From the Keyboard of Dr. Mark E. Hardgrove

HERE I AM

2010-11-20T08:04:00.001-05:00

It's been over a year since I last posted on this blog. Wow! Time flies while you're completing a Ph.D. and starting a new job as Chair of the Department of Graduate Studies at Beulah Heights University (BHU).

I'm still pastor at Conyers Church of God and my wife has taken on a larger role as a true partner in ministry with me. She is the Church Administrator, but she does not receive pay.

Anyhow, life is very interesting as the university is planning for me to travel to Brazil and to Belgium to organize extension sites from BHU. God is in this in that I will be working with Church of God churches in Belgium as the largest churches in the country are member churches of the denomination in which I am credentialed.
God has something significant going on in my life and the church and school I'm working with. It has always been my contention that if we will prepare ourselves for more, God will give us more to do. If we, through prayer and study, prepare ourselves for significance, God will do significant things with our lives.

Stay tuned.

Anticipating Change

2009-08-06T13:10:00.002-05:00

Change. Sometimes it can be frightening. Also, sometimes, even after change has occurred, we can still be surprised and startling. I recently put a suit of armor in my office to store for a short while before returning it to its owner. I knew it was in here, but his morning when I came into my office, that suit of armor startled me. In fact, later in the day when I came out of my restroom, it startled me again.

Change is inevitable and we can either be afraid of change, or we can anticipate it, plan for it, even embrace it and triumph through change. Though not all change is good, change is unavoidable. By anticipating change, through something author Sam Chand calls “futuring” we can plan in advance and lesson, if not eliminate, being startled or surprised.

STRENGTH IN UNITY

2009-07-17T08:03:00.003-05:00

I often hear negative and disparaging remarks about denominations and it troubles me. I was on TBN once and the host made a comment that indicated that a particular problem was unique to denominations. I quickly reminded him that that particular problem occurred in independant and non-denominational churches as well. He agreed and we moved on. The point being that there is this myth that being an independant somehow results in a superior church model. This is a myth because there are as many disfunctional independant and non-denominational churches as there are denominational churches.

Last week I traveled to North Dakota to preach the dedication sermon for the Dunseith Church of God (Wind of the Spirit Ministries) as they moved from their small wood frame building, into a stately stone building that was more than twice the size of their former building. Our church has supported the ministry of Pastor Daniel and Sandi Bean for about two years. When I arrived I found that the Solid Rock Church of God from Mobile, Alabama was there with 40 people, and another Church of God from Georgia was there with another dozen or so people. The state youth director from Kansas, Bill Harrison, was there where he took time to minister to youth in the area.

In addition the state overseer, Jeffery Robinson, his brother Jeremy and their father Julian Robinson were there as well. The pastor of Solid Rock Church of God is Glenn Barnhill and his associate pastor, who heads up home missions projects, Tommy Pike, were there for the celebration as well. Solid Rock Church of God purchased the new building for the Dunseith Church of God and at their request the building was dedicated in memory of Jeannie Robinson, the wife of Julian Robinson.

As I saw all the activity and the outreach, and knowing the contribution of time, talent and money to the Dunseith Church of God by so many Church of God faithful, it occurred to me that this is the strength of a denomination. We are a family and we celebrate with one another the success of each of our churches or ministries. Looking at all that was accomplished I was proud to say that I am a pastor in the Church of God of Cleveland, Tennessee.

Be Inspired

2009-06-19T12:17:00.005-05:00

As leaders we need to be inspired. We may be inspired by a vision, by a great leader, or by the success of others. Most of the time we are inspired by great men who have done great things. One of the marks of a charismatic leader is that he or she overcame great obstacles to achieve their success.

I am inspired by the pastor of a small church in North Dakota. Daniel and Sandi Bean have been serving the little Dunseith Church of God for about five years now. They are from Georgia, but they went to serve a little church with about a dozen worshippers. Recently they've had about 45 worshippers. They both made great sacrifices to go to a church that few people would even have considered going to. They have worked tirelessly among the Native Americans and have seen lives transformed and have witnessed great tragedy among the people they love and serve.

Recently they were attempting to build a new building, nothing opulent; in fact two Church of God churches from Alabama had committed about 40,000 dollars. Instead, the Methodist church building not far from the Dunseith Church of God was for sale. It was appraised for around 60,000 (which is a lot in that area), and Daniel and Sandi knew it was beyond the possibility for their small congregation to purchase. After some inquiry and a number of serendipitous connections with the realtor, an offer of $20,000 was made and accepted. The a group from the Church of God in Alabama agreed to purchase the building outright for the Dunseith Church of God.

God honors faithfulness. I am inspired by Daniel and Sandi Bean and hope that others will be as well.

Leading like a coach

2009-05-23T15:21:00.002-05:00

I like the coaching paradigm for leadership. A coach should be looking at the long-term implications of the current practices. He or she should be developing the current talent, constantly recruiting new talent, and then putting people into roles where they will be most effective. When the individual is fulfilled and fruitful, the entire team benefits. Think like a coach when you lead.

Lighten Up!

2009-05-15T07:46:00.003-05:00

Miserable leaders make for a miserable organization. Too many leaders are miserable, defeated, fatigued, frustrated and angry, and then they wonder why everyone around them is the same way. I believe that a leader must have a sense of humor, even being able to laugh at him/herself. Joyful leaders create a climate for a joyful and hopeful organization.

Jesus came to give us joy and an abundant life (John 16:24; John 10:10). The Apostle John tells us that he writes so that our joy may be full (1 John 1:4). The Bible tells us that Jesus is going to present us faultess before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy (Jude 24). The joy of the Lord is our strength (Neh. 8:10). Yet I meet and read the posts of so many mad pastors. Lighten up. Enjoy the journey.

I once heard someone talk about "destination disease." They imagine that when they get "there"--wherever there is--then they will be happy, satisfied, and joyful. But it turns out that "there" is a moving target and few people ever get there, so I've decided to enjoy the journey. It's a good day to be alive and living for God.

It is doubtful that depressed leaders will be very attractive to the followers. If you look like you're about to jump off a cliff, don't expect many followers. Smile. Laugh. Laugh at yourself and laugh with others--not the other way around. As long as you're alive, all things are possible. One of the number one attributes of successful leaders is a positive attitude.

The Leader As Facilitator

2009-04-30T08:13:00.004-05:00

Okay, I did it. I'm up with the times. I've downloaded a video blog on the topic of the leader as the facilitator. As someone who has both served as a staff member and now as a senior pastor, I believe that I have insight from both sides of the coin. The keys I've identified are:

Recognize the strengths/gifts of those around you.
Plug them in to a ministry/function about which they are passionate and which compliments their strengths.
Trust them. Do not micro-manage.
Praise them for their commitment, for their diligence, and for the outstanding job they do.
If they need help, let them know that it's perfectly alright to ask, and then invest yourself into them, providing the leadership, training, or guidance that they need. If you don't have the expertise, then find someone who does and let your staff seek training from them, or from an organization that can be of benefit.
Provide constructive feedback. Highlight the good things before addressing areas where improvement is needed. Never be condescending, but always assume a coaching/mentoring relationship and be willing for others to give you honest feedback about your performance as well.
Be willing to let them get the credit for successes. Do not hog the spotlight, but always be willing to highlight the achievements/accomplishments of others.

Regression Toward the Mean

2009-03-16T09:24:00.011-05:00

Extremes are by definition out of the ordinary. In life, in the economy, in history, in theology, in marriages, in parenting, etc., there is, as it were, a pendulum that swings. If you've ever watched a grandfather clock you'll see that the pendulum swings back and forth until it reaches its apex and then descends back toward the gravitational pull and then swings to the opposite extreme. If you assigned a numerical value for each point on the arch of the pendulum from one extreme to the other you would find that if you took the average point total it would be in the middle. The tendency is for life to move toward the mean, the average, the norm.

We often hear rainfall totals or rainfall deficits compared to the average rainfall total. What is the average rainfall total? It is the average of the extremes. The tendency in life is a regression from the extremes to the mean.

In the economy there are constant fluctuations between market expansion and market contraction. There are fluctuations between times of wealth building and recession. However, if the fundamentals of the American economy are sound, then in time the economy will regress toward the mean. It will correct, it will tend toward the norm.

In the current situation we can be sure that unless something is done by the government to prevent it from doing so, the economy will move toward the norm and it will appear that there is a significant improvement. What often happens is that when markets go through their cyclical fluctuations is that the president in office when the market trends lower gets the blame, and the president who holds the office when it trends better takes the credit. People acting out of emotion or blind loyalty often fail to appreciate the normal fluctuations and want to assign the label of goat or hero to the leader, regardless of what real impact he or she had. In truth, President Bush was not a goat and President Clinton was no hero. They just happened to be sitting in oval office as the pendulum swung from one extreme to the other.

Time will only tell where the pendulum will be at the end of President Obama's presidency in four or eight years. But regardless of where the pendulum is, President Obama should not be seen either as a savior or as a goat. However, we should never use the extremes of pendulum as an excuse to institute a social agenda that may have negative long-term effects. A true leader understands these fluctuations and makes provision to insure that there is a social net for those affected by market downturns and that others are not in a position to unfairly take advantage when the market is in an upswing. It will always regress toward the mean unless we impede the progress.

Stimulus Swamp

2009-02-17T19:24:00.009-05:00

This is a swamp behind my house. It's actually much larger than this picture captures. I love hiking down to the swamp because one never knows what wildlife one will find. I've seen deer, ducks, frogs, and blue herons; there are beavers, bobcats, foxes, and coyotes. Walking through a swamp is difficult. I try to stay on the tops of the large clumps of swamp grass. Inevitably I will step on something that looks solid and end up in water up to my waist.

As I was walking through the swamp and meditating I thought of the latest stimulus bill signed today by President Obama. It's filled with potential pitfalls. It is guaranteed only to produce a dependency and socialization of banks, medical care, and the auto industry. There is no real guarantee of stimulating any real jobs. This is what happens when the foxes guard the henhouse.

There are many shoes yet to drop. The return of the "fairness doctrine" (to include the internet), the elimination of gun owner rights, the promotion of the homosexual agenda, the creation of life to be destroyed in stem cell research. Can God's judgment be far behind?

Apostle Paul as Leader

2009-02-13T09:50:00.004-05:00

I'm working on my dissertation: "The concept of apostleship in the Pauline literature as it relates to Paul's self-identity and leadership paradigm." After reading several articles (with many, many more to go) it occurs to me that Paul's leadership could be characterized by the following adjectives: visionary, passionate, driven, daring, focused, and consistent. He had a distinct sense of calling and of having a Divine directive to do what he was doing.

In contrast, it seems that much of contemporary leadership lacks direction, lacks a clear sense of purpose, and as such, lacks passion. Too much of contemporary leadership appears to be driven by self-centered motives and the concept of personal sacrifice is anathema to many of our leaders who insist on benefits and bonuses while the ship is sinking.

Within ecclesiastical organizations there is an uneasy awareness that a crisis is looming and that something must be done. But what? Doing something, for the sake of doing something (such as passing a "stimulus package" of almost a trillion dollars without real dialogue with all parties involved) is not leadership. Leadership, such as the Apostle Paul epitomized, had a vision, had direction, and had a real sense of Divine directive.

There are some in ecclesiastical circles who advocate using "apostle" as a title and bringing this leadership title back into the church, but to what end. The title alone does nothing to bring about real leadership, and real leaders do not need the title to lead because they have a calling that compels them to do what is right, even if it is sacrificial. I'd agree with Vinson Synan that real apostles don't need the title, but wannabe apostles insist on having the title neatly printed on a business card as an artificial affirmation of a real call that does not exist.

Living In History

2009-02-11T07:46:00.013-05:00

Okay. I haven't posted a blog since November 2008 and my wife keeps telling me that if I'm going to blog, then I need to write something. She's right of course, but honestly I've hestitated from writing anything in light of the last election because I didn't want to write anything that might be misconstrued, but let me give it a shot.

We are living in the middle of a historical time, and not just because a bi-racial man is president. More importantly, much more importantly, we are living during a time when America as we know it is changing. We are moving away from a Free-Market model to a Socialist model. This is not necessarily a moral issue. One can be a Christian and be a Socialist. However, the history of other countries who have embraced the socialist model reveals that the outcome of this shift has not been positive. In Europe inflation is a major problem, unemployment is and remains very high, healthcare is inferior to that offerred in America, and most importantly, Christianity has been declining while Islam has continued to grow. Many buildings that were once churches are now Mosques. In fact, the very church from which William Carey was sent forth on his missionary efforts to India, is now a Mosque.

I don't think that we can draw a straight line from Socialism to the decline of Christianity, but there seems to be a correlation that merits interest and futher consideration.

We are in a time of historical shift, so much so, that I believe ten or twenty years from now (if the Lord has not returned by then) we will look back and bemoan that fact that the world changed for the worse, and we stood by and watched it happen.

Thank God

2008-11-26T23:11:00.006-05:00

This is the first church that I pastored. In 1985 I was asked to serve as the Interim Pastor of the Caribou Church of God in Caribou, Maine. There were seven people in the congregation--me, my wife, our infant son, and four other people. I received no pay, in fact, what little bit of tithes we could pay from my wife's Air Force Sergeant's pay was almost all that came in to cover the cost of electricity.

Twenty-three years later I'm pastoring a church that is averaging over 300 a month in attendance and in which the sanctuary of the Caribou church would fit in the foyer. I'm no better now than I was then and God is no better to me now than He was then. Still, I'm grateful to God for allowing me to grow and to for my ministry to grow as well.

I have much to be thankful for, including the fact that this week I passed my comprehensive exams in the Regent University Ph.D. program in Organizational Leadership. I was at Caribou when I earned my bachelor's degree, and at Conyers I've earned my D.Min. and am now a Ph.D. candidate.

The date on that photo is wrong, I didn't reset the clock on the camera. In fact, I took that picture this past Summer when my son (who is now 22) and I when back to Maine to visit the state of his birth. I thank God that I have children (Sons 22 and 12, and Daughter 19) who have never given me any real grief. No drinking problems, driving infractions, drugs, or rampant libido.

Then of course, I am thankful for a wife who has given her encouragement and support to my educational pursuits. She has often had more faith in me than I've had in myself.

Thank God.

Who Knows What the Future Holds?

2008-11-12T15:28:00.007-05:00

Admittedly, the election did not turn out as I had hoped. I am saddened by the fact that the President-Elect is going to pass legislation that will remove all restrictions for abortions, and that now a portion of my hard earned money, taken from me in the form of taxes will now be used, against my will, to fund abortions.

In reality, there are many issues that loom large on the horizon of America's future. There is the growing Russian threat. There is the deepening economic crisis. There is the socialization of American banks and businesses. There is the failing stock market. There is a moral crisis in America. There is growing unemployment, home foreclosures, international tensions, the shifting tectonic plates of American culture. At the same time there is and will be a resurgence of white power groups and threat of terrorism both domestic and foreign.

The Bible tells us that such a time would exist and just as all are about to despair, a great leader will be embraced by the world, he will promise peace, he will seem to have all the solutions, and he will even gain the trust and allegiance of the Middle East nations, including Israel. But then, just when it seems the world is experiencing unparalleled prosperity and peace, he will break the treaty he has brokered with Israel and the world is thrust into a time of great tribulation and ultimately ends with the battle of Armageddon.

Who knows what the future holds? God knows, and He holds the future. Regardless of how I wished the election had turned out, God's plan is on track and I believe the end is in sight.

Weary With Politics?

2008-10-17T08:15:00.005-05:00

I don't know if you feel the way I do, but sometimes I just get tired of politics. I get tired of the exaggerated promises and the exaggerated attacks. I get tired the hyperbole and the hubris. I just get tired of it.

I know it's important to stay informed. We need to know what the moral issues are, we need to know where the candidates stand and then we need pray and vote for the candidate whose values must closely align with God's standard.

We need to know, for example that one candidate has promised that within his first 100 days in office, he will sign a piece of legislation which will effectively end all restrictions on abortions (parental notice of minors seeking abortion, partial birth abortion, fetus rights legislation, etc.), and this will result in millions of unborn babies dying if this person is elected.

We need to know these things. But the truth is that by now we should all know where the candidates stand. They've been talking for two years! But we also need to know where our local candidates stand on issues. We need to know the "platform" of both parties. One stands for a pro-death agenda that supports killing the most innocent members of our society, and supports a homosexual agenda which seeks to "force" those who disagree with their immoral stand to keep silent under the threat of legal repercussions. The other party promotes a pro-life agenda and has resisted the homosexual agenda while seeking to respect the rights of all people.

We should know these things by now. If we don't then maybe we shouldn't vote. We should never vote party lines simply because our parents were in this party or that. We should not vote a certain way because the preacher or the politician says we should. We should vote the way we vote because we know the issues, we know where the politicians stand, and we know how these issues and stands align with the moral code that God has given us.

I'm tired too, but I'm not too tired to go to the polls and cast my vote. Please be informed, pray, and then cast your vote. Then come home and take a nap.

The Impact of Unemployment on Churches

2008-10-04T15:52:00.008-05:00

It seems that we are at the beginning of a fairly significant downturn in the economy. By all accounts it may take two to three years for the trend to bottom out and for recovery to begin. During this time unemployment is likely to increase significantly and churches are going to have to provide ministry to hurting families, while at the same time the churches will have to deal with the financial impact of lost tithes and offerings. The double hit of needing to do more but having less to do it with will challenge church leadership. There will be a need for new ministry paradigms and for innovative methods for creating multiple income streams for the church.

Fortunately, the churches that are debt-free will be able to weather the storms, but those who have been living on the edge of their resources with large mortgage payments will find themselves in a precarious position. In fact, many may default. In the past denominational headquarters may have bailed them out, but with decreasing property values, taking on the debt while HQ is also dealing with a money crunch make this much less likely.

Churches with these mortgages will be forced to ask their cash strapped congregations to give more, to do more, and to give sacrificially, but this push will only result in exacerbated feelings of guilt as people begin to divert tithes to pay for their home mortgages and other debt payments.

How did we get here? A focus on facilities with little attention on economic trends while going into debt and calling it a vision has resulted in grand facilities with dwindling income.

How do we get out? We must continue to evangelize, keeping our eyes on the harvest rather than on parishioner's pocketbooks. We must offer healing to the hurting, counsel the confused, and love to the lost. We must be willing to do more with less and rely more upon the Spirit than we do upon our money.

Finally, as churches begin to default on loans, congregations must be willing to merge as debt-free churches offer haven and love to those no longer have place to worship. This must be done with humility and without a spirit of triumphalism on the part of the church receiving the financial refugees from the failing churches.

God Driven vs Success Driven

2008-09-05T09:15:00.003-05:00

It seems to me that too often Christian leaders are more “success driven” than “God driven.” By this I mean that pastors too often measure their own success by the externals rather than the eternals. We tend to put a premium on those things that can be measured and observed by ourselves and by others. For example, we can see the numbers in attendance or the new building that we’ve built, or the new state-of-the-art equipment in the audio-video department. Eternal things, however, according to Paul (2 Cor. 4:18) are invisible. What are the invisible eternals? Some of them would include our own devotional life, our witness, our prayer closet prayers, and our faith. When we God driven rather than success driven our decisions will be in alignment with God’s will and God is able to do things that we cannot do for ourselves.

Let me provide an example. When I went to Kansas I soon found that Church of God churches were few and far between. As the district pastor God birthed in me the desire to plant another Church of God church. I began to visit other towns near Junction City (which is where I was pastoring) and found the beautiful small town of Abilene, Kansas. It was the hometown of Dwight Eisenhower, and I fell in love with it. There were other Pentecostal churches in the town, but I still thought that I should plant a Church of God church. However, try as I might, nothing opened up and I never planted a church in Abilene. Instead, there was another little town about 30 minutes south of Junction City – Herington, Kansas. It was a little hole-in-the-wall town (pop. 2,500) that was out in the middle of wheat and milo fields. As it turned out there were no Pentecostal churches in Herington and in short order God provided a beautiful worship facility for less than six thousand dollars. It was a debt free church in two years. That’s a God thing.

If I had pursued my own plans in Abilene and we would have had yet another Pentecostal church in the town and a large debt to go with it. God knows what He’s doing and His ways are the best ways. That's why every leader should strive to be God driven rather than success driven. The ultimate success will be to hear God say, "Well done thy good and faithful servant. Because you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over much."

Leadership Style

2008-08-30T10:31:00.001-05:00

A few days ago I was asked by someone what my “leadership style” is. I hadn’t really thought much about a particular “style” because frankly I feel that the style of the leader is determined in part by the follower(s), the situation, and the task at hand. In some circumstances, with certain followers, the “style” might be more autocratic and directive in nature. In other circumstances the “style” might be more democratic and participatory in nature. This is the approach promoted by Hersey and Blanchard’s “situational leadership” theory. It is, in my estimation, the approach used by Jesus. He used the leadership appropriate to the person and situation.

