what they term "spiritual growth" - behaviors such as tithing, evangelizing, serving others, reading the Bible, and praying. The authors conclude that being involved in church activities does not promote spiritual growth. Another interpretation would be that individuals new to the faith are as equally attracted to church activities as those who are more mature. Perhaps part of spiritual maturity is not volunteering for as many activities in order to concentrate on a few.

Self-reported relationship with God predicts spiritual growth.
REVEAL creates a four-stage progression measuring a person's self-reported relationship with God. They call it the "spiritual continuum," and it includes:
1. Exploring Christianity
2. Growing in Christ
3. Close to Christ
4. Christ-centered.

The study finds that progress on this continuum predicts spiritual growth. So, for example, individuals who say they are Christ-centered read the Bible more than those who say they are exploring Christianity. Again, it's hard to know what to make of this finding. Perhaps the causation runs in the reverse direction. Loving God and others (i.e., spiritual growth) may make us feel closer to God (i.e., spiritual continuum). Do we read the Bible because we feel close to God, or do we feel close to God because we read the Bible?

A more sensible approach might be to use both "spiritual continuum" and "spiritual growth" as outcome measures (rather than having one predict the other). That is, churches want people to love God, love others, and have a strong relationship with Christ. The question, then, becomes what increases all of these?

Up to 25% of respondents were spiritually stalled.
In my experience, spiritual growth is not linear. I'm doing well if I go two steps forward for every step back (and often it's the other way around). Feeling "stalled" might just be an inherent part of maturing spiritually - consider recent reports of Mother Theresa's periodic crises of faith. If so, it may not be alarming that a minority of respondents reported this feeling.

In addition, individual feelings of being stalled may reflect a healthy church culture. If a church constantly urges its members to move forward, then some of them, unable to do so at that time, will be frustrated and feel stalled. Perhaps the only churches that have no stalled members are those that have no expectation of growth.

Up to 25% of respondents were dissatisfied with the church.
Is this a high or low number? Many institutions would love to have more than three-quarters of their members satisfied. In addition, churches are voluntary organizations and dissatisfied people can leave at any time. The question then becomes: Why do some stay? Maybe a successful church is one that can hold on to its members during periods of dissatisfaction. The only way to get 100% satisfaction levels may be to drive off those individuals who aren't perfectly happy.

I believe that American churches have a lot to gain by collecting data, and REVEAL represents the current state-of-the-art in church surveys. My guess is that REVEAL will be remembered best for popularizing church surveys more so than for its findings. I look forward to future research by the REVEAL team, but in the meantime I would caution against making too many changes to Willow Creek, or any other church, based solely on the current study.

Read Bradley Wright's complete 11 part analysis of REVEAL at his blog.

EDITOR'S NOTE:
After posting Bradley Wright's article we received the following comment from Cathy Parkinson, day-to-day director of REVEAL and co-other of the book:

The timing of this post couldn't be better.  We too enjoyed Professor Wright's series of posts (see Ten REVEALing Posts from 2007 on the REVEAL blog) and are in the process of soliciting questions from anyone who wants to understand more about the methodology behind the REVEAL data.  In just over a week, we'll be recording a podcast where our two key researchers will explain our process and respond to these questions.  We've invited Bradley Wright to join us in the studio to talk through these issues and chances are he will.  We are just over half-way through conducting the REVEAL survey in 500 churches and continue to have a strong sense that God's hand is on this work.  I address some of Professor Wright's concerns directly in a post on our REVEAL blog.  In case you want to check that out.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 14, 2008 | Comments (24)

January 9, 2008

Disarming the Boomers

Let's be honest. The distance between the Boomers and Busters isn't just a generation gap - it's a generation gorge. The cultural, technological, and philosophical shifts that have occurred in recent decades have given these two generations fundamentally different perspectives. Although some younger pastors have abandoned the Boomer church to launch their own communities, there are many struggling to serve side by side with the older generation. In part 1 of his post, David Swanson shares the lessons he's learned as a younger pastor attempting to bring change on a team dominated by Boomers.

In his letter introducing me as a new associate pastor to the congregation, the senior pastor included the Apostle's advice to his young apprentice, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). I was 25 years old and, while it was a nice sentiment, the verse hardly seemed necessary. Five years later it is clear Paul's words were more than a kind gesture; they were a hint at the reality to come.

The generational gap between myself and those I was leading quickly became perceptible. As long as my energy was primarily spent maintaining ministries, the difference between the Boomers and me was negligible. It was when I began asking questions about our ministry strategies and effectiveness that Paul's councel took on new significance.

The leaders at our church are too gracious to have looked down on me as I asked my ministry questions. However, as more time was spent looking for ways to answer those questions, the differences in our ages and ways of seeing the world were a constant reminder of my youth. Even as we came to understand and accept the differences, there continued to be surprises. Three of these came up repeatedly.

Trust must be earned again, and again?and again
As a young staff person, I rightly trusted our church's leaders. These were men and women who had been commended with the significant task of leading our community. And while I knew these leaders liked me and appreciated my gifts, in those first years it was clear they didn't entirely trust me. One morning I was venting about this to my senior pastor when he said, "Just wait until you're 30. I'm not sure why, but something changes on your 30th birthday."

In hindsight I see how true his observation was. Who knows why, but people's perceptions of a young leader change when he or she is no longer in their 20's. In the meantime, I had to accept the fact that trust was not mine to lose, but mine to earn?again and again. It's a slow process that required a lot of relationship building over a lot of coffee.

Last decade's battles feel like yesterday
One of the ministry questions I asked of our leaders was whether we were intentionally engaging our culture with the love of God. One person consistently pushed back when this topic was raised. He would say, "How can we be sure this kind of engagement won't lead to relativism?" I never understood where this question came from, but we shared many lunches where I hoped to convince him that I had no interest in relativism of any kind. I would walk away assuming the conversation was closed, only to receive an email the next week asking the same question in a slightly different way.

Over coffee with a different leader, I expressed my frustration with this person's questions. "He's like a broken record!" I huffed. From across the table came the reply, "You have to understand that moral relativism was the battle of our generation. Everything hinged on that issue for us Boomers." The stars aligned in that moment. Suddenly this individual's concerns seemed much more valid. While at times I still got frustrated, I was also more patient knowing the source of his concerns.

My slow is your fast
One of the phrases that a young leader grows to loathe is, "You need to be patient." Or at least I did. The truth is that "slow" and "fast" are very subjective. After a couple of years, I began to recognize the subtle looks of panic as I would suggest strategies or new ideas for the church. While these ideas seemed reasonable to me, to some of our Boomer leaders they sounded quite risky, radical even.

Perhaps, as a leader ages, it is inevitable that the tolerance for risk diminishes. What once seemed reasonable eventually appears risky and fast. I don't know. This is one surprise that continues to be frustrating to me at times. While I see the need for the wisdom of my elders, I also do not want to lose the sense of urgency for the work God has called us to.

These are just three of the surprises I encountered as a younger leader. For those of you in this category, are there additional things that caught you off guard? And for you Boomer leaders, what do you find tricky about working with or being led by the younger generation?

In part 2 of his post, Swanson will suggest a few ways the younger leader can intentionally serve and lead an older generation.

David Swanson is the associate pastor of Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 9, 2008 | Comments (22)

January 2, 2008

An Alternative to “Excellence”

Last year I met with a team of leaders from my church. Our task: to rethink and rearticulate the guiding values of our congregation. The work was relatively easy. Upon investigation we determined that most of our core values hadn't shifted. We still believed in the centrality of relationships to ministry, our bent toward creativity, and the importance of participation. But then we came to "excellence."

For years our church has listed "excellence" as one of its core values. Support for this word, if not the idea behind it, has been slipping for years. A growing number of leaders are uncomfortable with excellence for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most common objection is that it's a more subtle way of saying we are perfectionists. Others object that the word is off-putting to people in the church that cannot achieve "excellence." It's exclusionary.

Defenders of the term say it has nothing to do with perfectionism or elitism, but a desire to "do our very best for God." And one person's very best may differ significantly from another's, but both are upholding the value of excellence. In the end the decision was made to change the articulation of the value and drop the word "excellence." But what word should we use?

Daniel Schantz recently wrote an insightful, dare I say excellent, article about the increasing discomfort with the notion of excellence in the church. You should read the entire piece at the Christian Standard website. Here is a brief excerpt:

The term excellence is often spoken by church leaders in condescending tones, as if to say, "Others may be content with being average slobs, but not us. We must have only the best." This can be a slap in the face to members who don't have the capacity or means to be excellent - the "good," the "fair," the "poor."

Can only good-looking, gifted singers serve on the worship team? Must church buildings resemble palaces in order to be useful? Do all preachers have to be Madison Avenue models, professional comedians, celebrities, best-selling authors, and able to speak five languages? The gospel was targeted to the poor, not just to the exceptional.

Schantz's article reads like a transcript from one of our church leadership meetings. He captures the arguments surrounding the term "excellence" perfectly. But the question remains - is there a positive alternative? What word should replace excellence in our ecclesiastical lexicon? Or, are you a true believer in excellence who is willing to fight the slippery slope of mediocrity? Read Schantz's article and come back with your comments and suggestions.

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 2, 2008 | Comments (35)

December 18, 2007

The Rise of the New Bishops- Part 2

In part 1, Chad Hall questioned the emergence of popular young church leaders. Through their books, conferences, and postcasts these "new bishops" are attracting a great deal of attention. Hall wondered if their status was the result of their genuine spiritual authority, or the cleaver marketing of Christian publishers. In part 2, Hall suggests ways we can respond to these pastor celebrities without falling prey to the hype.

How can Christ-followers navigate the era of new bishops and guard against theology by marketing majority? Here are a few ideas?

First, let's not forget that faithfulness to God often does entail faithfulness to leaders. Leaders discerning God's movement and directing others toward faithfulness is Biblical. We happen to live in a world where we get to choose our leaders, and we should choose wisely. I hear some ministers today who almost seem unwilling to follow anyone other than themselves. Being your own bishop is not healthy.

Second, let's be savvy in noting the complex relationship between following and consuming.

We need to be alert to marketing hype and sensationalism and to separate message from medium lest we buy into an inappropriate message simply because it's packaged well. If we're blind to the new reality we can get sucked into inappropriate hero worship and faulty faith.

Finally, although this may not be politically correct, I suggest trusting older leaders rather than the hottest and latest leaders. While I'm not disagreeing with 1 Timothy 4:12, men like Gordon MacDonald, Dallas Willard, Leith Anderson, Peter Kreeft and Eugene Peterson have enough water under the bridge to lead me to trust them, which is distinct from simply admiring them. People live a long time these days, so let's not rush to make bishops of the young guns just because we live in a culture that worships youth.

And while were at it, let's not neglect the bishops who've lived in centuries past. The minor fact that they are dead shouldn't remove them from our list of trustworthy leaders. They may not have websites or bestselling books, but they have insights that many of us need today. (BTW, Christian History did not pay me to say this!)

So who plays the role of "bishop" in your ministry? Why?

Chad Hall is an executive coach with SAS Institute Inc. in Cary, NC. He's also the co-author of Coaching for Christian Leaders: A Practical Guide and Vice President of The Columbia Partnership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 18, 2007 | Comments (16)

December 14, 2007

The Rise of the New Bishops

After reporting on Rob Bell's tour last month, Chad Hall has been wondering about the influence of young Christian leaders like Bell. Are these "new bishops" the result of a generation searching for leaders outside traditional church structures, or are they a product of publishers and slick marketing?

I’ve been thinking lately about how influential a few leaders are in evangelical Christian America – especially among younger Christ-followers. Such leaders exercise a tremendous amount of influence on the thought and practice of other church leaders. I’ve come to think of them as the real bishops of today.

Just like the earliest church fathers, today’s bishops earnestly seek to discern what faithfulness is and then dispense their discernment among followers. Oh yes, and just like the old bishops, the new ones sometimes disagree and dispute what it means to be faithful and the dispute can carry over to their followers (as an earlier post re: Rob Bell and Mark Driscoll demonstrated).

