We don’t talk much about teaching “theology,” but we all do it – or should. Theology has to do with the study of God, and since all that we are, and hope to be, is tied inseparably to the nature, promises and directives of God, anything we study in the Bible is “theologically” oriented.
Especially do we teach “theology” when we teach by subject rather than by text.
When we teach subject oriented classes, the task becomes infinitely more difficult. We must first ascertain what texts in the Bible address our subject. As we do this, we must be sure that the passages we select, in their context, actually do address our subject.
For example:
I was in a class that had to do with “worship” many years ago. The teacher was talking about the proper “order” of worship and asserted that the last thing we should do in assembly is “sing.” His reasoning was that in Matthew 26 and Mark 14, Jesus and his disciples “sang a hymn” at the end of the “Last Supper.” The problem was, and is, that neither of these passages were written for the purpose of addressing the matter of the worship assembly, much less its order. The passage may specifically mention “singing,” but that doesn’t mean it is instructive regarding the Christian assembly, much less “order of worship.” You cannot use a text to make any point that was not intended to be made in the text itself.
Another:
In 1 John 1:9, John wrote: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” Does this mean that if we fail to confess some sin – perhaps one we might be ignorant of – that God will hold that against us? I’ve heard this passage cited to talk about prayer and forgiveness and maintain that God will not forgive a sin unconfessed. But the issue for John was not the need to keep a catalog of sins so that we might be sure to confess them all, but the need to be confessional people in the first place. John’s readers were more likely simply to deny that they had sinned. It was this failure to be introspective and honest that was the point (clearly seen in the “If we” passages of that book).
Once you are familiar with the entirety of scripture on a particular matter, you are then qualified to teach “subjects.” Perhaps you can now see why I regard this as so much more difficult.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Tips for Teachers - 2
James, the brother of Jesus wrote: “Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1).
The Apostle Paul commented on this problem in 1 Timothy 1 when he referred to troublemakers in the church in Ephesus who wanted to “be teachers of the law.”
These days I wonder what the early church was doing differently to cause so many people to want to be teachers, when we in our time have so much difficulty finding teachers for our Bible classes.
My first point in this series was that Bible class teachers ought to study the Bible. It is one thing to use resource materials. It is another to be so wedded to them that you are just parroting their views. Teachers should study the Bible, using resource materials to augment their study, then present a lesson based on the conclusions of personal diligent study.
Second, if for any reason you find yourself parroting your resource materials, for goodness sake do not constantly refer to the fact. Begin your lesson by simply saying: "In presenting this class today on _____________ , I am indebted to _______________ and his/her book entitled _____________________. I found it very helpful in getting my mind around the subject."
Then, let it go.
If you constantly disagree with your resource material, press on with your lesson and don't mention the resource at all. If you continue to mention it, and why you differ, or belabor its inadequacies, your audience will wonder why you wasted so much time with such a poor resource.
Third, look for good resource materials. The internet is a minefield of poor resources. Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn't mean it's credible. I had to go to the ER last year. The doctor came in, examined me, and then said he'd be right back. When he didn't come back for a while, I went to find him. He was on the internet researching my condition. I had a little fun with him at his expense, but the fact of the matter was, he knew where the credible internet resources were. He didn't just "google" the issue and swallow the first few hits he found relevant. Unless you know where credible Bible study resources are, "google" is not the place to go for Bible study tools.
Whether from the internet, your local christian bookstore, or a theological library, before you buy into an author's conviction, you should know something about the author. What are his credentials? How old is his research? Adam Clark and Albert Barnes (along with John T. Hinds, J.W. McGarvey and a host of others) were respected Bible scholars of another era. Their works today, however, are nearly worthless for modern research. All wrote before the vast majority of Biblical archeology had been uncovered. All wrote before the vast body of textual evidence relative to biblical languages had been revealed. It’s like doing open heart surgery using 19th century medical scholarship. The patient might survive – but it’s doubtful. As time goes on, other authors will have consulted the old works, discussed the bad parts, incorporated the good parts, and added additional (hopefully more helpful/accurate) information. Make sure your sources are up-to-date.
One final point I’ve learned from one of my sons. There are few people of note, authorities in their field, who are unwilling to help a budding teacher who is sincerely chasing help. Most of the time, you can find their email address online. If you write them, identify yourself (I am _____________ and I am teaching a Bible class on _______________________ at ___________________ church) and ask them to recommend a book on a particular subject/book of the Bible. They will almost always reply with helpful information. But there are some rules. Don’t write long letters. Anything more than a couple of sentences is too much. Also, if you don’t like their recommendations, stop asking. Finally, don’t argue with them: in comparison, you are unlikely to know what you are talking about and they simply will not invest time in argumentation. A helpful door will close.
Next week: teaching "theology" (yes, you are probably doing it).
The Apostle Paul commented on this problem in 1 Timothy 1 when he referred to troublemakers in the church in Ephesus who wanted to “be teachers of the law.”
These days I wonder what the early church was doing differently to cause so many people to want to be teachers, when we in our time have so much difficulty finding teachers for our Bible classes.
My first point in this series was that Bible class teachers ought to study the Bible. It is one thing to use resource materials. It is another to be so wedded to them that you are just parroting their views. Teachers should study the Bible, using resource materials to augment their study, then present a lesson based on the conclusions of personal diligent study.
Second, if for any reason you find yourself parroting your resource materials, for goodness sake do not constantly refer to the fact. Begin your lesson by simply saying: "In presenting this class today on _____________ , I am indebted to _______________ and his/her book entitled _____________________. I found it very helpful in getting my mind around the subject."
Then, let it go.
If you constantly disagree with your resource material, press on with your lesson and don't mention the resource at all. If you continue to mention it, and why you differ, or belabor its inadequacies, your audience will wonder why you wasted so much time with such a poor resource.
Third, look for good resource materials. The internet is a minefield of poor resources. Just because someone writes something on the internet doesn't mean it's credible. I had to go to the ER last year. The doctor came in, examined me, and then said he'd be right back. When he didn't come back for a while, I went to find him. He was on the internet researching my condition. I had a little fun with him at his expense, but the fact of the matter was, he knew where the credible internet resources were. He didn't just "google" the issue and swallow the first few hits he found relevant. Unless you know where credible Bible study resources are, "google" is not the place to go for Bible study tools.
Whether from the internet, your local christian bookstore, or a theological library, before you buy into an author's conviction, you should know something about the author. What are his credentials? How old is his research? Adam Clark and Albert Barnes (along with John T. Hinds, J.W. McGarvey and a host of others) were respected Bible scholars of another era. Their works today, however, are nearly worthless for modern research. All wrote before the vast majority of Biblical archeology had been uncovered. All wrote before the vast body of textual evidence relative to biblical languages had been revealed. It’s like doing open heart surgery using 19th century medical scholarship. The patient might survive – but it’s doubtful. As time goes on, other authors will have consulted the old works, discussed the bad parts, incorporated the good parts, and added additional (hopefully more helpful/accurate) information. Make sure your sources are up-to-date.
One final point I’ve learned from one of my sons. There are few people of note, authorities in their field, who are unwilling to help a budding teacher who is sincerely chasing help. Most of the time, you can find their email address online. If you write them, identify yourself (I am _____________ and I am teaching a Bible class on _______________________ at ___________________ church) and ask them to recommend a book on a particular subject/book of the Bible. They will almost always reply with helpful information. But there are some rules. Don’t write long letters. Anything more than a couple of sentences is too much. Also, if you don’t like their recommendations, stop asking. Finally, don’t argue with them: in comparison, you are unlikely to know what you are talking about and they simply will not invest time in argumentation. A helpful door will close.
Next week: teaching "theology" (yes, you are probably doing it).
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Tips For Teachers (1)
Years ago (nearly forty as a matter of fact), I visited an adult Bible class in my wife's hometown. The teacher that day was beginning a study of the book of Revelation. He opened with these words: "The Book of Revelation is almost beyond understanding. The only resource I have on this book is John Hinds commentary. Brother Hinds is a great Bible scholar and I can think of no better book on Revelation so that is the book we will be using."