Regardless of the style, however, it is always my goal to enhance follower self-efficacy and thus to empower them to act and perform with more autonomy and to become self-directed learners and leaders. This is only possible when the values and vision of the organization are shared by the follower and when they have demonstrated proficiency in their area of responsibility. A leadership function, then, is to clearly communicate vision and demonstrate and illustrate the organizational values as he or she is developing followers.

There are various leadership theories that sound biblical, such as, transformational and servant-leadership, but it should be noted that neither of these theories was gleaned from scripture, but from secular organizational models. Certainly, they can be employed in ecclesiastical settings and “Christianized” but they are not inherently Christian in origin. Furthermore, less Christian sounding leadership styles can be appropriate in ecclesiastical settings given the situation. For example, Jesus could be very autocratic at times (“no man comes to the Father but by me”), as well as exemplifying servant-leadership as He washed the Apostle’s feet.

Some argue that a leader has “one effective style” and cannot change to match the situations, and as such, the organization must match the right leader with the needs of the organization. To compensate for the lack of leadership range, then, the leader must hire a great supporting staff which will result in synergistic team leadership. Research and opinion is mixed in evaluation of the question of whether a person can effectively employ more than one leadership style. Taken together they suggest that some leaders have only one set style, probably a result of their personality matrix, while others are able to employ various styles with equal competency.

There are a number of leadership style measurement tools available which will help one to determine his or her predominate style, such as the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and it can be helpful to see where one falls on the spectrum of leadership styles. Having identified one’s predominate style, the leader who would aspire to multiple leadership styles to match situations, should begin a program of self-directed learning in the leadership styles he or she wishes to develop. This is a continual process of leadership improvement. The use of a mentor or coach in this process is very helpful. Call me.

STOP THE BLEEDING!

2008-08-22T16:54:00.003-05:00

I stood beside the bed of a friend as the doctor's and nurses frantically worked to keep him alive. They had put unit after unit of blood into his body, but as they were putting the blood in, he continued to bleed out. His clotting factor was so low due to the blood thinners he had been on that a relatively minor surgery now had his life in peril. Thankfully, due to the dedicated work of doctors and nurses they stopped the bleeding and he lived.

In business and in churches a flow of finances is essential to the continued operation and success of the organization. The simple fact is that if there is more going out than there is coming in, then Houston, we have a problem. There are two ways to deal with the financial shortfall: first, increase the in-flow of money, and second, decrease the out-flow. Or a combination of these two.

God has blessed me with the ability to quickly scan the financial situation of an institution and to get a feel for the incoming and the outgoing. I almost always approach the problem from two fronts, both looking for ways to increase the income while at the same time finding and eliminating waste.

In an economy when many churches have felt the pinch, our church has had a strong summer of giving, while at the same time we have tightened our belts. We've had some emergencies come up with air-conditioners failing and such, but thankfully we've been able to match every emergency without having to borrow or beg.

In our own homes and personal finances we need to do the same. Everyone should have a realistic budget and should endeavor to live by that budget. It may mean tightening our belts, but we can survive financial upheaval in our economy if we make wise and God directed decisions.

Twenty-Four Years of Marriage:Lessons Learned

2008-07-30T08:30:00.004-05:00

July 30th, 1984 a twenty-three year-old man and a twenty-one year-old women joined hands in a bridal shop in Caribou, Maine and a notary public, wearing a red, white and blue dress, married Mark Hardgrove and Sun Chi. I wore my Air Force dress blues and Sun wore a white dress she purchased from a mall in Canada. We couldn't afford a wedding dress, but ironically there were mannequins all around us wearing wedding dresses. Only my mother, my step-father and Sun's good friend Shirley were there to witness the occasion.

We were two people who could not have come from more diverse backgrounds. I grew up in West Virginia; she was born in Seoul, Korea and lived in Los Angeles, California. She was a city girl and I was a country boy. She is Asian and I was a white hillbilly. We had known each other for a little over eight weeks, but there we were getting married.

Frankly, we barely survived our first year. Two years later our first child, a son, was born and our common focus kept us together. For the next four years I worked all night and went to school all day working on my M.Div. Sun was home alone a lot with our son. Two years after our son was born our daughter was born and Sun was now home with two babies and not much of a husband. I finished my degree, we took our first church in Junction City, Kansas, saw God do great things, moved to Lawrenceville, Georgia to work as an associate pastor, and in 1996 our youngest son was born shortly before I became pastor of the Suwanee Church of God. For the past eight and a half years we've served the Conyers Church of God.

What are the lessons I've learned from this twenty-four year odyssey? First, I've learned that there will always be ups and downs in a marriage. Enjoy the highs, learn from the lows, but as Winston Churchill said, "Never give up."

Second, I've learned that people can change. My wife has developed a wonderful sense of humor that she did not appear to have when we first met. I have learned not to take every disagreement as the end of the world.

Third, I've learned that time does fly. I went back to Maine with my oldest son this past June and we visited the old Loring Air Force Base where he was born 22 years ago. So many old memories came rushing in upon me. I was grateful to be there with my son, but I was wishing that my wife was there as well. I took a picture of the barracks (dorms) where she and I first laid eyes on one another. We had no idea that a seemingly chance meeting would change our world.

Finally, I've learned that God does have a plan, even when it appears that we have done everything wrong, God has a way of making all things work together for good.

As I wrap up my Ph.D. studies and I look ahead at the prospects before us, of the future that God still has for my wife and me, I live with the anticipation of a wonderful adventure ahead. Twenty-four years from now (should the Lord tarry) I'll be 71. I have no idea what lies ahead, but I fully anticipate that Sun and I will be together celebrating 48 years of marriage. Perhaps we'll have grandchildren by then, maybe I'll be retired and writing my memoirs, but oh the stories we will tell.

What does this have to do with leadership? I read a study that found that, with few exceptions, most great leaders had been in a committed relationship for many years with a supportive spouse who believed in them. I don't know if I'll ever be considered a great leader, but I have a supportive spouse who believes in me and together we have done more than I would have ever done alone.

Friend are Friends Forever in the Lord

2008-07-17T12:35:00.005-05:00

An old friend is in the hospice. He was the administrative bishop in Kansas who appointed me to my first church. Though only 62 cancer has brought him to the door of eternity.

We often walk through life with little thought of the way our lives intersect and impact one another. When I graduated from seminary I had three ministry options-- one in Virginia, one in Arizona, and one in Kansas. I chose Kansas because my cousin was attending the church there. John was the administrative bishop and upon my first meeting with him I was impressed at how personable he was. Both he and his wife are humble and people who reach out emotionally and take you in as a friend.

I will never forget the day that I felt like my ministry was coming to a screeching halt and the first person I thought to call was John. I’d had an accident working at the church I was pastoring in Georgia and soon found out that I had absolutely no insurance to cover my debt of around $60,000. I thought that my only recourse was to go bankrupt and I figured that would mean the end of my ministry. I called John literally crying at the prospect of leaving the ministry. John listened quietly until I had vented my fears and then he said, “Mark, I know that over the past thirty some years of growing up in West Virginia without a father that you’ve overcome bigger challenges than this. Trust God. He’ll get you through this.”

Thirteen years later he is fighting for his life, but his words are alive in my mind and heart. Shortly after talking with John, the hospital called offering to pay the bill off through indigent care, the doctor lowered his fees, and the church I was working for insisted on paying the remaining $4,000. Not a penny came out of my pocket.

I had come so close to packing it in and quitting, but an encouraging word from a friend made all the difference.

Thank you John for being my friend. (John passed on to glory, 4:00 am, July 18, 2008)

Looking At Life Through the Eyes of Another

2008-07-10T14:17:00.005-05:00

I'm a people watcher. I can sit at a mall or in a public park for hours and just watch people walk by. I love to watch how people interact with one another, how they laugh and how they cry. When I see someone crying, especially children, it makes me feel sad. My fascination is a mixture of curiosity and empathy.

Often we are so consumed with our own little world that it rarely occurs to us that every person on earth has their own story, their own history, their own joys and sorrows. As a writer I often have this urge to go uninvited to a table in the food court and ask that person to tell me their story. I suppose many people would think I was just weird, or the woman eating alone might think I was making a pass, so I resist the urge to ask. Still, I think each of us should try to expand our view of the world and try from time to time to look through the eyes of another.

We might want to start at home with our children and our spouse. Do we even know how the people closest to us experience the world? Do they view it as hostile, as inviting, as opportunity laden, or as a foe to be defeated?

I think that empathy enables us to be a better leader than we would be as an aloof, task only oriented person. At times even empathetic leaders have to make decisions that are painful--both to the person being affected and to ourselves--but we should make those decisions with compassion for those who are affected. If we have to fire someone one, they may effectively be removed from our "world" but their world goes on and we should be sensitive to that fact.

The Beautiful Question

2008-07-01T13:35:00.004-05:00

e.e. cummings wrote: "Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question.” I found a blog by a young man identified as Pat. He states:

Are you a question answerer by nature? I have come to believe with all of my heart that it is a profound and highly successful ministry that learns how to ask beautiful questions . . . . (Geography of Grace).

He is dealing specifically with ministry to at risk youth, but I think his insight is meaningful to us all. In “science” we spend much time answering questions. As a Pastor my response to questions from my parishioners is to try to authoritatively answer all questions related to Scripture, after all I have a M.Div. and a D.Min. and if I can’t answer the questions then what hope is there for anyone else? Lately, however, I’ve been more inclined to answer questions with questions for the purpose of helping others discover the truth that is revealed in Scripture. My goal is not the more beautiful answer, but the more beautiful question and along the way the humbling reality that I might just learn something as well.

cummings, e.e. Poems 1923-1954. NY: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. 1954.

Geography of Grace (n.d.) The art of asking beautiful questions. Retrieved July 1, 2008 from http://www.geographyofgrace.com/2008/06/the_art_of_asking_beautiful_qu.html

The Power of Framing and/or Reframing

2008-06-06T08:07:00.004-05:00

The aesthetic value of a picture is enhanced or diminished by how it is framed. This is why people will often spend more on a frame than they do on a picture or painting. A great picture in a bad frame looks cheap, while an average picture in a great frame looks like it must have some value. One of the most important roles of a leader is framing.

Looking at framing as an act of communication, it refers to how we verbally explain, describe, or promote an issue, policy, situation, etc. Unfortunately, too many leaders are not very good at framing and as a result good ideas are diminished in the minds of the followers. Let me give an example. A church wants to start an early Sunday morning service and eliminate the Sunday evening service. Whatever the motivation, the framing of the proposal for the church will make all the difference on how enthusiastically the new schedule is embraced.

A bad job at framing would be for the pastor so say: “Well our people just aren’t as committed as they once were and they won’t come for the evening service, so we’ll just cancel Sunday evening and try to get them out in the morning.”

A good job at framing would be something like this: “We know that people’s schedules have changed dramatically over the past couple decades, and Sunday evening isn’t an option for many of them. However, we understand that some people could come to an early service and many of our members would prefer to come earlier rather than later. So, we are going to move our Sunday evening service to the early morning and see if we can be more effective and reach more people.”

The same event is framed in two different ways. Which one would have the most appeal? Obviously the second. Every leader should spend a considerable amount of time considering how he or she will frame important decisions, changes, and innovations. Paul said we are to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:14). Love should always frame the topic, even when the truth hurts.

Change, change, change. . . .

2008-04-29T08:56:00.003-05:00

When one thinks of change it suggests an event or result that brings a person or organization from one state or mode of operating to another. In the Lewin-Schein change model the process is threefold: unfreeze-change-refreeze. The unfreeze stage is the stage at which the need for change is championed. It requires a critical mass of acceptance among members of the organization before change can be initiated. Often this need for change is motivated by discontentment with the current state or condition, as well as a desire for a preferred future state. As the unfreezing stage has influenced a critical mass of individuals the change process is initiated. This is the enactment of a strategy designed for the purpose of moving the person or organization to the preferred future state. However, given the propensity for humans to digress to familiar patterns of action, especially during times of duress or stress, Lewin-Schein proposes that change is not successful until the refreeze stage is complete. This is a process of structural and procedural codification of the change that endeavors to keep the individual or organization from moving back into old familiar past behaviors that predate the change stage.

This is a simple change model and one that can be effective. However, more recent reflection on this model proposes that the final stage of refreezing is impractical in the current era of rapid social, economic, and cultural change. Instead, some are suggesting that no organization should ever believe that it has achieved a state of rest, or settle into a current state or stage of development. What does this mean? It means that we live in a world that is in a constant and unabated state of transition and these transitional states are occurring with more and more rapidity. As such, even as an organization is moving from one state to the next it must be thinking three and four changes ahead and not merely looking to the next stage in the organizational life.

Let me illustrate. I used to play billiards and I wasn’t very good. I usually only looked one shot ahead. I looked for the next easiest shot and no further. I began to notice that the really good players were planning two and three shots ahead. When they took a shot they were setting up the next shot, and the next, and so on. When an organization moves only from one shot to the next it will never be ahead of the game but will always be playing behind the changing environment in which it exists.

Perhaps a new model of change would be unfreeze-change-change-change . . .

Change and Transitition

2008-03-18T09:33:00.005-05:00

I recently attended a conference (Engage 21) that was addressing the issue of identifying emerging leaders. The purpose of the conference seemed to be an acknowledgment on the part of the denomination that with aging pastors in many pulpits there is a need to raise up younger ministers. There is a need for a mechanism to identify these younger men and women and have a structure in place that encourages them to participate and contribute to the overall vision of the organization--and perhaps even to forge a new vision.

This is a challenge in that the younger demographic is not nearly as loyal to any organization as their parents and grandparents were. (This is not a value statement but a fact revealed in a number of studies.) In society at large, secular organizations (and perhaps even religious organizations) have proven to have little loyalty to workers and therefore workers feel no compulsion to be particularly loyal to organizations. In light of this, organizations need to come to a new realization that loyalty and commitment cannot be assumed, but must earned.

How does an organization earn this loyalty from a younger and often skeptical demographic?

First, the conference was a good start, in that, the organization must be willing to listen. These younger leaders need to believe that their voice will be heard. If they will not be heard within the organization, these men and women will make their voice heard in others venues, such as blogs and message boards. Older organizational leaders have decried the participation of pastors on such boards such as Actscelerate.com, but instead they would do well to visit and read them for themselves, not to criticize, but to understand.

Second, the organization should invest in the youth. If the youth can't or do not want to assume the pastorate of an existing (dying) church, then we should regentrify. That is, as older churches close, reinvest that money in a proven young leader in a new church plant. When the organization uses the money from sales of older properties to bolster state budgets or pay-off state debt, the net result will continue to be negative for the long-term prospects of that organization.

Finally, the youth need to appreciate the wealth of wisdom and experience that is available in the older ministers and learn from them. Admittedly, things have changed and the good-ole-days weren't all that good, but just as organizational leaders need to listen to the youth, the youth need to ask questions and listen to the older ministers.

I'm somewhere in the middle, moving quickly to the older status, and I am eager to share anything of value that I have learned with others. After finishing my Ph.D. in organizational leadership, I hope to do some writing and coaching, and along the way to continue to learn from my older and my younger counterparts.

I Like Leadership

2008-02-05T11:50:00.001-05:00

As someone who has served for many years in a leadership position, in fact, as the senior pastor of three churches, I’ve found that being a leader is usually enjoyable. We don’t use the term enjoyable very often when speaking of leadership. We hear words like challenging, tough, courageous, and bold. However, for the most part it has been an extremely enjoyable experience for me. Yet, it is somehow seen as arrogant or prideful to admit that we like being a leader, so we walk around like it is a cross to carry. We think that we should be the reluctant leader like Moses, or Gideon. Peter, however, was a leader and he (like most the disciples) embraced the mantle, as did Elisha.

We hear a lot about pastoral burnout and about pastors who are leaving the church. At Wal-Mart, the turnover of management positions is extremely high. In other organizations we hear about burnout and about people dropping out of the “rat race.” However, ninety percent of my leadership experience has been great. Studies have shown that it is the ten percent of the leadership that is not great that often leads to leadership disillusionment.

Admittedly, 200 people can tell me what a wonderful job I’m doing and I take it all in stride. I don’t get the big head, or feel too exalted, but let one person tell me that I did or am doing something wrong and that criticism or comment follows me home and haunts me through the night. We need to hear the criticism. If we surround ourselves with yes-men we will only hear what we want to hear, rather than what we need to hear. But it can still be painful to hear. The pain is part of the growth process that helps us become better leaders, and therefore find the job even more enjoyable. So if you are a leader, enjoy!

Church: An Open or Closed System?

2008-01-18T10:36:00.000-05:00

Most churches are filled with self-appointed consultants who feel that it is incumbent upon them to share their findings with the senior pastor. One "consultant" will say that the need is for the church to return to core traditional values, reflected in worship styles incorporating hymns/Southern Gospel . Another "consultant" will say that the need is to respond the external environment and offer a program that appeals to the community, thus the need is to employ more contemporary models--praise and worship or contemporary Christian music. Two people, two perspectives, both probably shaped by personal biases, that is, personal preference.

The underlying question is whether the church is an open system or a closed system. If it is a closed system that is designed only to respond to internal environmental conditions, then it may be possible to have a happy but dying church. On the other hand, an open system that responds to external needs and conditions may produce discomfort among members, but result in growth.

Reflecting upon the ministry of Jesus, it seems He intended to birth a church that was responsive to the external environment without sacrificing foundational truths. The existing first century religious establishment was a closed system and that was part of the problem. Few of the religious elites who were ensconced in the existing system were willing to look through new eyes. The apostle Paul is an exception, and he had to be blinded before he could see.

Dr. Dutta Roy says that it is impossible for a person who is in the system to be a diagnostician of the system he or she is in. In others words, neither members nor leaders will be effective at diagnosing the needs of their own organization. He argues that accurate diagnostics of the organization must come from an outside, objective, source. This is true both at the local and the organizational level.

Dealing with Dis-Appointments

2008-01-04T22:41:00.000-05:00

"Disappointment". . . if you look at the word it suggests that an appointment was anticipated, but it was annulled, or it was canceled. It suggests a letdown, a setback, a frustration, if not a failure. Every leader will have to face his or her share of disappointments. A leader may hope for something to happen, may anticipate a certain outcome, may even plan for and make arrangements for an “appointment” only to be dis-appointed. How a leader handles such disappointments may ultimately determine how far he or she will go in leadership.

For some, the disappointment may result in a bitter retributive spirit that seeks to get even with the individual or the organization who denied the anticipated objective. Such retribution often takes the form of disparaing remarks concerning those that the leader perceives to have thwarted his or her would-be appointment. Another reaction is to retreat into lethargy, a “what’s the use” mentality that surrenders to mediocrity and sinks into complacency. A third and more productive response to disappointment is to assess the reasons for the disappointment, make adjustments and improvements, and then refocus for the next “appointment.” It may require that one change goals, it may mean a new focus, or it may mean that one must revisit the appointment with new skills, experience, resources, or education.

It is too easy to blame others for our disappointments. However, there may not even be need for blame. It may have simply come down to the fact that someone else could deliver a better product, or could produce it at a lower cost, or that they simply appealed to some intangible attraction on the part of those making decisions relative to the appointment.

Truthfully, sometimes it isn’t fair. That’s life. A good leader will roll with the punches and get back up off the mat to fight another day. Some punches will be below the belt and sometimes you get a thumb in the eye, but wallowing in self-pity and self-justification will not gain a victory, now or later.

The Apostle Paul faced his share of disappointments, but he never quit, he never backed down or gave ground. Instead, he continued to press toward the mark until, at the end of his life he could honestly say, "I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith." Good leaders keep the faith.

Death and Dying

2007-12-25T15:14:00.001-05:00

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

2007-12-04T12:18:00.000-05:00

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

2007-11-13T14:15:00.001-05:00

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

2007-10-13T20:28:00.001-05:00

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

2007-09-25T09:22:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-08-17T11:15:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-29T18:29:00.000-05:00

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

2007-07-09T16:04:00.000-05:00

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

2007-06-27T13:45:00.000-05:00

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

2007-06-02T09:13:00.000-05:00

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

2007-05-26T05:22:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-05-02T09:01:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-26T16:01:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-17T08:18:00.000-05:00

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

2007-04-06T13:24:00.000-05:00

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

2007-03-27T09:59:00.000-05:00

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?

2007-02-28T13:54:00.000-05:00

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

The bias of the secular press is blatantly anti-Christian.
The misinformation of the press is well known (many examples could easily be cited).
The agenda of James Cameron:

Filmmaker, not an archaeologist or biblical scholar.
His goal is not truth or scholarship, but money.
He is part of the Hollywood machine that is trying to discredit Christianity.

