Death and Dying

Within the last seven days two people that I know have passed on. One was my aunt's husband who was only 61. He had a heart attack and died in my aunt's arms praying and trusting God. Just before he died he said, "God has always taken care of me, and I believe He is going to keep on taking care of me." He died early in the morning on Christmas Eve.

The second person was a young man who was only 20 years old. He died of cancer. He was the only son of his parents and they, along with many other people, were praying for and believing for a miraculous healing. Still, this young man died early this past Sunday morning. It has been a devastating blow to his family.

Death is difficult. It challenges everything we think we know about God, about how He operates, about faith, and about love. The question of "why" inevitably permeates our very soul. Why my son? Why so young? Why at Christmas? Why not me instead of him? Why?

When my sister lost her second child to SIDS, that was the first question she asked me when I saw her. I was only 15-years-old at the time and when I walked into the room where she was surrounded by women from the community, she stood up and embraced me weeping. She asked, "Why did God take my baby? I loved and cared for her. Why did He take my baby?"

As a punk teenager I had no answer for her. But now, 32 years later with a master of divinity and a doctor of ministry degree under my belt I can confidently answer her question: "I don't know."

The point, I think, is to hold on tighter to what we do know. We know that God is love, and that He loves us even when He doesn't make sense to us. He doesn't kill babies, but certainly in His sovereign will He had to allow for the baby to pass away, for the young 20-year-old and the 61-year-old to die within days of Christmas. I don't know why, but even if we knew why, would it make it any less painful? The key, I think, is to refuse to allow the "why" to consume us. Instead, we need to cling more tenaciously to what we do know. I know that God loves my sister, my aunt, and my friend who lost her only son.

Nothing that life brings our way can diminish God's love for us. We may not understand it here and now. We look through a dark glass and see only shapes and shadows, but one day we will know even as we are known, and then and there, as we finally understand the plan of God, the "why" will no longer matter. God will wipe away that last tear as we have eternity to get to know and love one another--that husband, that young son, that infant daughter. Until then, we rest our hope and faith on the fact of God's unchanging love and wisdom. His thoughts are highter than our thoughts and He knows what He's doing, even when we don't.

Created for Eternity

C. S. Lewis
Let me stretch your mind for a moment by asking you to consider the fact that we have all been created by God with an eternal soul and yet in our mortal existence we are confined to time.

The great Christian writer and author C. S. Lewis challenges us to consider the paradox that we find ourselves in. We are created with an eternal soul that is housed in a time-bound body. Lewis illustrated this paradox by asking us to consider a fish. Is a fish ever surprised by the water in which it lives and breathes and has its being? Does a fish ever suddenly thrash about and panic because it is in the water? Of course not. And why? Because a fish was created to live in water. This is the natural state of the fish. The only time a fish shows any concern or surprise is when we bring it out of the water.

Now consider how often we are all surprised by time. If we were created for time to be our natural environment for "being" then why are we surprised when time passes so fast, or surprised at how fast the kids are growing, or surprised to find that there is so little time, and so on. We are constantly surprised by time.

According to Lewis, our continual surprise and shock at how time affects us is evidence that we were not created to live in time. Time is an unnatural state brought on by the sin of Adam. Our soul remains eternal even though we currently live in the confines of time. We live in a bubble of time floating in the ocean of eternity. It is when that bubble bursts and our soul is set free that we finally enter into our natural state, much as a fish must feel when returned to the water. In the mean time we gasp and gape in the artificial environment of time, groaning and eager for eternity, longing to be clothed in the habitation which is from heaven.
The Apostle Paul said:

16 . . .though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. (2 Cor 4:16-18, KJV)

The challenge for every leader is to address time bound issues with an eternity focused perspective. We may gain a quick fix by compromising our integrity, but if we do then we have lost sight of the eternal consequences and we are again little more than fish flailing out of our natural environment.

The Abilene Paradox

I recently read a book entitled The Abilene Paradox in which the author tells about an experience he had with his family. He and his wife were visiting his in-laws and just enjoying the moment sitting on the porch of his father-in-law's south Texas home and sipping lemonade. Apparently his father-in-law thought they were bored so he suggested that they drive to Abilene for lunch. Not wanting to offend his father-in-law the author went along with the suggestion and they all loaded into a hot car (without air-conditioning), drove for an hour down a dusty Texas road, ate a rather uninspired meal at a local greasy spoon, and then drove back home. Later, as they were talking, they realized that no one really wanted to take that trip (not even the one who suggested it), but each of them thought that it was what the others wanted. The author refers to this as "the Abilene Paradox"

I would suggest that far too often churches do things, or continue to do things that are not enriching, or that may even be counter productive, simply because no one will speak up and ask if this is what we really want to do. I recently invited the congregation to discuss whether we should continue to have Sunday evening services, or if we could do something more productive (evangelistically) with that time. After much discussion there was a general, if uninspired, consensus that we should continue to have Sunday evening services.

Later, one of the staff members told me that he was frustrated that so many people had privately told him that they would like to try something different (home groups, visitation, or family enrichment) on Sunday evening, but none of those people spoke up. Sometimes we keep doing what we're doing because that's the way we've always done it and no one wants to speak up for fear of being viewed as un-spiritual, or as a dissenter.