"So," I thought, "we will not be studying Revelation, but John Hinds' thoughts on Revelation." Never mind that John Hinds has been dead for fifty years. Never mind that scholarship has moved appreciably in that half century. Though the book of Revelation is the only book in the Bible that pronounces a blessing on those who read it; we will never get that blessing because we will not be reading Revelation. We'll be reading John T. Hinds."
You are right: I am being tough on the teacher who undoubtedly thought he was doing the best he could. But it was far from his best. He could at least have asked his preacher what books he might recommend on Revelation. But he didn't.
All this brings to mind some suggestions for those who undertake the awesome responsibility of being a Bible teacher.
First, Bible classes deserve to study the Bible. It's true that teachers cannot help but interpret scripture, but interpretation is a "process" that only "includes" consulting resource materials. Not consulting resource materials means you did not fully engage the process. ONLY teaching a resource material means you did not engage the process at all. I will have more to say about resources materials themselves in another post, but I would urge you to at least consult a good Bible student (your preacher for example) to point you in the direction of good material. Unfortunately, lots of folks think they don't need to consult anyone and usually, everyone ends up knowing they didn't.
More next time.
"So," I thought, "we will not be studying Revelation, but John Hinds' thoughts on Revelation." Never mind that John Hinds has been dead for fifty years. Never mind that scholarship has moved appreciably in that half century. Though the book of Revelation is the only book in the Bible that pronounces a blessing on those who read it; we will never get that blessing because we will not be reading Revelation. We'll be reading John T. Hinds."
You are right: I am being tough on the teacher who undoubtedly thought he was doing the best he could. But it was far from his best. He could at least have asked his preacher what books he might recommend on Revelation. But he didn't.
All this brings to mind some suggestions for those who undertake the awesome responsibility of being a Bible teacher.
First, Bible classes deserve to study the Bible. It's true that teachers cannot help but interpret scripture, but interpretation is a "process" that only "includes" consulting resource materials. Not consulting resource materials means you did not fully engage the process. ONLY teaching a resource material means you did not engage the process at all. I will have more to say about resources materials themselves in another post, but I would urge you to at least consult a good Bible student (your preacher for example) to point you in the direction of good material. Unfortunately, lots of folks think they don't need to consult anyone and usually, everyone ends up knowing they didn't.
More next time.
Friday, April 30, 2010
When It's Time To Change
Parsis are adherents of the ancient Persian religion Zoroastrianism. A tenent of their faith has to do with the purity of fire, soil, and water and so, one of their rituals is to never bury the dead. Instead, they place them atop “Towers of Silence,” exposed to sun, sky, and vultures.
The problem is . . . India (where the largest group of Parsis live) is running out of vultures. Cremation is not an option. Neither is burial. Some say the Towers of Silence are “antiquated,” and that tradition should be forgotten (read the controversy in more detail in Meera Bubramanian’s “A Crisis for the Faithful” Wall Street Journal -- April 30, 2010).
Unless one can be shown from reliable evidence that what one holds to be Biblical teaching is false, we should not be in any hurry to give it up.
On the other hand, there is sometimes a difference between what we believe, and what we do. And often, how we do what we do affects the value of what we believe.
Did I lose you?
What is your church doing to bring people to Christ? What is your church doing to build community among its members? What is your church doing to foster and nurture Christ-like behavior in your church community?
Make a list.
When you are finished, ask yourself honestly: Are these things working? If not, why? If they just don’t work, why continue to do them? How long will the Church as you know it languish in unfruitfulness? How many more generations will come and go before all that’s left is property? Europe is full of cathedrals where mass is said every day – but no one comes.
Of course, there are always those who reply: “We know we need change, but we don’t want it. The next generation will have to do it.” And the next generation won’t do it because they don’t want to upset the previous generation.
If change is to be made, it will have to begin with the mature. Not change just for the sake of change, but change to try and be better about our Heavenly Father’s business.
The problem is . . . India (where the largest group of Parsis live) is running out of vultures. Cremation is not an option. Neither is burial. Some say the Towers of Silence are “antiquated,” and that tradition should be forgotten (read the controversy in more detail in Meera Bubramanian’s “A Crisis for the Faithful” Wall Street Journal -- April 30, 2010).
Unless one can be shown from reliable evidence that what one holds to be Biblical teaching is false, we should not be in any hurry to give it up.
On the other hand, there is sometimes a difference between what we believe, and what we do. And often, how we do what we do affects the value of what we believe.
Did I lose you?
What is your church doing to bring people to Christ? What is your church doing to build community among its members? What is your church doing to foster and nurture Christ-like behavior in your church community?
Make a list.
When you are finished, ask yourself honestly: Are these things working? If not, why? If they just don’t work, why continue to do them? How long will the Church as you know it languish in unfruitfulness? How many more generations will come and go before all that’s left is property? Europe is full of cathedrals where mass is said every day – but no one comes.
Of course, there are always those who reply: “We know we need change, but we don’t want it. The next generation will have to do it.” And the next generation won’t do it because they don’t want to upset the previous generation.
If change is to be made, it will have to begin with the mature. Not change just for the sake of change, but change to try and be better about our Heavenly Father’s business.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Heart of Successful Leadership
[NOTE: Every week Rubel Shelly publishes an article called the FAX of Life. The email/Fax is free to those who want to subscribe. Subscribe by writing to gbciii@aol.com. The following was published early in February. I reproduce it here for the really good message and to provide it wider circulation. Rubel is the President of Rochester College in Rochester Hills, MI. mt]
I visited with a friend over dinner the other night. He is an attorney. A really good one. He works for a prestige firm and does some of their most important work for its biggest clients. He was talking about leadership."Law schools are producing some sharp graduates these days and sending them our way," he said. "As you can imagine, we get lots of applications from the best and brightest. I don't think it would ever be the case that we worry about one of our applicants knowing the law or being able to pass the bar exam. But we are really having a hard time finding people we want to hire."
"Why is that?" I asked.
"We have a hard time finding people who are leadership caliber," he continued. "We need people who will step up and step out. And they are getting harder and harder to find. Either that or we are looking in the wrong places!"
The more we talked about the leadership issue, the more engaged we both became in the conversation. What does it take to make a leader? What are the qualities to look for? What are the qualities to cultivate in your own life?
You obviously look for core competencies in a leader. She must have appropriate background and training. He must have some assessments that say he can do the job. It is always better to have someone who has already proved himself in a similar role. All these things point to aptitude and know-how.
It is harder still to find someone who sees the big picture and is forward-looking in handling his responsibilities. Leaders have to fix messes and keep a close eye on hitting productivity and profit targets. But they have to be more interested in keeping the company, family, or church on track with its long-term goals. They have to be visionary persons who can communicate their vision.
Okay, those two are obvious and easy. A leader has to possess basic competence and vision. But my friend was emphatic about the third item. No, it wasn't third except for the sequence of discussion. It is, according to him at least, the first and most critical item. He was adamant that the thing most often lacking in potential leaders is personal integrity. Common decency. Good character.
Leadership is a matter of being before it is a way of doing. Politicians, evangelists, athletes, bankers, actors, CEOs - all of them had good-to-excellent skills and a sufficient supply of vision and ego to get to their leadership positions. But we have witnessed hosts of them melt down before our eyes because of a lack of principled character that would let them use their positions responsibly.
All the knowledge, skills, charisma, looks, and imagination in the world can't make up for a lack of character. "People with integrity walk safely, but those who follow crooked paths will slip and fall" (Proverbs 10:9 NLT).Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Wiggle Room
The Jones family (fictional -- but I'll bet you know this family) is on a very strict money management budget. Every penny is accounted for.
It's not that they are struggling financially. They have plenty of money. It's just that they have adopted an austere attitude toward money as they try to save every penny they can for a down payment on a house. Their mission statement is: Save the 20% downpayment for a house as soon as possible.
It's a worthy mission.
It's also challenging. They have to work hard, keep reminding themselves of the mission, and sacrifice to make it happen.
But sometimes, the family just wants to go to a movie. Or have a nice dinner at a restaurant. But they can't. Not because they can't afford it, but because not only do such comforts not contribute to accomplishing the mission -- they detract from it.
And in time, the new home, rather than look like a worthy goal, looks not only less desirable, but undesirable. Family members grow to hate the idea. "Why can't we just stay where we are?"