Archaeological Points Against the Reports

The dating of the cave is not confirmed (nor can be), even though they may argue that it can and will be.
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.
The names (Jesus, Mary, Miriam, Judah) were very popular names, before and after the resurrection of Jesus.
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.
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

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.
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.
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.
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

2007-02-16T12:30:00.000-05:00

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

2007-02-02T13:18:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-26T17:03:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-09T19:37:00.000-05:00

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

2007-01-02T09:48:00.000-05:00

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.

Problems are like rocks--they're hard

2006-12-12T10:54:00.000-05:00

Luke 8:6
6 And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture. KJV

Last year our church had some work completed on two of our fields. In fact, we had the two fields combined to make one large field. We have a dream of a sports ministry at the church and with a gym for basketball and volleyball, as well as a top-notch fitness center--we are well on our way. However, we needed to develop our fields for softball, football, and soccer. Last year the Lord blessed us with over $50,000 in dirt and grading to bring our dreams closer to reality.

Every morning I drive down the edge of the large field and enjoy the serene scene of rich green grass growing over a field that is several acres large. Away from the phone in the office, I check my calendar, read some devotional scriptures, and then I get out and pray while I walk the field. As I walk the field I find that beneath the grass, mostly hidden from view, there are many stones and some large rocks that need to be removed before anyone attempts to dive for pop-fly or tackle someone. So every morning I find and fling rocks from our field. As I’ve done this, I asked God what lesson there is for me in this exercise. This morning God have me an “ah-ha” moment.

Rocks are like problems. There are small ones that can be easily handled, in fact, several can be handled at once and easily dispensed with. Others are larger, harder to dig out and difficult to carry. Some require assistance in removing. Some are hidden beneath the grass and not readily seen, others stand out like a sore thumb.

In addition to myself, some geese have found our field and the fresh green grass is more than they can resist. So them come, they eat, and they leave behind little reminders of their visit. If I get in a hurry, and if I don’t pay close attention to what I’m doing, I find myself with a handful of goose poo. (I hate it when that happens!)

Leadership requires that problems, challenges, and obstacles be dealt with. Let’s face it, problems are hard, that’s why we call them problems, but with patience, persistence, and close observation, they can be dispensed with until the beauty on the surface, is matched by the beauty beneath. It may seem like an endless task. Sometimes it seems like the ground is growing more rocks, but over time I see the difference and feel good about what I’ve done. Still, I know that before the job is finished, I’m going to have to recruit others to the field with me to find and fling the rocks from our field.

When To Speak Out

2006-10-31T09:28:00.000-05:00

You're at a meeting and an issue arises that you are informed on and on which you have an opinion or an important insight. However, your comments do not agree with what appears to be a consensus among the members of the meeting. When do you speak up? How do you broach the subject? Or do you sit back and hope that someone else will speak to the topic and therefore you will not have to get up in front of a crowd and speak.

I speak in front of crowds frequently, and do so with little anxiety. I enjoy being asked to share my insights and inspirations. But when I'm in front of a group of my peers, I tend to get nervous. I have as much experience as most of them, and more education than most of them, but there is something about a group of peers that tends to intimidate me. The problem with not speaking, even when one's insights are obviously outside of the seeming consensus is that there is a tendency for something known as "groupthink" to occur.

Groupthink is the enemy of innovation and creativity. Groupthink tends to keep everyone going in the same direction without asking if this is the direction we should be going.

The fact is that there is a time to speak, and we should respect the process enough to allow others with various opinions to be heard. In fact, we should encourage diversity of perspectives because if we are all standing on one side of the mountain, we will all have but a part of the picture, not the entire picture. We need to hear from the other side.

If you are informed on the subject, and have another perspective to add to the discussion, do not sit back. Add your voice and be willing to be different.

Emerging Problems

2006-09-04T20:17:00.000-05:00

It is no secret that the Emergent movement is a protest against traditional church. The problem with Emergents is that aside from some commonality with respect to their attempts to engage the enigma known as Postmodernism, and a few common practices in the expression of worship, the movement is ill-defined, lacking in theological formation, and is driven by pragmatism rather than principle.

When one attempts to explore the tenants of the Emergent movement, one finds a plethora of voices all claiming to speak for the movement. There are many who are ready to rush into the leadership void, and a few have already claimed that mantle for themselves. They have attempted to set the agenda and when others on the fringe make claims for the Emergent movement they are dismissed because they do not align with a movement that is seeking to liberate church from the confines of creeds and doctrines, boundaries and bonds of traditionalism. Yet, one finds that the logic of Emergent church becomes quite circular and self-serving.

For example, in one message board, an inquirer is shocked at some statements of a self-proclaimed Emergent, but the views of this Emergent are dismissed because they don’t represent the mainline view of the movement. Sez who? Sez the people who claim to be the spokesmen/women for Emergents.

They cannot point to any consistent theology because it is still in formation (or in their words “reformation”). They cannot state what they are, only what they are not. They are not traditional (as they define traditional), they are not linear in their approach to thinking and communicating, they are not modernists, they are not positivists, they are not bound by the dogma of previous generations, they are not limited to previous exegetical approaches to Scripture, they are not churchy, and they are not hierarchical in organizational structure (unless you disagree with the self-ascribed leadership).

The Emergent movement is driven by pragmatism because, by their own admission, it is a movement that is targeting the Postmodern generation. The foundational question is not biblically based, but is culturally driven, it is the question of what do we have to do to reach this generation. A principle driven movement begins with biblically based foundational premises, but the Emergent church is prepared to place clear biblical principles on the shelf while they wrestle with what it will take to appeal to the Postmoderns.

For example, in Scripture the issue of homosexuality is unambiguously addressed as a perversion of human conduct that is completely inconsistent with the biblical example of Christ, Pauline teaching, Old Covenant and New Covenant stipulations. Yet, because the Postmoderns are more open to alternate lifestyles, Brian McLaren is willing to put the issue of homosexuality on hold, to set it aside for a few years before taking a position. Pragmatism does not ask what is right, but what works. Admittedly, many churches are operating from this same paradigm, so how is Emergent any different from the form of church they reject?

Again, fresh expressions of worship are always welcomed. A renewed desire for an experiential relationship with God is certainly appropriate. A willingness to look at Scripture with culturally unbiased eyes for a contemporary word from God is a good thing. But the Emergent movement, as I read it in Sweet, McLaren, et al, is not as much about reformation of Protestantism or Pentecostalism, but it is, in their minds, as much of a protest against current Christianity as Protestantism was against Catholicism. In the words of Erwin McManus, “The greatest enemy to the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity.”

I am wary of those who drape their own shoulders with the mantle of leadership and then define reality through their own eyes. As one poster on a message board argued, “I am the authority for what the Emergent church really is. Ask me, don’t search for yourself.”

Motivating Volunteers

2006-08-24T12:42:00.000-05:00

How do we motivate volunteers to remain committed and to give of themselves sacrificially? I think that Maslow’s self-esteem and self-actualization levels in his five teir hierarchy are important. Additionally, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory holds promise in that the intrinsic conditions needed to elicit motivation can be employed in the church. These are achievement, recognition, responsibility, advancement, the work itself, and the possibility of growth.

I think that by providing training with certificates and measured advancement can be motivating, as well as publicly presenting certificates or diplomas for completion. Also, recognizing the contributions of others is motivational. I have always had a weekly lay-leaders recognition program where I prayerfully consider the labors of a lay-leader from that week and then recognize them in the bulletin as “Christian Worker of the Week,” and post their name and ministry activity on the bulletin board.

This is important for me as well, in that, if forces me to stop and seriously consider all the significant contributions to ministry that are made by volunteers in the church. After that, I have to stop for a moment and thank God for so many committed people.

Three Leaders In The Flock

2006-06-22T10:33:00.000-05:00

The truth is that we have far too many people who want the title, the position, and the privilege of being a leader but fail to lead effectively. It is frustrating for a pastor to have a teacher who does not lead his or her class, to have an elder who does not consistently engage the people for whom he is responsible, or to have the staff member who fails to train and equip workers to minister. Ultimately, as the pastor I am responsible for leading the leaders and developing them. As President Harry Truman reminded himself with a plaque on his desk, “The buck stops here!” If my leaders aren’t leading, then perhaps, I’m not doing my job.

The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verses 11 through 13 shows us three types of leaders who impact a flock. Jesus said,

11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. NIV

A shepherd, by definition, leads the sheep. Jesus said in verse 4 that the sheep will follow the shepherd because they know his voice. Three types of leadership models are found in this text. First, there is the good shepherd. This is a servant leader (or perhaps more definitively, a kenotic leader) who is prepared to give everything for the sheep. Five times in verses 11-18 Jesus refers to laying down His life. This leader is willing to place the welfare of the sheep ahead of his own life.

The second kind of leader is the hired hand. He may be a shepherd, but he has no investment in the flock. He is there for himself and for his own benefit. An example would be a bad Charismatic leader, or perhaps a transactional leader. If it benefits him to care for the flock he will, but if personal sacrifice is called for, it will not happen. He will abandon the flock to the wolf.

Finally, there is the wolf. Although not a leader in the parable, it is true that wolves often come into the flock wearing the mantle of a leader. Jesus refers to them as wolves in sheep’s clothing (Mat. 7:15). He is worse than a hired hand because he is interested only in himself and anticipates using the flock to feed on.

I’ve seen examples of all three of these types of leaders come into a church. I’ve sent the good shepherds who gave and sacrificed and who raised up other good shepherds as the flock grew. I’ve seen hired hands who were just passing through. They needed a church to start out in, but they made no real emotional or spiritual investment in the church. Finally, I’ve seen wolves in a shepherd's garb. They had the hairstyle and the clothing down, the pastoral mannerisms and even the right words, but it quickly became evident that their intention was to fleece the flock and move on. They drained the saving accounts, lived as extravagantly as they could for as long as they could, and then when there was nothing else to take, they moved on. Sadly, too many denominations allow this to happen without corrective action or punitive measures for the wolves.

Grandma's Leadership Paradigm

2006-06-02T07:53:00.000-05:00

I grew up in West Virginia deep in the hills next to a creek. Most of the people who lived around us were family. Often when we would get together to address a situation or engage in a project the entire enterprise dissolved into yet another exercise in futility and family feuds. My grandmother (the matriarch of the family) would usually assess the situation by telling us there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I don’t suppose that was politically correct, but then again, I doubt that she ever heard of the concept of political correctness.

Her comment reflected a strongly held belief that someone (emphasize “one”) should be in control. Other phrases like “too many cooks in the kitchen” and “too many hands in the pot” illustrated the idea that there should be a clearly identified, communally recognized, and perhaps even officially certified leader in charge. The feeling was that if this delineation between leader and follower were not clearly defined and respected then nothing would “get done”.

My grandmother was born in 1906 and she died in 2005 at the age of ninety-nine. Obviously, she came from a different era, a time when great men like Ford, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy lived. It was widely believed that a “great man” could lead a nation, a church, or a business forward in pursuit of success. This was held to be true from the local church on the dirt road of Elk Lick, West Virginia, to the nation’s capital, to the Ford Motor Company that transformed her world from dirt roads and horses, to automobiles and pavement.

By the time my grandmother passed much had changed. Great men had experienced great failures, dramatically affecting the national psyche and bringing about a significant change in the way we view leaders. After Nixon’s Watergate, Clinton’s Monicagate, and the Enron debacle at the hands of a CEO, leaders having singular control is no longer viewed favorably. Now we want more cooks in the kitchen, we want more chiefs in the camp, and we expect to see leadership shared among teams and not held by a few elites at the top of some imaginary hierarchical structure.

There has been a shift of focus in leadership studies from the singular impact of the leader, to the significant importance of the followers. Assumed, perhaps, is that a collective is more trustworthy than an individual is, or that power distributed in the hands of many is less dangerous than a concentration of power in the hands of the few, or the one. This is, after all, the premise of democracy.

More recent leadership literature, such as the massive work by Bernard Bass, Bass & Stogdills’ Handbook of Leadership, or Gary Yukl’s Leadership in Organizations, has relegated the Great Man theories to the dusty pages of history. Even the Charismatic Leader theories have been abandoned in favor of Transformational leadership models where the leader empowers, inspires, and partners with the followers. The charismatic leader, or the benevolent dictator, might inspire, but he or she failed to empower or to partner with the followers.

The philosophical shift from a top-down model to a more egalitarian approach is a movement that continues to evolve as the Servant Leadership model popularized by Charles Greenleaf has come into prominence.

My grandmother was a devoutly Christian woman whose view of leadership was shaped by the times and by her experiences. It was her experience that too many people trying to take the lead on one project was a failure waiting to happen. However, she readily embraced the cliché espoused by many a preacher that “the ground is level at the foot of the cross.” Furthermore, in our church we regularly observed the practice of feetwashing as a sacrament of our church. Each time we participated in this ordinance we were powerfully reminded of the night Jesus, the Lord and Master, took on the role of a servant. As such, the concept of Servant-Leader was not foreign to her theologically; it was just that she never thought of it as a general model for leadership. One leader in charge with the followers in line behind him was her paradigm. (As a widowed mother of eight children this probably made sense.)

It seems that the modern idealism of an evolution of science and society taking us toward a utopian “Camelot” future died with Kennedy. Skepticism and post-modernity were born with the Vietnam War and Watergate, were nurtured in Monicagate and Enron, and is coming into their own in the light of CIA misinformation leading us into a war on a quest to destroy weapons of mass destruction that apparently never existed.

As the war against terrorism wages on and as the level of gridlock, partisanship, and vitriol escalates among the nation’s political “leaders,” we can only imagine where the paradigm of leadership will be 54 years from now when I turn 99. The trend has been to take the leader off the throne, down from the pyramid and into the masses. In fact, the paradigmatic shift now seems to place the leader under the followers, lifting them up and encouraging them to achieve their full potential. So where does the leadership model go from here? Is there an ultimate model, one model that will stand as the logical end to a quest for the perfect model?

If social trends continue and if the leadership paradigm sift continues in the direction it has historically gone, then leadership in 2050 will be problematic at best. The level cynicism and relativism may be as epidemic as the Avian Bird Flue by then. The family, a time tested laboratory for leadership, will be redefined and religious relativism will every man or woman their own Messiah. Perhaps it will all be academic by then. Could it be that the anarchy looming on the horizon of the societal sunset is the very sea out of which a worldwide dictator will emerge? Is this the beginning of the end of leadership? And if leadership is cast into the abyss with the last worldwide dictator (Antichrist), will the world then be ready for a King (Jesus)?

LEADERSHIP DNA

2006-05-05T07:26:00.000-05:00

I think there is a book somewhere that has a title referencing leadership DNA. I haven't read it, but in the past few weeks I've been doing extensive reading in the fields of psychology, sociology and epistemology. As I read I see the classic debate of nature vs. nurture being rehashed. Are we born to be leaders, or are we made?

Most will claim that it is a little of both. I would argue (as a parent observing the different temperaments of my children) that we are born with certain personality traits. We are born bold or timid, we are born with an IQ and maybe even an EQ, we are born assertive or reticent, but what we do with these predispositional traits is shaped by our environment. Where we grow up, how we are raised, the opportunities or the challenges we overcome all help to shape the raw DNA material into the person we will become.

As an adult (beginning somewhere around the age of 20 or so) we find that our leadership personality traits (LPT) are fairly well set. We can improve, we can learn, we can maximize our strengths and work around our weaknesses, but we are who we are. This would mean that it can be an exercise in futility to accept a leadership position which is outside the realm of our LPT. We may want the paycheck, the promotion, the recognition and the status, but we should be honest with ourselves and true to ourselves. We will be much more effective and satisfied by finding our fit.

I watched a person in a poor leadership fit, flounder and fail. They began to believe that they could not lead, that they were not a “leader”. But placed in the right position, in the proper setting for their own LPT they excelled and regained their self-confidence. Personality temperament assessments and surveys are helpful tools in providing insight into our LPT and thus, where we are most likely to achieve success as a leader.

We don't like to hear this. We often want to believe that we can do anything that we set our mind to, that we can "grow" into the position. In truth, there is the tendency to grow into our highest level of incompetence (the Peter Principle). Leadership and management courses, seminars, and conferences will gladly take our money and lead us to believe that we can change our LPT and become an effective leader outside of our area of interest, expertise, or leadership DNA. We usually leave the seminar psyched up, enthused and ready to implement a few simple laws of leadership, believing that we will transform ourselves and the organization that we are leading. The truth is that after the excitement wears off, we look in the mirror and we are the same person we were before the course, seminar or conference.

What then is the value of consultation, conferences, seminars or courses? They can help us become better at what we do best. They can help us to understand ourselves and to discover our strengths and identify our weaknesses. We can become more efficient, we can learn new practices, and we can use new tools in the arena of leadership, but it will all be shaped by who we are.

It is for this reason that I believe strongly in the concept of team leadership. A carefully chosen team, with LPT's that complement and complete one another on the team can make all the difference. The future of leadership will probably be in more effective team building and team leading. The days of the Lone Ranger leadership model are quickly passing.

Socialization and the Emergent Movement

2006-04-19T08:23:00.000-05:00

I've been doing much reading in preparation for the Ph.D. in Organizational Leadership that I am taking through Regent University. The first semester required over $1,000 in books. There are around twenty books of required reading and these are BIG books. Wew!

In my reading--which includes psychology, sociology, philosophy, management and leadership--I have been challenged in my thinking. One of the challenges is to the idea of the autonomous self. The autonomous self is the belief, idea, theory, or theology that every man or woman is completely in control of who they are, how they think, what they do, how to live, and so forth. Those who believe in autonomous self will argue that a man or woman can change if they want to. That all which is required is that a person pull themselves up by their bootstraps, make a decision to change how their view themselves and then live according to a new paradigm.

The social self theory would argue that there are social dynamics involved over which the individual has only limited or even no control. The social self theory would argue that much of who we see ourselves as (and therefore act and live accordingly) is thrust upon us by society. Therefore we tend to conform to the expectations of society as we come to an understanding of who we are and how we should act in a given societal milieu.

There are some powerful points to be made for both theories, and it may be that there are elements of truth in both. At the very least it should cause us to step back and reflect upon the influence of social expectation upon us and then to ask if we are trying to live up to the image of Christ as an issue of a personal decision of salvation, or if we are merely trying to fulfill the social expectations of a the group with which we identify. We need to consider if we are merely acting as it is expected of us by our church, or if we have truly experienced a spiritual change through the New Birth. Only a true tranformation will enable us to stand and to prevail in the absense of the mediating influences of other Christians.

It would seem to me that much of what happens in religious circles is a socialization process whereby the group in which we find fulfillment and meaning defines us and supplies us with the expectations of acceptance in that group. It is also true that the more dogmatic and the less introspective a group is, the more narrowly they define those expectations, for example the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons, or even some forms of fundamentalist Christianity.

The danger of some of the newer forms of religious expression, such as Emergent Theology, is that they can be equally restrictive and self-deluding. There is the propensity for this movement, as with most novel movements, to speak in absolutist terms and with a false sense of definity about things which are, by their own definition, "emerging." They talk about the Postmodern paradigm and assume that current forms of religious expression are not and will not be effective in reaching the next generation. They have put forth their own models for religious expression and declare with some bravado that these expressions are the future of the church because, according to some, the church as we know it has no future (i.e. George Barna).

In predictable fashion the Emergent movement, which represents something of a protest movement against traditional religious expression, is in the process of creating its own tradition, which (as is always the claim) is closer to the primitive expressions of Christianity than current "traditional Christianity". As such, there will be a socialization process within the movement that will define the "authentic Christian". By claiming that they are seeking authenticity there is the implication that other expressions are less than authentic if not inauthentic. Therefore, to be authentic, to be a real Christian, one must allow the definitions of the Emergent movement to shape them. Either way there is then a socialization process involved in this movement or there is acquiescence to the Postmodern social definitions of self. Either way, there are social expectations that seek, even if unknowingly, to redefine individuals according to their new model.

Let me conclude by saying that I appreciate, and am willing to incorporate many of the expressions of worship and witness of the "emergent" movement. My concern is the willingness of the "movement" to dismiss as archaic, current forms of Christian religious expressions. It is the epitome of hypocrisy to malign tradition while at the same time creating your own. Of course, they would argue that they are not creating a tradition, they are rediscovering authentic expressions of the Christian faith. This is, after all, the traditional response by new movements.

Putting Puzzles Together

2006-03-04T12:38:00.000-05:00

My wife and I (mostly me) have taken up the hobby of putting together puzzles. She brought home a giant box containing ten puzzles from 1000 pieces to 500 pieces. I immediately pulled out the largest in the box and for a little over one week my wife, my daughter and I began to put the puzzle together. Since then I have completed a 750 piece puzzle and am now working on a 500 piece puzzle.