As a leader I opened the floor, I invited radical ideas, I entertained all questions and comments, but in point of fact, we're doing what we've always done.

All Effective Leadership Is Spiritual

Wilhelmsen (1956) notes that human expression of knowledge occurs both as an interior and an exterior process (p. 53). The interior process is primarily a spiritual exercise and as of yet, humans are not able to effectively communicate with one another at the spiritual (or metaphysical) level. Therefore, expression must occur as an exterior (usually spoken) process. However, the exterior process is a reflection (even if imperfect) of the interior process. The Bible says, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matt. 12:34). Therefore, leadership is a spiritual process to the extent that the leader is able to understand his or her own interior expressions as well as to discern the spiritual longings of the followers and to summarize and coherently communicate these desires as shared goals, values, and vision.

The effective leader will understand universal spiritual concerns—life and death; meaning and purpose; existential and eternal—and weave these concerns into the exterior expression as communally hold truths and core values worthy of pursuing as an organization. These words, the exterior expression of the leader, then become the glue of human existence and coexistence.

Sadly, many organizational goals, visions, plans, and communicated objectives are divorced from the spiritual longings of humanity and it is those universal longings which bind us together as fellow travelers dependent upon one another for a successful journey. The cold calculated decisions made solely on profit margins and investor’s returns strips the workers of their humanity and as such divorces them from one another as interdependent “beings.” They are pressed into the role of self-serving entities with frustrated spirits that are never given the freedom of expression in a greater, communal, concern.

Wilhelmsen, F. D. (1956). Man’s knowledge of reality: An introduction to Thomistic epistemology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Post reply

It Takes Courage To Be A Leader

I've been reading some more of Warren Bennis' writings on leadership and I've noticed that he likes to list things. He has four things every follower needs from a leader, ten things every leader must do to succeed, and other such lists. I find his insights very informative, but thus far I have noticed one attribute missing from his various lists of things leaders ought to have or do, and that missing thing is "courage."

If Jesus is the ultimate example of leadership (and I believe He is), then we would be remiss if we did not include the fact that any leader who will ever accomplish anything of significance must be courageous. It takes courage to share a vision that no one else can see yet. It takes courage to go against the grain of social and cultural convention and chart a new course. It takes courage to stand up for what is right when everyone else is willing to go along, to get along.

Bennis is fond of saying that managers do things right, but leaders do the right things. The difference, he says, is that a manager can be doing the wrong thing right, but a leader is willing to face the prospect of failure in the pursuit of doing the right things. This takes courage. Without courage, there will be no real commitment to the cause. Without courage, the would be leader will not confront those who do wrong. Without courage, the leader will never dare to dream the impossible, or to attempt the improbable, and in the end though he or she may have held the title of leader, they will have been little more than good managers--safe, dependable, status quo, managers.

Emergent or Emerging?

Bruce Larson and Ralph Osborne state, “At the outset, we hope that this book will self-destruct in ten years!” (10). They are proposing a powerful model for the future of the church. They lament that fact that when most new churches are birthed, even those with solid financial backing and a core of lay-leaders to work with, that those new churches tend to be merely carbon copies of other churches. They propose, instead, that churches begin to look around, not at what other churches are doing, or how to replicate the success of another church, or even how to continue to repeat previous success, but instead to consider that kind of church Jesus would build in this community given the human condition of the people who live here.

The authors quote Isaiah 43:19, which says, “Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?”

I found this book at a used book store off Keith Street in Cleveland, Tennessee. It caught my attention because the title is, The Emerging Church (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1970).” The publication date, however, is 1970. The authors hoped that this book would be outdated in ten years because what was relevant in 1970 would be irrelevant by 1980. Yet, here we are in 2007 talking about the Emergent Church. Some might say, “See, Bruce and Ralph were right on.” But the modality that they envisioned has become the sodality of the Emergent Church. In the paradigm of Bruce and Ralph, there is no “Emergent” church, because the church never emerges. It is always emerging. The church, as they see it, is a dynamic growing entity/organism that is able to adapt and proactively respond to the changing cultures, worldview, and social movements of each generation.

It is true that many denominations became fixed in a method and a particular church paradigm that was outdated in ten years. It is also true that many denominations and independant churches are resistant to change. However, if the Emergent Church thinks they have found “the” way to do church, they are already irrelevant, they just don’t know it yet. They will eventually be a bunch of old members sitting around lighting candles, singing Kumbaya, and complaining that the young kids have really gone liberal with all this hymn singing stuff.

The danger for any movement is that it stops moving.

The Perspective of Greatness

I find something fascinating about Jesus. In Luke’s Gospel 9:46-48, the disciples were arguing of which of them would be greatest in the kingdom. Jesus knew what they were doing as well as the attitudes they held in their heart, so verse 47 tells us how He put the argument of greatness into perspective.

47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a little child and set him by Him, 48 and said to them, "Whoever receives this little child in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me receives Him who sent Me. For he who is least among you all will be great." NKJV

The child may have been inconspicuous and unnoticed until Jesus put the child next to Himself. Then Jesus points to the child as a way to see Himself and as an example of the path to greatness.