So what gave rise to these new bishops? Three primary factors…

First, denominations are waning and few church leaders look to denominational leaders as experts on how to think theologically or practice church ministry well. Even in traditions who ordain bishops, the influence of these leaders to affect the thought and practice of those they serve is diminishing.

Second, geography has shrunk through the use of media such as the internet and especially the blogosphere, thus giving the masses access to leaders they’d otherwise never have encountered. And unlike TV and radio, the internet allows followers to interact with one another and reinforce allegiance to bishops. Getting a following today doesn’t require years of moving up the church hierarchy, but the ability to get attention and keep it.

Third, there seems to be a growing populist mindset among our generation that prefers to select our leaders rather than have them selected for us. I’m sure this has a lot to do with distaste for institutions and hierarchy and all of that Strauss and Howe generations stuff.

As Christ followers, what are we to make of this era of new bishops? Is this good or bad or somewhere in between?

I’m not pessimistic about the advent of these new bishops, but one thing disturbs me: this could dissolve into theology by majority. While I suppose the church has always relied on the Spirit to sway folks toward beliefs and practices that best reflect God’s will, the current circumstance seems somehow more precarious. With book deals and conference invitations based on who will buy what, the consumer ambitions of publishing houses and conference promoters (and ad-revenue blogs like this one!) may drive choices more than ambitions of faithfulness. And while Christ-followers may think they are choosing their bishops, they may really be taking some marketing bait. In this context, the marketer who gets us to buy something may also be getting us to buy into someone.

In part 2, Chall Hall will explore how we can navigate in this new era of celebrity bishops and guard against theology constructed by marketing majority.

Chad Hall is an executive coach with SAS Institute Inc. in Cary, NC. He’s also the co-author of Coaching for Christian Leaders: A Practical Guide and Vice President of The Columbia Partnership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 14, 2007 | Comments (22)

November 13, 2007

Hero Boycott

Angie Ward, Leadership contributing editor, calls for a boycott on worshiping ministry heros. It isn't the popular Christian leaders that she has a problem with, but the clouds of zealous followers that seem to follow them wherever they go. Below is an excerpt from her article. You can read the entire piece here.

We'd like to hear your thoughts about ministry heroes. Who do you celebrate, listen to, and admire? How do you choose your heroes, what do you find so attractive about them, and what are the dangers? We may reprint your comments in the upcoming Spring issue of Leadership.

A few years ago I attended a large ministry conference that included breakout sessions featuring a variety of speakers and "experts" on all things related to ministry and leadership. At one point during the conference, I was waiting in the lobby when one of the speakers (we'll call him Mr. Jensen) walked by, surrounded by at least 25 groupies who hung on this man's every word, nodding their agreement. I actually like this man's writing and philosophy, but was struck by the groupie mentality. A friend who was with me observed, "You know, I like what Jensen says, but God save us from the Jensenites."

Sadly, I've seen that "Jensenites" are becoming the rule rather than the exception. I've heard dozens of pastors speak breathlessly and reverently about their ministerial and spiritual heroes, reading their books and their blogs, listening to their podcasts, following them at conferences, hoping just to get a glimpse of them or to touch their robe so they can receive some magical leadership or teaching power that will result in overwhelming ministry success and their own fame...

...It's no different today than it was in the first century, when Paul noted in his first letter to the Corinthians that the Christ-followers there were dividing themselves over who they followed. "I follow Paul," said some, while others countered, "I follow Apollos."

Today it's the same story, just a different millennium: "I am of Hybels." "I am of Warren." "I am of Maxwell." "I am of Stanley." "I am of Moore." "I am of Groeschel." "I am of McLaren." "I am of Driscoll."...

I have nothing against any of the leaders I mentioned above. They are doing what God has called and gifted and assigned them to do, and they have all made a significant impact for the Kingdom. Many of them are worthy mentors and models. But they are also just servants, just like each of us who follows Christ. My problem is not with the celebrities, but with the groupies who have made them such.

These groupies try to become clones of their heroes, instead of becoming who God has made them and ministering in a uniquely personal way that no celebrity could ever attain. Instead of claiming their standing in Christ and asking what He wants of their leadership in their unique situation, they settle for a trinkety-bracelet approach to ministry: "What Would Hybels Do?"

Read the entire article here.

Angie Ward is a church leader, ministry coach, forward thinker, ministry spouse, and follower of Jesus living and serving in Durham, North Carolina.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 13, 2007 | Comments (26)

November 6, 2007

Are Pastors Competitive Enough?

The line between ministry and the business world has blurred. It is increasingly difficult to tell the difference between secular leadership and sacred leadership, and there are some influential voices arguing that any differentiation is artificial. As a result, many pastors have eagerly sought the wisdom of business leaders to help them manage their churches. But what if the tables were reversed? Could a pastor successfully lead in a business environment? Friend of Ur, Andy Rowell, is back with his thoughts on this question.

Jack Welch is the legendary former CEO of GE and one of the most respected leadership and management gurus in the business world. In the September 20th issue of BusinessWeek, Jack and Suzy Welch wrote an article called "Leaving The Nonprofit Nest." You can also watch the video or listen to the podcast.

Welch recounts the story of a woman who has tried to move from a nonprofit organization (think "church") into the business world. She gets nowhere. She can't even get an interview. The reason is simple - businesses have not had much success with people from the nonprofit world.

Welch says the fundamental problem is that nonprofit people just can't adjust to the competition.

They make decisions too slowly and do not care enough about results. Still, Jack says, the nonprofit person has some skills that are unique - primarily the ability to manage people without having money as a motivational tool.

The article raises questions for me:

1. Do pastors with a competitive background - perhaps having significant sports or business experience - lead with a greater focus on numbers in the church? And is this an asset or something to be cautious about? Does this explain the difference between pastors who shepherd and pastors who lead?

I would encourage pastors to be aware of their competitive bent. If we have a drive to see our congregation "win," that is an appropriate desire. But we should make sure we define what it means to "win" appropriately. We want the church to produce better and more disciples of Christ who live sacrificially. Winning isn't about the ABC's (Attendance, Buildings and Cash).

2. Some pastors fantasize that if their church career doesn't work out they can simply grab a job in the business world. But is that true? Is Jack Welch right when he says most leaders in the non-profit sector couldn't hack it in the business world and should choose something softer?

The truth is God has directed people into his work for all kinds of reasons. Still, pastors can accept the criticism that churches can become unfocused and perpetuate mediocrity if they're not careful.

3. Does Welch's impression of non-profits manifest itself in our congregations when members (perhaps with a business background) get frustrated by the committees and lowest common denominator decision-making?

It's hard to disagree with Welch's criticism, but that doesn't mean we should run the church like a business. But it does mean that these Christians with savvy business sense may help us make decisions more quickly. Perhaps if we listened to them more we would have more time for prayer, pastoral care, Scripture and ministry toward the poor.

4. Welch points out the challenge of leading people without money as an incentive. What does that leave the pastor in his leadership arsenal? How do we motivate, and does this make a pastor's relational skills the critical factor?

The reality is most pastors must lead without much positional authority. (This varies, of course. Some traditions still give the pastoral office a significant amount of authority. But I would argue this is very rare today). If a pastor presses for change too quickly, they may be run out within a year. Therefore, pastors must be able to lead collaboratively (helping others feel ownership for decisions), inspirationally (keeping people's spirits up about the mission) and subversively (persuading people to do what is right even when people's first response is flowing from a desirer to be comfortable). Pastors who are able to lead effectively are some of the most impressive leaders on the planet.

Andy Rowell was an Associate Pastor in Vancouver, British Columbia and is now a Doctor of Theology student at Duke Divinity School concentrating on Leading Christian Communities and New Testament.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 6, 2007 | Comments (20)

October 18, 2007

Willow Creek Repents?

Few would disagree that Willow Creek Community Church has been one of the most influential churches in America over the last thirty years. Willow, through its association, has promoted a vision of church that is big, programmatic, and comprehensive. This vision has been heavily influenced by the methods of secular business. James Twitchell, in his new book Shopping for God, reports that outside Bill Hybels' office hangs a poster that says: "What is our business? Who is our customer? What does the customer consider value?" Directly or indirectly, this philosophy of ministry - church should be a big box with programs for people at every level of spiritual maturity to consume and engage - has impacted every evangelical church in the country.

So what happens when leaders of Willow Creek stand up and say, "We made a mistake"?

Not long ago Willow released its findings from a multiple year qualitative study of its ministry. Basically, they wanted to know what programs and activities of the church were actually helping people mature spiritually and which were not. The results were published in a book, Reveal: Where Are You?, co-authored by Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek. Hybels called the findings "earth shaking," "ground breaking," and "mind blowing."

If you'd like to get a synopsis of the research you can watch a video with Greg Hawkins here. And Bill Hybels' reactions, recorded at last summer's Leadership Summit, can be seen here. Both videos are worth watching in their entirety, but below are few highlights.

In the Hawkins' video he says, "Participation is a big deal. We believe the more people participating in these sets of activities, with higher levels of frequency, it will produce disciples of Christ." This has been Willow's philosophy of ministry in a nutshell. The church creates programs/activities. People participate in these activities. The outcome is spiritual maturity. In a moment of stinging honesty Hawkins says, "I know it might sound crazy but that's how we do it in churches. We measure levels of participation."

Having put so many of their eggs into the program-driven church basket, you can understand their shock when the research revealed that "Increasing levels of participation in these sets of activities does NOT predict whether someone's becoming more of a disciple of Christ. It does NOT predict whether they love God more or they love people more."

Speaking at the Leadership Summit, Hybels summarized the findings this way:

Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.

Having spent thirty years creating and promoting a multi-million dollar organization driven by programs and measuring participation, and convincing other church leaders to do the same, you can see why Hybels called this research "the wake-up call" of his adult life.

Hybels confesses:

We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ?self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their bible between service, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.

In other words, spiritual growth doesn't happen best by becoming dependent on elaborate church programs but through the age old spiritual practices of prayer, bible reading, and relationships. And, ironically, these basic disciplines do not require multi-million dollar facilities and hundreds of staff to manage.

Does this mark the end of Willow's thirty years of influence over the American church? Not according to Hawkins:

Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he's asking us to transform this planet.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 18, 2007 | Comments (120)

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)

August 20, 2007

5 Guides for Today

Leadership's longtime friend and sage Fred Smith, Sr., died on Friday, August 17, 2007 at age 91. Smith was an accomplished businessman, church leader, and mentor at the time Leadership journal was launched in 1980. He was featured in the first issue, and we have welcomed his sage advice in the journal's pages many times since.

When his health prevented him from leaving home for lectures and group meetings, Fred began inviting young leaders to his house for a weekly breakfast. That led to a website and new interaction with a new generation of leaders through his "Ask Fred" e-mails.

Even at his advanced age, Fred was learning what's really important in life and ministry. Here an excerpt from Fred's last article in 2005, the distillation of Fred's final years as a mentor.

It must be awfully safe to write to a 90-year-old, because I get lots of questions. Most of them deal with hard issues of character, spiritual growth, and suffering. I suspect many think of me as playing in my second overtime, so they assume that the answers may be coming from a little closer to heaven.

They tell me they believe I will give them an honest answer and that at my age I should have more answers than they do. I do my best to thoughtfully respond. But sometimes I just have to say, "I have been struggling with that same issue for all of my adult life, and I will be praying for you."

Pastors write anonymously of painful experiences with staff, boards, and members: "How do I know when it's time to move on? How do I know that God is speaking and not just some board members who want me to leave?"

Business executives ask about ethics and passion: "I am a key executive with a Fortune 500 company and hate what I do. My family depends on my income, and I feel locked into a life that I dread." They want to know how a Christian approaches such decision-making.
What do the "Ask Fred" questions teach me? I've come to five conclusions.

1. People need encouragement.

Truett Cathey says, "How do you identify someone who needs encouragement? Answer: That person is breathing."