In the process of putting together puzzles, I have been thinking about leadership and have come up with the following parallels.

1. It helps to begin with a vision of the big picture. I once did a leadership training class where I gave each of two teams a 240 piece puzzle with the same picture on each of them. I gave one team the box cover with the picture and the other team had no picture to look at. I told them it was a race and as you can imagine, the team with the picture finished well ahead of the other team. A big picture, or a vision of what you are trying to accomplish is a big help.

2. It helps to have a structure, or an outline from which to begin. I always look for the straight edged pieces first and then put the boarder of the puzzle together before trying to fill in the details of the picture. Successful leaders have boundaries and they are able to communicate the boundaries of the vision to others.

3. After looking at the big picture and creating the boarder, I begin to group similar colors together. This makes it easier to find the pieces when I need them. In leadership, a sense of order and grouping is important. Knowing which team members will be needed for a particular task, knowing who has which skills and who technical knowledge in advance helps to make decisions quickly and effectively.

4. When I am working on the same puzzle with other people we have to try to work together or we find that we are working at cross purposes. Some times my wife and get in one another's way, or we get in one another's light and we find ourselves sniping at one another. In leadership, we must learn to communicate and coordinate our efforts so that we are working together to accomplish a common goal, rather than working against one another.

5. Even in completing a puzzle, our competitive spirit comes out. When my wife and I were coming down the final pieces we each snatched and grabbed the pieces from one another trying to be the one who completed the puzzle by putting in the final piece. We each wanted to be able to say that we completed the puzzle. In fact, I held onto the last piece, but she wouldn't let me put it in the last remaining hole in the puzzle. I finally had to give it to her so that she could claim victory. In business, we need to lay aside personal agendas, try to work together and share the glory for a job well done. As long as the entire organization benefits, the individuals in the team will benefit as well.

I'm sure there are other puzzle principles to leadership if I took the time to think of them. If you have a puzzle principle to leadership add it to this blog.

HONEST ASSESMENT OF SELF AND OTHERS

2006-01-20T12:15:00.000-05:00

Recently I was reading a massive book entitled Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications,(the title is long, but the book is longer at over eleven hundred pages) written by Bernard M. Bass, and I was reminded of a fact that I had read in earlier research. Bass states, “In most surveys, leaders tend to give themselves in inflated evaluation in contrast to their colleague’s descriptions of their performance. . . . Concepts of the self can be perceived or actually be at variance with the outside world and affect a leader’s performance” (p. 152). I was already familiar with similar research that showed that most people believe they are better at a skill, talent, position, and so forth, than they really are.

Watching the early rounds of the American Idol television show is the most painfully clear example of this. Singer after singer steps up thinking that they are the next idol but most of them are not even average. Then, when someone like Simon is finally honest with them (someone who isn’t particularly concerned about hurting their feelings), most of these "wanna-be's" either melt into tears after coming off the stage or defiantly declare that they are as good as they thought they were, it’s just that those judges don’t know good talent when they see it.

As a pastor I often encounter people who are convinced that they are called to a particular ministry or role in the church and that they are very good at it, but in observing them I had to disagree. There is a message here for the leader as well. We must be, as all the research shows, humble enough to listen to and act upon feedback from people who feel free to be honest with us. Now, as a leader we are always the target of unfair and uninformed criticism. Some people want a teaching minister but we are more dynamic in our delivery so they criticize us. Well, Paul’s statement about being all things to all men not withstanding, we cannot be everything to everyone. I’ve told some of my critics with as much humility as I could muster, "I’m sorry you aren’t 'fed' by my ministry, but there are many other wonderful churches in the area and you might be better served to look for a place where you can be 'fed'”.

After filtering out the static of the chronic complainers, we need to listen to the people we respect. I have told the staff of the church here that they are welcome to come into my office at any time, close the door, and tell me what they really think. They can tell me if I’ve failed them, or if they see anything in my conduct or character that might reflect poorly on the church. I want honest and open feedback, but I have also warned them that if they talk about me to others in the church, if they criticize and undermine me to others instead of coming and talking to me, they may well find their employment here terminated.

I always live with the assumption that I might not be as good as my momma says I am. I might not be as good of a preacher as the people walking out the door on Sunday shaking my hand, say I am. Over the years I have worked with many young pastors (young in ministry, young and older in age) and often their zeal far surpasses their ability. I’ve also had teachers and singers come to me convinced that they were excellent in their respective roles. At one large church where I served as the Pastor of Christian Education a man came to me, handed me a business card and said, “I’m a teacher and I’d like to teach an adult class.” I didn’t know this man very well but my observation was that he did not have an engaging personality, and seemed to lack the social skills necessary to build relationships necessary for a successful class. I inquired from other staff members who had been at the church much longer than me and they immediately knew who had approached me. They said that he had a great desire to teach, and had taken classes and was apparently biblically adept, but when he was given the opportunity to teach an elective class, no one showed up. He could not get a class going and then when he was placed in an established class it dwindled down to nothing.

Somewhere, someone should have been honest enough with this man to say, “You obviously have the desire and the information to be a teacher, but your interpersonal skills are holding you back. You need to sit under a teacher who is strong in these areas and watch them as they interact with others. Or we can get together a couple times a month and I can help you, but I can’t place you in another class until then.”

The Bible tells us that we are to speak the truth in love. I once had a young man who was a pretty good preacher, but he couldn’t carry a tune in the proverbial bushel basket. However, before he preached he liked to sing a special song (special to him but not anyone else). Once, when he got up and began to sing, the teenagers laughed out loud. They thought he was trying to be funny. Finally, some of the people came to me, the pastor, and told me that it was my responsibility to tell this young minister that he was doing more damage than good by trying to sing before he spoke. Because I didn’t want to hurt his feelings I was reluctant, but eventually I broached the subject with him and he said that he already knew he couldn’t carry a tune, but he liked to make a joyful noise. I suggested that he do this at home in the shower rather than before he spoke.

We face this repeatedly in leadership. There are people who think they are ready for the promotion, but we can clearly see that they are not. We have people in positions that they are not effective in and yet we are reluctant to tell the truth in love. This is particularly difficult in the church because we have an obligation to minister to staff members as much as we do to church members and so we often just hope for the best while they flounder and those under them suffer. As leaders we either have to offer training, mentoring, and feedback, and if these don't work we have to make the change.

At the same time we must consider the very real possibility that we need to address issues in our own leadership strengths and weaknesses. Do we really know ourselves? I have always been struck by the fact that when Jesus told the disciples during the Last Supper that one of them would betray Him, they began to ask, “Is it I?” Didn’t they know themselves well enough to answer that question for themselves?

In contrast, Jesus knew who He was, where He came from, and what He had been sent to do. In John 8:14-18, Jesus answers the criticism of the Pharisees with these words:

14 Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are right, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. NIV

Jesus knew who He was and while He was humble and meek, He was neither weak nor intimidated by others. Neither their criticism nor their praise deterred Him from being who He was and doing what He had been sent by the Father to do. His example is that we need to know who we really are, our strengths and weaknesses, know what we have been called to do, and then do it. We will have our own Pharisees who will only criticize, and we will have our fans who only cheer us on, but we need honest and loving feedback from people we respect and who care about us. If you don’t have someone in your life like that then find one.

IDENTIFYING THE INFLUENCES

2006-01-10T12:12:00.000-05:00

Jesus tells us that He is our example (Jn. 13:15). As we read the Gospels we have the opportunity to observe, through the eyes of the evangelists, the life, teaching, practices and character of Christ. If we grew up in a Christian home and attended church we had the opportunity to become immersed in the life of Christ. Through Sunday school, Bible classes, home/family devotions, sermons, personal Bible study, and so forth, we have been impacted by the powerful example of Christ. As a believer we also have the privilege of having the Spirit of Christ alive within us.

The influence, inspiration, and incarnation of Christ can all come together to create in us a model of leadership that reflects that of Christ Himself. If Jesus was the only influence in our lives with respect to a model for leadership we would be well served. However, we all know that there are many other influences, the most primal and perhaps the most powerful being that of our parents. Study after study of human behavior come to the undeniable conclusion that each of us is shaped, influenced, and impacted by our family of origin. Leadership qualities are often formed through things like birth order, our relationship with our parents, how authority was exercised in the home, and how leadership roles were addressed by our parents.

Strong willed and confident parents often raise children who are strong willed and confident. Parents who are easily intimidated or socially withdrawn often see the same behavior reflected in their children. So as a leader it is often helpful to take the time to reflect upon the major influences on our life and how they have affected our leadership paradigms. For example, I once heard an interview with Ted Turner talking about how he never felt affirmed by his father and that nothing was ever quite good enough to please him. So this relationship drove Turner, and perhaps continues to drive Turner, to try to be the best and to gain approval and affirmation for his success. The influence of his father continues to live long after his father has passed away.

I think this kind of reflection upon role models of leadership in our life is important because we often act in ways that are the direct result of those influences. Sometimes we act instinctually, without analysis or reason simply as a result of how we have been “programmed” by the people who have influence our lives. I often see this in marriage counseling with couples who don’t understand that they came into their marriage with expectations for their spouse that were formed in their family of origin. The problem is that the other spouse was raised in a different family and he or she comes with their own expectations from their family of origin. Often, the result is years of misunderstanding and frustration until they are willing to sit down and talk about this and reflect upon those expectations and evaluate the rational for their actions.

For example, I pretty much grew up in a single parent home. When I was a toddler and young child my father was in the Air Force spending time in Vietnam and later was in Germany while we lived in the States. My mother took charge and was very protective of my sister and me. When my father retired from the military and we moved to West Virginia it was difficult for her to relinquish her assertive role as the leader of the family. My father was a quiet man who seemed content to allow my mother to handle all the correction of the children, manage the family finances, as well as function as the spiritual leader of the home. She was outgoing in public and yet very concerned about how she was perceived by others.

Eventually, my father left our home, had an affair, divorced my mother and deserted our family. In fact, for the past thirty years I had not seen my father until this past December (2005) when I tracked him down to a veterans nursing home in Louisiana. I loaded my family into our mini van and we drove down to see him. He was now 73 years old and when I walked into the room I did not recognize him. Interestingly, he seemed obsessed with my mother and with blaming her for all his bad choices.

These are my two earliest role models and as such they influenced my leadership paradigm. If I allowed the worst of these influences to dominate I would be an overbearing dogmatist who blamed others for my mistakes and who, while seeking public approval, lived in fear of rejection. Or I could take the best qualities and be an independent thinker who is not afraid to take charge, who is socially aware of how others feel and who is a comfortable delegating responsibility to others.

In fact, few of us end up with only the positive or the negative influences, but the result is often a combination. The challenge for the leader to is to recognize his or her weaknesses and to maximize our strengths. I recently took a leadership assessment test which pegged me as a combination of being someone who leads primarily by inspiration and secondarily by drive. On a DISC temperamental analysis test this is a DI personality temperament. As such, I have to guard against becoming too competitive or domineering and to maximize the enthusiastic and persuasive qualities of my temperament.

I can look at my mother and see that she has been the major influence and after evaluating myself in light of that influence I am grateful for the sense of humor and outgoing personality she instilled, but I have had to overcome fear of rejection and, as such, the temptation to do only what is popular. We cannot simply dismiss the models that have been instilled, but we can recognize and maximize. Recognize our weaknesses and maximize our strengths. Furthermore, as we grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, we can take on more and more of His persona, of His influence and inspiration as we grow as an individual and as a leader.

The Peril of the Changing Paradigm

2005-12-16T10:30:00.000-05:00

I believe that the most pressing leadership issue for today is the failure to comprehend the changing paradigm of leadership as it relates to the emerging culture and the expectations of followers with respect to greater participation and integration in decision making, as well as, autonomy in the execution of their roles. In short, the hierarchical structure of the human pyramid has become archaic in a postmodern society. Unfortunately some of the people at the top of the pyramid haven’t received the memo yet and their organizations are suffering because of it.

William Bridges, in “Leading the De-Jobbed Organization”, observes that the leadership model of the future will require flexibility and adaptability in a culture of rapidly changing tastes and preferences. The hierarchical structure inherently inhibits this type of response. Instead, a team approach in which leadership is shared and in which teams are given the freedom to respond is preferable. In this model, says Bridges, “Leadership passes back and forth from person to person as the phases of the project succeed one another and different skills become critical”(1996, 15). He posits that it is time to break out of the “job” boxes and climb down from the pyramid to engage leadership at a foundational level and in a collegial fashion.

In postmodern society pluralism is often viewed as god and the idea that one man or woman at the peak of some self-serving pyramid as “the source” of all wisdom, direction, and doctrine is being rejected (Phillips 2001). Instead, many perspectives are honored and members of the organization insist on having their voice heard. They want to be on the team, and if the situation calls for it, to be allowed to lead the team.

This is a pressing issue, in that, the old wineskins are not receptive to the new wine and old structures are crumbling. GM and Ford, two paragons of the old system, are laying-off tens of thousands of people and closing many factories across North America. What is wrong? The structure of leadership has not been able to respond quickly enough to changing dynamics of the economy or the growing cost of petroleum or health care issues. GM and Ford continued to roll out SUV’s even as the clouds of exploding oil prices were looming on the horizon. Instead of an entrepreneurial spirit that was willing to break with the pack and chart a course for the future, they stayed the course and the course led them down the road to disaster. Somewhere, someone at the top of the pyramid was making a series of ill-advised choices and at the bottom of this pyramid workers were busy doing their jobs and doing them well while the industry they were depending on was failing (CNNMoney 2005).

There is a new leadership model that is emerging out of the old structures. Jimmy Long contrasts the “Modern” with the “Emerging” leadership paradigm. The Emerging paradigm is the cultural response to Postmodernism. It is in flux, developing and evolving in response to rapidly changing social and cultural realities. Long’s analysis is illustrated in the table below:

MODERN
Individual leader
Task
Positional authority
Perfect leader
Building Structures
Control
Destination
Aspire to leadership

EMERGING
Team leadership
Community
Earned authority
Broken leader
Developing vision
Empower
Journey
Inspire for leadership

Table 1: Modern and Emerging Leadership Styles (Long 2004, 157)

If Long is right in his analysis of the Emerging model of leadership, then the old wineskins will be bursting and both the skins and the wine will be lost. Along with factories and industries succumbing to these changes, churches and denominations are in peril as well. Unless leadership can be shared, can be decentralized and the periphery empowered to be responsive to the needs of the customer, consumer, client, congregant, or community, then implosion is inevitable simply because of our inability to comprehend the changing paradigm of leadership.

Frances Hesselbein unapologetically asserts:

The old hierarchy is dead. We must build flexible, fluid, circular management structures with high involvement and inclusion of all—structures that permit us to lead people and not to contain them (2005).

In light of this crisis, it seems to me that the most pressing issue for leadership is to begin to provide new models that are less rigid and more fluid with respect to leadership in an organization. This, of course, challenges the very core of what many have presupposed as the model and method of leadership. The heroic figure who rides in on a white horse to save the day is now a member of a posse that works together to accomplish the goals. (According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary a posse is, among other things, “1. a large group often with a common interest.") These goals are common to all in the group and each has a vested interest in seeing those goals accomplished.

What does leadership look like in this paradigm? To begin, it is a leadership that is willing and able to empower the posse, to equip the saints for the work of ministry. I suspect that this is the secret behind the success of mega-churches in America today. It is not so much the charisma or the persona of the senior pastor as much as it is the opportunity for members of these churches to get involved in semi-autonomous ministries that are given the freedom to function without being micromanaged by some hierarchical figurehead. The size of these churches necessitate this transition and the leadership genius of the pastors is simply that they were willing to provide a broad structural or missional framework within which freedom for ministry innovations were encouraged. I suspect that in many such churches there is a genuine entrepreneurial spirit with respect to initiating ministries as outreaches of the church.

Looking at the plethora of programs in these churches it is soon apparent that one man cannot control all these ministries. He or she simply provides the context for and the possibility of these ministries to exist within the larger vision of the church. The senior pastor becomes the pastor of pastors or the leader of leaders who have the freedom and the authority to initiate, improvise, innovate, and create.

What is the leader’s role in all this? It is empowering and encouraging rising leaders. It is to recognize the leadership strengths in others and to be humble enough to defer to the expertise and skill that others bring to the team. There may be one man who stands on the stage and is recognized by the outsider as the leader, but he knows and others within the organization know, that he is but one of many leaders and that the future of the organization is in raising up even more leaders.

What about the old saying, “Too many cooks in the kitchen”? This old saying may have held true for mom’s kitchen, or for a mom and pop restaurant that needed few innovations and even fewer hands in the pot, but walk into a major restaurant and we find that there are many chefs and many cooks working in a coordinated effort to get the best product that is possible to the patron in the shortest amount of time with the most pleasant service possible. Small churches where one pastor is expected to do it all will remain small churches. But growing churches will require more leadership, more involvement, more empowerment and even more autonomy among the members to become the ministers that God called them to be.

Jim Collins, in Good to Great, observed that the leaders of organizations that emerged from the middle of the pack and began to excel in their respective field, were leaders who exhibited what he calls “level 5 leadership”. These are not the brash, cocky, ambitious leaders of fiction, but are a blend of “personal humility with intense professional will (2001, 21).”

Of course, as is always the case with regard to human endeavors we find that God’s ways are indeed the best ways. Apostle Peter, a man who learned some valuable lessons about teamwork, gives us this inspired insight, “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:6, NKJV).

Sources Cited

Bridges, William. “Leading the De-Jobbed Organization.” In The Leader of the Future, edited by Frances Hesselbein, Marshall Goldsmith and Richard Beckhard, 11-18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.

Hesselbein, Frances. “The Campaign for Leadership.” Leader to Leader Institute, no 17 (Summer 2000). http://pfdf.org/leadersbooks/L2L/summer2000/fh.html. Accessed November 30, 2005.

CNNMoney.com. “GM CEO says shakeup means slowdown.” December 12, 2005. http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/12/news/fortune500/ gm_wagoner.reut/index.htm. Accessed December 16, 2005.

Collins, Jim. Good to Great. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Long, Jimmy. Emerging Hope. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=posse. Accessed December 15, 2005.

Phillips, Gary. “Religious Pluralism in a Postmodern World.” In The Challenge of Postmodernism, edited by David S. Dockery, 131-143. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

WHEN TO LEAVE, HOW TO STAY

2005-11-22T14:02:00.000-05:00

We know from many studies of successful churches that long-term pastors have a much better track record of producing long-term success and seeing the vision fulfilled than short term pastors have. However, there inevitably comes a time when a change in leadership is needed. It may be that a leader has come to the end of his or her expertise and feels that they do not have the ability to take the organization to the next stage in its growth. It may be that leader has simply lost his passion for the position and doesn’t have the fire in his bones to continue to fight the good fight. Or, it may be the opportunity for a promotion and to rise to another level of leadership potential.

John Maxwell has said that everything rises and falls with leadership. If the leader has lost her passion then the lack of passion becomes palpable throughout the organization. Goleman calls it “dissonance” (Primal Leadership). A leader who simply cannot refuel and refire may decide that the good of the organization is at stake and that leadership change is needed.

I remember resigning from my first church. In that case I felt as though I had reached the limits of my experience and capability. The church had grown to over 140 and at the time that seemed large. It was the largest church I had ever attended and I was the pastor. Though I had a Master of Divinity degree I felt that I needed to work on staff in a much larger church. I felt that I needed the experience and when the opportunity came to join the staff of a church with a membership of over a thousand, I resigned the church and moved to Georgia.

I’ll never forget the weight of that decision. I remember watching one of our members leaning forward on the pew in front of her and crying as I made the announcement. I watched her tears run down the back of the pew she had been leaning on and I wondered if I was making the right choice. I second guessed myself many times, but in retrospect I believe I can say that I made the right decision for my ministry. The time I spent on staff at the larger church was only eighteen months, but the experience I gained there has proven as valuable to me as the years of education I received in seminary.

I recently read an article on leadership in which the author argued that people need to change positions—either within the organization or out of the organization—every two years to remain motivated and creative. I don’t think that necessarily applies to being a senior pastor or the CEO of a company, but every leader should exercise an honest assessment of his or her passion for the position. If the fire is low and if he or she cannot stir up their gift of leadership then they need to think about what would benefit the organization most.

The truth is that too many leaders are willing to just hang on until they retire. I’ve watched men take a church or a business down to nothing rather than release the reigns to someone else with fire and vision. Where there is no vision the people perish. Leaders without vision are like a ship without a rudder. They just go with the flow and the people they lead become frustrated and angry. Jesus never lost track of the mission and He never lost His passion for the purpose. (Interestingly though, Jesus’ earthly ministry was about two years in duration.)