In Matthew 25:40 Jesus spoke of the endtime judgement:

40 And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren , you did it to Me.'” NKJV

Then again in Revelation 5:5-7
5 But one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals."

6 And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne. NKJV

Jesus said, look at the child and you receive Me, minister to the least of these and you’ve ministered unto Me, and you look for a Lion and see a Lamb. There is something very powerful being illustrated. It is about perspective in leadership. It is about our focus and our understanding of greatness. So few people comprehend this dynamic.

Kenotic Leadership

Two years ago, after thirty years of looking, I found my father in an “old soldier’s home” in Monroe, Louisiana. He was 73-years-old and I didn’t even recognize him as he came into the room on a motorized wheelchair. He was much heavier, he was bald and the end of his nose had been cut off to remove a spot of cancer. I asked him if this was Henry Hardgrove’s room and he said, “It’s me.” I introduced him to my wife and three children, who for the first time, were meeting the grandfather they had only heard about.

He was suspicious of my motives and began the conversation by telling me that I was fat. At forty-five years old I was, admittedly, much larger than the last time he saw me at age fifteen. We talked as I tried to update him on my life. It was fairly clear that he had been lonely and embittered for the past thirty years. He was still angry with my mother (though he was the one who left), and he attempted to justify his absence and lack of financial support.

I simply told him that I had no desire to go back and rehash the past. “All I want to do,” I said, “is to start with today and move forward.” I wasn’t there to blame, though I could have. I wasn’t there to judge him, or to belittle him, or to castigate. All I was there to do was to start with this moment and try to have a relationship with my father in his last few years of life. I had emptied myself of anger, though I had a right to be angry. I had emptied myself of bitterness, though I could have been bitter. I had emptied myself of my right to an apology, though my sister and I certainly deserved one. I came to him emptied of all those things and was willing, instead, to fill the void with a meaningful relationship. I think that by the end of that day, he finally believed me.

As I left him that next day, I bent down to his chair and hugged him and said, “I love you dad.” Did he deserve that? He certainly hadn’t earned it, but he was and is my father and I am compelled by the Word to honor my father and my mother. Before I released him from that hug, he said, “I love you too.” I was 45-years-old and that was the first time I’d ever heard him tell me that he loved me. There is healing in those words. This is the power of kenosis. Had I not emptied myself of my rights as an abandoned son, I would never have heard those words and I would have passed from this life without ever hearing my father tell me that he loved me.

Jesus had rights as the Son of God, but he surrendered his rights and humbled Himself and saved the world (Phil. 2:5-11). Through the humility of the Son, we all get to hear the Father say, “I love you.” With Jesus as your example, a willingness to voluntarily lay down your rights and empty yourself so that you can be filled with all that others have to add to your life is a powerful thing. It is the very power that Jesus employed to become one of us, to walk with us, and to save us from our sins.

Leadership that must always appeal to the title or the rights of the position is operating from a posture of weakness and while such a leader may coerce the followers to act, their hearts will never be in the task. But leaders who are willing to empty themselves, without losing themselves (Jesus never ceased to be God even though He became human), is a leader that has perspective, gains respect, and wins the hearts of the people. This is the secret of kenotic leadership.

The Enigma of Motivation

How does a leader motivate followers? There are many theories of motivation but most recently I've been studying the writings of Albert Bandura. In an article entitled, "Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory" (1989) Bandura argues for what he calls "social cognitive theory" as the prime motivation for self-generated activities. (Whew! That's a mouthful.)

Let me break it down a little bit. "Self-generated activities" are those things which an individual chooses to engage in. It may be church attendance, a hobby, a course of study in continuing education, attending discipleship classes, etc. There are three schools of thought as to why people choose the activities that they choose. The first school of thought is the "autonomous agency" perspective. This view sees all humans as free moral agents who can make any choice they want to, and they can do so independently of the influence of their environment upon them. Many religious traditions call this free-will and have little patience with people who don't make quality decisions for their own lives. It is, according to this view, always their choice.

The second school of thought, "mechanical agency" sees the environment as the deciding influence. How we are raised, where we are raised, the culture we are born into, our race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, etc. all combine to shape our worldview and all our decisions will emerge from that worldview. Further, we have no control over these influencing environmental factors. That's why Christian nations have more Christians, and Muslim nations have more Muslims. That's why poor people tend to live in economically depressed areas for generations. The Proverb tells us that if we raise up a child in the way that he should go, when he is old, he will not depart from it (Prov. 22:6).

Bandura proposes "emergent interactive agency" as the best model for understanding one's motivation for engaging in specific self-generated activities. According to Bandura, "Persons are neither autonomous agents nor simply mechanical conveyors of animating environmental influences. Rather, they make causal contribution to their own motivation and action within a system of triadic reciprocal causation" (p. 1175). In other words, the choices that one makes emerges from a continuous stream of experiences and how those experiences are processed in out thinking (cognitive process). For example, a poor child may choose to attend a class on economics because he wants to know why he has grown up poor. As he understands the process better, he now thinks of ways to improve his economic condition. As he begins to gain more wealth, he learns to invest until he is wealthy. Where he is now has emerged from an interaction between his thinking, his actions, and his changing environment.