There is breakdown in the church, in the family, and in the meaningfulness of work. All three arenas were given to us as blessings, but our culture has turned them into sources of hurt. Some pastors lead like CEOs instead of shepherds. But people long for shepherds.

Even though he headed a large institution, Pope John Paul II came across as a shepherd. He had character and love. The character appealed to young people-he was the rock. The love was the generous spirit he displayed.

When our politicians wave, it's in a way that says, "I hope you like me." John Paul didn't wave, he gave a blessing. People felt that they were being blessed by seeing him, that the encounter wasn't for him, but for them. That's encouragement.

And when he died, the occasion attracted 5 million people to the largest voluntary gathering in history.

2. Truth telling and wisdom are in short supply.

Dr. Phil is a runaway hit because he "tells it like it is." He listens, quickly diagnoses, and then lets them have it. They line up hours ahead of the taping to have an opportunity to be confronted by him. What they define as truth telling is actually a mixture of psychology and entertainment. Scripture commands us to "tell the truth, in love." Television ratings aren't mentioned.

As a parent, I noticed the striking transition in my role from power figure to wisdom figure. I was no longer "the boss" but "the consultant." In the "Ask Fred" questions, I clearly see men and women searching for trustworthy wisdom that comes without strings and without a hidden agenda.

"My dad is dying from lung cancer. What should I be saying to him and what should I be asking him to say to me?" I replied that if I were he, I'd want my children to remind me of specific incidents where I influenced them positively. I'd want to hear from them that my life has counted and that I am a child of God who is loved and eagerly awaited by those who have gone before me. I'd want to tell them that they are my significance. I'd want them to know that I love them. And I'd want them to know that knowing God is a worthy passion.

Continue reading Smith's article at Leadership's website.

Fred Smith was a long-time consulting editor of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 20, 2007 | Comments (4)

July 26, 2007

A Former Pastor Goes Church Shopping

How does a former pastor choose a church? That is the question Andy Rowell and his wife are facing after their relocation to a new community. The process has opened their eyes to the differences and blessings of denominational and nondenominational churches. Although they've still not made a decision, Andy shares his reflections on the process so far.

"Occupational hazard," that is what my wife and I call it. We cannot help but thoroughly analyze churches we visit. My wife and I both have M.Div. degrees and have served as pastors. So when we need to pick a new church, overanalyzing churches is almost inevitable - an occupational hazard.

A month ago we moved to Durham, North Carolina so I could begin the 4-5 year Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) program at Duke Divinity School. We have visited seven churches in the last six weeks here and have not yet made a decision on where we will attend.

Our backgrounds are mostly in churches and institutions that were nondenominational or interdenominational - where denominational affiliation was played down. But around Durham, many of the churches that have been recommended to us are mainline churches. They are led by pastors that are theologically orthodox, yet the style of these mainline churches is different from what we are accustomed to.

In our vigorous Sunday lunch discussions, my wife and I have been impressed by aspects of the mainline churches we have visited. On the other hand, there are things we miss about nondenominational churches.
It seems to me nondenominational folks and mainliners can learn from each other. In that spirit, I offer a few summary points of our Sunday lunch discussions.

The Top Nine Things I Appreciate about Mainline Churches:

1. The leadership of mainline churches does not center so much on one person ? the pastor. When a senior leader leaves, there are mechanisms for finding a new pastor including trained interim pastors.

2. Mainline churches have a greater appreciation for Christian history. The liturgies of the mainline churches reflect the thought and deliberation of several centuries of Christians. Many evangelical worship leaders say whatever springs to mind.

3. The worship services at mainline churches have intellectual substance. The liturgies at mainline churches are usually very rich theologically. Someone has taken the time to craft the words of the liturgy carefully.

4. Mainline churches care for the poor and are more aware regarding social issues. Though evangelical churches are coming around, they have been slower than the mainline regarding racism, care for the poor, empowering women, and care for the environment.

5. Mainline denominations take intellectual excellence seriously. They want their pastors educated and their scholars properly trained. I know an evangelical megachurch (which I like) with 100 staff members and only the senior pastor has a Master of Divinity.

6. The ordination process in mainline denominations usually screens out the mentally ill. The ordination process of the denominations takes a few years, includes a battery of psychological tests, and is done in consultation with lots of people who know you. Many pastors of evangelical churches simply decided to plant a church. Whether they have any education or preparation is irrelevant.

7. Mainline denominations care for their pastors more thoughtfully and equally. Mainline pastors are usually paid fairly and their benefits are good and fair.

8. Mainline denominations honor the arts including classical music. Mainline people seem to be the people supporting museums, visual art, architecture and NPR.

9. Mainline churches have better accountability structures. There are structures for dealing with crises and for preventing crises from happening in the first place.

The Top Seven Things I Appreciate about Nondenominational Churches:

1. Nondenominational evangelical churches structure their worship gatherings so newcomers know what is going on and want to come back. They have an elaborate plan for welcoming people so that even irreligious people will want to come back. This includes signs, greeters and the overall style of the environment.

2. Nondenominational evangelical churches acknowledge that churches are organizations that need competent leadership. They tend to value pastors who organize and inspire the church toward more effective mission.

3. Nondenominational evangelical websites are usually better. Websites should be designed for someone who is totally unfamiliar with the church but might want to go there.

4. The music at nondenominational evangelical churches is more like the music people listen to on the radio. This is a preference thing I know but it just seems to me that churches can be faithful while still evolving to connect with people today.

5. Nondenominational evangelical churches question traditions that no longer connect with most people. When only 1% of the people really want the ministry, it should not get time on the podium and space in the bulletin.

6. Nondenominational evangelical churches are more eager to experiment with new technologies.

7. Nondenominational evangelical churches highly value Scripture. This covers a multitude of other shortcomings.

Andy Rowell has been a pastor and professor of Christian ministry at Taylor University. He is currently in the Doctor of Theology program at Duke Divinity School.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 26, 2007 | Comments (38)

February 23, 2007

Sayonara, Senior Pastor (Part 2)

David Fitch's church, Life on the Vine, is a missional community that has abandoned the leadership model that most churches employ. Life on the Vine has no senior pastor, and they don't want one. In the first part of his post, Fitch outlined three reasons why the "CEO-pastor-leader" model is difficult to reconcile with a missional philosophy of ministry. Here are five more reasons why a multiple-leadership model is better:

4. Because pastors benefit from being bi-vocational. Or, should I say bi-ministerial (since being in the secular workplace is ministry). Pastors who have jobs outside the church can get to know non-Christians and spend time in non Christian settings. They are not entirely bound to the church. Dan Kimball speaks to this in his new book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan 2007). Up until last year, I had always worked outside the church. I will forever be impacted by the many years I spent working outside the church, and as a result I will continually be seeking non Christian connections.

5. Because it models the diversity and interrelatedness of the Body. The notion of a senior pastor puts up a false impression that one person is especially qualified and elevated to ministry. But with multiple pastors, he/she does not stand alone. The whole body is called to minister the gospel inside and outside the church as a way of life.

6. Because it protects pastors from the temptations which lead to moral failure and/or disappointment. With multiple leaders in mutual submission to each other in Christ, there can be no temptation to put any of the pastors on a false pedestal as an image of the perfect Christian. Given the mutual subjectivity of the leadership, and the smallness of the church, there is no reason to try to act like an archetype for everyone else to imitate.

7. Because it is hard for pastors to be servants when they are put on a pedestal. All pastors should have to clean toilets, serve the poor, and vacuum floors after potlucks. We should see ourselves in submission to the Body of Christ not over it. (Mark 10:42-45). This "amongness" is not always possible as a senior pastor.

8. Because the senior pastor position is an impossible position to live up to. Therefore, by accepting this role we are setting ourselves up (and the church) for inevitable failure.

I could think of other reasons. And I am sure that in other contexts and ways of being the Body of Christ, the senior pastor position may still have validity. But for our church, in seeking to be missional, these reasons seemed to suggest the senior pastor position won't work.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 23, 2007 | Comments (16)

February 19, 2007

Sayonara, Senior Pastor

Pastor/Professor David Fitch is back to describe the leadership structure of his church, Life on the Vine, in Long Grove, Illinois. Like an increasing number of churches seeking to be "missional," Life on the Vine has rejected the notion of a senior pastor. In this post, Fitch explains why the "CEO-pastor-leader" model is losing its appeal.

At Life on the Vine, we recently added a fourth pastor. Some people told me a model with multiple visible leaders would never work - there would be no single face to attach to the vision of the church and the church would never grow. Balderdash (is that a word?). The church continues to grow. There are signs of healing, new mission, and new souls finding God.

Much has been written about missional church leadership. Frost & Hirsch (and Dwight Smith) have advocated the APEPT (apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher) model of leadership from Eph 4:11. Roxburgh has another brilliant description of these principles. I have argued that we must dump the CEO- pastor-leader that the church has too often modeled from secular business. I have argued that "the CEO-pastor-leader" is a construction that only makes sense in the Cartesian worlds where man is in control, where leadership is technique driven, and where people are units in a sociological structure devoid of the organic nature that we see characterizes the gifted nature of the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12: 4-31). Because of this I have argued that missional leadership must be multiple, organic, recognized and affirmed within and among a body (not determined from above in a smoke filled room by a CEO and board of the mega corporation it oversees).

Again, many have said this could not be done. But from the beginning our church has always had more people pastoring and leading than just me. I admit I was at the outset the most visible leader. But I've been bi-ministerial with other jobs and finding income from sources other than the church. This has enabled us to quickly add many more leaders on the staff in a church that now has about 150 people (we started with 10). And so the idea of a senior pastor at the Vine has never quite fit.

From of our experience, here some reasons why the "senior pastor" role won't work at Life on the Vine church, and why it may not fit other churches seeking a more missional posture:

1. Because it doesn't make sense to build a church around a personality. People start coming to hear that one guy (most often it's a guy), and as the crowds get bigger this pastor becomes distanced from the congregation at which point he loses the ability to speak into the people's lives that he knows. Instead, as the crowds get bigger, he must get less specific and more generic to optimize his speaking into the lives of a larger audience. Soon he becomes a talking head on a screen, a personality people come to hear as if the proclamation of the gospel is some form of entertainment or consumption. And when he burns out or leaves, half the congregation splits as well, and the people who remain are left holding the bag for the big mortgage the personality left behind. If I left Life on the Vine I believe it wouldn't miss a beat. In fact, last summer when I didn't preach at all the church grew by 20%.

2. Because there are no supermen(or women). No single pastor has all the gifts. Indeed, most pastors have gaping deficits in their abilities to carry out the ministry. With multiple pastors the whole ministry of the church is fed from their many gifts, and all are invited to participate in the empowerment of the gifts as modeled by the many faceted leadership. The fact that the ministry of the body of Christ is not one man/woman resists those who make church all about receiving passively from the ministry of one person. In our church, I am strong on preaching for growth and sanctification, in training leaders for ministry, in leading the vision for a missional emerging church. I have deferred to and learned from those who have gifts of prayer, faith, preaching, teaching, organization, artistry, and mission. I see how Frost & Hirsch's APEPT model characterizes our ministry.

3. Because isolated pastors can get tunnel vision. But multiple pastors in submission to one to another can work against this. I can think of three times in the last two years where I was leading the church with tunnel vision and one of the other pastors called me on it and the result was a reinvigorated the church body. I never would have seen these things if I had not been in mutual submission to these other co-laborers in reverence to Christ as Lord.

Part two of "Sayonara, Senior Pastor" will be posted soon. Until then, tell us what you think about the benefits and dangers of abandoning a senior pastor leadership structure.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 19, 2007 | Comments (47)

January 10, 2007

Three Celebrities and a Funeral

I took a bit of morning time to watch President Ford's funeral service as it was televised from the National Cathedral. There was music (Christian hymns which have buoyed the heart for many generations) sung and played with a beauty, a grandeur, and an artistic excellence that made the soul soar. There were scriptures-so appropriately selected-read with great dignity. There were eulogies (marked with affection, historical reminiscence and humor) that reminded one that Gerald Ford was a very good man. Words like decent, nice, and principled were used more than once to describe his character. All in all, it was a cleansing experience to watch that funeral.