Church Mission statements have the same challenge. The Church is a family, and like a family, individuals have things they want which are not always directly related to the family goals. You can ask: "How will this further our mission of being Christ on the earth and bringing others to join us?" But sometimes, they only way a program relates to that mission is that if you don't do it, dissatisfaction and unhappiness will set in and progress toward the real goal will be hampered or hindered.
There's got to be "wiggle room," a bit of leeway in the program to keep people happy on the journey.
I know a congregation where a minority of well-to-do members wanted a new church building. The one they had was fine enough, but it was old and lacked the "look" and "feel" of something new and modern. After all, some members thought, we have nice homes, why can't we have a nicer worship facility? Perhaps with some more comfortable seating? A jumbotron like our wide-screen at home? A place we would be unashamed to bring our friends to.
It wasn't long before the movement became dominant, and a building was built to the satisfaction of all at great cost. With the downturn in the economy, a few necessities are being sacrificed to pay for the building.
Did the leadership make a mistake?
Probably not. In the first place, building a new building was doable for this church. No one could have anticipated the economic crisis that now afflicts that area. They made a decision based on the information they had.
Further, sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants and will not be denied. As long as what the heart wants is not sinful, and does not adversely affect the ability of the Church to fulfill its mission, a little wiggle room makes the journey easier, and sometimes, just possible.
Leadership must remember that in every church family, everyone is on a line of varying spiritual maturity. No one may be left behind or minimized just because they are immature. In fact, they are the "little ones" Jesus referred to who must receive special attention. We have to hold it together as we move forward . . . together.
It's not that they are struggling financially. They have plenty of money. It's just that they have adopted an austere attitude toward money as they try to save every penny they can for a down payment on a house. Their mission statement is: Save the 20% downpayment for a house as soon as possible.
It's a worthy mission.
It's also challenging. They have to work hard, keep reminding themselves of the mission, and sacrifice to make it happen.
But sometimes, the family just wants to go to a movie. Or have a nice dinner at a restaurant. But they can't. Not because they can't afford it, but because not only do such comforts not contribute to accomplishing the mission -- they detract from it.
And in time, the new home, rather than look like a worthy goal, looks not only less desirable, but undesirable. Family members grow to hate the idea. "Why can't we just stay where we are?"
Church Mission statements have the same challenge. The Church is a family, and like a family, individuals have things they want which are not always directly related to the family goals. You can ask: "How will this further our mission of being Christ on the earth and bringing others to join us?" But sometimes, they only way a program relates to that mission is that if you don't do it, dissatisfaction and unhappiness will set in and progress toward the real goal will be hampered or hindered.
There's got to be "wiggle room," a bit of leeway in the program to keep people happy on the journey.
I know a congregation where a minority of well-to-do members wanted a new church building. The one they had was fine enough, but it was old and lacked the "look" and "feel" of something new and modern. After all, some members thought, we have nice homes, why can't we have a nicer worship facility? Perhaps with some more comfortable seating? A jumbotron like our wide-screen at home? A place we would be unashamed to bring our friends to.
It wasn't long before the movement became dominant, and a building was built to the satisfaction of all at great cost. With the downturn in the economy, a few necessities are being sacrificed to pay for the building.
Did the leadership make a mistake?
Probably not. In the first place, building a new building was doable for this church. No one could have anticipated the economic crisis that now afflicts that area. They made a decision based on the information they had.
Further, sometimes the heart wants what the heart wants and will not be denied. As long as what the heart wants is not sinful, and does not adversely affect the ability of the Church to fulfill its mission, a little wiggle room makes the journey easier, and sometimes, just possible.
Leadership must remember that in every church family, everyone is on a line of varying spiritual maturity. No one may be left behind or minimized just because they are immature. In fact, they are the "little ones" Jesus referred to who must receive special attention. We have to hold it together as we move forward . . . together.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Remembering The Mission Statement
We've been looking at the idea of a mission statement, and have maintained that the mission statement for a congregation must be biblical and comprehensive. It must also be memorable. Then . . . you have to remember it. (Yeah, I know that sounds redundant -- but I have a memorable email address. If you know my name, you can remember the address. It's amazing though how many people forget it). It's surprising how many churches with good mission statements seem to toss the statement aside when it comes to formulating new plans and projects.
The leadership of a congregation I'm familiar with decided they wanted a Christian School. They reasoned: This school will let people know we care about children and will help us win their parents (and the students) to Christ.
So off they went with the school idea. It wasn't a bad idea really. In fact, it was a good one.
But years have gone by. The school occupies the lion's share of the church's resources and a good part of leader meetings concern the current challenge of the school.
How many people have they discipled as a result of the school?
Not one.
But they might in the future. That's true. It's also doubtful. Because currently, every bit of energy goes into keeping the school open. No one has time for discipling, and there are no concrete plans for making disciples. It's more of a "if we build it, they will come" mentality.
But they aren't coming.
None of this is to say that the school is a bad idea. The problem is that people became so wrapped up in the project that they forgot the mission. As I've written earlier, it's one thing to produce top notch copy machines. It's another entirely to make money off them. The church is not in the business of making money, but we'd better be in the business of making disciples. That was Christ's last command (at least according to Matthew). We're in the good works business, but that's not our only business -- nor is it enough, as followers of Jesus, to just be in that business.
Next week: "Wiggle room"
The leadership of a congregation I'm familiar with decided they wanted a Christian School. They reasoned: This school will let people know we care about children and will help us win their parents (and the students) to Christ.
So off they went with the school idea. It wasn't a bad idea really. In fact, it was a good one.
But years have gone by. The school occupies the lion's share of the church's resources and a good part of leader meetings concern the current challenge of the school.
How many people have they discipled as a result of the school?
Not one.
But they might in the future. That's true. It's also doubtful. Because currently, every bit of energy goes into keeping the school open. No one has time for discipling, and there are no concrete plans for making disciples. It's more of a "if we build it, they will come" mentality.
But they aren't coming.
None of this is to say that the school is a bad idea. The problem is that people became so wrapped up in the project that they forgot the mission. As I've written earlier, it's one thing to produce top notch copy machines. It's another entirely to make money off them. The church is not in the business of making money, but we'd better be in the business of making disciples. That was Christ's last command (at least according to Matthew). We're in the good works business, but that's not our only business -- nor is it enough, as followers of Jesus, to just be in that business.
Next week: "Wiggle room"
Monday, March 8, 2010
Is the Purpose Statement Comprehensive?
A congregational mission statement is an important tool for at least one reason: it helps church members keep in mind what they are supposed to be about. One has only to access recently past issues of the "Christian Chronicle" to see the number of folks who believe the Church has lost its identity. Keeping your identity is a lot easier when you remember your mission. The statement must be short and memorable enough to stick in the minds of members. For purposes of this article, our working congregational purpose statement is as follows:
“The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.”
Another mission statement I've run across is this one: "Knowing God. Making Him known." I've liked this one. It's short, catchy, and memorable. But in my view, it is not comprehensive enough. Biblically, there may be no difference between "knowing God" and living a holy life, but in the minds of 21st century people, there's a lot of practical difference. One may be biblically literate but spiritually bankrupt. One may teach the message of the Bible, but with an air (expressed or implied) of "do as I say, not as I do." The statement really doesn't cut it.
Still another mission statement suggested to me as the "only mission of the Church" (by an Elder about 15 years ago) is the "same as the mission statement of Jesus: 'To seek and save the lost'." While certainly biblical, this statement is likewise far from comprehensive. Jesus also said he came that believers might have life and "have it to the full" (John 10:10). He said he came to "bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Jesus didn't have just one mission.
But when we say our mission is to be Jesus on the earth, we not only make all of Christ's mission our own, but we commit ourselves to accomplishing it Jesus' way. At every stage of any effort, we must continue to ask ourselves: "Is this something Jesus would do? Is this the way he would do it? Is this the way he would behave? Is this what he would say?"
There is a second part to our proposed mission statement: “The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.” It is significant that the "Great Commission" in Matthew 28:16-20 is the last command of Jesus mentioned in that book -- as if that's where Matthew was heading all the time in his account of Jesus' life.