According to Bandura people are motivated first by what they believe they can do. If they believe that they can accomplish something, even though it may come in the face of great obstacles, they will endure to see it through. If, however, a person does not believe that he or she can accomplish anything, than they are not likely to invest even minimal effort or energy to accomplish it. In the illustration above, the child may never initially have believed that he could be rich, but he may have believed that could pass that class. This then, led to a chain of events that changed his thinking, and changed his life.

A leader can motivate his followers to achieve great things if he or she can, first help them see that while it may be difficult, it is possible. A teacher may have told that child that he was more than capable of passing that class. He believed and then he achieved.

I think we see waning motivation in the Middle East conflict because many Americans are now questioning if it is possible to win a definitive victory in an area of the world so rife with sectarian animosity and violence. Those sects are motivated to act because they believe that they will ultimately triumph, even if it takes many years and lives. Americans cannot envision an end to the conflict, given the divide within the very country we are trying to liberate. How does one liberate a country from itself?

Anticipated outcomes, says Bandura, will be a deciding factor in commitment to a self-generated activity. A leader must be able to help his or her people envision the preferred outcome as a result of their efforts. Even with this vision, however, if the people do not believe they can achieve it, they will not engage in it, even if the vision is worthy. Therefore, the leaders must continually engage in human resource development, increasing the ability of followers to meet and exceed the tasks they will be asked to do in pursuit of the vision. One teacher mentors a child through an economics class and out of that single act a wealthy man with an expanded worldview emerges. Leaders have this power when they can get their people to believe in themselves. Even the Apostle Paul said, "I can do all things through Christ who strenthens me" (Phil 4:13, NKJV)

Wisdom from Warren

Having written over 18 books on the subject, Warren Bennis, Ph.D., is a respected and influencial voice in the leadership/organizational arena. He has also written and published over 900 articles covering a wide range of issues dealing with leadership, management, and human resource development. So his insights should never be taken lightly or easily dismissed. Further, while I know nothing of his faith, nothing in his writings, which I have read, is inconsistent with Scripture or the leadership model portrayed by Christ.

Having said that, I want to excerpt some quotes from an article he wrote in 1999. The title of the article is, "The End of Leadership: Exemplarly Leadership is Impossible Without full Inclusion, Initiatives, and Cooperation of Followers." This article was published in Organizational Dynamics, 28 (1). The follwing are all direct quotes:

The source for effective change is the workforce in creative alliance with top leadership.

I came to the unmistakable realization that TOPdown leadership was not only wrong, unrealistic and maladaptive, but also, given the report of history, dangerous. And given certain changes taking place in the organizational landscape, this obsolete form of leadership will erode the competitive advantage and destroy the aspoiriations of any organization . . .

What we tend to forget is that greatness lies within nations and organizations themselves as much, if not more, than their leaders.

No change can occur without willing and committed followers.

... the TOPdown model, in the present business context, is dyfunctional, maladaptive and, as I'll get to now, dangerous.

What should be clear by now is that post-bureaucratic organization rquires a new kind of alliance between leaders and the led. Today's organizations are evolving into federations, networks, clusters, cross-functional teams, temporary systems, ad hoc forces, lattices, modules, matices--almost anything but pyramids with their obsolete TOPdown leadership. The new leader will encourage healthy dissent and values those followers courageous enough to say no. It will go to the leader who exults in cultural differences and knows that diversity is the best hope for long-term survival and success.

1. The New Leader understands and practices the power of appreciation.
2. The New Leader keeps reminding people of what's important.
3. The New Leader generates and sustains trust.
4. The New Leader and the Led are intimate allies.

Only a poet could sum up the majesty of this alchemy:

We are all angels with only one wing.
we can only fly while embracing each other.

These New Leaders will not have the loudest voice, but the most attentive ear. Instead, of pyramids, these post-bureaucratic organizations will be strutures built of energy and ideas, led by people who find their joy in the task at hand, while embracing each other--and not worrying about leaving monuments behind.

The Seduction of Power

This past Friday my daughter graduated from High School and the ceremony was held in a large church here in town. The facilities opened about a year ago and it was a nice change from previous graduations held at the athletic field where the audience sat for two hours in the sun on concrete benches. So I was very appreciative that the church allowed graduation to take place in their facilities.

However, (you knew that was coming didn't you?) the pastor of the church simply could not resist the temptation to put himself in the middle of the picture. He sat on the stage on a little elevated platform which held two armchairs. He was totally out of place and a distraction from the attention that was to be on the accomplishments of our children. Like a king on a throne surveying the activities of his kingdom he made sure he was in full view throughout the graduation. Then, even though there are many entrances/exits, only one, with two adjoining sets of doors, was unlocked for the large crowd to exit the building and he stood squarely between the doors to try to greet people as we tried to squeeze through the lone exits.

There is something that happens as men and women rise through the ranks and gain position, prestige, and power. It happens when people suddenly find themselves with wealth; it happens when politicians find themselves with power; and it often happens when pastors build large churches. Somehow, their sense of importance is unrealistically elevated and they have an exaggerated sense of personal appeal.