Then later in the day, my wife, Gail, called me down from my study to watch a few minutes of Oprah Winfrey who has brought into being a school in South Africa which will train hundreds of girls who come from the deepest poverty, from abuse and molestation and AIDS-dominated circumstances. The gleaming smiles on the girls' faces, their alertness in responding to questions, and their simple girlish beauty was stirring, arousing tears. All in all it was an inspirational experience to see what Ms Winfrey has accomplished through her compassion and determination to help others avoid the kind of background out of which she came.

Then in the evening on the national news came the report that Pat Robertson was informing our nation of a word he has received from God to wit that several million Americans (who knows where or how) would perish in some unspeakable disaster in 2007.

I must be frank here - what kind of a god tells someone, "there's going to be a big disaster in the next 12 months, but I'm not going to tell you when, or where, or who." When God told Abraham about an impending disaster, he mentioned the place: Sodom. Couldn't he have done the same this time?

Three experiences in one day: one about a man of whom President Bush said, "he brought grace to a nation in grave doubt." Another about a woman who decided to invest in the future of some remarkable girls. And a third about a man and his "god" who speaks vaguely about the doom of millions.

When I was a child, the people in my church would have disparaged a Gerry Ford who smoked a pipe and said "damn" on occasion. "Couldn't be a Christian," they would have said. But his achievements and personhood as celebrated in his funeral speak to me of what the Biblical tradition said of Joseph, the earthly father of Jesus: he was a righteous man.

The people in my sub-culture would have put distance between themselves and Oprah citing a few aspects of her private life that they would have found totally unacceptable.

But many of them would have embraced the third because he espouses an essentially evangelical theology. And they would not have through what his "prophecy" means to a larger world where many people think evangelicals are fools and now have a bit more evidence for their opinion.

Now I will humbly offer my own "prophecy" (if one minds). When Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, and Warren Buffet fork over billions (billions!) of dollars to deal with poverty, eradicate disease, find clean water, freshen the air, and educate the young, could God (just humor me here!) be saying to those who (like myself) claim an essential orthodox foundation of belief, "if you will not be known for doing these things unto to the least of my brothers, then I will use others not of your fold to get the job done."?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 10, 2007 | Comments (32)

December 29, 2006

The Top 10 Posts of 2006

These ten blog posts were not chosen by Leadership's editors, but by the thousands of visitors to Out of Ur every month. Thanks for contributing to the conversation this year. In order of popularity, here's a look back at the most visited and commented upon posts from ?06.

1.
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question
Finding a pastoral response.
The couple approached me immediately after the service. This was their first time visiting, and they really enjoyed the service, they said, but they had one question. You can guess what the question was about: not transubstantiation, not speaking in tongues, not inerrancy or eschatology, but where our church stood on homosexuality. Read more.

2.
The Haggard Truth
Gordon McDonald on soul assassins and the future of evangelicalism.
It is difficult beyond description to watch Ted Haggard's name and face dragged across the TV screen every hour on the news shows. But as my friend, Tony Campolo said in an interview last week, when we spend our lives seizing the microphone to speak to the world of our opinions and judgments, we should not surprised when the system redirects its spotlight to us, justly or unjustly, in our bad moments. Read more.

3.
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question (Part 4)
McLaren's response.
I read with interest - and some pain - the first few days' worth of responses to my article. I thought that some readers would be interested in a few of my responses to their responses. Read more.

4.
Brian McLaren on the Homosexual Question (Part 3)
A prologue and rant by Mark Driscoll.
Before I begin my rant, let me first defend myself. First, the guy who was among the first to share the gospel with me was a gay guy who was a friend. Second, I planted a church in my 20s in one of America's least churched cities where the gay pride parade is much bigger than the march for Jesus. Third, my church is filled with people struggling with same sex attraction and gay couples do attend and we tell them about the transforming power of Jesus. Read more.

5.
Your Own Personal Jesus
Is the language of "a personal relationship" biblical?
So how does one have a personal relationship with someone you can't talk to, share a glass of wine with, or even email? We need to do some fundamental reflection on the whole notion of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ. Read more.

6.
Nudity in Church
Is it art or obscenity?
I got a call Sunday morning as I was driving to our worship gathering. A friend informed me that the coffeehouse our church worshiped in had new artwork displayed including a number of nude drawings. He asked what we should do? No one taught me how to handle this in seminary. Read more.

7.
Is Emergent the New Christian Left (Part 2)
Tony Jones takes on Chuck Colson and "true truth".
Colson has had a burr under his saddle about the emerging church for some time - for instance, in his last column he equated the emerging church with namby-pamby praise music (as he was bemoaning how many Christian radio stations are dropping his daily commentaries). Read more.

8.
Word for Word
What is driving pastors to plagiarize?
In recent years I've been alarmed by how frequently I'm hearing reports of pastors plagiarizing sermons. Clearly, the internet has contributed to the problem. Sermons in both written and audio form are quickly accessible, and the temptation to plagiarize is easier than ever before to indulge. In this regard the sin differs little from the epidemic of internet pornography. Read more.

9.
The Greatest Show on Earth
Sunday morning should be the most entertaining time of the week.
For far too long the church has been lazy?that's right?LAZY. We have sat back on our butt and done nothing, asking God to "do it all" while claiming to be "led by the Spirit." And then people walk into our boring, lifeless, and predictable services and we give "God all the glory," or all the blame! Read more.

10.
Pastoral Ambition
Does success chip away at our souls?
Something has happened in the past thirty or so years that has shifted our pastoral ethic from one of faithfulness to one of productivity and success. I believe this has stirred the fires of ambition. Given the nature of our American culture, this doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that the battle with ambition will be a ferocious one, for the tendency toward self-absorption plagues every one of us. Read more.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 29, 2006 | Comments (6)

December 7, 2006

What's In a (Church) Name?

Gordon MacDonald told us a while back that the church he serves was considering changing its name. It has finally happened. His account of a 180-year-old congregation's year-long wrestling with its identity is amusing and instructive. Read on.

About a year ago I filled some of this space with comments about changing a church's name. At the time our New England congregation (Baptist in background) was thinking about exchanging its 180-year-old name for something more adaptable to the times. I invited comment from all my readers. And all four of you wrote to me. (Just fooling). Actually, there were a significant number of responses.

Many e-mails were thoughtful and gave evidence that people had done their homework and accumulated useful insight about how and why a church's public moniker ought to be reappraised occasionally and sometimes changed. One or two respondents trumped me by writing that if I prayed more, Jesus would provide the name since it is his church.

A name is important. It can say something about who you are or who you want to be.

There are name-changes throughout the Scriptures. Jesus renamed Simon Peter in order to map out his journey to maturity. The early church called Joseph of Cyprus Barnabas because he was a fountainhead of encouragement. And Saul of Tarsus became Paul in order to contextualize himself in the Greek-speaking world.

I'm one who believes a church name ought to arouse curiosity, reflect congregational character, or provide some sense of meaning as to why a church or organization exists. My opinion? First Baptist Church doesn't cut it any longer. And most of our people agreed - some enthusiastically; others with a compliant shrug of the shoulders.

Our people studied church names and the stories of name changes all across the country. Some stories they collected ended well; others reflected the anguish a congregation can go through when a few become determined to fight change of any kind. Here in this church we're New Englanders, the people who didn't go west many decades ago when Horace Greeley suggested it. Those who did embrace change left us and moved to California. We who stayed behind continued to love our stained-glass windows, our pipe organs, and our hard wooden pews. Why should it surprise you, then, that name changes come hard?

It was a big day when our leaders unanimously affirmed their desire to go for a change. It was an even bigger day when we identified a name that every one liked. It just popped up in conversation. I'm not sure that any of us remember who had the idea. Jesus, perhaps! When we first heard it, we raised holy hands and said in concert, "That's it!" And we stopped looking. The name we picked was CenterPoint Church. It grabbed us, and it offered a meaning that we quickly embraced.

Not so the entire congregation. Admittedly, there were some strugglers out there. And we waited, month after month, for the last 20 percent of our people to jump aboard. Convincing the first 80 percent was easy. The last 20 percent, however, were harder to persuade.

If we'd gone for a 51 percent majority on the new name, adopting it would have been a slam-dunk. Even 66 percent would have been an easy sale. But, being the masochists that we are, our leaders decided that we shouldn't change the name unless 80 percent of the folks said "Ah-yup!"

The night of the big business meeting came. The name change was item number four on the agenda. The first three items, leaders reasoned, were simple, rubber-stamp matters that could be disposed of quickly. But there were three or four Baptist saints who left their rubber stamps at home and kept us all going for two and one-half hours before item four got to the floor. Result? Several advocates of the name-change, younger family people, left to get their children home to bed. Most of them didn't think their votes would be needed.

When the vote was taken three and one-half hours into the meeting, we fell six votes short of the required 80 percent. Soul-searching time for leaders! The next evening we voted 18-to-16 (something like that) not to sulk, to be gracious, and to back off for a while.

Fortunately, the name-change issue didn't die. And some months later people rose up (a biblical term) and said to our leaders, "Let us go around another time." And we did. During the time between the votes I met a number of times with opponents of the name-change initiative. We talked, drank coffee, and did a little laughing. Much opposition vaporized. Not all, but enough that when the vote was taken a second time, it passed. Not by a lot, understand, but far enough beyond the 80 percent mark that everyone knew we could become CenterPoint Church with joy and confidence. Forty-eight hours later a new sign was on the front of the church. CenterPoint Church. And in small letters below: established 1818. We had our new name and a reminder that we've been around for a long time.

CenterPoint: what does it mean to us? It says that Jesus is at the center point of our lives together. And it says that we like being a church at the center point of our city where we want to make a difference in community life in the name of Jesus. And, finally, center point reminds us that each of us are "center points" of loving and serving influence wherever we work, live and pursue community involvement.

You can build an entire church mission around that name and those three meanings. And that is exactly what we're trying to do.

Better this wonderful name - CenterPoint - than the one an Old Testament mother gave her son: Ichabod, meaning, "The glory has departed from Israel."

So now you know the rest of the story. And you know that even in New England, an old church can find a new name, a fresh vision, and a confidence that there is a wonderful future.

Pastor and author Gordon MacDonald is chair of World Relief and editor-at-large of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 7, 2006 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

November 28, 2006

Picking up the Pieces

In the old nursery rhyme "all the king's horses and all the king's men" tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Likewise, when a pastor falls, a great amount of energy can be poured into the leader's restoration. But what about the fallen leader's church? In the wake of the Ted Haggard story we've invited Dave Terpstra, pastor at The Next Level Church in Denver, to share his reflections on leading a church after the fall of a gifted pastor.

What should a church do after the fallout of a disgraced leader's resignation? That was the question our team faced almost 6 years ago when our senior pastor resigned after the revelation of a disqualifying pattern of sin in his life. After the shock began to fade and reality began to set in, we sat around and asked ourselves, "What next?"

After the fall of a primary senior leader, it is the junior leaders of the church who are left holding the bag. Sometimes, in churches with a smaller staff, it is lay people who are left to lead the church. The fall of a primary leader requires the best leadership that a church can muster, and for most churches that sort of leadership usually came from the person who fell.

Thankfully, when we found ourselves in this situation a group of mature and experienced church leaders offered their support and advice to those of us left. It was their words of encouragement that allowed me to discover the one thing I believe every church needs after its leader has fallen - a team of leaders who focus on themselves before they focus on the church.

At the time our senior pastor resigned, I was 25 years old and still a full-time student at Denver Seminary. I had just bought a house and was getting ready to settle into a comfortable junior position at the church. I had no experience in the senior levels of church leadership. But in spite of my youth and inexperience I was invited to replace our senior pastor as the primary teacher on our new leadership team.