The tendency in Christendom is to become so involved in worthwhile projects that exhibit the love and mercy of Jesus that we forget we are supposed to make disciples of those we help. Food pantries, Bible studies, clothes closets, clinics, and schools etc. are all useful tools in being and showing Jesus. But if in the conduct of these efforts we forget to make disciples of the beneficiaries of our efforts, all we've become is a glorified human services organization and we've failed in the mission Christ set out before us.
Jesus did not condition his help on discipleship, but neither would he be diverted from his mission to make disciples by getting lost in humanitarian efforts. Remember in the Gospel of Mark, after a particularly fruitful healing ministry in Capernaum, people came from far and near to be healed by the Lord. Jesus, on the other hand, left a great while before day to pray. When his disciples found him, they castigated him for his absence saying: "Everyone is looking for you." Jesus replied: "Let's go somewhere else so I can preach there also; for that is why I have come" (Mark 1:38).
Everything we do as Christians -- as the Church -- we must do with the view of making disciples. After all, the very doing of our religion is to set the example for others and who do that if we do not expect them to see our example and follow it?
We must cover both areas of our purpose. Many years ago, a brother told me: "We need to be preaching the gospel. Lots of religious groups help people. But they won't preach. We have to do what they won't." But it cannot be one or the other. It must be both.
“The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.”
Another mission statement I've run across is this one: "Knowing God. Making Him known." I've liked this one. It's short, catchy, and memorable. But in my view, it is not comprehensive enough. Biblically, there may be no difference between "knowing God" and living a holy life, but in the minds of 21st century people, there's a lot of practical difference. One may be biblically literate but spiritually bankrupt. One may teach the message of the Bible, but with an air (expressed or implied) of "do as I say, not as I do." The statement really doesn't cut it.
Still another mission statement suggested to me as the "only mission of the Church" (by an Elder about 15 years ago) is the "same as the mission statement of Jesus: 'To seek and save the lost'." While certainly biblical, this statement is likewise far from comprehensive. Jesus also said he came that believers might have life and "have it to the full" (John 10:10). He said he came to "bring a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Jesus didn't have just one mission.
But when we say our mission is to be Jesus on the earth, we not only make all of Christ's mission our own, but we commit ourselves to accomplishing it Jesus' way. At every stage of any effort, we must continue to ask ourselves: "Is this something Jesus would do? Is this the way he would do it? Is this the way he would behave? Is this what he would say?"
There is a second part to our proposed mission statement: “The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.” It is significant that the "Great Commission" in Matthew 28:16-20 is the last command of Jesus mentioned in that book -- as if that's where Matthew was heading all the time in his account of Jesus' life.
The tendency in Christendom is to become so involved in worthwhile projects that exhibit the love and mercy of Jesus that we forget we are supposed to make disciples of those we help. Food pantries, Bible studies, clothes closets, clinics, and schools etc. are all useful tools in being and showing Jesus. But if in the conduct of these efforts we forget to make disciples of the beneficiaries of our efforts, all we've become is a glorified human services organization and we've failed in the mission Christ set out before us.
Jesus did not condition his help on discipleship, but neither would he be diverted from his mission to make disciples by getting lost in humanitarian efforts. Remember in the Gospel of Mark, after a particularly fruitful healing ministry in Capernaum, people came from far and near to be healed by the Lord. Jesus, on the other hand, left a great while before day to pray. When his disciples found him, they castigated him for his absence saying: "Everyone is looking for you." Jesus replied: "Let's go somewhere else so I can preach there also; for that is why I have come" (Mark 1:38).
Everything we do as Christians -- as the Church -- we must do with the view of making disciples. After all, the very doing of our religion is to set the example for others and who do that if we do not expect them to see our example and follow it?
We must cover both areas of our purpose. Many years ago, a brother told me: "We need to be preaching the gospel. Lots of religious groups help people. But they won't preach. We have to do what they won't." But it cannot be one or the other. It must be both.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Is the Purpose Statement Biblical?
In the last post, I gave as my general purpose statement for the Church the following: “The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.” The first question to ask is: “It this statement biblical?”
Actually, I’ve taken a good bit of criticism on this statement. It appears in my Bible course published in 2004 and when we sent it out for translation into other languages, one of the earliest questions, and one of the most consistent, was: “Do you really want to say that the Church is to be Jesus on the earth?” Some of the critics thought it was almost blasphemous.
My contention is that it is eminently biblical, but, of equal importance, it is also comprehensive.
First, the biblical nature.
The Church is the body of Christ on the earth.
Paul specifically wrote: “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church , which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:22-23).
Jesus was the fullness of God. God was pleased to have His “fullness” dwell in Christ (Colossians 1:19), and in Christ is found the “fullness” of God (Colossians 2:9). In the same way, the Church is called to be the fullness of Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is a weekly reminder that we, as a people, are Christ’s body. Concerning the Communion, Paul wrote: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body : for we are all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The reminder is of our position before God and in the world: to be Christ. When the world looks at us, it is supposed to see Jesus.
This is what Paul meant when he wrote: “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.” The word “exalted” is from a Greek word meaning to “make large” or “to magnify.” But whether you translate it “exalt” or “magnify,” Paul’s point was that when the world looked at Him, it should see Jesus, lifted up and magnified.
This will never happen if we are not sold on the idea that we are to be Jesus on the earth. As another author puts it: Just as the invisible God made himself visible and tangible in Jesus Christ, so the now-invisible Christ is making himself visible and tangible to the world through his church” Still another author writes: “The Church carries on the life of Christ.”
Deep down, I think the real objection to looking at the Church’s purpose this way is that we don’t want the responsibility of being Jesus. It’s difficult enough to talk about “showing” Jesus to the world (which may be more palatable but has the net effect of narrowing the focus to “appearances”). But to be Jesus on the earth takes things to a whole new level and makes me responsible not just for how things appear, but how things really are! To be candid, the objection to being Jesus on the earth speaks more to a compromise of conviction. We are Christ’s body. We are His family, his brothers and sisters. We have within us the same power that empowered Him – the Holy Spirit -- and we are guided by the same leading that guided Him: the will of the Father.
Let there be no misunderstanding: the call to discipleship is NOT just a call to follow Jesus, but a call to be Jesus.
Please do not write and ask: “How can we be God on the earth?” To do so begs the question and misses the point. I can never actually be Jesus. He was a person in time, just as I am another person in time. But the idea is, and was, that His followers be seen as the Lord was seen in nature, purpose, work, and destiny.
The next part of our purpose statement is easier to handle biblically: Jesus came to save lost people. He calls us to do the same thing (Mark 16:15-16) by calling the world to follow Jesus as we follow Him (Matthew 28:18-20).
The next question must be: Is our purpose statement comprehensive? We will address that matter next week.
Actually, I’ve taken a good bit of criticism on this statement. It appears in my Bible course published in 2004 and when we sent it out for translation into other languages, one of the earliest questions, and one of the most consistent, was: “Do you really want to say that the Church is to be Jesus on the earth?” Some of the critics thought it was almost blasphemous.
My contention is that it is eminently biblical, but, of equal importance, it is also comprehensive.
First, the biblical nature.
The Church is the body of Christ on the earth.
Paul specifically wrote: “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church , which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:22-23).
Jesus was the fullness of God. God was pleased to have His “fullness” dwell in Christ (Colossians 1:19), and in Christ is found the “fullness” of God (Colossians 2:9). In the same way, the Church is called to be the fullness of Christ.
The Lord’s Supper is a weekly reminder that we, as a people, are Christ’s body. Concerning the Communion, Paul wrote: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ? seeing that we, who are many, are one bread, one body : for we are all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:16-17). The reminder is of our position before God and in the world: to be Christ. When the world looks at us, it is supposed to see Jesus.
This is what Paul meant when he wrote: “I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.” The word “exalted” is from a Greek word meaning to “make large” or “to magnify.” But whether you translate it “exalt” or “magnify,” Paul’s point was that when the world looked at Him, it should see Jesus, lifted up and magnified.
This will never happen if we are not sold on the idea that we are to be Jesus on the earth. As another author puts it: Just as the invisible God made himself visible and tangible in Jesus Christ, so the now-invisible Christ is making himself visible and tangible to the world through his church” Still another author writes: “The Church carries on the life of Christ.”