If you are a leader and the passion is waning then either do whatever you have to do to regain the fire, or resign. How do you regain the fire? Get a BHAG. In his book Built to Last Jim Collins found that the businesses that succeeded were the businesses that had BHAG (Big Hairy Audacious Goals). If you’re not going to resign, then get a big vision that stretches your faith and causes you to rely on God’s strength and not your own. Make it a sink or swim goal that will not allow you the luxury of laziness and complacency. Let it be something that will excite the members and inspire them to dream about the possibilities.

God can do much more than we ever endeavor to do in our own strength, but we have not because we ask not. He is able to do exceeding, abundantly, above all that we ask or think, and yet we have these little pansy plans that require little faith and can be accomplished in our own strength so that, just in case God doesn’t show up, we won’t fail.

If you have no passion and you need some fire, find your BHAG! Believe biblically, believe big, and believe bold, but believe that there is more that God can do and wants to do when you are willing to trust and obey Him. And if you can’t do that, then maybe it’s time to step aside and make way for someone who has the fire.

LEADING THROUGH CHANGE

2005-11-17T11:00:00.000-05:00

Leaders are not intimidated by change. In fact, leaders are rarely brought in to maintain status quo. This is usually done by managers. A manager is called upon to manage the resources and personnel, to execute the business of the organization. Leaders are asked to do more than that. Leaders are called upon to take the organization to new places, to greater heights, from the moment to the future. Since the future has not happened yet, this requires more than managing what resources are currently on hand, but requires a vision for what can be, what is possible, and where we need to go. Leaders do not run from change but embrace it as a part of their agenda.

Leading a church or organization through change is both a curse and a blessing. It is a wonderful opportunity to pursue the vision, but it is a challenge to get others who have a vested interest in status quo to embrace the vision with you. John’s Gospel tells us that Jesus “came unto his own, and his own received him not” (1:11).

The religious system was broken. It wasn’t working. Not that a faulty system had been instituted, but faulty humanity would not adhere to the covenant stipulations, and then added man-made rules to a covenant that they had not been able to maintain to begin with. The system had to be changed. The future lay not in more rules, but in grace so Jesus came to lead humanity into a new day. But there were those who would not receive Him. They would not embrace the vision and instead violently rejected Him. Not much of an endorsement for leadership, is it?

The next verse, however, tells us that there were some who did see what He saw and who were willing to risk everything to follow the Leader-- “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (Jn. 1:12). Jesus empowered the people who could see the vision and who would trust Him to lead them into the future.

There are several lessons here for leading change:

First, there will be some who reject the change, even when it is for the good of the organization. The chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were happy with the way things were. In this system they were empowered even though the masses were disenfranchised. These powerbrokers rejected Jesus and led in having Him crucified. However, in doing so they were unwittingly participating in the plan of God. Hopefully, we will not be called upon to be crucified as a leader of an organization, though personal sacrifice is often necessary.

Second, we learn that we have to have a vision that can be seen by those who want to follow. They cannot follow if they sense that we do not know where we are going. Jesus told them that this change would call for new wineskins, new methods and models. John the Baptist declared that “even now the ax is laid to the roots” and a new generation of believers was about to be birthed. (Lk. 3:9-10).

Third, we see that Jesus was willing to empower those who believed, those who were willing to follow Him. They were empowered during His time on earth. He sent them into towns and villages to heal the sick and cast out devils and to declare that change was coming, “the kingdom of God is at hand” (Matt. 10). But Jesus also empowered them to continue to take the vision forward after His departure: “You shall receive power after that the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (Ac. 1:8).

There are various theories and models for the process of change. For example, Hegel saw all of history through a series of three movements: thesis, antithesis, synthesis. This is called the Hegelian Dialectic. According to him the current state of affairs in history is the thesis. In time, however, this thesis will be challenged by a competing perspective (government, culture, religion, worldview, etc.) which will offer a new direction. This is the antithesis of the thesis. Rarely, if ever, does the antithesis supplant the thesis wholesale. Instead, there is a give and take between thesis and antithesis and what emerges is a combination of the two into a synthesis. In time, this new state of affairs becomes the thesis and the process begins all over again.

For example, in Iraq we had a Muslim lead dictatorship. After the war the country was introduced to the concept of democracy. What is emerging is a combination of Muslim control with certain democratic rights within the paradigm of Islam.

In pastoring I have gone into churches that were fixed in an older traditional style of worship with which the senior members of the congregation were comfortable. The younger members were ready for contemporary praise and worship. I was called upon to lead the church forward. The reality was that there was no way we could stay where we were and hope to move forward, but there was going to be resistance to radical wholesale change. I attended a worship seminar by Robert Webber in which he proposed the idea of blended worship. He said that it is possible to maximize the best of both styles of worship and honor both the older and the younger generations. So that is what we did. We developed a blended worship style—thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

One might argue that this is the process of change that Jesus used. He came with a radically new idea but He incorporated just enough of Judaism to make the transition possible for the early Jewish believers. There are some now who are attempting to introduce more of the Jewish religious practices into Christianity because they believe that this was the intent of Jesus and that it was only after Constantine that Judaism was divorced from Christianity.

I’m not sure about that, in that, the idea of an ax to the roots is rather dramatic. The Apostle Paul acknowledges the connection of the new branches to the old vine, but at the same time he reject attempts to infuse Christianity with Jewish religious practices such as diets, circumcision, holy days, etc.

Another paradigm of change also uses a three step model: orientation, disorientation, re-orientation. The difference between this paradigm and that of Hegel is that it doesn’t see synthesis as a necessary outcome. It suggests that radical change may be needed and may result in a new direction that is almost completely divorced from the previous. In orientation we are oriented toward a certain direction, certain cultural patterns and practices, certain rituals and rites with which we are familiar. But at some point this orientation is no longer effective in maintaining the institution, organization, or church. The culture begins to decline, the institution begins to fail, organization loses money, the church attendance falls and leadership recognizes that something has to be done.

As always, there are those who have an interest in maintaining. In time, however, the masses realize that there is a need for change. The masses in the society, the workers on the floor, or the people in the pews begin to see that something needs to be done and they want a leader with a vision.

The next stage, disorientation, is the most dangerous. The leader has a plan, a radical plan for change and in the process of instituting that change people are disoriented, old practices and rituals are no longer applicable and people struggle to understand and apply new ideas, new practices and applications. Some will want to go back to Egypt. Some will revolt against the leader and seek to undermine his or her authority. Some will react violently as they try to unseat the leadership. But if the vision is clear and the majority understands the need for change and the direction of the change proposed, they will follow.

I heard Pastor Marty Baker talk about changes he instituted at the church he pastors. His church seemed to be doing well. With an attendance of over 300 it was above average and considered by many pastors to be a good church. But Marty felt that maintaining was not what he was called to do. He was called to lead so he proposed change. In fact, he did not seek synthesis, but a completely new orientation in the way they did church. He said that as he led the church into that change there was a period of time where it was very painful for him personally and he asked the Lord more than once if he had heard the Him correctly. Many people left and the church attendance declined. This was a painful period of disorientation. In time, though, as the changes were instituted and the church changed from a traditional worship format to a multi-media approach, the church began to grow. They are now re-oriented to this new approach and the attendance is almost double that of what it was before he led the church to change.

Managers may maintain, and may even be rewarded and admired for doing so, but leaders lead. They take the organization into the future and as such must be able to embrace change, provide a vision, empower others, and more forward. It may be a synthesis, or it may be reorientation, but change is inevitable. As one man said, “Lead, follow or get out of the way!”

TEAM BONDING

2005-11-10T10:48:00.000-05:00

I'd like to go back to the subject of the team. When a church leader looks at the church staff as a team, instead of as employees, it does something. First of all, it fosters camaraderie. In a team, there is a sense of interdependency. We are all counting on one another for the good of the whole. Second, it casts the role of the leader in a different light. Instead of being the “boss” he or she takes on the role of a coach, an encourager and a mentor.

The coaching paradigm has become popular in recent leadership writing and I think it is applicable from a Christological perspective. Jesus built a team, He coached them and then He put them in the game.

Having participated in both team and individual sports in high school and college, I’ve found that there is a distinct dynamic involved with team sports that is not there in individual sports. In individual sports, such as wrestling, I had a coach but my success as a wrestler had very little to do with how the other members of the wrestling team did. In fact, I recall one meet where I was the only one on the team who won a match. While I felt bad for them, it did nothing to diminish my personal success. I was the only one on my wrestling team to qualify for the state tournament and I finished second. I would have liked for the others have gone with me, but their absence did not prevent my success.

A team is different. In a team there is a symbiotic and even a synergistic relationship between the team members. The whole team is greater than the sum of the parts. In football I was a running back and I depended on the line, the quarterback and even the other backs to do their part. When they did well, I did well and thus, we did well.

One of the things I have observed in watching teams from various sports is that teams that have cohesiveness and esprit de corps are much more likely to have success than those who don’t. Teams who are fragmented and fighting are ineffective and will become more of a detriment than an asset.

So how do we get a team to bond? We can choose the people with which to build the team, but unless they bond, unless there is a cohesiveness to the team, then it is a mere exercise in futility. The website “teamtechnology” gives three stages in team building, which I would see as essential to team bonding: 1) clarify the team goals, 2) identify the issues which inhibit the team from reaching those goals, and 3) address those issues, remove the inhibitors and enable the goals to be achieved. Simple, right?

I think these three points speak to the heart of the issue of leadership. The coach of the team helps to clarify for the team what the objective is and establishes that it is in the best interest of everyone on the team to achieve that goal. The cohesiveness of the team will determine the extent to which individuals will be able to lay aside personal agendas and work for the good of the team.

The word “clarify” is important here. A team may have a vague idea of what the goal is, but lack of clarity (vision) creates unnecessary confusion with respect to direction. It is the role of the leader to clarify the goal. It isn’t enough to tell a team we need to increase productivity. The team may need to be told that the third shift of the organization is bringing down overall production ratios and we want this team to work specifically on identifying some of the reasons why this is so, and make suggestions as to how these reasons can be addressed so as to bring production ratios up on the third shift.

Something that frustrates a team is to be given goals and then to find that achieving those goals is inhibited by institutional factors. Going back to the illustration of the third shift, the team will be inhibited if it cannot observe third shift employees at work, or talk with them anonymously to gain their perspectives on why production is lower on third shift. If there is an institutional barrier, such as only allowing a certain amount of coffee breaks per shift--when third shift would be more productive with an extra break (which seems counterintuitive)--then being told that no changes will be made on this issue will only frustrate the team and inhibit them from reaching the stated goal.

So the third element must be employed as well, that is, “remove inhibitors and enable goals to be achieved.” A team that is given the freedom to be creative and innovative is more likely to work together cohesively than a team that is given rigid structures and is not given the liberty to initiate new options to old problems. Jim Collins says that good to great companies learned to give teams “freedom within framework.” They were given the freedom to pursue goals as long as they did not compromise the core values or primary purpose of the organization. These core values and purpose were clearly defined and understood going into the project.

In Scripture Jesus gave His disciples a clear vision, “Go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19-20). For the Jews there was an institutional barrier, that being, that the Jews had nothing to do (or as little as possible) with non-Jewish people. Peter was going to be sent to the house of Cornelius to preach the gospel to them, but Peter could not envision such a thing in light of the restrictions of his culture and former religion. So God prepared Peter for this task by speaking to Peter in a dream. In this dream Peter was told to eat certain animals that were not considered kosher. Peter refused to eat these animals because in the law and in his culture these animals were considered “common” or ritually unclean. A voice in the dream told Peter, “What God has cleansed, don’t you call common” Acts 10:15). The metaphor was clear and an institutional barrier was removed so that Peter and the team Jesus had built were released to pursue the goal. Cornelius and his entire household were led to faith in Christ, and the leadership of the church embraced the commission to go to all people with the gospel.

In many local churches there are local institutional barriers that inhibit the team from pursuing the vision. Often these barriers are identified by words such as: ”We’ve never done that here before.” Or, “We’ve always done it this way.” When these barriers are constantly lifted up every time a team has an innovative and creative approach to reach the vision, it is only a matter of time until the team becomes frustrated and fragmented.

There is nothing more powerful for bringing a team together than a clearly defined vision that challenges the team to greater heights. But this is only true when they are coached in the area where they are expected to excel, and are empowered to pursue the goal. After two years of mentoring and training His disciples, and before He ascended, Jesus told His team, “You shall receive power” (Acts 1:8). They were trained, given clear a clarified goal, and empowered to reach that goal. There’s a lesson here for every leader.

PURSUING PERFECTION WITHOUT GOING CRAZY

2005-11-01T08:53:00.000-05:00

In many of the books I’ve read about leadership, there is the recurring theme of a commitment to excellence. There is a drive in effective leaders to press toward perfection in all that they do. They will not be satisfied with the organization, the staff, or themselves if excellence is not the standard mode of operation.

We know that Jesus was perfect. He was without sin. He was flawless, and He is our example, the model for our lives, and the context for our conduct. Furthermore, we know that Jesus expected that His disciples would pursue perfection in their lives as well. Jesus said, “In John 13:15, “I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” In Matthew 5:48 He said, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” So here’s the rub, how do we achieve a healthy balance when the fact is that we are all flawed and imperfect humans who are seeking to live up to the standard of excellence set by a perfect person? Won’t this lead to frustration and failure? Doesn’t it set us up for a fall?

I was reading an article in Ministries Today Magazine (Nov./Dec. 2005) entitled, “Perfectly Unhealthy” in which author Richard Winter addressed the difference between the healthy pursuit of perfection and an unhealthy perfectionist. He said that there are two sides to perfectionism. There is the “Adaptive, positive, healthy, constructive” side, which is marked by:

• High standards—(knows what those standards are)
• Good self-esteem—(is secure in him/herself)
• Strive for excellence—(is always pressing toward the mark)
• Realistic of failures—(is not afraid to fail forward when reaching toward excellence)
• Organized—(realizes that excellence begins with the leader)
• Energy and enthusiasm—(is excited about excellence and enthuses others)

But then there is also the other side of perfectionism:

• Unrealistically high standards (for self and others)
• Low self-esteem—(never feeling good enough)
• Seek to excel at any cost—(will sacrifice relationships and/or integrity)
• Generalize failure—(if one thing fails, then everything was wrong)
• Controlling—(cannot delegate or trust others to get it right)
• Exhausted and exhausting—(is mentally and physically fatigued and causes mental and emotional fatigue in others)

Too many leaders fail to find the balance between “neurotic perfectionism” at one end of the spectrum, and “non-perfectionism” at the other. Jesus understood the predicament of humanity and while He set the mark for the prize, He was also a patient teacher and mentor to those He would eventually delegate the mission to.

Leaders who fail to find this balance live frustrated and unfulfilled lives. If they do not pursue excellence, then chances are that they will never achieve success. But if they become neurotically obsessed with perfection then nothing will ever be good enough and they will not only live anxiety plagued lives, but they will also make the lives of everyone around them miserable as well.

Jesus knew that Peter was going to deny Him but Jesus did not give up on Peter. Jesus called Peter, with all his imperfections, and then used Peter in a powerful way in building the church. Pursuing perfection or excellence is an ongoing journey, not a destination in this life. While we maintain excellence in all we do, we cannot allow the little flaws to foil the journey.

In the past I have been guilty of focusing more on what goes wrong than on what goes right. One mix-up in the power-point, one mispronounced word, one wrong note on an instrument, one squeal in the sound system, and I would be bothered for the rest of the day. I’ve come to learn that something is likely to be less than perfect during a worship service, but on this journey I no longer allow every flaw to be fatal. I take note and then later look at how we can do better next time.

Some flaws are one time anomalies which serve to point out how well things usually go. Any recurring issue needs to be address and corrected as we continue to press toward excellence. Just as it is a mistake to obsess over every miscue, it is also wrong look over problems that can and should be corrected. With a healthy perfectionist there will be an energetic and enthusiastic drive to do better next time. With an unhealthy perfectionist there will be finger pointing, fault-finding, blame gaming and shaming.

Jesus was definitely a healthy perfectionist. He lived the perfect life and set an example for us all to follow, but Jesus was also ready to work with His disciples and to pick them back up if they stumbled. Jesus called Peter to the team but Peter denied Christ in the courtyard while Jesus was standing before His accusers. Thankfully, that was not the final scene with Jesus and Peter. In John’s Gospel we see Jesus talking with Peter, giving Peter a chance to reaffirm his love for Jesus, and then re-commissioning Peter to minister to the people of God.

If we will not pursue excellence, then we will never achieve great results as a leader and we do not reflect the character of Christ. However, if we generalize every failure, succumb to defeat with every miscue, or bring unrealistic expectation to our team, then we will never achieve long-term success as a leader. Jesus challenged us to take the journey toward perfection. He gave us the example and set the mark, but we must be willing to press toward perfection even while making positive corrections to the imperfections as we go.

TEAM BUILDING

2005-10-27T10:33:00.000-05:00

Instead of a pyramid shaped structure for their relationship, Jesus humbled Himself, took on the form of flesh, and came down to where we are as humanity. He was in all points tempted like as we are. But Jesus went even further, He wrapped a towel around His waist and washed the feet of His disciples. Then He challenged them to do the same thing. He never denied that He was the Master, but His point was that if the Rabbi would wash the feet of the disciples, then surely the disciples should be willing to wash one another’s feet. This was to be a team, not a hierarchy.

Jesus had individually called each of the twelve men who would be his apostles. I’ve previously addressed the diversity and the “process paradigm,” but anyone who has served in a leadership position for any length of time knows the importance of getting the right people in the right places at the right times for the right reasons. Jesus was able to build a team of leaders who were so dedicated to the mission that they were willing to lay down their lives in pursuit of accomplishing His will. As a team they were willing to lay down personal agendas and work together to accomplish the task that Jesus had given them.

As a leader who has the responsibility of hiring and firing personnel, it is very important to understand that is easier to get the right people in the right place than it is to try to transform the wrong people into the right people, or to move someone from the wrong place to the right place.

When I came to the church where I currently serve, I had very little experience with hiring and firing. I had hired one additional staff member at each of my previous two pastorates, but upon arriving at this church I found that the every staff member and administrative personnel had either resigned or had been fired before the previous pastor himself resigned. So I came into the church with limited experience in the very area where there was the greatest immediate need. Over the next four years I learned by trial and error.

Jesus had the ability to look into the heart of man and He could see something in a man that others could not see. As a leader, then, we must always pray for and seek His guidance in making these decisions. I’ve found that the Holy Spirit often tweaks our spirit with those proverbial “red flags” and unfortunately, I’ve too often been guilty of pressing through those flags and making mistakes.

When the church council interviewed me concerning the potential of coming to the church as the senior pastor they asked me which position I would hire first. I stated that the first need was the administrative assistant. My experience is that a leader must be free to lead and not become bogged down in paperwork and number crunching. At my first pastorate we did not have a secretary and I often spent hour upon hour balancing books, writing cards, sending letters, scheduling events and so on.

Fortunately, this church had already hired an interim administrative assistant who was very committed to the success of the church and was well liked by the congregation. I agreed to allow her to continue in her position.

Next, the council wanted to know what ministry staff position I would hire. I said that the next person I would hire would be the minister of music. My reasoning was that aside from the senior pastor the music minister would be the most visible staff member and that praise and worship was the lifeblood of the Sunday morning service. Instead, of going with my instinct, I felt pressured to hire a children’s pastor first. I have no regrets about hiring this individual. He has done and continues to do a good job. He is a right person in the right place. However, the sequence of hiring was skewed. It tied up funds and made hiring the right music minister more difficult. In the meantime I began by playing and leading worship myself before hiring a succession of two other individuals who, while certainly capable people, were not the right fit for this church.

I was eager to get out of the position myself, so I hired too quickly. The first had the technical skills but lacked people skills. The second had an evangelistic fervor, but little technical skills and no vision for the church music program. I hired him with the understanding that his stay with us would be of a short duration while he pursued pastoral opportunities. It wasn’t until the third hire in three years that I found a man who had great people skills, had a powerful vision for the music ministry and had the skills necessary to lead the choir. In him we found the right person for the right position.

It would have been much easier on me and the church if I had followed my instincts from the beginning and made this position a priority from the start. Further, I realize in hindsight that I should have taken more time, should have watched them work with people, and should have done more background research before hiring anyone.

Building a great team begins with choosing the right people. Jesus chose carefully and, yes, even Judas was chosen for the role he would play. This doesn’t excuse him for his failure, but also does not suggest that Jesus made a mistake in bringing Judas onto the team. Jesus brought in the right people, at the right time and put them in the right place. That the church survived the crucifixion, the resurrection and ascension of the leader of the movement is testimony to the effectiveness of the team in taking the mission forward. It reveals that Jesus had built a great team to accomplish a great commission.