I have no intention of trying to argue that under our team's new leadership our church has been "successful". But I believe that two things are true. Our church has survived the fall of our charismatic founding pastor and I believe we have been faithful along the way. And I attribute that to God's faithfulness to us, and the primacy we as a leadership team placed on our own self leadership.

When thrust into this situation, a leader faces enormous challenges. The church's phone rings off the hook, the mailbox is full, perhaps the media calls, and everyone's email inbox is full of forwarded emails. People want to know what really happened. Rumors fly. And I can attest that all of these things are 100 times worse if the senior pastor does not publicly confess and own up to what they did.

So in the midst of this madness the leadership team must lead themselves first, before they can even try to lead others. Let me be specific with what areas they need to begin with:

1. As a team and as individuals leaders need to honestly wrestle with doubts and together slowly rebuild trust in God. At the same time leaders must grapple with belief in the church and in the role of pastor/elder in that church. This experience at the very least rocks our faith, but in some cases will shatter it all together.

2. As a team leaders must pledge to each other your total dependence on the plurality of your church's leadership. Since this event will cause an overwhelming lack of trust among the church in any one leader, it is essential that you commit to each other as a team.

3. Each leader must personally commit themselves to a level of vulnerability and honesty that makes them uncomfortable. It doesn't do the church any good to begin a leadership-wide witch hunt. However, in an environment where vulnerability and honesty was clearly not part of the ethos, each leader must themselves initiate a new level of candor in their conversations with those they trust.

4. As a team each member must commit to checking their ego at the door. The reality is that each of us who are left holding the bag will have the same temptations experienced by the person who handed it to us. "After all," we tell ourselves, "if they were hiding this major sin and God used them to build a huge church, how much more could God use me, someone who isn't hiding a major pattern of sin?" It seems silly now as I write it, but it didn't seem as silly when I first thought it 6 years ago.

If the leadership gurus of the world tell us that it is the job of a leader to define reality, then after the fall of a senior leader, the most important reality that must be defined is our own. What do we believe about God, the church, each other, honesty and ourselves?

I do not envy anyone who has to walk this road. But if this is the place you find yourself, walk faithfully. Lead yourself before you try and lead others. And remember the words of the Lord to Paul: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 28, 2006 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

October 3, 2006

Pastoral Ambition: Does success chip away at our souls?

In the summer issue of Leadership we told the story of Oak Hills Church in Folsom, California. Over six years Oak Hills jettisoned its consumer-driven methods to focus more on spiritual formation and deeper community. Today, the leaders of the church are pleased with their radical turnaround despite the turmoil it caused and the thousands who left. Kent Carlson is co-senior pastor of Oak Hills Church. In this post he discusses the shift in pastoral values in recent decades, and how we have come to view ambition not as a sin, but an asset.

I want to talk about pastoral ambition. I do so with some apprehension.

A few years ago, our church was "successful" enough for me to be invited to a small, elite group of pastors of large churches who were being mentored by one of the more successful and talented pastors in the country. It was a heady few days for me. I got to mix it up with some of the biggest names and up and coming stars in the large church subculture. I felt very important.

At the end of the conference, I rode back to the airport with the pastor who was at the bottom of the food chain in this little group of successful pastors. He was a bundle of insecurity and authentic enough to admit it to me. He was three years into his church plant and he only had 750 people coming to his church. He didn't feel he had the right to play with the big boys yet. Even back then, in the midst of my most ambitious days, I remember thinking that something is very wrong with a church culture that would make someone like this pastor feel insecure.

Something has happened in the past thirty or so years that has shifted our pastoral ethic from one of faithfulness to one of productivity and success. I believe this has stirred the fires of ambition. Given the nature of our American culture, this doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that the battle with ambition will be a ferocious one, for the tendency toward self-absorption plagues every one of us. I just wonder why this is not a front burner item that is being addressed with greater passion in the popular Christian media. It would be so refreshing to hear Christian leaders in some panel discussion copping to the fact that they struggle with it and it often drives their ministry. We all know it's there. If only we could start being honest about it.

Pastoral ambition is not new. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians told us, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of others."

Christian spiritual giants down through the centuries have pounded away aggressively on this theme. For example, that Puritan divine, Richard Baxter, said it this way: "Take heed lest, under the pretense of diligence in your calling, you be drawn to earthly-mindedness, and excessive cares or covetous designs for rising in the world."

I walk into this issue with loads of apprehension. There is no way to talk about pastoral ambition without sounding (and, I suspect, being) judgmental. After all, who am I to know the thoughts and intents of another person's heart? The inner motivations that drive all of us are a tangled web of sincerity and self-absorption, nobility and narcissism. This topic is, therefore, a land of cheap shots, often entered into by those intellectually lazy and simplistic souls who enjoy building straw men of those with whom they disagree and then tear them down.

In addition, I would like to make it clear, that I would rather follow an ambitious pastor than a lazy one. I would rather follow someone who wants to change the world than one who simply wishes to throw stones. And while many pastors who are leading thriving ministries are passionate, sincere, hungry for God, and brimming with integrity, I must raise the question. Is our ambition godly?

For more than twenty years I have attended church conferences. I have observed as we sized each other up to see how quickly we could find out who had the highest attendance, the largest staff, the biggest budget, the most property. The secret that hardly anyone talks about is that most of us want to win the "largest church game." Or at least make a good showing. I am convinced from first hand experience, as well as from paying close attention to the darkness of my own heart, that if all-of-the-sudden thought bubbles appeared over all our heads, we would all fall to the ground in repentance.

I am convinced that personal pastoral ambition, and a pastoral ethic centered around productivity and success is brutal to our souls and destructive to the souls of the people we lead. I believe there is a better way. But it requires us to walk right into the messiness of our own ambitious hearts, ready to die to those ambitions. We must become skilled at detecting the odor of personal ambition, then flee from it as if the church's future depends on it. For I believe it does.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 3, 2006 | Comments (64) | TrackBack

September 18, 2006

Jesus Leaders Part 2: Pastors at their best

What makes a good pastor? In seminary I was told a good pastor knows Greek and Hebrew. Church elders told me a good pastor keeps the budget in the black and people in the pews. In part two of his post, Jim Martin, pastor of Crestview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas, continues his thoughts on good pastors (a.k.a. "Jesus Leaders").

We are at our best when we help move men and women toward the kingdom of heaven. Contrast this with Jesus' observation that some teachers of his day seemed to get in the way of people moving ahead toward kingdom living. In far too many churches there is a disconnect between the men and women in the pews and those who are leading the church. How tragic when the church appears to be ahead of the leaders. How tragic when those who lead no longer have a genuine pastoral heart for people. Not so with Jesus leaders. They shepherd people like Jesus.

We are at our best when men and women in the community can really be better off because of our ministry. How sad when human beings are worse off for having come in contact with a church leader. People get short changed and hurt when they are used and manipulated by ministers. Far too often, ministers' actions are fueled by personal insecurities instead of the Gospel. Meanwhile, Jesus leaders bring the security, joy, and peace of the Gospel.

We are at our best when the people in our church can trust our integrity. Jesus speaks of the importance of integrity in regard to what one says. Integrity means that we speak truth both publicly and privately. You can count on what we are saying. We quote people accurately. We do not present someone else's material as our own. We do not promise to repay a debt and then "forget" about it. Integrity is not about what we said in that last five-part series (complete with a nice PowerPoint presentation). Integrity is who we are when no one is looking.

We are at our best when we, as leaders, stay focused on what is most important. Jesus makes it clear that loving God and loving people are at the very heart of the law (Matt. 22:34-40). Yet, it is so easy to get focused on things that are relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Jesus leaders are focused on what is front and center. They will not be guilty of worrying about a gnat in the soup while they swallow something the size of a camel (Matt. 23:24). Do our ministries reflect that we are investing our time in what matters most to God?

We are at our best when through our ministry the hearts and lives of the people are changing. Unfortunately, too many of us are overly conscious of numbers. How many bodies were in the big room on Sunday? Meanwhile, Jesus spoke of his concern for the way things were inwardly. Are lives being changed? Are marriages and families being healed? We were never meant to be a people who merely looked the part while inwardly as corrupt as anyone else.

What kind of leadership ought to be present in a church? The answer is going to be found as we get serious about being Jesus leaders who both teach and do. That is when we are at our best.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 18, 2006 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

September 14, 2006

Purpose-Driven Conflict: churches split over the popular ministry model

The Wall Street Journal recently ran an article discussing conflicts caused by pastors seeking to implement the popular Purpose-Driven Church model in their congregations. Scot McKnight, professor of New Testament at North Park University in Chicago, and one of our favorite bloggers writes here about the WSJ article and asks some important questions about the Purpose-Driven philosophy of ministry.

The gist of the Wall Street Journal article is that some churches split or experience serious tension when pastors try to implement the Purpose-Driven Church model. The pastors who are trying to implement such changes seem to have good reasons: they want their churches to gain a clear mission and to grow, but it always comes at the cost of change for the parishioners.

The Purpose-Driven model focuses on these five elements: worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry, and evangelism. It also seeks to move people from community, to crowds, to congregation, to committed, and then to the core. Thus, it leads from knowing Christ to growing in Christ to serving Christ to sharing Christ.

Here are the questions that come to mind for me from this article about churches struggling over adapting the model, and I'm keen on hearing what you have to say.

And this "keen" comes with the bonus requests to behave yourself and to avoid calling people names.

Does the five-fold scheme of the Purpose-Driven model adequately reflect the central concerns of the New Testament's understanding of what the Church is all about? What would you do differently in coming up with five central themes?

Does the use of surveys to discern need and audience and strategy trouble you?

Is there an inherent marketing strategy in all of this, and what is wrong with "marketing" the Church? If the essence of evangelism is declaring good news and "persuasion" of its truth - both in dependence on the Spirit and in the use of everything we can muster - and if marketing is about persuasion, and if there are commonalities between all acts of persuasion, what is the distinction between Church persuasion and marketing persuasion?

Do the criticisms of the changes being made in some of these comments in the newspaper article suggest to you that some of these folks just don't want to see their church change? How do we deal with the older folks who simply don't like it that the younger Christians want changes in the churches?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 14, 2006 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

September 12, 2006

Jesus Leaders: What pastors were meant to be

Pastors have an image problem. Despite the growing number of celebrity pastors on television, radio, and bookstore shelves, the wider culture's respect for clergy has been declining for generations. Jim Martin, pastor of Crestview Church of Christ in Waco, Texas, reflects in this article about Jesus' words to religious leaders and how they can help us

The plane was about to take off from Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. I noticed the man in the seat across the aisle, one row up, as he began to read The Dallas Morning News. On the front page of the paper in bold letters was a jarring headline. A local pastor had been found guilty of sexually assaulting three women. I watched my fellow passenger as he began reading the story. I wondered what was going through his mind.

Many people are cynical about the church. That's not news. There are many reasons for this cynicism. Some are cynical because of a basic mistrust of the people leading these churches. Some feel burned after learning a leader was living an immoral lifestyle. Others have been burned by placing their confidence in some church leader only to be severely disappointed due to displays of anger, ego, manipulation, etc. In contrast to these experiences, many people today would find genuine Jesus leaders to be quite refreshing.

I honestly believe most preachers, pastors, ministers, and church leaders in general want to do what is right. We get bogged down in systems and models of ministry that are choking the life out of the body of Christ. It might be helpful if we think about preachers, pastors, ministers, and church leaders the way they were meant to be. I want to refer to all of these roles as "Jesus leaders." So, what were Jesus leaders meant to be?

(You may recognize these as Matthew 23 in reverse.)

We are at our best when we practice what we preach. Jesus once scolded the Pharisees and teachers of the law. Yet he told the people to obey them and do what they say to do. He then told his hearers not to follow their example. He bluntly said they did not practice what they preached. Imagine this conversation today: "You are going to visit XYZ Church? Oh, you will enjoy the sermons! One warning: Beware of the preacher's personal example; it's lousy!"