Deep down, I think the real objection to looking at the Church’s purpose this way is that we don’t want the responsibility of being Jesus. It’s difficult enough to talk about “showing” Jesus to the world (which may be more palatable but has the net effect of narrowing the focus to “appearances”). But to be Jesus on the earth takes things to a whole new level and makes me responsible not just for how things appear, but how things really are! To be candid, the objection to being Jesus on the earth speaks more to a compromise of conviction. We are Christ’s body. We are His family, his brothers and sisters. We have within us the same power that empowered Him – the Holy Spirit -- and we are guided by the same leading that guided Him: the will of the Father.
Let there be no misunderstanding: the call to discipleship is NOT just a call to follow Jesus, but a call to be Jesus.
Please do not write and ask: “How can we be God on the earth?” To do so begs the question and misses the point. I can never actually be Jesus. He was a person in time, just as I am another person in time. But the idea is, and was, that His followers be seen as the Lord was seen in nature, purpose, work, and destiny.
The next part of our purpose statement is easier to handle biblically: Jesus came to save lost people. He calls us to do the same thing (Mark 16:15-16) by calling the world to follow Jesus as we follow Him (Matthew 28:18-20).
The next question must be: Is our purpose statement comprehensive? We will address that matter next week.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Simple but Hard -- Part 2
Last week I wrote about keeping the “most important thing” the “most important thing.” That, of course, involves knowing, first of all, what the “most important thing” really is – and it’s easy to get side-tracked.
The mission statement for the Xerox corporation is as follows: “We create document technology and services that enable businesses to manage information more efficiently and effectively, whatever the situation.”
Well and good – except there’s nothing there about profit. Are they going to just create this technology, or will they try to sell it? As a stockholder, I want to know the company is “in it” to make money. I don’t consider the development of “document” technology a worthy charity.
Of course, we know Xerox IS in business to make money; it’s just not “polite” to say that too pointedly. Our society frowns on that. But leadership has to always be aware: “THIS is why we are here – to make money. Our business is profit, and If we’re not profitable, we’ll be out of business.”
Not only leadership, but every employee and supplier has to keep it in mind too. It’s one of the reasons the American automobile companies are in such a pickle. The industry lived far too long on past glory. It failed to be competitive, “thought” things would “turn around,” but forgot that if you keep doing the same things, you’re going to get the same results. Unions and employees forgot that a company that wasn’t making money couldn’t keep paying wages and benefits. And when you forget that – you’ll go out of business and frankly, deserve exactly what you get.
So how does all this apply to the Church? Last week I asked you to think about the Church’s mission. Your vision has to be biblical, short enough to remember, and comprehensive enough to cover everything.
What did you come up with?
Here’s mine – though it is not original with me, nor is it the only possibility. “The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.”
Simple right? Yes, but very very hard. Next week, we’ll walk through the mission statement, look at its basis in Scripture, and see how it must drive every facet of “Church.”
The mission statement for the Xerox corporation is as follows: “We create document technology and services that enable businesses to manage information more efficiently and effectively, whatever the situation.”
Well and good – except there’s nothing there about profit. Are they going to just create this technology, or will they try to sell it? As a stockholder, I want to know the company is “in it” to make money. I don’t consider the development of “document” technology a worthy charity.
Of course, we know Xerox IS in business to make money; it’s just not “polite” to say that too pointedly. Our society frowns on that. But leadership has to always be aware: “THIS is why we are here – to make money. Our business is profit, and If we’re not profitable, we’ll be out of business.”
Not only leadership, but every employee and supplier has to keep it in mind too. It’s one of the reasons the American automobile companies are in such a pickle. The industry lived far too long on past glory. It failed to be competitive, “thought” things would “turn around,” but forgot that if you keep doing the same things, you’re going to get the same results. Unions and employees forgot that a company that wasn’t making money couldn’t keep paying wages and benefits. And when you forget that – you’ll go out of business and frankly, deserve exactly what you get.
So how does all this apply to the Church? Last week I asked you to think about the Church’s mission. Your vision has to be biblical, short enough to remember, and comprehensive enough to cover everything.
What did you come up with?
Here’s mine – though it is not original with me, nor is it the only possibility. “The mission of the Church is to be Jesus on the earth, and bring the world to join us.”
Simple right? Yes, but very very hard. Next week, we’ll walk through the mission statement, look at its basis in Scripture, and see how it must drive every facet of “Church.”
Monday, February 8, 2010
Simple but Hard - Part 1
The most important thing in leadership is to keep the most important thing -- the most important thing.
In business, the most important thing is to make money. EVERYTHING is subservient to that goal. But of course, you can't continue to make money if the quality of your goods or services is shoddy, so quality control contributes to the "most important thing." You can't continue to make money well if your employees are not happy, so human resources contributes to the "most important thing." You can't maximize your profits if you don't treat customers right, thus customer service is likewise a contributor. And you won't be in business long if your product or service goes out of date (so research and development are likewise important).
But never forget, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is to make money. If you take your eyes off the goal to focus on any of these other things (research and development, human resources, etc.), it won't be long before the tail is wagging the dog and you'll be spending money and burning time rather than making money.
Now you understand the title of this post. The goal is "simple." DOING it is "hard."
It's easy to get distracted. Whether you appreciate the gargantuan paychecks of some of today's CEOs, the fact of the matter is that they make all that money because they have learned to keep all the component parts of their business running well, while never losing sight of the "main thing." (Yes, I know some of them are doing pitiful jobs and STILL getting huge paychecks, but don't let that distract you from my main point.)
So how does all this relate to the Church?
The Church has a "main thing." Our problem is: we don't have a handle on what it is. We often think we do . . . but we don't. As an experiment, try this: get a group of Christians in a room and ask them to tell you what the main purpose of the Church is. Ask them to help you compose a purpose statement and keep it to one paragraph -- no more than three sentences. This purpose must be all comprehensive, biblical, and it should be memorable (so we don't forget the "main thing").
It either won't go well, or it will be a trying experiment. And the reason is that Christians simply do not have a handle on the "main thing." During such an experiment, an Elder, pointing to a Bible, said: "There's our purpose statement." I admire the sentiment, but it was easy to see why the church was failing.
'Ok Mr. Smarty Pants,' you are thinking. 'What's the main thing for the Church?'
I'm glad you asked. Come back next week for the answer. But until then, think about it yourself. Remember: It should be phrased in one paragraph, comprehensive, biblical, 3 sentences at the most, and memorable.
Until next week . . .
In business, the most important thing is to make money. EVERYTHING is subservient to that goal. But of course, you can't continue to make money if the quality of your goods or services is shoddy, so quality control contributes to the "most important thing." You can't continue to make money well if your employees are not happy, so human resources contributes to the "most important thing." You can't maximize your profits if you don't treat customers right, thus customer service is likewise a contributor. And you won't be in business long if your product or service goes out of date (so research and development are likewise important).
But never forget, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING is to make money. If you take your eyes off the goal to focus on any of these other things (research and development, human resources, etc.), it won't be long before the tail is wagging the dog and you'll be spending money and burning time rather than making money.
Now you understand the title of this post. The goal is "simple." DOING it is "hard."
It's easy to get distracted. Whether you appreciate the gargantuan paychecks of some of today's CEOs, the fact of the matter is that they make all that money because they have learned to keep all the component parts of their business running well, while never losing sight of the "main thing." (Yes, I know some of them are doing pitiful jobs and STILL getting huge paychecks, but don't let that distract you from my main point.)
So how does all this relate to the Church?
The Church has a "main thing." Our problem is: we don't have a handle on what it is. We often think we do . . . but we don't. As an experiment, try this: get a group of Christians in a room and ask them to tell you what the main purpose of the Church is. Ask them to help you compose a purpose statement and keep it to one paragraph -- no more than three sentences. This purpose must be all comprehensive, biblical, and it should be memorable (so we don't forget the "main thing").
It either won't go well, or it will be a trying experiment. And the reason is that Christians simply do not have a handle on the "main thing." During such an experiment, an Elder, pointing to a Bible, said: "There's our purpose statement." I admire the sentiment, but it was easy to see why the church was failing.