Charisma versus Character

2005-10-22T12:09:00.000-05:00

Often when we think of a great leader we have in mind the larger than life caricatures of men and women whose lives and feats have become the stuff of legend. In the war movies of the 50’s, the political movies of the 60’s, the business movies of the 70’s and so on the great leader was someone with great charisma and presence. They were people who commanded attention, demanded respect, and inspired confidence. They were focused, vocal, direct and controlling. They were, to some extent, heroic figures that saved the day by the shear force of their own unyielding will. In the face of those caricatures many of us may well conclude that we may not have what it takes to be a great leader.

In contrast to those long-held stereotypes we have the prophetic description of Jesus:

2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
(Isa 53:2-3, NKJV)

This seems to be a far cry from the commonly held view of what a great leader should look like. In fact, when Jesus came to earth He “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men” (Phil 2:7, KJV). How does a person become a great leader like that? It is even possible in our day?

The research of both Jim Collins and Thom Rainer provides some pretty conclusive evidence that this is exactly the type of leader that it will take to move a business or a church from good to great.

Thom Rainer, who studied "breakthrough churches", employed the model used by Jim Collins, whose research was focused on the businessess that went from "good to great". Collins admits that he and his team were surprised by some of their findings. The first surprise being that the businesses which broke out of mediocrity and achieved greatness were led by people who did not fit the stereotypical ideal of a great leader. He calls them “Level 5 leaders.” In contrast to the brash, self-assured, charismatic, leaders of fiction, these leaders were found to be “self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will” (Good to Great, pp. 12-13).

Rainer was surprised with similar findings in his study of the leadership of breakout churches. He calls these pastors “Acts 5/6 leaders.” The men (all the pastors in his study were male) who moved their church from plateau or decline, to breakthrough and growth, were leaders of character, humility, and even vulnerability. He states that these pastors were more “thin-skinned” than “thick-skinned.” Thick-skinned pastors allow criticism to bounce off without affecting them. They take congregational losses in stride and press on with little or no emotional side effect. But the Acts 5/6 leaders, the leaders of the breakthrough churches, were deeply affected by the loss of members and they were often personally wounded by criticism. The difference between these leaders and other thin-skinned leaders was that while they were wounded, they did not quit. They continued to lead and to believe that God could still use them to move the mission forward.

Collins said that one characteristic of the good to great businesses and their leaders was the willingness to apply, what he called, “the Stockdale Paradox: You must maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be” (p. 13).

Here is where good and great leaders are separated. This is the line of division, the place where the average and the excellent are delineated. The great leaders, like Jesus, face difficulties but they neither run from them nor bulldoze their way through them. Instead, they maintain unwavering faith that they will prevail in the end. One setback is not the finish. One conflict is not the fatal. One betrayal, one denial, or abandonment in the time of greatest turmoil is not the end. Faith in the outcome, in the triumph of the vision, the mission, or the goal keeps one from quitting or giving up.

This is not, however, a denial of reality, or the inability to see and understand the challenge ahead—this is the paradox. It is the ability to keep the faith and to continue on, but it is not a bullheaded “my way or the highway” approach. It is faith in the outcome while at the same time being disciplined enough to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever it might be.

I was on staff of a large church in our denomination. I came on staff shortly after the senior pastor arrived. While I was there I was given some background information on the church by some of the longtime members. It seems the church had been growing for several years and had been through several building programs, including moving three times to the current location. The facilities were beautiful and the programs were plentiful, but in the latter years of the previous pastor’s tenure the church had plateaued and was teetering on the brink of significant decline. At the request of the church council the pastor asked for a church consultant to come in and evaluate the church. At the end of the evaluation the report indicated that there was one weak link in the chain and that was the leadership of the senior pastor.

This was the brutal fact of their reality. The pastor had been there for a number of years and had led the church through a significant building program, but beyond the building he didn’t seem to have much of a vision. He was burnt-out and lacked the energy or the will to move beyond getting the building finished. He began to question himself and he lost faith in his own ability to lead the church forward, so he resigned.

Level 5 and Acts 5/6 leaders would have faced the brutal facts, would have sought personal coaching or personal revival, would have assessed thier own weaknesses and then would have hired people--with proficiencies in the areas of those weaknesses--to come on board and work with him. But good to great leaders and breakthrough leaders do not quit. Rainer found the average tenure of breakthrough pastors was just over 21 years—many times longer than the tenure of the average pastor.

Acts 5/6 leaders are more interested in the life, success and longevity of the church than they are in personal advancement or notoriety. For them, growing a church is not a means to an end in their personal professional life, but is an end in and of itself—to the extent that this growth represents souls won into the kingdom of God. Likewise, good to great leaders are motivated by the success of the company more than by having the spotlight shone upon themselves.

You may not have great personal charisma. You may not fit the caricature of the stereotypical great leader, but you may be able to develop the characteristics that both Collins and Rainer found to be indicative of great leaders. These very characteristics are found in Christ, and His character can be perfected in us as we endeavor to become more like Him.

Progress versus Program

2005-10-14T09:57:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that far too many leaders are looking for the proverbial “magic bullet,” that one program or innovation that will take their organization from obscurity to outstanding almost overnight. This rarely happens. Instead, study after study shows that persistence and patience are the qualities that leaders of outstanding organizations or churches possess. Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great (New York: HarperBusiness, 2001) reflects upon his research in preparation for writing his book. He says, in an online audio clip:

We learned in Good to Great, that in building a great institution there is no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no miracle moment. Rather, our research showed that it feels like turning a giant, heavy flywheel. Pushing with great effort, days, weeks, and months of work, with almost imperceptible progress, you finally get the flywheel to inch forward but you don’t stop. You keep pushing and pushing and with persistent effort you eventually get the flywheel to complete one giant slow turn. You don’t stop, you keep pushing in an intelligent and consistent direction and the flywheel moves a bit faster. You keep pushing and you get two turns, then four, then eight and the flywheel builds momentum, sixteen, you keep pushing, thirty-two, and it builds more momentum, a hundred, moving faster with each turn, a thousand, ten-thousand, a hundred thousand, then at some point, BANG!—breakthrough. (Jim Collins, “The Flywheel,” audio clip at http://www.jimcollins.com/hall/index.html, October 14, 2005).

Thom Rainer, in his book Breakthrough Churches (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), uses Collin’s methodology and applies it to a study of churches that have experienced breakthroughs. He observes that pastors of churches which have broken out of plateau or decline are pastors who have tenures that are much longer than average, and are men who just kept pushing. The statistics show that these men were often at a church for years before the turning point came and that it was not one program or miraculous revival that turned things around. Instead, it was commitment to the call, persistence in the face of adversity and patience in the face of panic. These men did not try to change the church overnight into something else, but they moved methodically in the direction they believed God was taking their church.

Having grown up in a Pentecostal church I have observed too many pastors and church members who believed that one great revival or employing the latest greatest innovation was going to miraculously transform their church into a thriving example of success. This is rarely, if ever, the case. Indeed, over time the failure of such hopes and claims have undermined the value of consistent and committed progress. The result has been cynicism and skepticism.

As Jim Collins states, the momentum for a breakthrough is like pushing a giant flywheel, it begins one inch at time before significant and self-sustaining momentum is attained.

Jesus began His public ministry at the age of 30 and for two years He walked the dusty roads of Judea preaching the message of the kingdom. At the time of His death He had only 11 loyal disciples and even they deserted Him in His moment of sacrifice. After the resurrection He appeared to five hundred, but only about one hundred and twenty obeyed Him and tarried in Jerusalem in anticipation of the coming empowerment of the Holy Spirit.

The beginnings of the church Jesus came to build were small and insignificant. He left a few people to carry the message and they faced extreme opposition, but two-thousand years later there are almost one billion people on the earth who claim the Christian faith. Jesus was wiling to move the flywheel one inch at a time. He was willing to go see one woman at a well, to heal one cripple at a pool, to lift one leper from his condition, and to touch the heart of one person at a time if necessary to illustrate the power of the kingdom, and to build His church.

Great leaders do not give up easily, and they are willing to move methodically toward the goal that they believe God has placed before them. Leaders who seem to appear suddenly on the stage of success have often worked in the shadows of obscurity for years before the flywheel began to move with the momentum that propelled the organization into greatness. It may begin with an inch, with slow steady growth, but progress in time becomes a powerful force that is hard to stop.

Wes Hardin is the senior pastor of the Word Vision Church of God in Macon, Georgia. In the winter of 2000-2001 the reports showed that the church averaged 264. In July 2005’s report the church showed an average of more than 570. I’ve known Wes for a few years now and I’ve watched the growth of the church. It didn’t happen all at once, but month by month with steady growth the church has continued to grow.

I recently saw Wes at a state function and asked him about the success of his church and in his quiet, soft-spoken, unassuming manner, he simply told me that they’ve been staying faithful and loving people and the church has continued to grow. It wasn’t an event, or a program, or a dynamic personality, but solid persistent and consistent leadership that has moved the flywheel an inch at a time. I believe the church has achieved momentum and in the months and years to come they will see even more significant growth. BANG! Breakthrough.

On the other hand, I watched a church explode in growth in just a few months from 100 to over 500. The pastor was featured in a prominent Christian magazine and became a speaker at some of our denominational meetings. Five years later the church, with the same pastor, is averaging less than 200 in worship attendance. Wes has never been featured in a major Christian magazine, but his church continues to grow. He is patient, persistence and consistent and the results are lasting.

Process verses Departmental Paradigm

2005-10-12T07:33:00.000-05:00

I recently received a newsletter authored by Allen Ratta in Connection Power News (Oct. 11, 2005), and the title of the article was “Key Processes for Church Health: Part 8, Processes Thinking.” In this article Ratta expounds on an idea or a paradigm which I have had of ministry for years, but which I have never attempted to articulate until now. I think that his insights are germane to the topic of leadership and how a leader thinks. In fact, I think process thinking comes much closer to the mind of Christ than departmentalized thinking.

As Ratta points out, most church leaders have a mental image of the organizational structure of the church which is pictured in an organizational flow chart. This chart usually forms some type of pyramid (even if an inverted pyramid) that is ultimately broken down into departments. The theory is that if each department does a good job then the overall organization will grow. For example, if the Sunday School department, and the children’s ministry department, and the music department, and so on, grow, then the church cannot help but grow as well. The problem with this approach is that by its very nature it engenders unhealthy competition for scarce resources, territorialism, tunnel vision, and may even cause an adversarial spirit within the organization.

What is process thinking? Process thinking can be mapped out but the map reflects an “over-arching process” broken down into “sub-processes” which are tied to the “purposes” of the church. For example, as Ratta posits, an over-arching process of the church is “Congregant Acquisition.” This is accomplished through three sub-processes of “outreach, connection and integration.” As we can already see, these three processes transcend departments. The process map has as an implicit underlying goal, the integration, cooperation, and symbiosis of departments. Outreach is not a department, but is the unified goal of all departments to some degree, as are connection and integration.

I have thought about this paradigm with respect to Jesus’ leadership and it occurs to me that while organizational structure became more solidified and defined in the Epistles, Jesus’ approach was much more process than departmental. Jesus had an over-arching process: To bring salvation to the world through His sacrifice and to propagate that message through the church. But Jesus did not create departments to accomplish this. He held the children in His own arms and did not leave it to the children’s minister. He went to the woman at the well and did not leave this to the pastor of evangelism. He visited the sick and did not leave this to the pastor of visitation.

I am not suggesting that one man or woman can be all things to all people. Further, I do believe that there individual members to the body, each with a specific gift and ministry. However, Jesus’ life was lived as an example of the over-arching process. His life is a reflection of the “body”. Furthermore, the metaphor of the body as individual members tied to one another reinforces the process paradigm, in that, “the ear cannot say to the eye, I have no need of you.” The health of the body is facilitated by an integration of the parts and not by an accumulation of segregated, disjointed, and competing parts.

It is never an issue of me or you reaching an individual, but of us working in unity to see new members added to the body. Ratta asks this question, “While there are a lot of vested leaders watching the health of their departments, who is watching the health of your critical ministry processes?” Is it not the leaders? As the pastor of a church, or manager of a business, the leader must keep the over-arching process in the forefront.

For example, in budgeting each department often views the dollars in terms of their specific programs instead of a purpose that transcends their own department. Resources are limited and sometimes the competition within an organization, even a church, can become contentious. The leader, however, should remind all other leaders of various departments that there is an bigger picture in play. Further, that when we focus on the sub-processes and seek to work together to accomplish these in pursuit of the over-arching process, then the health of one part will translate into the health of all the parts for the benefit of the body. When the choir and the children’s ministry both understand the over-arching process then together they can form a symbiotic relationship where the growth of the choir results in the growth of the children’s ministry, and visa versa. The paradigm is no longer competitive but becomes more cooperative and unified.

I think Allen Ratta has hit the nail on the head and has helped me to process my own thoughts on this subject. Your can receive the free newsletter Connection Power News at http://connectionpower.com

Overcoming the Contempt of Familiarity

2005-09-28T09:07:00.000-05:00

The Seventh Century Greek slave and fable writer, Aesop, is credited with coining the phrase, “Familiarity breeds contempt.” (It is found in the fable, The Fox and the Lion.) This cliché implies that it is wrong, even dangerous, for a leader to become too familiar with those he leads. In ministry it is often suggested that if a pastor gets too close to the congregation then she will end up sacrificing some of the respect of the congregation because they will see the weaknesses of the leader. To avoid this perceived danger some have instructed leaders (even pastors) to maintain a certain aloofness and detachment from those he leads. It is, for example, a violation of military law for commissioned officers to “fraternize” with the enlisted personnel. The belief is that to become too familiar with the enlisted ranks will diminish an officer’s ability to command the respect she needs to lead. In light of this perceived danger one might ask if is it possible to be a servant-leader, to be transparent and vulnerable, and to still be an effective leader.

In Mark’s Gospel chapter 5, we read of Jesus raising a twelve-year-old girl, Jairus’ daughter, from the dead. Then, in chapter 6, we find Jesus returning to His hometown, the town where He grew up, Nazareth. There we do not read of crowds running out to meet Jesus, instead we find an astonishing lack of faith:

2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed.
"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! 3 Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown, among his relatives and in his own house is a prophet without honor." 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 And he was amazed at their lack of faith.

This account seems to reinforce the cliché and to underscore the importance of detachment. The people of Jesus’ hometown were not particularly impressed with Jesus and did not rush out to meet Him with their sick and infirmed. Only a few came to Jesus, and Jesus did heal them, but even He was amazed at their lack of faith.

It is very likely that the news of Jesus raising a young girl from death had preceded Him to Nazareth. Many of the miracles, the signs and wonders, were being broadcast abroad. Still, when Jesus came home, back the place of His childhood, the people simply asked, “Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?” Notice the familiarity. These people knew the names of all of Jesus’ brothers! Most of us don’t even know the names of our neighbors, much less their entire family. And because of this, even in the light of the words of wisdom by which Jesus spoke, we are told that “they took offense at him”.

So, could Aesop be right? Is the old leadership model of the heroic figure the right model? Is it possible to be a servant-leader and remain aloof?

I’ve observed leadership in various settings over the years. I’ve been in the military, I worked my way through seminary by working in a factory, and I’ve worked with various pastors in the context of ministry, and it is true, that if a leader is little more than the façade of a great man or woman, then it is in his best interest to keep the people at arm’s length. If the leader portrays herself as infallible then she certainly doesn’t want to get close enough to people for them to see her weaknesses. However, there is a way to overcome the danger of contempt and that is through honesty and humility.

After a series of failure on the part of leaders in many social institutions—from ministry to presidency—younger generations have long ago given up on the illusion that leaders are perfect. In fact, they are often suspicious of leadership that presents itself as somehow superior or above reproach. In Jesus’ case, He was perfect and the lack of faith on the part of the community was unfounded, but we aren’t Jesus. Furthermore, despite the response of His hometown, Jesus was very close to His disciples and we read several times of John laying his head on the chest of Jesus. We see Jesus washing their feet. We find Jesus eating with and “fraternizing” with sinners. Yet Jesus remains the greatest leader to have ever lived.

It is my belief that while a leader should never be guilty of favoritism or of allowing friendships to stand in the path of good leadership decisions, a good leader should never be so detached from the people he leads that he cannot be touched. Even Jesus is “touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Heb. 4:15). The best way to avoid contempt is honesty and humility. A leader should be open and transparent with respect to her struggles. This does not mean that the leader has to detail every failure, but that the leader should own up to his mistakes and set the example by being honest about them.

Moreover, the example of Jesus is that even if some reject the leader, their rejection should not deter the leader from the course he has chosen. Jesus did not retreat in the face of their “offense” but instead Jesus empowered His disciples to move the mission forward. He did not separate Himself from His disciples, but He gave more of Himself to His disciples.

Familiarity can breed contempt among the contemptuous, but familiarity can also build trust and confidence among those whom we serve humbly and honestly as leaders. Furthermore, familiarity with integrity can breed loyalty for those who are willing to serve with humility.

Put Out the Pouters

2005-09-21T09:39:00.000-05:00

I was looking back over my blogs and found two places where I indicated that I would address an issue and I failed to do so. The first place where I said I would address an issue was at the end of point XII "Courage to Cancel the Funeral." I noted that I would address the subject of "Casting out the Mourners." This past week I began to address that issue and ended up with a sermon, which you can access at Marginalizing the Mourners. But I still want to address this from the perspective of leadership. So I offer the following which should be considered after point XII.

It is difficult to lead people who persist in having a negative attitude. These are people like those found in Luke's Gospel, chapter 8. Jesus was on his way to heal the 12 year-old daughter of Jairus, the ruler of the local syagogue, when He stopped to talk with a woman who had been healed of a bleeding disorder. In the course of time someone from Jairus' home came with the bad news that his daughter had died. The messenger then told Jairus, "Don't trouble the Master any further." The messenger simply assumed that there was no hope. Jesus, however, looked at Jairus and said, "Don't worry, just believe and your daughter will be healed."

The messenger offered bad news and no hope, but Jesus offered hope and good news which was predicated upon the father's faith and God's power. There will always be people who see only the bad, the sad, the trials and the trouble. They almost always come with bad news and no hope. Every leader needs an honest assesment, and needs people who will be bold enough to bring the news even when it is bad. Leaders should let those around them know that they want the truth and that they are welcome to bring the news even if it is not favorable. However, leaders do not need people who will then publish this news throughout the organization and put a bad spin on every turn of events in the organization.

When Jesus arrived at the house of Jairus the professional mourners had already gathered to weep and to wail at the loss of the young girl. Jesus looked at the situation from the perspective of power, God's power. He said, "She is not dead, she is only sleeping." (She was biologically dead, but from the perspective of God's power, she was only sleeping.) When Jesus said she was only sleeping the people began to ridicule Jesus. Mark's Gospel tells us that Jesus put all the people out of the room except for Peter, James and John, and the girl's parents. Jesus put out the pouters, the grumblers and the doubters.

There are professional mourners in most organizations. These are the glass half-empty people who pout and doubt. They weep and wail over every challenge and see only problems where leaders see potential. The constant negativity of these people will poisen an organization and will spread that negativity throughout the organization if they are given a plateform. A leader does not wallow in self-pity and join the chorus of complainers, but instead the leader faces the situation squarely and then charts a course to overcome the challenge. It may even take a bold risk-taking vision that others may not grasp at first. In these situations the leader best serves the organization by marginalizing the mourners and mainstreaming the posibility thinkers and the bold risk takers who can see the vision and are willing to embrace the challenge.

Jesus raised the young girl back to life and that success set the stage for an even more dramatic event in raising Lazarus from the tomb after being dead for four days. One dramaic victory over seeming overcoming odds goes a long way toward establishing confidence and silencing the doubters. It is all too easy to listen to the negativity and fall into the habit of seeing only the problems or the trouble. Instead, a great leader looks at the situation from a different perspective than the average person and instills hope and possibility in the hearts of the people.

XXI) JESUS AND THE EMERGING LEADERSHIP MODEL

2005-09-08T11:39:00.000-05:00

I will wrap this series up with a comparison of the leadership style of Jesus with the model that Jimmy Long proposes for the emerging/Postmodern culture. Long isn’t pushing an “emerging leadership style” as being better than, or more valuable than the modern style. All Long is saying is that a survey of the emerging culture suggests that the leadership style which will be most effective in reaching this culture will most likely have to consist of these particular qualities and that the old model will be less effective for leading the new generation.

With that said, I looked at the list of leadership qualities that Long proposes and I feel that perhaps this model does, in fact, reflect the leadership model of Jesus more closely than the modern model. I know that most of us who value the Bible as “the” Word of God would like to believe that what we are doing, and the way we are doing it, come closest to the biblical model. (If it didn't, presumably we'd change.) However, most of us operate with only a vague understanding of how profoundly we have been impacted by our culture. The modern culture, which emerged out of the Enlightenment, has tended to overshadow the Hebraic/Eastern Worldview in which Scripture was written. The Western worldview of rugged individualism and the heroic figure have impacted the church and have elevated certain positions out of the community and insolated them from the community. As such, leadership, in the modern paradigm, almost always operates with a certain disconnect and therefore often fails to build consensus, but operates from a dictatorial model. In fact, I’ve read leadership material put out by the church only twenty years ago that stated that the pastor was to function as a "benevolent dictator".