I've heard from local restaurant owners who cater food to the church and the demands for how the food must be prepared for "the Bishop" is almost comical. I've heard of politicians, who began with such sincerity, but then they get caught up in the political machine in Washington and they are making deals and accepting favors. Recently, there have been charges that Lee Scott, CEO for Wal-Mart, has been accepting favors from vendors and then allowing them to put their merchandise in the stores as a response. Sam Walton would be very disappointed with where Wal-Mart has gone.

The pull of power is so prevalent, and so prevailing, that one is tempted to believe that it is inevitable. The example of Jesus is that one can learn to serve and even empty himself or herself and identify with the least and the last among us. If Jesus is the ultimate example of leadership (and I think He is), then many pastors, politicians, and other powerful people have much to learn.

Work or Worship?

Someone who recently stopped attending our church made the statement that going to church was like going to work. That statement has been rolling around in the back of my mind now for a couple weeks. I believe in sacrifice, and I believe in selfless giving, and serving God through serving others, but I don't believe it should be work. It should be worship.

I am a fanatic for the Word of God. I insist that Word be the basis for all we do or say, teach or preach. I believe in, and strive for, sound doctrine and theology in everything I teach, or preach, or write. But somewhere in the midst of this, there must be a place for joy, for gladness, for singing, for thanksgiving and for praise. There is something in us all that longs to break free from the constraints of time and our self-conscious preoccupation with what others think, and just lose ourselves in the presence and the power of God.

I feel that in many churches (even the one I lead) there is something missing, and it is that "something" that drives people to go from church to church looking for something. Most of them cannot put their finger on it. They cannot even explain with words what they feel in their heart, but they know what it is and they know what it isn't, and far too many aren't experiencing it, whatever it is.

Is it relationship with God that is missing, and the church fails to encourage? Is it the "anointing" of the Holy Spirit? Is it transformational revelation that lifts us above the facts and allows us to see His face? What is it? Whatever it is, I want it!

Some with say that it is not it, but Him. However, He has always been and will always be, so it is not just Him, but it is encounter with Him. It isn't about where He is, but about where we are in relation to Him. ( cf., Martin Buber)

Psalm 100 point us to it. It is about joy, gladness, singing, and knowing. It is about entering, praising, and thanksgiving. Sometimes I think I have it, but at other times it seems to elude me and I find myself at church working instead of worshipping.

Emergent Models are Mimicry

Linstead and Hopft (The Aesthetics of Organization, 2000, 75-77) propose that four types of games, which correspond to four types of play, can be distinguished. These are:

1. Agon, or contest, in which the player desires to win by merit under conditions of regulation, by relying only on themselves (or the team) and their efforts.

2. Alea, or chance, in which the player desires to win by luck, by anxious submission to fate, relying on everything except themselves and powers that are elusive.

3. Mimicry, or illusion, in which the player desires to be another personality and succeeds in acceptable imaginary universe.

4. Ilinix, or carnival, in which the player desires ecstasy, unboundedness, and freedom from constraint, and does this by confounding bodily equilibrium, ordinary perception and conscience.

Reading this, it occurred to me that these four types loosely correspond four ways in which churches operate. Let me illustrate:

The Agon church tries to operate and succeed by virtue of their own power. They “try harder,” and “go the extra mile,” and “make sacrifices.” The thought is that if they do enough, long enough, they can achieve success. Often, they achieve fatigue and burnout long before they see the enigmatic success they long for.

The Alea church believes that revival, growth, “success” is all in the hands of God. They have very little to do with it. It all has to do with God’s “timing,” and God’s “plans” for His church. They pray and believe and if it is “God’s will,” people will miraculously start appearing at their church and running to the altars.

The Mimicry church is always trying to find out what is working at another church and tries to replicate that success at their church. The pastor is always going to seminars, always up on the latest church growth strategies that worked at Willow Creek, or Saddleback, and trying to copy it in their own context. This church is marked by continually changing programs. From Evangelism Explosion, to Small Groups, to 40-Days of Purpose, they are always trying to replicate the success of other churches.

The Ilinix church is looking for a spiritual connection with God. It seeks a fresh approach, is unrestrained by either human effort or mimicry of other models. It doesn’t follow a pattern, but invites disorientation as a method of reorientation and integration of an ecstatic/spiritual experience. I am tempted to suggest that this is the desired approach of the Emerging Church Movement, but the minute Brian McLaren or Leonard Sweet wrote their books and others began to employ the Emergent Church model, they were already engaged in Mimicry.

What should the church be? Is it one of these types, or some combination? I am intrigued.

Leadership: Thinking the Unthinkable

Yesterday, the unthinkable happened in Blacksburg, Virginia on the campus of Virginia Tech (VT). A lone gunman killed 32 people before turning the gun on himself. In the wake of this atrocity the leadership of the university and the local police force are under fire from the community, students, and grieving parents who believe that grave errors in judgment, action, preparation, and disaster planning were committed. Hindsight is 20/20 and many people will look back after the fact and tell the president and police what they should have done. Mass media, men and women like Heraldo, Nancy Grace, Larry King, Katie Curic, and so on, will look back and find fault with every action taken, or not taken, on that tragic day.

Sometimes, however, things happen that we have not even considered as a possibility, things so out of the norm, so aberrant, that we have not planned for them, because we have not considered them. However, a leader must go there, must look down the dark alleys of evil possibilities and sinister scenarios. In the case of the VT incident, this type of evil is not without precedent. Columbine HS was a wake up call to this very type of atrocity. Every HS and college leader should be running scenarios and disaster planning for things of this sort.

