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.
Monday, March 8, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