'Ok Mr. Smarty Pants,' you are thinking. 'What's the main thing for the Church?'
I'm glad you asked. Come back next week for the answer. But until then, think about it yourself. Remember: It should be phrased in one paragraph, comprehensive, biblical, 3 sentences at the most, and memorable.
Until next week . . .
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Like A Child
I’ve been critical of leadership that treats churches like a rag doll, dragging it around wherever they please because they think it is “best.”
But sometimes you have to change, and the decision will not be popular. How do you do that and hold the church together?
1) You have to be confident that such a move is really in the best interest of the church. A good friend talked with me today about “progressive” leaderships, and those that are not. My thought was: “What does it mean to be progressive?” If progressive means that the congregation, by making these changes, will come to be more like Jesus, well and good. But if it means that they will simply look like other churches now getting their 15 minutes of fame – I doubt that it’s worth doing.
2) Leadership must all be on the same page. This is what we need to do. This is why we need to do it. Reasons must be clear, valid, and compelling.
3) Methodical and purposeful teaching should be given on the issue.
4) The example should be set by leadership. You cannot effectively teach what you yourself do not practice.
5) Remembering how long it took leadership to come to this conclusion, leadership should be equally patient with their followers, allowing them to digest the information, and understand that because they are not leaders, they may not grasp the information and the discussion as quickly as leadership did.
6) There will be some push-back. After teaching has been presented, leaders should identify and meet with the resistant, allowing them to have their say, questioning them about their understanding of the issue and the scriptures involved, and kindly inquiring as to their motive. This is a “one on one” matter. You can’t simply call for a “gripe session." Ailing sheep cannot be helped in a group. It has to be one on one.
A note about this "one on one" business. I heard of a church today where the Elders were so distant from the members that they had a policy of not serving as a reference for anyone in their congregation. One of two things is true: Either there are not enough Elders, or the Elders are not doing the job.
7) When the bottom line “I just don’t like it” is finally heard, leaders have to respond: “We know. And we are sensitive to that. And we hope you have seen how sensitive we have been. But you know as well as we do this is the right thing to do. We expect your support and participation. We are family, and families stick together even when they don’t agree."
Again: It all takes time, and patience.
Every leader should remember Jesus' words in Matthew 18:6 -- “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Jesus wasn't talking about children. He was talking about adults. Adults who listen like children, reason like children, and behave like children. But because they are believers, they are precious in Christ's sight. How we treat and respond to them carries serious consequences. God is not willing any be lost, and leaders must not be either.
One more point: Leaders sometimes reason: these (who disagree with us) will not be lost to the Lord. They may be lost to our church, but they will go and serve elsewhere. Consider this: How will we ever convince people the body of Christ (the Church) is important, if we treat the body's members as if they are not?
But sometimes you have to change, and the decision will not be popular. How do you do that and hold the church together?
1) You have to be confident that such a move is really in the best interest of the church. A good friend talked with me today about “progressive” leaderships, and those that are not. My thought was: “What does it mean to be progressive?” If progressive means that the congregation, by making these changes, will come to be more like Jesus, well and good. But if it means that they will simply look like other churches now getting their 15 minutes of fame – I doubt that it’s worth doing.
2) Leadership must all be on the same page. This is what we need to do. This is why we need to do it. Reasons must be clear, valid, and compelling.
3) Methodical and purposeful teaching should be given on the issue.
4) The example should be set by leadership. You cannot effectively teach what you yourself do not practice.
5) Remembering how long it took leadership to come to this conclusion, leadership should be equally patient with their followers, allowing them to digest the information, and understand that because they are not leaders, they may not grasp the information and the discussion as quickly as leadership did.
6) There will be some push-back. After teaching has been presented, leaders should identify and meet with the resistant, allowing them to have their say, questioning them about their understanding of the issue and the scriptures involved, and kindly inquiring as to their motive. This is a “one on one” matter. You can’t simply call for a “gripe session." Ailing sheep cannot be helped in a group. It has to be one on one.
A note about this "one on one" business. I heard of a church today where the Elders were so distant from the members that they had a policy of not serving as a reference for anyone in their congregation. One of two things is true: Either there are not enough Elders, or the Elders are not doing the job.
7) When the bottom line “I just don’t like it” is finally heard, leaders have to respond: “We know. And we are sensitive to that. And we hope you have seen how sensitive we have been. But you know as well as we do this is the right thing to do. We expect your support and participation. We are family, and families stick together even when they don’t agree."
Again: It all takes time, and patience.
Every leader should remember Jesus' words in Matthew 18:6 -- “if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” Jesus wasn't talking about children. He was talking about adults. Adults who listen like children, reason like children, and behave like children. But because they are believers, they are precious in Christ's sight. How we treat and respond to them carries serious consequences. God is not willing any be lost, and leaders must not be either.
One more point: Leaders sometimes reason: these (who disagree with us) will not be lost to the Lord. They may be lost to our church, but they will go and serve elsewhere. Consider this: How will we ever convince people the body of Christ (the Church) is important, if we treat the body's members as if they are not?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Old Way Is Best ??
What happens when “fried” chicken is no longer as profitable as “grilled”?
If you were in the fried chicken business, would you keep selling fried because that was your business model, or would you make the move to grilled?
There is a related issue that has to do with business ethics. IF you were the major fried chicken seller in the country, and you knew fried chicken was contributing to the over-all poor health of your countrymen, would you try to effect change in their diets, or would you continue to insist on fried chicken because, after all, that’s what everybody wants and that’s where the money has always been?
These are not hypothetical issues, and they DO have to do with the Church.
Kentucky Fried Chicken has been the leading seller of fried fowl for decades. But fried chicken has twice the calories per piece and two to three times the amount of fat. Since 2008, KFC has been marketing grilled chicken and I have to tell you, it’s good! I’ll never go back to fried.
But I digress.
Some KFC franchise owners are suing corporate because corporate is focusing more on grilled chicken. Despite the fact that this move has only increased sales, the franchise owners are upset because corporate made the move without consulting them, and they see the move as not being true to their heritage – the sign says Kentucky FRIED Chicken after all.
The exact figures are in a recent Washington Post article by Ylan Mui and reading it I thought: “how foolish and petty.” It would be a little different if sales were down because of the change (but only a little), but when they are the same, or up, why would you gripe? Especially when you know that this change in product presentation (it’s still chicken after all) is good for the future of your business!
What happens when churches implement important decisions that are unpopular, and when members have strong feelings opposing the change? Should leaders press ahead anyway? If yes, isn’t this running roughshod over the church, “lording” it over them as scripture forbids (Luke 22:25-26)?
Perhaps . . . but perhaps not.
For ages in this country (and still in some parts), black Christians and white deliberately worshiped separately. There was nothing right about this. We excused it sometimes as being about “culture” and “comfort.” But it wasn’t. It was about race and segregation and prejudice, and ignorance and mindless, stupid unfounded hatred. The right thing to do was to integrate the churches.
But how? That was really the issue. Some did it poorly. Some didn’t do it at all. But slowly, it happened anyway. And slowly is probably the way.
But slow doesn’t mean “put it off.”
KFC has made some critical errors in leadership, but these have to do with the way change has been effected – not the change itself. All this takes us back to the issue we’ve been discussing: how leadership effects change. Next week, I will have some suggestions as to how we can lead in important matters, when those who follow are likely to be resistant.
If you were in the fried chicken business, would you keep selling fried because that was your business model, or would you make the move to grilled?
There is a related issue that has to do with business ethics. IF you were the major fried chicken seller in the country, and you knew fried chicken was contributing to the over-all poor health of your countrymen, would you try to effect change in their diets, or would you continue to insist on fried chicken because, after all, that’s what everybody wants and that’s where the money has always been?
These are not hypothetical issues, and they DO have to do with the Church.
Kentucky Fried Chicken has been the leading seller of fried fowl for decades. But fried chicken has twice the calories per piece and two to three times the amount of fat. Since 2008, KFC has been marketing grilled chicken and I have to tell you, it’s good! I’ll never go back to fried.
But I digress.
Some KFC franchise owners are suing corporate because corporate is focusing more on grilled chicken. Despite the fact that this move has only increased sales, the franchise owners are upset because corporate made the move without consulting them, and they see the move as not being true to their heritage – the sign says Kentucky FRIED Chicken after all.