Likewise, pastoral leadership should be prepared for the unthinkable. Recently I was threatened by a white supremacist because I am in an interracial marriage, and because our church is multicultural and multiracial. The next Sunday a large white man attended. I had never met the man before and he seemed somewhat unemotional, not unfriendly, but not friendly either. I sit in the congregation during worship, on the front pew looking ahead and it seemed I could feel this man coming down the aisle at me from behind. As it turned out, this man was just a visitor and I've since talked with him and found him to be a friendly guy. The point is that I began to think about things I'd never thought of before. What if?

Later that evening I met with the elders of the church and we began to run through some scenarios. We devised a plan to deal with any potential threat to me or members of the congregation. Leadership must think the unthinkable. Exxon had no plan when the Valdez oil tanker ripped open and spilled her cargo of oil all over the pristine Alaskan shoreline. They were caught unawares because they had not considered the unthinkable.

Leaders need to ask the "what if" question. Foresight may not be 20/20, but blindly forging ahead without considering the unthinkable is no longer acceptable.

Easter Leader

Have you ever gone to the creek or the lake to swim? When I was a kid, I would anxiously wait for that first spring plunge into the creek that ran behind our house. Usually my mother would make us wait until June. Only then was the water no longer too cold to turn our lips blue. The water was still cold, but on a hot June day, we welcomed the cool refreshing splash of nature. However, even after our mothers gave permission, my sister, various cousins, and I were all reticent about being the first into the water. We all wanted the other one to go ahead of us and tell us what it was like. Finally, one of us would dive in and lead the way.

Jesus was our leader. He went first. We are all apprehensive when it comes to death. Most of us have never been there and back, and those who claim they have . . . well they never took the plunge. They only dabbled on the edges until they were brought back by a shock or blow to the chest. Jesus dove in and was gone for all or part of three days. He went ahead and came back with the promise that His resurrection is our assurance that we who have placed our faith in him will rise again also.

Sometimes leadership requires that we plunge into the unpleasant, that we wrestle a victory from the jaws of defeat, and come back as an example to others.

So many opportunities in life float by the like the creek in our West Virginia back yard. We stand and shiver at the thought of diving in. We imagine, and envision, and set a goal, and chart a course, and plan a strategy, and outline a blueprint, and brainstorm, and talk and talk and talk. But somewhere, sometime, someone has to lead the way, has to take the plunge and come up again to let others know that it can be done if you have the courage to dive in.

Usually, I had one or two cousins who never would go into the water. They would sit on the shore and dabble a toe here and there, but they never knew the bliss of the cool water's kiss. Too many opportunities are missed, by too many people who only wish, but never do.

Conferred Power

Any first year seminary student knows that the most prominent Greek word translated "power" is dunamis, which literally refers to force. However, there is another word that is often translated "power" in the KJV, but is most often translated as "authority" in more modern versions. This word is exousia, which is power by virtue of authority, competency, or mastery rather than strength or force.

Jesus conferred exousia upon believers and thus gave them mastery over of the dunamis, or the force of "the enemy" (Lk. 10:19). A hardened steel worker may have more force or physical strength than a manager who has grown soft in the office, but the manager has the authority that has been conferred upon him by virtue of his office.

In a conflict situation, both types of power may come into play. The manager is in a position of authoritative power to hire and fire, to enact policies, to determine distribution of resources and so forth, but in a heated confrontation where passions surpass reason, the worker may use physical force make his point. The challenge for the manager is utilize his or her authority in such a way that the conflict does not escalate to that point, but takes on a more cooperative form of exchange.

In a church, the pastor must learn to build trusting relationships where it is not an issue of confrontation with members over competing concerns, but a spirit of cooperation where shared concerns, framed by the Great Commission, lead to solutions where the real winner is the body of believers and not one man, clique, or interest group.

IS JESUS DEAD?

James Cameron (of Titanic and Terminator movie fame) claims to have found the tomb of Jesus, and that it contains the ossuaries (coffins) of Jesus, Mary Magdalene (his wife), Judah (their son), Mary mother of Jesus, and Matthew (one of the Apostles). He plans to do DNA and Carbon dating to verify their credibility. How does the Church respond to these claims?

Rational Points Against the Reports

1. The bias of the secular press is blatantly anti-Christian.
2. The misinformation of the press is well known (many examples could easily be cited).
3. The agenda of James Cameron:
1. Filmmaker, not an archaeologist or biblical scholar.
2. His goal is not truth or scholarship, but money.
3. He is part of the Hollywood machine that is trying to discredit Christianity.

Archaeological Points Against the Reports

1. The dating of the cave is not confirmed (nor can be), even though they may argue that it can and will be.
2. The dating of the remains is not confirmed, though they may argue that they will be (carbon dating can only get you in the ballpark, and not provide decades). thus the dating does nothing to verify that the remains were even from the same time period as Jesus, except to within a few hundred years.
   