Jesus paints a stark picture of a people who tell others what to do while they sit by aloof and distant, watching the people struggle with their lives but offering no help. It is not enough to have a church full of talkers. Theology and practice are not two separate issues. They are one. Credibility for ministry is not found in talking alone but in doing the Gospel as well. Jesus leaders both talk and do the Gospel.

We are at our best when Jesus ? rather than our own ego ? is front and center. Jesus leaders model service instead of seeking ways for their egos to be massaged. The pastor I mentioned earlier was just sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary. State District Judge Scott Wisch said in the sentencing, "You manipulated ? (religion) for the worst possible purpose." He went on to say that this showed the danger of abandoning Christian self-sacrifice for self-gratification.

Far too many ministers allow ego to get in the way. While we may be critical of some who are much too focused on church size, others of us get just as focused on how many hits our blog might be getting compared with someone else's. Ego has a way of revealing its ugly head in a variety of forms.

In contrast, Jesus leaders are to model self-sacrifice, not self-gratification. They understand that the son of man did not come to be served but to serve. Jesus leaders do not see service as a path to greatness. Rather, the service itself is greatness.

Part 2 of Jim Martin's article will be posted soon. To read more of his reflections on the church and ministry visit his blog here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 12, 2006 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

June 15, 2006

The President & The Pastor (part 2): more lessons from George W. Bush’s brave/reckless leadership style

In May, NY Times book reviewer Michiko Kakutani surveyed seventeen books written about the leadership of President Bush. Her article, which summarized what Bush’s fans and critics have observed about his leadership style, caught the attention of Out of Ur blogger Andy Rowell. Andy is a teacher of church leadership at Taylor University and a former pastor. In part 2 of his post, he reminds us that some bureaucracy may actually be good, and he champions the value of transparency.

Lesson 3: Remember that some policies and procedures created generations before us actually make sense.
There is nothing more annoying than a policy that does not make sense to us. There certainly may be policies on the books at your church that no longer fulfill their original intended functions.

By all accounts, President Bush inherited a dysfunctional overly bureaucratic intelligence establishment. Sensing this, the Bush administration created a special office to look into the evidence for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In doing so, they unintentionally avoided experts and procedures that would have noticed and corrected some of the weaknesses in the intelligence gathering methods and conclusions.

One of the hardest things for a pastor is getting permission to do things. Often times, we have to wait until the next committee meeting to get our initiative approved. At that meeting, the issue is discussed but there is a request for more information before a final decision can be made at next month's board meeting! Frequently, we're sorry we asked! Isn't it just better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission? But sometimes these cumbersome policies and procedures help protect us from our own blind spots.

Lesson 4: Be honest and transparent about what you are doing.

President Bush permitted wire-tapping without full public disclosure because his team believed getting permission wasn't fully necessary. But when it became public he was highly criticized for it. Apparently, even National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice does not always get consulted when things are happening. For example, she reportedly was not informed about the plans to house foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

In pastoral ministry there are certainly times when levels of confidentiality and limited disclosure are called for. For example, some people will be working with a couple having difficulty in their marriage. Not everyone in the church needs to know what is going on. But in general, our desire to keep something we are doing secret is an indicator that something is wrong.

Once I bought a board game for $40 with money from the church budget in order to use it for one evening's activities. I ended up using the game for about twenty minutes. Was that worth the money? I found myself debating whether I should pay for the game out of my own money or with the church’s. I ended up sheepishly explaining my questions to my Senior Pastor. We ended up deciding that I would pay for it myself and keep the game because the church would have no ongoing use for it. Even though I have not used the game since, it was probably the right decision because I learned again the importance of financial integrity in the church.

The point is that in the ministry we sometimes do things we feel mildly embarrassed about. Bush and team probably felt a bit embarrassed about the wiretaps and Guantanamo. Their temptation was to keep these things private and secretive for as long as possible. Bob Woodward, one of the journalists who helped uncover Watergate, says that presidents can make mistakes but they just need to admit them promptly and clearly. When a mistake is admitted, people are stirred up momentarily but they let the issue go. Similarly, as pastors, if our conscience bothers us, let's expose the offending issue to others. If we have a desire to be secretive, there is probably something wrong.

Conclusion: Perhaps we are better off seeking to be faithful rather than seeking to make an impact.

The last line of Kakutani’s article says:

The administration's growing problems suggest that Mr. Bush might have done well to put aside his yearning, as Fred Barnes notes, to be an "event-making leader" who "by himself, changes the course of history" and focused instead on a task Mr. Barnes says is not even on the president's radar: "being an 'eventful leader' who merely handles the tribulations of his era skillfully."

The same might be said to us. Like the president, we badly want to "make a difference." We want to "make an impact." That is good.

But may we first endeavor to be faithful. There is something deeply noble about someone who "merely" serves faithfully in the midst of the trials and tribulations of local church life. Life will be full of enough problems for us to overcome without causing a number of them by our foolishness and ambition.

Instead, may we take the situations that are given to us and approach them with all the courage and wisdom we can muster. And may we recognize that the "opportunities" that demand we compromise our integrity in order to "tackle them" are in fact temptations of the evil one. May we have the courage and conscience to bypass the ambition and the fame despite the cutting label "ordinary." Another One will call us faithful.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 15, 2006 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

June 13, 2006

The President & The Pastor: lessons from George W. Bush’s brave/reckless leadership style

In 2000, Bill Hybels invited President Clinton to speak at Willow Creek's Leadership Summit. The controversial move was based on the assumption that pastors could learn from Clinton's leadership experience - both his triumphs and his mistakes. Following this tradition Ur blogger, Andy Rowell, examines President Bush's leadership style to glean wisdom for ministers. Andy teaches church leadership at Taylor University in Upland, Indiana, and previously served as the Associate Pastor at Granville Chapel in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Pulitzer prize-winning NY Times book critic Michiko Kakutani reviewed seventeen recent books about President George W. Bush in her May 11, 2006 article entitled "Critic's Notebook: All the President's Books (Minding History's Whys and Wherefores)." She concludes that Bush's supporters and critics agree on one thing - that he often ignores advice and chains of command in decision-making. While this approach has the potential to bring fresh ideas to useless bureaucracy, it can also lead to poor decisions. Kakutani's article raises serious questions about the decision-making processes of the Bush administration. Still, the breadth of her reading, her attempt to make her points without partisan exaggeration, and her thorough documentation, make the article wonderful fodder for anyone (Bush fan or hater) seeking to learn about leadership.

In particular it seems that young pastors like me [I'm thirty years old] can learn much from the effects of President Bush's brave/reckless leadership style. As young pastors we can easily spot things that look outdated or overly bureaucratic. We can walk into a room and have a vision for how things could be spruced up. In some ways, young pastors are in demand precisely for these instincts. We have fresh eyes to old problems. We have fresh energy to tackle big challenges. And yet, Bush's example reminds us to take care as we lead.

Lesson 1: Be cautious before acting on our first impression.

Kakutani notes a number of Bush insiders who have indicated that Iraq was on the agenda of the administration before 9-11. They also admit that there was never a clear process by which the decision was made to go to war. The troops were sent to the region and then eventually it happened. Other economic advisors complain that Bush's staff was not interested in hearing any alternative to their drive to cut taxes. There is surely more to each of these stories than these simple characterizations but still the lesson is apparent.

As pastors, we cannot help but make initial impressions about what needs to be done when we enter a church. Still, those initial judgments may not be reliable. When I was new to the church where I pastored, I was disturbed by the shabbiness of the decor of the church building. Six years later, we did end up getting new carpet but in the process I learned a number of things that tempered that first impression.

I learned that on Sunday mornings with hundreds of buzzing people, the carpet was less noticeable. It was most noticeable to me during the week when no one was around. In that case, is it worth replacing the carpet for the pastor's morale on Wednesday? I also learned that this church gave more of a percentage of its budget to missions than any church I had ever attended. I also learned that in an urban setting, immaculate cheery suburban decor may turn as many people off as it attracts.

Lesson 2. Seek out and pay attention to qualified advisors.

According to Kakutani's article, Bush and team did not listen to thoroughly researched reports that Iraq would most likely need a huge investment of time, money and soldiers. They were quite sure that the American soldiers would be greeted as liberators so they dismissed these inconvenient warnings by marginalizing these voices even if they had previously been supporters. (Interestingly, I just heard that Bush got together today, June 12, with some of his advisors to talk about Iraq. These are not necessarily people who have agreed with Bush's handling of the war, but who are acknowledged experts in war strategy. See Bush invites his critics to a war council at Camp David).

As young pastors we should run our plans past a wise pastor friend before we decide to rip all the pews out of the sanctuary. Our initial sense is that we will be greeted as liberators from the status quo, but then again, the response might be mixed. And if that wise older pastor counsels caution, will we discount the advice because he is old and out of touch, or will we take that counsel as an invitation to sharper reflection on the pros and cons of our approach?

At my church, I was a bit frustrated that so few people were attending from the surrounding neighborhood. "Something should be done" I thought, "and I guess I should do it since no one else is." (Ah, the mixture of passion, pride and ignorance.) I began making plans. Fortunately, I was in the habit of briefing my senior pastor weekly on my projects and plans. He gently described to me the efforts that had been made over the last thirty years to reach out to the surrounding neighborhood.

Thankfully, my "aha" moment occurred in his office rather than on one of our neighbor's doorsteps. His narrative helped me see that my instincts were good but any new attempt would need to take into account that many of the neighbors may have had negative experiences with outreach attempts in the past. We ended up giving each neighbor a free Christmas poinsettia plant with a friendly note to thank them for their patience with all the traffic and parking problems that our church generated. It warmed up some relationships that had been cold.

When we sincerely seek out the opinions of others, they will at times say things that jar us - that do not fit with our nicely arranged plans. It is easy to dismiss them as negative or vision-challenged, but if we dismiss them prematurely we endanger ourselves and our flock.

Andy Rowell will be posting more lessons from George W. Bush in part 2 of The President & The Pastor.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 13, 2006 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

May 17, 2006

Is Ministry Leadership Different 2: a response to Andy Stanley

Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church, is interviewed in the current issue of Leadership on his leadership style. Highlights from the interview were posted on Out of Ur in March. Stanley defends the incorporation of secular business practices in the church - a philosophy of ministry that has fueled evangelicalism for the last 25 years and pollinated megachurches across the fruited plains. But church-as-corporation and the pastor-as-CEO have come under increasing criticism, and Stanley has felt this heat.

In the interview Stanley says:

One of the criticisms I get is "Your church is so corporate?" And I say, "OK, you're right. Now why is that a bad model?" A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles.

Honestly, are we really to believe that the mere existence of a principle is the same as God advocating our employment of it? The flawed logic here reminds me of Greg Fokker's assertion that "you can milk just about anything with nipples," and Robert De Niro's rebuttal, "I have nipples, Greg, could you milk me?"

Jesus said, "The rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them." That is a principle of leadership, and a very popular one. But Jesus then emphatically declares, "Not so with you!" Simply because a model exists or is popular does not make it accessible to the church. Jesus calls us to lead his church in a manner that reflects his own servant method and the counter-culture reality of his kingdom. In other words, Jesus believes that truly Christian leadership is revealed in both its function and its form. The two cannot be divorced.

This is the primary flaw I see among those promoting church-as-corporation - they wish to disassociate business structures from the fruit they produce. Sure, market-driven business models can create large and efficient ministry organizations, but what is the impact on the lives, spirits, and characters of those immersed in them? After all, the church isn't commissioned to sell a product. We are commissioned to change lives that bear spiritual fruit.

Marshall Shelley, editor of Leadership, tells about Jerry, a pastor who finally told his business-minded elders to stop imposing their corporate models upon the church. With pastoral firmness Jerry said to his elders:

The next time a sentence begins, "In the business world, we?" please know that I'm not interested in the rest of that sentence. The church is not the business world. As I've observed the effects of the business world on people's lives, it doesn't produce the traits that the church is about: joy, contentment, grace, and love. I don't see the business world as a model for encouraging the kinds of lives we're called to live.