There was a day when the position alone was enough, but no more. Now the leader of a church, and even in the business world, has to employ a model that places him or her within the community and his or her role is more that of a servant than a master. This does not mean that no one is at the helm steering the ship, but that everyone on the ship understands where they are going, why they are going there, and how they are going to have to work together to get there.

Returning to Long’s emerging leadership paradigm and the leadership model of Jesus let me suggest the following:

1. Team Leadership—It is obvious that Jesus was building a team to work together to advance the Kingdom of God. Jesus practiced the “see, do, be” mentoring approach. He called the men to Him to be His disciples. SEE: They walked with Him and saw Him perform great miracles. DO: Jesus sent them out into the villages and cities to preach the kingdom, to heal the sick and to cast out demons. BE: Then, before He ascended He told them that He was sending them, even as the Father had sent Him, and that they would do the works that He had done, and even greater than He had done.

2. Community Oriented—Jesus was a man of community. We often see Him alone in prayer, but more often we see Him in with the disciples, with the crowds, even with sinners and publicans. He knew the heart and soul of the people. He understood their frustration with the religious establishment and He was offering them a “better covenant.”

3. Earned Authority—Jesus was unique in the fact that He is God in the flesh. And yet, this authority alone did not gather crowds to Him. It was as He performed miracles, as He did those things that revealed His authority that people believed and followed Him. It is doubtful that even with all His authority, that Jesus would have gathered a following on the power of His words alone. Even His disciples believed after seeing water turned to wine, or seeing Him calm the waves. Likewise, in the emerging community, words alone (regardless of how well we may think we preach and teach) are not going to be enough. It will be by our good works that our faith is revealed and God is glorified—so says Jesus and James.

4. Vulnerable Leader—This is obvious. Jesus made Himself of no reputation. He became human and walked in our skin. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. He allowed them to take Him by force, beat Him, and nail Him to a cross naked. One doesn’t get much more vulnerable than that!

5. Developing Vision—Jesus consistently reminded the disciples of His destiny, though they didn’t seem to get it until after the resurrection. He spoke often of the kingdom of God and what it was like. He told them of their roles and challenged them with both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.

6. Empower—Jesus empowered the disciples with the authority of His name, and promised them power in the Holy Spirit once He ascended to the Father. Talk about delegating! Jesus came to earth with a mission, called a team around Him to complete the mission, mentored them, empowered them and then sent them to the uttermost parts of the earth while He ascended to the right hand of the Father. True enough, His position at the right hand of the Father further empowers us.

7. Journey—Jesus’ entire ministry illustrates the journey. He was constantly on the move. Unlike foxes that have holes, He said that He didn’t even have anywhere to lay His head. His entire life was a journey toward Calvary, and then to ascension to the Father. He likened the Christian experience to entering a narrow gate and walking on a narrow road.

8. Inspire to Leadership—There were not many who would have been willing to give their lives in martyrdom for the sake of a carpenter’s son. But Jesus inspired these men and women with His words and with His life. He gave them a vision of something far better and eternal than what they had known.

Perhaps I’m pressing the point, but I feel that we need to go back to the future, to reclaim the leadership model of Jesus and that in so doing we will be better equipped to reach the culture that is emerging out of the false security and self-delusion of the modern culture. One of the characteristics of the emerging culture is the loss of a meta-narrative. A meta-narrative is an overarching Worldview which sums up human existence. In the Postmodern culture the meta-narrative is rejected favor of the micro-narrative. In other words, they would maintain that there is no “one” story and that all stories (religions) are equally valid.

The problem with this view is that it is self-deluding. It's fallacy is soon revealed when competing world views, which claim exclusivity, are brought into conflict. If all micro-narratives are equally valid, then each one is right in saying that it is the only one that is right. This creates a logical paradox that eventually dawns upon even the Postmodern. They may claim to hold this tension unresolved, but it creates a vacuum, a void into which Christianity has the opportunity to flow. It cannot be forced, but the macro-narrative of the kingdom of God has something to offer those who become dissatisfied with the void created the multitudinous micro-narratives.

The emerging culture is nothing to be feared, nor should the church allow the culture to dictate the agenda of the church. That agenda has already been established by Christ in the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. However, as fishers of men we should be wise enough to cast our nets where the fish are, to use bait that they will bite on, and to be ready to fill our boats to the overflow with the catch.

During a time when the liturgical tradition church is declining, there are many examples of those who have caught the vision of the opportunities of the emerging culture and whose churches are rapidly growing. It takes leadership, it takes a Jesus kind of leadership, but it can and does happen.

XX) BACK TO THE FUTURE OF LEADERSHIP

2005-09-02T08:59:00.000-05:00

I remember a trilogy of movies from the 80's entitled, Back to the Future. Marty, played by Michael J. Fox, was the main character who, through a series of events related to an eccentric scientist and a time machine, goes first back to the past and then to his future before going back to the more distant past and eventually returns to his present. His present, however, has been altered by his activities in the past. The time machine was a modified Delorian (a stainless steel car for some of you younger folks). Interestingly, at the time the movie was made a Delorian was a modernistic looking car but the car company went defunct and no longer exists.

I reflect upon that movie because the title seems like an oxymoron. The future, as we all know, is thought of as being forward in a linear timeline stretching from the past. We speak of “eternity past” and “eternity future” and illustrate this with a line. A line, in geometry, is a straight line with two arrows pointing in opposite directions on each end. It suggests that it has no beginning and no end. A segment is a line with points or dots at the end. It represents a specific measurment or a definable period to time, as such, time is a segment plucked out of eternity. So to talk about going backward in order to go forward is a paradoxical statement. Yet, in the discussion of leadership it seems that we do, indeed, need to go backward if we hope to be able to lead in the present future. Let me explain.

I recently attended a conference with Leonard Sweet and Jimmy Long as the featured speakers. These men are both recognized as leaders in the current “emerging church” movement. They are also futurists and surveyors of culture. These men, as well as those who work in this field of study agree that our culture, on a global scale, is changing and a new cultural paradigm is “emerging” --hence the concept of the emerging church. Some refer to it as Postmodern. This term too, seems somewhat oxymoronic in that we often though of modern as a dynamic, or a moving definition, rather than a static or stationary definition. As such, we tended to believe that modern is always modern. We conceded that what was “modern” today may well be “antique” in the future, but it seemed that it would be impossible to move beyond modern because modern was moving forward.

Now are are saying that this may not have been the case at all. Many are now saying that we have moved beyond modern. Modernity is a cultural mindset with its own rules, structures and worldview, and many still operate within this worldview. However, the cultural shift going on in the world is so dramatic and dynamic that the cultural paradigm of modernity is quickly becoming obsolete and the changes are accelerating. Within the last week, the disaster in New Orleans is one example of an event in our time that challenges the very fabric of all that we Americans held dear as a “modern” nation. We have watched a modern city in a relatively young nation reduced to primitive, third-world conditions in a matter of days.

What will the results of this tragedy be? How it will affect the psyche and the spirituality of the nation? Already there is a growing dissatisfaction with the response of the government and of leadership in general. Justified or not, the perception being created through the media is that nothing is being done and that leadership from local police precincts all the way up to the president has failed to respond in a timely manner. This perception is and will alter the role and the reality of future leadership.

It was during the conference I attended (which was held prior to Hurricane Katrina) that Jimmy Long compared and contrasted leadership models from the “Modern” cultural paradigm with the paradigm of the “Postmodern” or “Emerging” culture. Let me list both models:

Modern Leadership Paradigm

Individual Leader (One person in charge of the whole)

Task Oriented (We gather together to do this task)

Positional Authority (He/She holds this title, so they are the leader)

Heroic Leader (He/She is the picture of strength and courage)

Building Structures (Organizational and literal structures)

Direct (Give specific commands, directives, directions)

Destination Oriented (We are going to this place and when we get there we have reached our goal)

Aspire to Leadership (Being a leader is a worthy goal, and something to strive for)

Emerging Leadership ParadigmTeam Leadership (The leader is part of a team and they are working together. He is seem more as a coach helping the team to succeed.)

Community Oriented (We are not coming together only to achieve this task, but we are coming together to be together in community.)

Earned Authority (You are not commissioned leadership, you earn it through trust, integrity, and concern.)

Vulnerable Leader (The leader must demonstrate that he or she is on the same road, walking with the team. As such, he or she struggles with the same issues.)

Developing Vision (The leader is not trying to build a structure, but is developing a vision, which may be in flux, not as a fixed point of reference, but as an emerging and fluid direction toward which the organization moves.)

Empower (The leader does not claim to know or have all the answers, but empowers others to find their answers for themselves. Empowers them to become and to achieve a state of genuinaity (my new word, which means to be “genuine, honest, real and in touch with existential moment”.)

Journey (The goal is not to reach a goal, to mobilize for a destination, but to engage in the journey, to have, as Tillich puts it, “the courage to be” in the moment.)

Inspire to Leadership (Given that leadership is now suspect. Baby Boomers have witnessed the Watergate debacle, have gone back to revisit the moral lapses of icons, like John Kennedy, have seen the moral failures of Evangelical Superstars, and now Generation X and the new Millennial generation are witnessing the moral failures of Catholic priests and are witnessing the seeming impotency of current governmental and military leadership in the face of disaster. So who wants to be a leader? What is there to aspire to? If we are going to have leadership for the future, then current leaders are going to have to inspire the next generation to step up and be willing to lead.)

With all of that said, and after reviewing the two lists of characteristics of leadership, it seems to me that the leadership style of Jesus was more along the lines of emerging culture than of the modern. So perhaps, to be an effective leader for to the future, we need to go back to the model that Christ gave us. I will explore this thesis a little more in my next blog.

XIX) EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

2005-08-25T08:36:00.000-05:00

I have dozens of books and many more magazines on the subject of leadership in my library. Most of them are written from the Christian/Biblical perspective, but many are secular and come from the business world. In my humble opinion one of the best secular books written on leadership is entitled Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatzis, and Annie McKee (Harvard Business School Press, 2002). Their argument, and it is compelling, is that a leader’s ability to positively affect the emotions of those around them is as important to leadership as having a high IQ. In short, the leader will either be able to instill a sense of goodwill and confidence in the organization, which the authors call resonance, or they will create a negative climate, which they call dissonance.

My wife has worked in the retail business for several years for one of the major retail giants. During this time she has worked in several different stores and with many different store managers. I’ve listened to her describe the working climate in these stores under various managers and what she has observed is what Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee have studied and documented, namely, that the emotional intelligence (EQ) of the leadership will either have a positive (resonance) or negative (dissonance) effect that will filter throughout the organization. This effect will flow from the highest levels of leadership down to the cart pusher in the parking-lot.

Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee list four elements of healthy emotional intelligence: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness and relationship management. Briefly, these four areas relate to the following:

SELF-AWARENESS: awareness of one’s own emotions and their impact; knowing one’s own strengths and limits; and, a sound sense of one’s self-worth and capabilities.

SELF-MANAGEMENT: keeping disruptive emotions under control; displaying honesty and integrity; being flexible and adaptable; a drive to improve; readiness to seize opportunities; and, seeing the upside in events.

SOCIAL AWARENESS: sensing others’ emotions and understanding their perspective; reading the currents, networks and politics of the organization; and, recognizing and meeting client or customer needs.

RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT: guiding and motivating with a compelling vision; utilizing the power of persuasion; provide feedback and guidance to bolster the abilities of others; initiating, managing and leading in a new direction; resolving disagreements; cultivating and maintaining a web of relationships; and, cooperation and team building. (p. 39)

Unlike intelligence and personality traits, which many believe are genetically predetermined, EQ can be developed and improved. With these four “Emotional Intelligence Domains” one can be effective in creating resonance and thereby creating a positive work environment with people who are willing to work together to accomplish the goal and vision of the organization.

I realize I began this series with a discussion of the leadership lessons we gain from Jesus, and it may seem that I have deviated, but as I looked at the four EQ domains it occurs to me that Jesus exemplified each of these. Jesus had an acute sense of “self-awareness.” He knew exactly who He was, who had sent Him, and what His mission was.

Jesus was a master at “self-management.” He knew what He had to do to accomplish His mission and He able to exemplify honesty and integrity while He pressed toward that goal.

Jesus had a keen sense of “social awareness.” He knew the thoughts of people and understood their inner turmoil. He could clearly see the needs of the people, even if they were only focused on their wants.

And finally, Jesus was an expert at “relationship management.” He initiated, managed and led the world in a new direction. And He built a team around Him who would continue the mission even after He ascended to the Father.

There is a difference between leading people and manipulating people. Great leaders utilize EQ to positively affect the emotions of others so that they can see, believe in, and pursue the vision and mission of the organization. The opposite is to create a climate of distrust, frustration, cynicism and discouragement. An organization can only remain static for so long; it must either move forward or it will move backward. A positive attitude that filters throughout the organization can empower the people to overcome obstacles, create innovative approaches, and work together as a team for the health of the organization.

XVIII) HAVING A SERVANT’S HEART

2005-08-23T08:33:00.000-05:00

In light of the record of the Synoptic Gospels it is interesting that in John’s Gospel, as we come to the Passion of Christ and anticipate the Lord’s Supper, we find Jesus washing His disciples' feet. I agree with those who see here an intent on the part of John, via the Holy Spirit, to place Feetwashing within the framework of a Sacrament. I agree with the view held by Chris Thomas, Ph.D. (a professor at the Church of God Theological Seminar) that Feetwashing is a powerful symbol of the continual cleansing of the blood of Christ. Water Baptism is a Sacrament that symbolizes the initial cleansing experienced at salvation and Feetwashing represents the daily and continuing cleansing of the believer through Calvary.

With that said, however, I want to focus on another lesson in this account, that being the example of servant leadership displayed by Christ to His disciples and to us today. Jesus gives us a powerful example of great leadership and at the heart of that example is the picture of the teacher kneeling down and washing the feet of His students.

The idea of servant leadership is not new. It has been explored and probed through countless articles and books on the subject and I probably have nothing novel to add except to reiterate the point. Great leaders are not focused on raising up people who will cater only to those above them on the corporate ladder, but will be a servant to those coming up behind them as well. Leadership writer John Maxwell has often expressed that great leaders will always be looking to help lift the lives of others up and to develop more great leaders. Great leaders, developing great leaders, developing great leaders, will insure the life and longevity, as well as the future and vitality, of the organization or the church.

I was blessed to be able to have lunch with our denominational Administrative Bishop of our state this week. He came and spoke for us at the church which I pastor but I didn’t know him very well. Given his position and the propensity for politics at that level of leadership I had tended to assume that while he was likeable and seemingly amicable, he would operate according to what was politically expedient. After talking with him and breaking bread with him I soon found that he is a man who is willing to take a stand on principle. In addition, he asked me if there was anything he could do to facilitate my functioning in a small leadership position I hold in the state. I came away from that lunch with a new respect for this man’s leadership because I sensed in him a man of principle, compassion and a servant’s heart.

Jesus knelt down and washed His disciples’ feet. This was the task of the servants in the house, not the Rabbi, not the Master. Peter tried to stop Jesus from washing his feet but Jesus insisted and Peter eventually relented. Jesus was showing us that if we want to be a great leader then we must have a servant’s heart. We must be willing to kneel down and wash the feet of those we want to teach servant leadership to.

Jesus also shows us that we must be willing to lead by example. Jesus didn’t just say that we are to serve one another (though He did teach this on several occasions), but Jesus showed us what it looks like to be a servant. When others see the leader serving, they will be more inclined to serve as well.

As the senior pastor of a medium sized and growing church I cannot personally wash the feet of every member, I cannot visit every home and counsel every member, but I can wash the feet of my elders and staff members and teach them to serve others. I can be a servant to those I want to raise up in leadership positions in the church so that they will be servant leaders as well and everyone in the church senses that they are cared for and ministered to.

Some see the servant leadership model as a weak model for leadership, but we see the strength of Christ as Peter tried to resist the lesson. Jesus was serving but He was still the leader and He was still in command of the encounter. There is nothing weak about this model. It takes confidence and a high level of personal security in one’s role to be willing to employ the servant leader model. Insecure and egotistical leaders simply cannot bring themselves to serve in this fashion. Such leaders need constant affirmation and control of others. But these leaders do not reflect the leadership model displayed by Christ kneeling down and washing the feet of his disciples.

XVII) MAKING TOUGH DECISIONS

2005-08-12T10:38:00.000-05:00

Being a leader can be very gratifying. There are rewards, such as seeing a project completed on time and on budget, or getting the ministry up and running, growing and touching lives. There are the accolades and “at-a-boy’’s”, the recognition and the sheer satisfaction of knowing we have made a positive impact on so many people’s lives. If it weren’t for these returns not many people would invest themselves in leadership because along with the rewards, there are also the challenges. There are the difficult people (check out my sermon, “Dealing With Problem People”). There are the critics whom the leaders cannot please regardless of how hard he or she tries. There are the limited resources, the unfair demands, the undeserved blame, the long hours and the stress. Then there are those tough decisions that have to be made and the leaders is the one who has to make them.

Recently I was on my way to Denver to attend the Christian Book Distributors Convention, and in the airport in Atlanta I saw a book that caught my eye. It is entitled, Tough Management: The 7 Ways to Make Tough Decision Easier, Deliver the Numbers, and Grow Business in Good Times and Bad, by Chuck Martin (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005). The title is long, but the part about making tough decisions easier got my attention. I’ve been reading the book and it is helpful, full of research and insights from business leaders, but when you get right down to it tough decisions are still tough. In the end, however, the effective leader must be able to make even the tough calls.

Jesus was willing to make tough decisions with eternal and universal significance. In business and in church leadership we often have to make decisions that will affect the lives of people in profound ways. When revenue is down the decision to let people go can be gut wrenching. Who to hire, who to fire, who to promote and who to downsize are all tough calls and all calls that ultimately end at the desk of the leader. Jesus made tough calls that impacted more than just the pocketbook or the bank balance. For Jesus the decisions He made had eternal impact. The future of humanity hung in the balance as Jesus made the decision to pray, “Not my will but thine be done.”

In chapter two of his book, Martin gives seven guidelines to assist the leader in making difficult decisions. First, he says to put off the tough calls. He isn’t suggesting that one procrastinate, but give time and perspective the opportunity to help clarify the issues. The decisions may be difficult, but they should not be rash or rushed decisions.

Second, he says to give yourself a timeframe. If possible break the decision down in bite sizes and schedule them in a way that gives others time to adjust.

Third, recognize your own personality traits. Are you a duck or an eagle? Ducks tend to follow other ducks; they are more comfortable in a flock. For them, making a tough decision is easier if others around them have to do the same thing. In other words, if all other department managers are cutting back staff, it is easier for the duck to do the same. The eagle is more independent. He or she simply makes the decision and moves on. Martin gives three steps to forcing hard decisions: (1) Collect and consider the most information for the decision at the time. (2) Make the decision and communicate it. (3) Move on.

Fourth, leaders must recognize and accept the fact that tough decisions have to be made and it is the leader’s responsibility to make them. Leaders who try to delegate those decisions in order to defer the difficulty will quickly lose the respect of peers and workers. Martin says, “A key in making tough decisions is to actually make them, rather than procrastinate and make a situation linger too long.”

Fifth, “segment tough decisions by time”. Martin observes that “trying to deal with all tough decisions at the same time is pointless and, at best, can be overwhelming.” To overcome this, he says to “categorize tough or even significant decisions by the time frame in which they should be made.”

Sixth, Martin says to “segment tough decisions by level.” There will be times when employees in leadership positions beneath you in the organizational flowchart will need to be the ones to make the call. Your decision may be to tell the manager that six people will have to be let go from his department, but you will allow him to make the call as to which six will go.

Last, Martin says that when tough decisions must be made, they should not be affected by office politics. Tough decisions should be made objectively and without prejudice. The overall good of the business or the church must be paramount and the greater good should never be sacrificed out of personal friendships or political pull.

Martin says one should ask the following questions as guidelines for considering and weighing difficult decisions:

1. Who does this decision affect?
2. What else does this decision affect?
3. What is the long-range implication?
4. Who would oppose it and why?
5. What is the alternative?
6. When should the decision be made?

Tough decisions are tough, but Jesus demonstrates that making the right decisions (tough or not), at the right time, for the right reasons, can bring about the greater good.