3. The names (Jesus, Mary, Miriam, Judah) were very popular names, before and after the resurrection of Jesus.
4. There were many imposters and charlatans during the early centuries of the church. Furthermore, the heretical (so-called) Christian Gnostics had a vested interest in producing a body of Jesus, in that, they denied a physical resurrection and claimed only a spiritual resurrection.
   
5. DNA testing cannot prove anything about the identity of the people in the coffins, other than relationships to one another. They cannot prove or disprove the identity of Jesus.

Biblical Points Against the Reports

1. Jesus prophesied that in the last days this would happen: “At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it” (Mat. 24:23). This is just another such claim, though this is unique in that it is a dead Jesus.
2. Given the claim that Matthew, one of the Apostles, was buried in the same cave, this would suggest that the Apostles knew that Jesus never ascended and ultimately died. It is doubtful that ten disciples would have endured martyrdom, or would have allowed thousands of followers to endure martyrdom, if they knew this was a hoax.
3. If the Jews (especially the Jews) or Roman authorities in the area knew of the location or the death and ultimate burial of Jesus, they would have produced Jesus or His dead body and once and for all discredited the faith of the early church.
4. The Apostle Paul affirms the resurrection, declaring of Jesus: “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom 8:34).

Check out this link from Fox News, Father Jonathan Morris.

Growth on the Periphery

How can an organization facilitate growth on one hand, and yet maintain its identity as an organization with consistent values and beliefs on the other hand? As an organization grows, it must be willing to delegate more authority and autonomy to the periphery or growth will stop. If an organization is dogmatically controlled by a central source of power and resources then the organization is doomed to stop growing when the extent of the influence of the central source is reached. Even with inventive and involved hierarchical schemas, there are limits to which an organization can continue to grow without allowing for more autonomy on the edges. Instead, the vital and innovative edges will break away and thrive on their own, independent of the founding organization.

A clear example of this is the contrast between the Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and the Assemblies of God (Springfield, MO). The Assemblies has a much larger membership than the Church of God does, and the structure between the Assemblies and the Church of God helps to explain how the Assemblies has continued to see such growth while the Church of God has never seen the level of growth that the Assemblies has. The centralized and hierarchical structure of the Church of God mitigates growth, while the less centralized structure of the Assemblies facilitates growth.

Even at local church level, growing churches have leadership who have discovered the multiplication factor of empowering others to create, administer, and minister in semi-autonomous small groups, para-ministries, outreaches, extension congregations, and so forth. While I am a Church of God minister, and believe in the teachings and leadership of the organization, I fear that unless substantial structural change is embraced in the near future, the extent of our growth and vitality as an organization may be within sight.

Leaving a Legacy

I received a yearly devotional from the administrative bishop of our state in our denomination. It is a devotional that utilizes historic events and personalities from the church. Each morning I’ve been taking time to read the short devotional and to reflect upon the journey that other great men and women of faith took in their walk with God. I sometimes wonder if my effort, if my contribution in ministry and scholarship will have any lasting impact on the kingdom of God, or if my paltry blood, sweat and tears will result in little more than a castle in the sand, standing only until the next tide sweeps across the beach and all memory of the effort is forever gone.

My weakness, perhaps, is the desire to leave a legacy. I see presidents, past and present, who become obsessed with legacy. What will history say of them? How will their presidency be remembered in the pages of time? The obsession leads to policies and politics that have less to do with sound judgment, than with how they will be remembered. Some, like Jimmy Carter, will try to engage in historiography, rewriting and restating their own importance, as if trying to convince themselves and others.

I want to leave something for the next generation. I want my life to have been significant, but significant to whom? It is, in the final analysis, the review of God and not of man, which is of utmost importance. But still, I want to build something, to grow something, to write something, to say something that will live long beyond my years. Is that a weakness?

It is a weakness when such a thing becomes an obsession and when the pursuit of such a thing blinds a man to his own faults and failures. It is a strength, however, when the legacy becomes a light that points others to the enabling power of Christ in us, the hope of glory. It is a strength when we have left something behind upon which others can build. It is strength when the legacy inspires others to strive for greatness, rather than to fade into the gray mist of mediocrity.

I have found that lasting legacies rarely come without sacrifice, commitment, and selfless acts of compassion. It is wrong, and it is folly, to believe that a lasting positive legacy can be built on words without action, faith without works, or vision without courage. The example of Jesus is one of commitment to the cause, faithfulness to the Father, and courage in the face of criticism. Such men are rare in this time of quick fixes and easy believism.

Dietrich Bonheoffer was one who challenged his fellow ministers and pastors in Nazi Germany to resist the temptation to take the route of least resistance and instead to do what was right regardless of the perceived cost in this life. Still a young man at the time of his execution, his legacy continues to inspire and to challenge all believers to do right in a do wrong world, to count the cost, to consider the reward, and to go the distance.

My Prayer
God forgive me for being complacent, for seeking the easy road, and for being more concerned with how I will be remembered than I am with who will know you through my life today. Help me to become consumed with you, with your love, with your will, and your word in my life. Chip away from my life, anything that does not look like you, until all that remains is your image and likeness fully restored in me. Amen

The fear and the fallacy

Like many students graduating from a conservative Evangelical seminary, I was introduced to an exegetical approach that emphasized the historical context, the grammar of the text, and the original intent of the author. The idea of approaching the text with my own socially imbedded views as a legitimate tool in the process of interpretation was practically anathema. Later, during a hermeneutical course of study at Emory University, I was challenged by the works of Paul Ricoeur with the idea that it is practically impossible to really know the original intent of any author, and that frankly, the original intent is only of marginal importance. Furthermore, original intent implies that there is a single intent and not many intentions on the part of the author. The most important point, he argues, is what the text says to the reader and, on a larger scale, to contemporary society.