Bravo, Jerry!

This pastor's insights are validated by research done both in Europe and the US. In 2000 a UK study found British professionals to be the most depressed and unhealthy group of managers in Europe. They also have the highest divorce rates. The study, commissioned by a healthcare company, said that a major reason for the poor condition of British corporate workers is that "the UK has Americanized faster than any other country during the 80s and 90s."

On this side of the pond, author Jill Andresky Fraser chronicles the decline of corporate culture in America and the negative impact the business environment has on people and families in her book, White-Collar Sweatshop. Fraser cites a Lexus commercial as indicative of modern corporate culture, "Sure, we take vacations - they're called lunch breaks."

Even if we dismiss this work by sociologists and healthcare researchers, anecdotal evidence suggests that few Americans find corporate environments, or their leaders, admirable. A recent survey showed that only 25% of people trust corporate executives - slightly higher than the 23% that trust used-car dealers.

I don't believe those in favor of liberally applying business models to the church, like Andy Stanley, are advocating cultures of corruption, backbiting, or greed. But one must ask, if the structures that have produced these ungodly qualities in America's most "successful" corporations are worthy of emulation among God's people?

The second reason I believe the corporate model is bad for the church is more straight forward - it hasn't worked. As corporate models have flourished in ministry the church in North America has lost ground both quantitatively and qualitatively. While business models are not solely to blame for this decline they certainly haven't helped. Research done by George Barna and Gallup, disturbingly summarized in Ronald Sider's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, shows "Evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general."

Similarly, many church leaders are lured by corporate structures that promise to generate large ministries with more evangelistic impact. But Outreach Magazine recently published a special report that finds church attendance has been steadily declining for decades despite the increase in megachurches. Just as corporate giants Wal-Mart and Home Depot have thrived at the expense of smaller outlets, megachurches have succeeded primarily by absorbing their smaller predecessors. Dave Olson says:

"Some of the people in those mid-sized churches are the ones leaving and going to the larger churches. There are multiple expectations on mid-sized churches that they can't meet - programs, dynamic music, quality youth ministries. We've created a church consumer culture."

The evidence reveals that the American church is consolidating but not growing. In fact, less than 18% of the population regularly attends church, and if something radical is not done, this number will drop to 11% by 2050. Thom Rainer says, "The failure of churches to keep up with the population growth is one of the Church's greatest issues heading into the future." And the solution isn't a more efficient corporate model, but rather a grassroots movement comprising thousands of church plants.

Unlike the explosive church growth being experienced in Asia, Africa, and South America in recent years, the U.S. church seems to display little spiritual vigor or power. Has our reliance on the wisdom of marketers and business principles displaced dependence upon God's Spirit? The fact that less than 1 in 25 churches ranks prayer as a priority may reveal the answer. Perhaps many pastors can relate to Stanley when he confesses, "There is nothing distinctly spiritual" about his leadership.

Posted by Skye Jethani at May 17, 2006 | Comments (36) | TrackBack

March 27, 2006

Is Ministry Leadership Different? Andy Stanley and Jim Collins in an unexpected point-counterpoint

How is ministry leadership different from other kinds of leadership? In the next exciting issue of Leadership, Pastor Andy Stanley and business expert and author Jim Collins (Built to Last, Good to Great) offered answers that left me scratching my head. Can they both be right? Read some excerpts below.

"What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do?" I asked Andy Stanley. Nothing, he said. "There's nothing distinctly spiritual. I think a big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership."

His answer surprised me.

As pastor of a thriving megachurch north of Atlanta, with an additional ten satellite locations fed his sermons by video, Stanley is becoming the model for the next generation of large church pastors.

Younger by about a decade than Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, Andy really seems to connect with younger leaders. We noticed it among the attenders at the annual Catalyst conferences. Organized jointly, at first, by Stanley's North Point Community Church and John Maxwell's InJoy Ministries, the Catalyst conferences have increasingly featured Andy. He is the headliner, opening the gathering as incentive for attenders to arrive on time, and presenting the closing session in hopes that they will stay to the end. It works. Andy's frequent speeches on integrity hold the crowd's attention better than Maxwell's chestnuts on momentum and irrefutable laws.

Because Andy connects well with younger leaders, who in general are bent more toward spiritual formation than church growth, I expected Andy to talk about the spiritual nature of leadership. He did not. He did talk about prayer and seeking good counsel and the crucial nature of integrity in the leaders with whom he surrounds himself; but leadership, even church leadership, is not distinctly spiritual, he said.

"I grew up in a culture where everything was overly spiritualized," Andy said. "I don't want to be a cynic, but raking out all the spiritual versus non-spiritual, I think, is healthy."

He agreed with those who contend that good leadership is good leadership, whatever the setting. "One of the criticisms I get is ?Your church is so corporate?' And I say, ?OK, you're right. Now why is that a bad model?'"

Good business principles work for Andy and North Point. "A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles," he summarized.

I must admit I felt a bit incredulous. I thought I'd hear something that backed up the pendulum swing we have heard prominent emerging leaders identify--that younger leaders don't buy all the church growth stuff, that the models that built megachurches worked for boomers, but for Gen-X and younger? Fuggidaboudit. That business models, while they may inform church leadership, do not define it; that church leaders are spiritual leaders and spiritual leadership must be, well, spiritual.

"Churches should quit saying, ?Oh, that's what business does,'" Andy said. "That whole attitude is so wrong, and it hurts the church. In terms of the shifting culture, I say thanks to guys like Bill Hybels and others who have been unafraid to say we have a corporate side to ministry; it's going to be the best corporate institution it can possibly be, and we're not going to try to merge first century [with the 21st ]."

The ground shifted a little at that comment. Then I heard an opposite view from an unexpected quarter. It was, in fact, Jim Collins, author of the paradigm-altering business book Good to Great, who pointed out some of the uniquenesses of church leadership. Some church leaders have put Good to Great on the same shelf with Purpose-Driven Life and the Bible. But Collins, who admits he is not an expert on churches, is beginning to see that not all his business principles apply to ministry settings.

"One of the things from Good to Great that really resonated with church leaders was the Level 5 Leadership finding," Collins told us, "that leaders who took companies from good to great are characterized by personal humility and by a fierce determination to a cause that is larger than themselves.

"I was delighted how the Level 5 concept took hold, and yet the deeper I got into it, the more I realized that Level 5 leadership looks different in a non-business setting. A church leader often has a very complicated governance structure. There can be multiple sources of power, constituencies in the community, constituencies in the congregation. With all of that, you're going to run into trouble if you try to lead a church as a czar. Church leaders have to be adept in a more communal process, what we came to call ?legislative' rather than an ?executive' process."

Jim Collins recognizes that church leadership is different, and in many ways harder. That did my heart good. Not every business principle is right for ministry leadership.

Both men agreed on the dangers of unanimity. While it's often posited as evidence of the Holy Spirit's guidance, Stanley warned his own elders against requiring 100 percent agreement on big decisions. "It sounds so spiritual, but?I knew it would've been the worst possible thing we could do."

Collins concurs: "I've never found an important decision made by a great organization that was made at a point of unanimity. Significant decisions carry risks and inevitably some will oppose it. In these settings, the greatest legislative leader must be artful in handling uncomfortable decisions, and this requires rigor."

Thanks guys, I'll think about that. Rigorously.

Andy Stanley and Jim Collins are interviewed in the Spring issue of Leadership, which will be published in April.

Posted by Eric Reed at March 27, 2006 | Comments (34) | TrackBack

October 27, 2005

Darned Sox: An Exercise in Rebuilding a Team

Marshall Shelley becomes a fan of the newly well-led White Sox.

Though I've lived in Chicago more than twenty years, when it came to the White Sox, I was only a casual fan (is that an oxymoron?). Until recently.

Yes, I attended games in both old Comiskey Park and more recently "The Cell" (it's still hard for me to endorse a telecommunications product every time I want to refer to a ballpark). I rooted for the South Side Hit Men of the 1970s and witnessed the infamous Disco Demolition night.

I understood the Sox' inferiority complex. They frequently voiced sour irritation over a city that gives preferential treatment to the Cubs. But let's face it, in a long-term relationship, lovable losers are easier to identify with than sore losers.

But all that changed this year.

The White Sox emerged as baseball's best team, sweeping the Houston Astros in the World Series and winning an utterly impressive 11 out of 12 postseason games. When a friend of mine from Denver Seminary managed to snag tickets to Game 1 of this year's World Series, I pounced on the opportunity to cheer on my new favorite team.

Their record wasn't what won them their fans - in Chicago or elsewhere. Other teams have had dominant records but not inspired the imagination. Catch my drift, Mr. Steinbrenner?

What caused the turnaround - both in the team's fortunes and in the public's excitement? For me, anyway, it was the team's exercise of creative leadership.

It started with general manager Kenny Williams's imagination. He reshaped the Sox, who were overstocked with power hitters a year ago. He traded away home run producers like Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez and brought in speedster Scott Podsednik and sparkplug A.J. Pierzynski and versatile Tadahito Iguchi. He recognized the need to try a different approach and pulled together a new team, less "impressive" but more likely to work together.

Coach Ozzie Guillen brought a delightful combination of intensity and fun. I remember watching Guillen as a shortstop back in the early 1990s. He wasn't the most powerful hitter, but he hustled, played great defense, and clearly had fun playing. As a manager, he brought that spirit to his team, and it was contagious.

This year "Ozzie ball" came to be understood not as waiting for someone to hit a home run, but as small steps toward making something happen - base hits, bunts, steals, aggressive base running. His brand of baseball wasn't something just for the studs; it was performed by relatively normal players who disciplined themselves to master the fundamentals.

I kept thinking of the leadership principle: "Excellent leaders get extraordinary results from ordinary people."

Ozzie inspired workmanlike players to do the little things. In the World Series, we saw free swinging Carl Everett lay down a perfect bunt. We saw Aaron Rowand smack a hit and run. We saw Jermaine Dye foul off pitches to work the count. We saw Juan Uribe dive into the stands for a foul ball. Joe Crede, benched earlier in the season for inconsistent play, was spectacular on defense and timely in his hitting. Coming off the bench, Willie Harris, Geoff Blum, and the entire bullpen played key roles. A total team effort, they did the little stuff that makes the game fun to watch.

In the end, Houston's Killer B's (Bagwell, Biggio, Berkman, et al) were no match for Chicago's Killer P's (Podsednik, Pierzynski, and Paul-eee Konerko).

It was a case study in effective leadership. At least for one formerly casual fan.

Marshall Shelley is editor of Leadership and a recent immigrant to the White Sox Nation.

Copyright ? 2005 Christianity Today International/Leadership Journal.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 27, 2005 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 26, 2005

Ministry Taxidermy: Don't Stuff the Dog

(Our friend Angie Ward is a writer, mentor, and ministry leader in North Carolina. She is the founder of Forward Leadership, a ministry coaching ministry. She is also a regular contributor to Leadership journal and our e-newsletter, Leadership Weekly.)

When I worked at a camp in northern Wisconsin, my fellow staff members often told a story about a cat that had lived on the campgrounds for many years. When the cat died, one prankster decided to have the cat stuffed, then placed it in strategic locations to startle other staff members and visitors. (I swear I am not making this up.)

Apparently, the cat appeared serenely napping on a car dashboard, cuddled at the feet of a secretary, and propped up with a sign directing visitors to the camp office before it was kidnapped (or should I say cat-napped?), never to be seen again.

I was reminded of this story when I read that actor Alan Alda, most famously of the TV show "M*A*S*H" and more recently of "The West Wing," recently wrote a book entitled, Never Have Your Dog Stuffed: And Other Things I've Learned. In it, Alda talks about how he had a beloved pet dog when he was eight years old. When the dog died, Alda was so sad about burying it that his father decided to have the dog stuffed instead.