The exact figures are in a recent Washington Post article by Ylan Mui and reading it I thought: “how foolish and petty.” It would be a little different if sales were down because of the change (but only a little), but when they are the same, or up, why would you gripe? Especially when you know that this change in product presentation (it’s still chicken after all) is good for the future of your business!
What happens when churches implement important decisions that are unpopular, and when members have strong feelings opposing the change? Should leaders press ahead anyway? If yes, isn’t this running roughshod over the church, “lording” it over them as scripture forbids (Luke 22:25-26)?
Perhaps . . . but perhaps not.
For ages in this country (and still in some parts), black Christians and white deliberately worshiped separately. There was nothing right about this. We excused it sometimes as being about “culture” and “comfort.” But it wasn’t. It was about race and segregation and prejudice, and ignorance and mindless, stupid unfounded hatred. The right thing to do was to integrate the churches.
But how? That was really the issue. Some did it poorly. Some didn’t do it at all. But slowly, it happened anyway. And slowly is probably the way.
But slow doesn’t mean “put it off.”
KFC has made some critical errors in leadership, but these have to do with the way change has been effected – not the change itself. All this takes us back to the issue we’ve been discussing: how leadership effects change. Next week, I will have some suggestions as to how we can lead in important matters, when those who follow are likely to be resistant.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Term Limits
One of the suggestions I have received (to deal with the problem of leadership gone awry) is to have "term Limits" on leadership positions. I've seen this done several ways: one, to have leaders serve for specified periods of time, another where at intervals, church leaders are "reaffirmed."
Though I am persuaded that a lot of business practices are good practices for the church (budgeting, candor, accountability etc.), "term limits" is neither a business practice, nor a healthy church practice. It's more political than anything else and that influence is not one we want to embrace.
The whole concept of term limits flies in the face of what church leadership is about. Church leadership is about leading a family. It involves relationships and time, and time building relationships and reputation. Because Church is an all volunteer organization, absolutely NO ONE is going to follow anybody just because they have been given a "position" -- nor should they be expected to do so. Leaders who expect folks to just "fall in" because the New Testament prescribes "submission" are going to be disappointed -- and rightly so.
It's one thing for a leader/leadership that (in the course of time, despite proven wisdom, a demonstrated mind for Christ and heart for his people, and despite many and close relationships) encounters a recalcitrant flock. It's another matter entirely for a leader/leadership virtually unknown by the flock to encounter opposition. In the first instance, the flock needs to think seriously about the direction it is taking. Judgment awaits. In the latter instance, the leadership needs to think about the attitude it is exhibiting. Judgment awaits them too.
Why would we want leaders to have term limits who have developed long and lasting relationships with those entrusted to their care? The new leaders will have no such relationships and the goodwill and respect built up over the years by the old leaders will be lost. The most important part of church leadership will be lost. We'll end up with . . . politicians, leaders more concerned with agendas than the welfare of the family.
So . . . how DO we deal with leaders who have lost touch with their charges? These texts are instructive:
Galatians 6:1 -- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Matthew 18:15-16 -- "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
In other words, when leadership goes awry, it is the responsibility of the "followship" to take leadership aside for consultation. The consultation should be private and personal. And if there are many aggrieved, they still should talk to them personally, one on one -- not as a group (which is where most folks want to start). The idea is to renew and rebuild, or build further, the relationships so vital to the healthy life of a church family.
The problems are not solved overnight. Family problems seldom are, and family problems are tough. At times you may think: 'What must the world think of us when we have these difficulties?' But, at this juncture, what the world thinks is immaterial. We are the family of God. It only matters what God thinks of his family. We must work through our problems to find His approval. When we divide and "begin again," the world sees us looking just like the world (divorcing, remarrying, bouncing from one family to another) and we perpetuate a cancer that will forever keep us from being seen by the world as the body of Christ.
Though I am persuaded that a lot of business practices are good practices for the church (budgeting, candor, accountability etc.), "term limits" is neither a business practice, nor a healthy church practice. It's more political than anything else and that influence is not one we want to embrace.
The whole concept of term limits flies in the face of what church leadership is about. Church leadership is about leading a family. It involves relationships and time, and time building relationships and reputation. Because Church is an all volunteer organization, absolutely NO ONE is going to follow anybody just because they have been given a "position" -- nor should they be expected to do so. Leaders who expect folks to just "fall in" because the New Testament prescribes "submission" are going to be disappointed -- and rightly so.
It's one thing for a leader/leadership that (in the course of time, despite proven wisdom, a demonstrated mind for Christ and heart for his people, and despite many and close relationships) encounters a recalcitrant flock. It's another matter entirely for a leader/leadership virtually unknown by the flock to encounter opposition. In the first instance, the flock needs to think seriously about the direction it is taking. Judgment awaits. In the latter instance, the leadership needs to think about the attitude it is exhibiting. Judgment awaits them too.
Why would we want leaders to have term limits who have developed long and lasting relationships with those entrusted to their care? The new leaders will have no such relationships and the goodwill and respect built up over the years by the old leaders will be lost. The most important part of church leadership will be lost. We'll end up with . . . politicians, leaders more concerned with agendas than the welfare of the family.
So . . . how DO we deal with leaders who have lost touch with their charges? These texts are instructive:
Galatians 6:1 -- Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.
Matthew 18:15-16 -- "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16 But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that `every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
In other words, when leadership goes awry, it is the responsibility of the "followship" to take leadership aside for consultation. The consultation should be private and personal. And if there are many aggrieved, they still should talk to them personally, one on one -- not as a group (which is where most folks want to start). The idea is to renew and rebuild, or build further, the relationships so vital to the healthy life of a church family.
The problems are not solved overnight. Family problems seldom are, and family problems are tough. At times you may think: 'What must the world think of us when we have these difficulties?' But, at this juncture, what the world thinks is immaterial. We are the family of God. It only matters what God thinks of his family. We must work through our problems to find His approval. When we divide and "begin again," the world sees us looking just like the world (divorcing, remarrying, bouncing from one family to another) and we perpetuate a cancer that will forever keep us from being seen by the world as the body of Christ.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Driving the Herd or Shepherding the Sheep?
[At the end of last week's column I said we would address the matter of whether it was ever appropriate for leaders to draw a line in the sand. Please allow me to delay that post a bit. I want to spend a little time addressing comments from last week's post.]
I agonized more than usual before posting last week's blog: "Please Leave Peacefully." Frankly, I found the story on which the post was based more than a little astounding and wondered if any Church leadership could really be so blind and insensitive.
Then came the email response. Others too have had the experience, so yes, the idea that Church Elders would make decisions that would deliberately alienate their flock (and not care) is not hypothetical, but real. One writer (not a preacher) responded that such had happened in his congregation and resulted in losing half their membership -- including all potential future Elders.
There are at least three basic issues in all this:
1) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding the NATURE OF THEIR CALLING. It is the singular purpose of Elders (Pastors, Bishops) to care for the people God has entrusted to them by virtue of their appointment. Period. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is to get in the way of this duty. Everything Elders get involved in can be delegated to others EXCEPT for looking after the welfare of a congregation's members. That makes everything else less important and anything that gets in the way of that ministry is nothing but a hindrance.
2) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding HOW THEY SHOULD CARRY OUT THEIR MINISTRY. The board room is a poor place for shepherds unless they have gathered for prayer. Every Elder is responsible for knowing where their flock lives, what's going on in their lives, what their struggles are, and where their spiritual weaknesses lie. It's a tough job, beyond the abilities of any one man -- which is why there is always a plurality of Elders mentioned in the New Testament. Shepherding is done over dinner, and in personal visits in homes and hospitals where members can talk privately and confidently about their greatest dreams and most frightening fears. It is done on the telephone and with notes of encouragement via email and snail mail. It is done by attending the baseball/basketball/football games of our children and in the company of other adults where fellowship and bonding occurs. In short shepherding is done by being with people and sharing in their lives so they know you care about them. It is NOT done by driving them in the direction you think they ought to go. Shepherds lead. They don't drive. And the sheep know the shepherd's voice, and follow him with confidence, because they know their shepherd loves them and has only their best interest at heart -- not just because he's told them that, but because he's showed them that in his association with them.