Enter, ideological texture, and one is confronted with an exegetical approach which posits that the interpretation of any text may never be absent of the socially/culturally imbedded worldviews of the interpreter. Interpretation, therefore, is not a statement or a declaration, but a conversation, a living and ongoing dialogue that explores the text as God’s word with others who offer unique perspectives, and ourselves as individuals who are conscious of our own inherent biases. If this is so, how does one read, understand, teach and proclaim the message of the Bible as the authoritative Word of God? In fact, is there “a word,” or are there “many words” that are equally valid? The fear of some is that ideological texture, as an approach to exegesis, will lead to subjective interpretations, the fallacy, is believing that there is no subjectivity.

Brian McLaren (Leadership,Winter, 2007) writes that he has recently been reading, studying, fellowshipping with, and listening to Latin Americans, Asians, and Africans. He is doing this, he says, “Because the U.S. can so easily become an echo chamber, Western voices arguing with other Western voices about Western topics from a Western perspective” (p. 110). McLaren goes on to say: “Many people in the global South see what we don’t see: how we have blended Christian faith with European-American culture” (p.%

Emergent Learning Models

In my recent studies, I am becoming familiar with various organizational learning (OL) models. One of the models that caught my attention is referred to as the “pure emergent” strategy, which lies at the other end of the spectrum from the “pure deliberate” strategy. An emergent strategy does not begin with any presumptions or “planned strategy.” It suggests that patterns and structures can take form in the absence of intentional strategy. It suggests that most of what is learned in an organization happens outside of the formal teaching models, and occurs in informal settings.

In church, we usually come to the worship service with a strategy. We may have a formal order of worship written in the bulletin, or we may only have it as a strategy that has taken form and is fixed in our ritual or our liturgy. Pentecostals often claim freedom from ritualistic religion, and yet most follow the same predictable pattern. The emergent strategy argues that these strategies form learning boundaries that inhibit or restrict learning to fit within the received framework.

We do this with our interpretation of Scripture, which is why Baptists and Pentecostals differ while both claim to be representing the same book, and both claim the inerrancy of Scripture, but neither claim that they are in error. What if we were to read the Bible without having to fit it into a Declaration of Faith or an Apostle’s Creed? What if we approached the Scriptures with a hungry heart, an open mind, and a seeking spirit? Are we allowed to learn things that lay outside the framework handed down from the Church Fathers?

What if a church gathered to worship God without expecting God to fit our formula? Is it possible to be the church and allow the liberty of the Spirit to direct the ebb and flow of a service? We claim that this is what we do, but such claims are empty in the light of most prefabricated forms and timetables.

If the emergent church is truly going to emerge, then it is going to take more than sitting in a circle and claiming that we are no longer following a hierarchical structure. It is going to take more than employing the arts and deriding traditionalism. It is going to take people with the courage to welcome the move of God on His terms, in His time, and as He wills. It is going to take leaders who are willing to challenge the received text of tradition and allow the Holy Spirit to speak in new tongues to a new generation.

THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME

This past week (or was it last week) former President Ford passed away. The procession and the progression of the funeral and memorial have gone on and on. For almost two weeks, we have heard and seen new accounts of the funeral. One day I told my wife that I was tired of the constant news updates and reminders that Ford is dead. At this point, it would only be news if they told us that he had risen from the dead.

I remember Ford's presidency. At the time, he was reviled by Democrats for pardoning Nixon. They were eager to put Nixon on trial and further embarrass the Republicans. Conservative Republicans were lukewarm in their acceptance of Ford, in that, he was pro-choice and he seemed too willing to make nice with the Communists.

However, after much time has passed, and with some reflection, many now see the positives of the Ford presidency. They refer to him as a healer. In retrospect, we see that putting Nixon on trial would only have kept the wounds of the nation open longer, and may well have caused the cut to go deeper and the divide in the nation to become wider.

As leaders, we may find ourselves in a position where an unpopular decision has to be made. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether it is the right decision, at the right time, for the right reasons. If it is, then time will eventually reveal the wisdom of that decision. However, such decisions may come at the cost of personal sacrifice. Ford would lose the election to Carter largely because of the pardon of Nixon.

Now the country looks back on Ford's presidency and says he was a healer, a reconciler, a man of principle and wise in his decision to pardon Nixon. This is the mediating affect of time and perspective when the decision is right. When the decision is wrong, the motive is wrong, or it was the wrong time for the decision, time will prove that as well.

Typically, time softens the criticism, but sometimes, as with despots such as Hitler, time reinforces the critical assessment of the leadership of such men and women. As leaders, we do not need to weigh our decisions by public opinion at the moment, but according to principles, values, integrity, and time. At the same time, we need to be prepared to make personal sacrifice when the right decision is unpopular at the time the decision must be made.