"We kept it on the porch and deliverymen were afraid to make deliveries," Alda recalled in an interview with Newsweek. He then continued, "There are a lot of ways we stuff the dog, trying to avoid change, hanging on to a moment that's passed."

Churches seem to have a special proclivity toward "stuffing the dog," maintaining programs, buildings, and even members in an attempt to forestall necessary change. In the short term, it's sometimes much easier to stuff a church's pets than to acknowledge their death, grieve their loss, and give them an appropriate burial.

Like Alda's dog and the camp cat, stuffed animals might bring temporary comfort to those inside the organization, but they may actually turn off or even frighten newcomers who aren't familiar with the history and meaning behind them. Whether it's a particular worship style, a ritual, an outdated program, or even a powerful clique within the church, visitors will usually be quick to notice that something's not quite right. They may not stick around to find out what, or why.

One of the key tasks of a good leader is to acknowledge reality. Sometimes, that means burying a beloved pet, rather than propping it up in denial of its passing, even if it's your pet.

For the ministry leader, a potential danger is to bury the ministerial dog without telling anyone that it died, or worse, without even acknowledging that it existed. Burying a dead dog does not diminish its significance to the church family. On the contrary, a proper burial should include celebration of the metaphorical pet's impact, as well as acknowledgement that some people will need to grieve the loss over a period of time. Even when everyone agrees that an animal is dead, a wise leader will allow time to process the loss, instead of just bringing home a new pet.

This is especially true for young leaders like me, who can be quick to implement change without fully understanding the history of an organization or acknowledging the emotional and spiritual impact - both positive and negative - of past pets. Whether a church's "pet" is significant to you personally, you need to realize that there may be a lot of emotion stirred up by its passing. Recognize the loss, but celebrate the life, as well.

But keeping your dog's picture on your desk is much different than keeping the actual dead dog on your desk, at your feet, or propped up in your leadership meetings or even the church foyer. In a healthy church, only the nursery will have stuffed animals.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 26, 2005 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 21, 2005

Flowbee, Jesus, and Me: A Catalyst Echo

My hair stylist cancelled my appointment yesterday because of a schedule conflict, and for a few minutes afterward I searched the Internet for the Flowbee, the vacuum-attachment haircutting system that lets you give yourself a buzz cut. (I really, really need a haircut.) Very popular on the infomercials a decade ago, the Flowbee is still manufactured, and if the testimonials are to be believed, still giving great haircuts. But few people are buying them anymore. After a couple of recalls and too many jokes about the product, the Flowbee just isn't selling.

Oddly, the Flowbee reminded me of what Donald Miller said at Catalyst in Atlanta earlier this month. At the pre-conference session, Miller (of Blue Like Jazz and the Campus Confession Booth) pondered the growing consumerism in our society and in our faith. I was prepared for him to deride the consumerist nature of churches, especially megachurches, but I didn't expect this one comment:

We've turned Jesus into a product, and we've become products ourselves. (That's an indirect quote, but it's pretty close to his exact words.)

Our churches are products, he said predictably, and we sell them to church shoppers based of the quality of our programs, the relevance of our preaching, the coolness of our worship, and even the authenticity of our community.

(Louie Giglio's later message on worship echoed this theme, that worship has become a product rather than interpersonal communion with God; we can have superior worship experiences and still be deficient in relationship with God, because it's become all about the worship rather than the One we worship.)

But Miller caught my attention when he said we've turned Jesus into a product - the healer of hurts, the soother of raw feelings, the better-than-a-brother friend. In my part of the world, we'd say he's the WD-40/duct tape combo pack: all you need to fix almost anything. And thus, Jesus has become a product. (Am I guilty of selling Jesus? I wondered, thinking back to my last sermon. Sure, the televangelists with their Scripture key chains and Jesus pins and healing hankies and Protestant holy water are guilty, but am I?)

And Miller stopped me cold when he said we, as believers, have become products.

Is Miller correct? Have we become not trophies of grace, but the by-products of a product-Savior and his product, the church? Are we the fixed, the recalled-and-repaired, the better-than-new, the but-wait-there's-more, and the soon-irrelevant - like so many Flowbees?

I think I don't want to be a product.

But I still need a haircut.

Posted by Eric Reed at October 21, 2005 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 7, 2005

Catalyst Dispatch: Andy Stanley on Integrity

(Here's a post from Cory Whitehead, editor of the Building Church Leaders newsletter, one our Leadership guys on site at the Catalyst conference here in Atlanta.)

Integrity. We hear all about it today, or at least the lack thereof. Enron, Martha, fallen church leaders. We hear about the breakdown of integrity constantly, but we don't hear much about the upright, about those that do not and will not compromise their integrity. Those stories usually have to come out in our personal conversations and experiences.

At this year's Catalyst Conference, Andy Stanley spoke about integrity. In 1 Samuel 24:1-4a, David had the perfect opportunity to kill Saul, stop living like a bandit, and take over the leadership of Israel as God had promised. David had the opportunity to put an end to it when, in the only place in the Bible that it speaks of "relieving oneself," Saul enters a cave to do so. Consequently, Saul enters the cave that David and his men are hiding in.

But David didn't take offense. The perfect opportunity to move forward, to make progress, to "follow God's will," but he didn't take it. Why?

He showed tremendous restraint. He decided to wait on God to crown him king, not to take matters into his own hands. He didn't kill the king because, after all, God had a law against killing. He didn't bypass the law and principles of God. And He trusted God's greater wisdom and plan.

We like to take matters into our own hands and to progress. We like to call some opportunities "open doors" in order to make progress. But "open doors" aren't always an invitation from God, said Stanley. Not when they're against God's laws, principles, and wisdom.

Stanley reminded me that I'm not too good at evaluating my circumstances. I get emotional and saturated by my environment. Stanley made a good point, something I need to remember when it looks like the stars are aligning and "God is opening a door." He said "opportunities must be weighed against something other than the uniqueness of the circumstances surrounding them."

We like to make progress, so when something looks, feels, sounds like a God thing, we chalk it up to what? A God thing. But in 1 Samuel 24, David says this to Saul, "May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you.

David waits. And through waiting, his situation later turned out better than if he would have been crowned king by means of assassination. Stanley and King David reminded me that the most direct route to what I want is RARELY the best route.

How have I comprised my integrity lately and chalked it up to a God thing? How have I practiced the God-talk, but really I was compromising my integrity by defying the laws, principles, and greater wisdom of God. How have you?

Cory Whitehead
From Atlanta

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 7, 2005 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Catalytic Conversion

Leadership editor Marshall Shelley reports from Catalyst, a conference for young leaders.

After two days at the 2005 Catalyst Conference in Atlanta, I've picked up the mixed feelings that the emerging generation has about leadership. Even though Catalyst is billed as a conference for "young leaders," the attendees I've talked to don't openly aspire to leadership, at least not "the strong, dominant leader" model.

No one openly and forthrightly says (as I heard young people say 20 years ago), "I want to be a leader." Or "I hope to be a person of great influence someday." Instead, the conferees at Catalyst carefully parse the meaning of the word leadership. The attendees see the importance of good leadership, and everyone appreciates being in a group that's well-led. But when picturing such a group, very few mentally picture an individual leader. The mental image of a group that's well led doesn't have a clear and established leader. In fact, a person who identifies himself or herself as a leader, too openly, is viewed with suspicion and maybe even scorn.

The attitude is reminiscent of "the tall poppy syndrome"

of certain cultures - if anyone rises too much above the level of everyone else, and is deemed to be calling attention to himself, he'll be chopped down.

So why are 8,500 people attending a leadership conference if no one wants to be seen as "the leader" of a group?

"I'm not interested in the position of leader, but the process of leadership," one young man told me. The assumption seems to be that no one is a leader; leadership these days demands more than one person. It's about being on a team. Leadership isn't about exercising individual influence or power, and certainly not control. It's about sharing the vision and the load. It's about team building, drawing out the strengths of everyone involved, and pointing attention anyplace but to yourself. It's an exercise in community.

Maybe this generation has heard those lines about "it's lonely at the top" and decided that leadership, like much of their social life, is something best done in groups.

Marshall Shelley
From Atlanta

To sign up for Catalyst's free enewsletter, click here.

http://www.catalystconference.com/post/register/enewsletter.aspx

Posted by Eric Reed at October 7, 2005 | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 4, 2005

Campolo and McLaren: Prophets or Agitators?

Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren have much in common. They have been hailed and hammered, venerated and vilified. Lately they are said to have an orthodoxy that has become too generous. The pair was interviewed by Keith Matthews, former lead pastor with McLaren at Cedar Ridge Community Church in Cedarville, Maryland, and now a professor of theology at Azusa Pacific University. This is the first of four parts in our blog conversation.

Matthews: How do you both see yourselves - your calling within the evangelical church? Are you prophetic voices, reformers, or just agitators and rebels to the status quo?

McLaren: I think I'm more aware how others see me versus how I see myself in the evangelical world. I think a number of people see me as a problem, but I hear from an awful lot of other people who say they can't stay evangelical with the rising "religious right" identity - they are embarrassed to be associated with a lot of the people that they see on television representing evangelicals, they are embarrassed by the strident language, they are embarrassed by their narrowness, and they are looking for someone who speaks for them, someone like a Tony, or Jim Wallis or myself and say there's at least some alternative.

Campolo: I don't particularly know if we've become prophetic as much as returned to what we used to be, but now, the evangelical community has moved much farther to the right and has left many of us out their stranded - I think that's the best way to describe it.

You know, I basically believe the same stuff I did thirty years ago, but the world has changed and the sense of commitment to the poor and oppressed has taken on a different form.

The evangelical world is doing a great job of picking up the casualties of the political and economic world we live in.

If there are people on the street homeless, or if there is a need to set up a reading program for needy kids, evangelicals are out there doing a great job. But, when you start to think about changing the system evangelicals get very angry, they really want it to stay as it is, and there are many of us that think that the Bible calls upon us not only to minister to the poor and oppressed, and to be the good Samaritan's who pick up the casualties along the road. We think the Bible also calls us to in the words of Ephesians 6: 12 to "wrestle against the principalities and powers, and the rulers of this age," and try to bring about the kind of changes that will move this world a little more in the direction of being the kingdom of God.

Matthews: Given the complexities and changes in our world today are we adequately training future pastors for ministry in a postmodern context?

McLaren: I think that many of our colleges and seminaries are perfectly training people to keep the status quo of the 1950's going, but they are not training them to deal with ministry for the 1980's much less the 21st century. The other piece to this, and I know how hard this is since I'm a pastor, is that having a diverse congregation politically and theologically is very hard. I think it will be a great sign of the kingdom when we in our churches can gather together, under Christ and worship together in spite of our political diversity.

Campolo: My sense is that to be a pastor today is very difficult. It's hard to do a good job with all the expectations pastors face. In the Old Testament there were the priests and the prophets. The priests maintain the congregation, counseled people, preformed weddings and funerals, did everything pastors do today. The prophet came dawn from the hills every so often, and yelled and screamed at everybody and told them of the evils they were purporting on the poor and oppressed, and then retreated back to the hills.

They were two distinct roles. Somehow in the modern church we expect the pastor in a local church to be both the priest and the prophet, and they are conflicting roles. This is quite problematic for pastors, and my sympathy for them is really huge . . .

Matthews: How do we reckon with this in the local church then?

Campolo: Well, if the pastor isn't going to be prophetic, which is quite understandable in the local context, he or she must realize the need for the prophetic voice and not close it off within their congregation. If the pastor isn't going to be prophetic, at least make sure that they hear it from somebody else, maybe in the form of a study group so they can be challenged to think in deeper ways about critical issues.

Pastors don't have to play both roles, but they better make sure tough issues are being discussed somewhere in the church, otherwise their best and brightest people will say, "I'm sorry, this doesn't jive with what Christianity is all about."

The congregation needs to know their pastor is aware of issues that he might not feel comfortable dealing with but that there are voices of other knowledgeable people who can help them traverse the tougher issues from a Christian perspective.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 4, 2005 | Comments (11) | TrackBack