3) Elders may have a poor sense of what their VISION for their church ought to be. Elders (and preachers too) often equate vision with church size, progressiveness, and community recognition. But the vision of Church leadership should focus on two things: bringing people to Christ and getting them to heaven. Are Bill, Bob, Sally and Susan Christians? Are Jamal, Jerry, Alice and Paula walking in the light of Christ or flirting with darkness? The vision is to get them to heaven. Anything, no matter how noble or desirable, that gets in the way of this vision is but a cataract and must be peeled away.
One of my correspondents hit the nail on the head: the problem in last week's scenario is that Church leadership lost touch with the very people they were supposed to be leading. The result was a lost flock.
I agonized more than usual before posting last week's blog: "Please Leave Peacefully." Frankly, I found the story on which the post was based more than a little astounding and wondered if any Church leadership could really be so blind and insensitive.
Then came the email response. Others too have had the experience, so yes, the idea that Church Elders would make decisions that would deliberately alienate their flock (and not care) is not hypothetical, but real. One writer (not a preacher) responded that such had happened in his congregation and resulted in losing half their membership -- including all potential future Elders.
There are at least three basic issues in all this:
1) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding the NATURE OF THEIR CALLING. It is the singular purpose of Elders (Pastors, Bishops) to care for the people God has entrusted to them by virtue of their appointment. Period. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is to get in the way of this duty. Everything Elders get involved in can be delegated to others EXCEPT for looking after the welfare of a congregation's members. That makes everything else less important and anything that gets in the way of that ministry is nothing but a hindrance.
2) Elders may have a lack of understanding regarding HOW THEY SHOULD CARRY OUT THEIR MINISTRY. The board room is a poor place for shepherds unless they have gathered for prayer. Every Elder is responsible for knowing where their flock lives, what's going on in their lives, what their struggles are, and where their spiritual weaknesses lie. It's a tough job, beyond the abilities of any one man -- which is why there is always a plurality of Elders mentioned in the New Testament. Shepherding is done over dinner, and in personal visits in homes and hospitals where members can talk privately and confidently about their greatest dreams and most frightening fears. It is done on the telephone and with notes of encouragement via email and snail mail. It is done by attending the baseball/basketball/football games of our children and in the company of other adults where fellowship and bonding occurs. In short shepherding is done by being with people and sharing in their lives so they know you care about them. It is NOT done by driving them in the direction you think they ought to go. Shepherds lead. They don't drive. And the sheep know the shepherd's voice, and follow him with confidence, because they know their shepherd loves them and has only their best interest at heart -- not just because he's told them that, but because he's showed them that in his association with them.
3) Elders may have a poor sense of what their VISION for their church ought to be. Elders (and preachers too) often equate vision with church size, progressiveness, and community recognition. But the vision of Church leadership should focus on two things: bringing people to Christ and getting them to heaven. Are Bill, Bob, Sally and Susan Christians? Are Jamal, Jerry, Alice and Paula walking in the light of Christ or flirting with darkness? The vision is to get them to heaven. Anything, no matter how noble or desirable, that gets in the way of this vision is but a cataract and must be peeled away.
One of my correspondents hit the nail on the head: the problem in last week's scenario is that Church leadership lost touch with the very people they were supposed to be leading. The result was a lost flock.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Please Exit Peacefully
[Note: It has been characteristic in Churches of Christ that our worship music in assembly is always, only, in acappella style.
The reasoning behind this is, in a nutshell, as follows: The early church worshiped without instrumental music -- a known historical fact. The music worship of the church was exclusively acappella for the first thousand years of Christian history. Gradually, however, in an effort either to enhance the singing, substitute for the singing, or just make church music more popular, the Church universal has introduced instrumental music in the past millennium. It is a relatively recent innovation. Not everyone has accepted it. The Greek Orthodox church does not, nor do a few others, including the Church of Christ. Our goal has been to imitate the early Church in our worship, ministry, and fellowship. So . . . instrumental music has been out.
The goal of this posting however is not to argue the validity of this practice, but rather, to comment on leadership.]
Today at lunch I was told of a church where the Elders, on a Sunday morning, arose as one to make this announcement (I'm paraphrasing): "We have decided, in order to enhance our communion experience, that we will have instrumental music playing softly in the background during the Lord's Supper. We know that this will disappoint some of you, and upset others. All that we ask is, if you leave because of it, you leave peacefully."
I cannot imagine a business, in a highly competitive situation, saying to its customer base: We are going to radically change our product. We know you will not like it. We know some of you will stop being our customers. We wish you well, just don't say bad things about us."
When it comes to the Church, however, this may be one of those times when the business model doesn't fit us too well. The Church is first and foremost "family." We are the family of God. Nothing is more important than holding this family together. Those who divide it stand condemned even if their cause seems noble. A leadership willing to write off family members in order to pursue their own agenda is leading nowhere God's people need to go. What they are doing is perpetuating the cancers of self-interest and division. The next time some potentially divisive issue arises, will they say "adios" to more of their number? What they are really saying is: 'some people in this family are not important and we don't care if you come to the reunions or not.' Who would want to be a part of a family like that? How will such a church family ever really be successful in making disciples (what Jesus says is our task) when the very trait of being a disciple is that we love one another?
This takes us back to leaders focusing on the right goal. Elders, the highest level of earthly leadership in the Church, are charged with the welfare -- spiritual and physical -- of the people who comprise their church. That's it. Period. They cannot do that by kicking the sheep out of the fold, or making it difficult for them to stay. Where we go, as the Church, or as a congregation, we go together, or we don't go at all.
Like it or not, to save us all, we move at the pace of our slowest members. Until Jesus comes, the only one interested in culling the flock is Satan.
Having written all this, might there ever be a time to draw a line in the sand so to speak? That's next week.
The reasoning behind this is, in a nutshell, as follows: The early church worshiped without instrumental music -- a known historical fact. The music worship of the church was exclusively acappella for the first thousand years of Christian history. Gradually, however, in an effort either to enhance the singing, substitute for the singing, or just make church music more popular, the Church universal has introduced instrumental music in the past millennium. It is a relatively recent innovation. Not everyone has accepted it. The Greek Orthodox church does not, nor do a few others, including the Church of Christ. Our goal has been to imitate the early Church in our worship, ministry, and fellowship. So . . . instrumental music has been out.
The goal of this posting however is not to argue the validity of this practice, but rather, to comment on leadership.]
Today at lunch I was told of a church where the Elders, on a Sunday morning, arose as one to make this announcement (I'm paraphrasing): "We have decided, in order to enhance our communion experience, that we will have instrumental music playing softly in the background during the Lord's Supper. We know that this will disappoint some of you, and upset others. All that we ask is, if you leave because of it, you leave peacefully."
I cannot imagine a business, in a highly competitive situation, saying to its customer base: We are going to radically change our product. We know you will not like it. We know some of you will stop being our customers. We wish you well, just don't say bad things about us."
When it comes to the Church, however, this may be one of those times when the business model doesn't fit us too well. The Church is first and foremost "family." We are the family of God. Nothing is more important than holding this family together. Those who divide it stand condemned even if their cause seems noble. A leadership willing to write off family members in order to pursue their own agenda is leading nowhere God's people need to go. What they are doing is perpetuating the cancers of self-interest and division. The next time some potentially divisive issue arises, will they say "adios" to more of their number? What they are really saying is: 'some people in this family are not important and we don't care if you come to the reunions or not.' Who would want to be a part of a family like that? How will such a church family ever really be successful in making disciples (what Jesus says is our task) when the very trait of being a disciple is that we love one another?
This takes us back to leaders focusing on the right goal. Elders, the highest level of earthly leadership in the Church, are charged with the welfare -- spiritual and physical -- of the people who comprise their church. That's it. Period. They cannot do that by kicking the sheep out of the fold, or making it difficult for them to stay. Where we go, as the Church, or as a congregation, we go together, or we don't go at all.
Like it or not, to save us all, we move at the pace of our slowest members. Until Jesus comes, the only one interested in culling the flock is Satan.
Having written all this, might there ever be a time to draw a line in the sand so to speak? That's next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