XVI) GREAT LEADERS DO NOT LIVE IN FEAR

2005-07-07T08:44:00.000-05:00

(Check out my sermon, "No Fear" by clicking here. This sermon is only accessible from this link.)
Chapter 12 of Luke’s Gospel begins with Jesus warning His disciples not to become like the Pharisees. The error and arrogance of these men led to some of Jesus' sharpest rebukes. He said that the yeast (infectious influence) of the Pharisees was hypocrisy. In public these men appeared to be pious and righteous, but Jesus knew the heart of man and He saw things in these religious people what others did not see. Jesus warns us that what we say in secret, words and deeds that are hidden from public view, will one day come to light and will be proclaimed from the roofs and the hypocrisy will be revealed.

This warning forms the background for what Jesus says next, beginning at verse 4:

“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear; Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has the power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.”

Great leaders know that if they do right, live right, treat others right, and live a life of integrity at all times, then they do not have to live in fear. Sometimes leaders become so fearful and anxious about the performance of their church or their organization that they are willing to be deceptive and to falsify numbers to appear to be more successful than they are. The problem with this—other than the obvious moral problem—is that they must then live in fear of being found out.

While attending seminary in Cleveland, Tennessee I worked in a factory and saw the shift managers dumping hundreds of pieces of damaged parts and doctoring the paperwork so that no one would find out. They were more afraid of being fired than of being honest enough to own up to their error. I refused to go along with any deception and as a result I got a promotion to a better paying position that was on the other side of the factory and where I worked alone. They knew they could trust me to work without supervision, and they knew that I would not be able to see them hiding their mistakes.

Jesus is telling His disciples that if they fear God, knowing that one day all the secrets will be revealed, then they don’t have to fear anyone else. This principle applies across the spectrum of the Christian life. If we fear God then we don’t ever have to live in fear of anyone else. This freedom from fear releases us to be the leader we should be. It also frees us to live the lives we have been called to live.

This morning the television is filled with reports of a terrorist attack on the mass-transit system in London, England. With the images of the terror attack in New York still fresh in our mind we might feel a little anxious. Will terrorists attack America next? If so, where? Will I be affected? Should I go to the major metropolitan areas or seek solitude in rural areas? But the words of Jesus are applicable here as well. If we fear God, if we seek to please Him first, if we trust God, then we should never allow fear to dictate our decisions.

After instructing us not to fear man but to fear only God, Jesus went on to say:

“6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7 Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.”

William Barclay cited a study that estimated that a person with light hair has 140,000 hairs on their head, a person with dark hair 120,000 and a person with red hair 90,000. Jesus said that God knows exactly how many hairs are on our head. The point being that if He is aware of such mundane details about our lives, we can be assured that He is watching over us. Fear God, respect Him, be in awe of Him because we will all answer to Him and no one else. But remember that He isn't looking for an excuse to condemn our soul to hell. He cares for us. His goal is that we all live lives of holiness and purity and one day enter into the rest that has been prepared for us from the foundation of the earth.

We can trust that He has our best interest at heart. We can be assured that He will be watching over us. We can be what He calls us to be, speak what He gives us to speak and do what He tells us to do because we do not live in fear of any man or woman. We don’t have to try to impress anyone and try to look one way in front of them and then live another way at home. We need to live consistent lives that honor and please God at all times.

Great leaders are not afraid to have bold visions, to pursue challenging goals, or to go against the popular current of the times if those currents are not consistent with a Christian testimony. Great leaders are not afraid to speak the truth in love, even when it may cost them something. Great leaders set an example of integrity that is consistent and worth modeling. They can do this because they fear no one but God.

XV) GREAT LEADERS SET A GOOD EXAMPLE

2005-07-06T07:52:00.000-05:00

(Check out my newest book at The Third Level.)

In Luke 11:46 Jesus gives a scathing rebuke to the “experts in the law.” He chastises them for loading people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and yet these “experts” would not lift a finger to help them. In other words, these religious elite were more than willing to tell people what they should be doing, to explain in excruciating detail what a righteous person should do, but these elite did nothing to help the people carry out these demands. Furthermore, these leaders were guilty of weighing people down with religious burdens that they themselves could not carry.

I’ve seen leaders make demands of people that were unattainable. It is one thing to challenge people to do better and to try harder, but it is something else altogether to constantly set them up for failure and frustration. When people feel that their best efforts are never good enough then they will eventually stop trying.

Jesus saw people who were weary of religion and who were frustrated by the religious leaders who, it seems, could never affirm them, only judge them and tell them that their best efforts always fell short. The hypocrisy of it all was that these leaders were not able to keep their own laws. They too failed, but because they were the ones in positions of authority they felt they were above reproach.

There are two important lessons on leadership here. First, good leaders should never load people down with unattainable goals. This demoralizes those we lead and after a while failure becomes familiar and frequent. Second, good leaders know how to affirm others.

When I was in the Air Force I worked as a surgery technician and in central sterile supply. During my time there we had several OIC’s (Officer in Command) and NCOIC’s (Non-Commissioned Officer in Command) rotate through our department. Under their command were three of us airmen. It seemed each new OIC or NCOIC had to try to outdo his or her predecessor. So each time a new one came into the department we three airmen had to change everything around to satisfy the new person in command. Regardless of how much we cleaned or how hard we tried, it just wasn’t clean enough or good enough. It was a frustrating cycle for all of us. It began to affect moral and to fragment the entire department. What we needed was some affirmation, some “ataboy’s” and “good job’s”.

The truth was that we were working out of a hospital that was old, had sustained earthquake damage and was never, despite our best efforts, going to be as good as or as clean as the newer hospitals that these leaders had cycled out of. The year after I was honorably discharged the Air Force opened a brand new hospital there.

I’ve seen leaders who expected more from those they mentored than they did from themselves. They were critical of others while they failed to model the same level excellence they demanded. Great leaders are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and lead by example. Great leaders may have high expectations, but they are more than willing to teach, mentor, and model the behavior and skills they are looking for in others.

Great leaders don’t look for behavior to criticize, but they look for good work to affirm to recognize and to applaud. If we give an employee a tower to build, we celebrate each floor of the building as it goes up. We recognize and reward smaller achievements on the road to completion. Jesus criticized these religious leaders for burdening people down with unrealistic goals and for not helping them to achieve these goals. We can learn a lesson here that will help us to assist others in becoming happy and motivated in their respective roles.

XIV) ENTRUSTING THE TASK TO OTHERS

2005-06-30T08:50:00.000-05:00

The Minister of Music and I were talking yesterday about delegating. I recalled what it was like being at a small church where I was responsible for coming early, turning on lights, checking the heat, doing a sound check, picking up any trash, checking classrooms for neatness, and so on. I was very detail oriented and I wanted to make sure that everything was just right before the first member or visitor came through the doors.

In a small church with seven classrooms it wasn’t all that difficult. It felt good to be able to be in control of the details. After going through all the facilities and making sure everything was just right, I could go to my office and relax as I prepared myself for the morning service. In a larger church, with many more rooms, a much larger and more complex sound system, many thermostats, light switches and toilet paper rolls, I realized that I had to be able to entrust various tasks to others. Even now, there are some things that I should let others do, and I plan to do just that—someday.

In Luke chapter 10, the first 23 verses we read of Jesus sending seventy disciples ahead of Him into various cities, towns and villages to prepare for His arrival. Jesus entrusted them with an important task. In leadership it is vital that we learn the mentoring paradigm. Simply stated, it is reaching, teaching, and releasing. We reach out to and bring into the organization those individuals who show promise and potential for a given role. Then we teach them, train them, equip them to do the task, to perform the mission, to further the vision, and finally we must release them to do what we have trained them to do.

Jesus had been training these disciples. They had heard Him teach, had seen Him work, and had been given authority in His name. Jesus sent them out in pairs and in so doing multiplied His ministry by 35 times. They could go to 35 more cities with the message of the kingdom. Jesus had been preparing them for this time.

Notice how Jesus sent these disciples out. First, He gave them a message. He told them to preach a simple message, “The Kingdom of God is near.” He did not expect them to be doctors in the Law, or scholars debating the fine points of Scripture. He simply told them to preach, “The Kingdom of God is near.” When we send our people on a task, we should give them very clear and achievable goals. We should send them on a mission that we feel they will have a good chance of success at. If we send them out on hopeless tasks they will become demoralized and frustrated. We should set them up for success and as their confidence grows, so should the challenges.

Second, Jesus sent them out with a clear mandate. They were not there to gain public popularity, or to curry favor with public officials. They were there to preach a simple message. If they were received and accepted, then that was good. They were to heal the sick, to be a blessing, and to stay on message. They were to accept whatever food they were given and to be thankful for it. But if they were rejected in a town, they were to preach the message anyhow. In fact, the people who rejected them were perhaps the very ones who needed this message the most.

When we give a task to those whom we have mentored, it is always helpful if they know what is expected of them. When I was living in West Virginia I cut brush, trees and weeds from right-of-ways on the mountainsides. We were given sickles and told to start cutting. But the foreman never told us how far to cut, or how long we would be cutting. We never had a goal or direction. We were just told to cut. I didn’t last long on that job. Years later I was hired for a position where I was given an office and a title, but I was never given any clear instructions or direction about what was expected of me. I had no way to gage progress or to evaluate success. It was a frustrating experience and one which I quickly resigned from. People want to know what is expected and they need to have a benchmark by which to gage their progress and success.

Last, Jesus gave them imputed authority. He said in verse 16, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." In other words, these disciples were representing Jesus and they carried with them His authority. When we have trained and mentored a person and then we entrust them to a task, they need to have the assurance that we are behind them. If we aren’t willing to back them up with the authority of our leadership position, then maybe we haven’t adequately prepared them for the mission.

I’ve seen leaders who were willing to take the credit for their trainee’s successes, but who left them high and dry when they stumbled. I had the negative experience of working in a situation where I was given difficult tasks to complete, tasks that would challenge status quo, but then when there were complaints the leadership failed to back me. If I made a mistake then the leader should have addressed me and let me know what I did wrong. He should have shown me how to correct the mistake. If I was correctly carrying out instructions given to me from higher up, then when there were complaints the leadership should have stood behind me.

Jesus told the disciples that they were going in His name and in His authority. When they came back from the mission they came back rejoicing, they came back encouraged and motivated because the mission had been a success. Jesus then began to rejoice with them. Not simply because they had seen miracles, but because they were members of the team, their names were in the book. We need to affirm our people for being a part of the team and celebrate successes with them on a regular basis. They should feel that they are vital members of the team and should take pride in being part of an organization with powerful mission and vision, a vision and mission that they stand behind and support because they see themselves as integral to the completion.

XIII) THE LEAST WILL BE THE GREATEST?

2005-06-28T08:39:00.000-05:00

In Luke chapter 9, verse 46 we read that Jesus’ disciples began to argue over whom among them would be the greatest. The Greek word translated “greatest” is meizon which means the largest, the biggest, the greatest or most important. As a leader working with and mentoring others it is more likely than not that at some point staff members, vice-presidents, associate managers, etc. will begin to think about their position in the proverbial ladder of success. They will compare office size, salaries, subordinates, and so on in an attempt to evaluate where they stack up and what their chances are for advancing to the next rank. This is natural and perhaps even unavoidable to some extent. However, when these comparisons transform into arguing, jealousy, and pettiness then it is obvious that their concept of leadership is distorted and self-serving.

When Jesus’ disciples went down this road and began to argue Jesus used a child to illustrate the concept of leadership that He had come to model and to teach. Verse 47 tells us that Jesus took a small child and stood the child beside Himself. Notice the contrast. The disciples were asking who was the greatest and to explain greatness Jesus used a small child, He used the least among them to show how to become great.

Jesus said, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For he who is least among you all—he is the greatest” (NIV). What?

What does it mean to be the least? How does one become the least? How does becoming least make someone great? These three questions are important for being a great leader. Looking at each of them individually we discover some important truths.

First, what does it mean to be “least among you all”? The word “least” is from the Greek mikros, we get the word micro, as in microscope. It means something very small in size or quantity. As such we understand that it refers to something that does not stand out; it is something that is not obvious or something that commands our attention. Instead, something that is mikros is has to be looked for with some intentionality. For example, there are things around us that we can only see through a microscope. Children in that culture were as numerous as they are today, but children were in the background, they were rarely heard or noticed as someone with any power or persuasion. So to be least implies that we are not seeking to noticed, we are not looking for a stage to perform on or a spotlight to stand in. To some extent, it means that if we are being effective in our role, we may not even be noticed because the program or the division we lead is clicking along with consistency and regularity.

Second, we may ask, how do we become the least? If we are trying to head up a one-man or one-woman show, if we are control freaks who have to make all the decisions and have get all the recognition, then it is likely that we are not the least and therefore, we are not, by Jesus’ definition, “the greatest.” We become least when we are able to work with others, to delegate authority, to recognize the achievements of others and to direct the spotlight upon the people who work with us and for us. We become least by striving to appreciate the greatness of others around us, by promoting them, by equipping and encouraging them to reach their full potential. In short, it is by serving them.

Last, how does becoming least make someone great? It almost seems to run counterintuitive. We live in a culture were the watchword is dog-eat-dog, of climbing the ladder, of trying to stand out, and seeking to be heard and seen. So it might seem that if we are constantly lifting others up and constantly directing attention to others rather than ourselves then we will lose our opportunity to advance. In truth, if we are seeking solely to promote self, then we will only be lifting one person. With respect to our program or division, or our church, how does elevating one person compare to lifting several people, to encouraging and equipping many people? The more people who are encouraged, and who are rewarded for their contributions to the success of the organization, the more motivated they become, the harder they will work, the more dedicated and loyal they will be and the net effect will be much, much greater than if one man or woman is concerned only about him or herself.

When we grasp this concept and put it into practice, when we are sincere in our desire to lift up others, the benefits will eventually come around to us. It may be that one of our subordinates surpasses us, we should rejoice in that. If we have treated them well, if we have been a mentor, and a friend, then their promotion can do nothing but help us. We cannot lose by putting the teaching of Jesus into practice. If you want to be great, then work hard at making others around you greater, by allowing others to stand in the spotlight. Then when success comes to the organization, and when a leader has to be found as the impetus for this success, the people we have promoted will be the ones who point to us, and we will not have to blow our own horn.

XII) COURAGE TO CANCEL THE FUNERAL

2005-06-10T09:08:00.000-05:00

In chapter 7, verse 11, of Luke’s Gospel Jesus was approaching the town of Nain along with His disciples and a large crowd that was following Him. As they were coming upon the gates of the town they met with a funeral procession coming out. The dead person being carried out was the only son of a widowed woman. He would be her only means of support and he was her only family. When Jesus saw her, His heart went out to her and He said, “Don’t cry.”

Then Jesus touched the coffin and the entire procession came to a standstill. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” You can imagine every head turning to look at the coffin. Then to everyone’s amazement the dead man sat up and began to talk. Jesus then gave the widow her son back.

Sometimes great leaders are called in to cancel the funeral. The church I currently pastor has had its share of up’s and down’s. It was planted in 1972 and flourished until the marriage of the founding pastor ended and he resigned in 1994. Many people were disillusioned and hurt by the entire ordeal and left the church. Other’s stayed to see who the next pastor would be and what he would do. Six years later the church had fallen from almost 500 to less than 100. There were some who suggested that the church should be closed and the remaining members moved to another church of the same denomination some three miles down the road.

When I came to the church I had no knowledge of the history of the church or the troubles they were experiencing. All I knew was that at one time this had been a strong and thriving church and that they owned some nice facilities in a growing suburb of Atlanta. After an interview with the church board and receiving almost 80 percent of the vote, I came to this church. I didn’t know it at the time, but I came to cancel a funeral. Some were predicting the demise of the church but God had other plans. Four and a half years later we are averaging around 300 and are still growing. We are dreaming of a new sanctuary to seat a thousand and are beginning the second year of our Christian school.

I’ve read many church growth books and I have one entitled, Turn Around Churches in which the authors paint a rather pessimistic picture of the prospects of turning a church around when it is in a freefall. The truth is that it is tough. It requires bold decisions and much faith. It cannot be accomplished by pessimistic people who doubt themselves and do not trust others or God.

This difference is illustrated by two groups of people at a hospital. One group is visitng an expecting mother. There may be some pain expressed by the patient, but there is also joy and expectation, even jubulation as the new birth is anticipated. The other group is visiting a terminal patient who has been given only hours to live. There may not be much pain for the patient, but the family is anticipating loss and death. They are sad and grieving even before the finality of the event. When we come to an organization as a leader we will will set the tone. Are we going to exude the confidence of new life or the finality of certain death? There are people watching us who want to know how they should respond.

Jesus saw the need. He was touched by the tears of the widow and He was able to do something about it. He called the dead back to life. Great leaders see beyond the crisis of the moment and envision possibilities that others may not have even considered yet.

I’ve seen pastors go to struggling churches and managers go to struggling businesses and all they do is affirm what everyone else sees and knows, “This place is in trouble.” Some will even tell other pastors or busniess partners how bad it is and indicate that perhaps it should be closed. It is not likely that a church or a business with a leader like that has any hope of new life. These leaders are the first ones there with a shovel in hand to bury the dead. Great leaders don’t come with a shovel, they come with a vision and they come to cancel the funeral not to officiate it.

As a result of this miracle, many people were amazed and believed in Jesus. This miracle furthered the cause and brought Jesus one step closer to fulfilling His ministry objectives. Canceling the funeral may require smaller victories leading up to the greater. Jesus raised a young man and a young girl (Luke 8:51-56) before He raised Lazarus.

Resurrecting a church usually does not happen in one fell swoop. Instead it may require the resurrection of the music program, then the youth program, the children’s ministries, the singles, and so on. As one small victory leads to the next hope is birthed, faith is renewed, vision is restored and the entire organization is raised. In business it may come in small bites as smaller goals are realized on the road to organizational rebirth.

If things look bleak where you are, remember that God may well have called you there to cancel the funeral, not to preach it. (Next I’ll be looking at Luke 8:51-56 and the need to cast out the scoffers.)

XI) STEER CLEAR OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

2005-06-07T09:49:00.000-05:00

In Luke chapter 6, beginning at verse 37, Jesus teaches that we must always be careful to refrain from being judgmental, to avoid fault finding and blame placing. In fact, we may very well need to deal with our own issues and to address our own problems rather than focusing on the shortcomings of everyone else as though that somehow excuses our failures.

Insecure and ineffective leaders are always looking for the proverbial scapegoat. These leaders are looking to cover themselves and are willing to point to the miscues of subordinates as an excuse for their own ineffectiveness in their own role.

Great leaders, however, are not afraid to look in the mirror and examine themselves. Great leaders can be honest with themselves and address their own areas of weakness. They are willing work at improving deficiencies and are secure enough to bring into the team others whose strengths complement their own weaknesses. Great leaders refuse to fall into the snare of self-righteousness, that is, believing that they are the only one who is working hard, the only one who cares, the only one who is doing the right things. Instead, great leaders can recognize and appreciate the contributions of others and celebrate the successes of others.

In knew of a pastor who had been very successful. Every church he pastored almost always grew to over two-thousand members. One man visited this pastor and came away under-whelmed with his charisma and leadership style. He commented that this pastor wasn’t all that impressive, but that he had great leaders working with him. If we are honest with ourselves about our own strengths and weaknesses then we will be in a much better position to recruit a team to work with us. This pastor was growing great churches because he was honest enough with himself, and secure enough in himself to bring into the team others who could work together to build a successful organization.

I’ve often said that one man cannot build a great church or organization alone. It takes a team and that team must consist of strategically chosen people who can work together appreciating and complementing one another’s strengths weaknesses. One man does not a great organization make, but one man can tear down a great organization. One man or woman in a leadership position who is insecure and unable to address his or her own issues will undermine the effectiveness of the team and can, over time, cause the collapse of the entire structure.

Being a leader is a heady thing. To be “in charge” and to be in a position where people look to us as an authority figure is a awesome responsibility. Some leaders are humbled by this and they understand that they are called to serve the organization, and not the other way around. But sadly, too many think that the organization is there to serve them, to keep their ego buoyed and their name in the limelight. When things are not going in in a positive direction they will judge others and blame them for the failure when it may well be that they need to get the beam out of their own eyes before they try plucking the splinter out of the eye of someone else.

If you are in a leadership position and the organization you are leading is not succeeding, begin by looking in the mirror. Leaders set the tone for the entire organization. Our attitude will filter throughout the organization and will either elevate or deflate. I've seen churches rise and fall with the transition of leaders. The same facilities, the same people, the same resources, but one man saw the organization in decline, and the next saw it grow. The first was insecure and controlling. He often called his leadership team into his office to dress them down and to intimidate them with the threat that if things did not turn around their jobs would be terminated. The next brought a positive can do attitude and took the time to invest this attitude into his staff. He promoted a team approach to leadership and attempted to share the rewards and accolades of success with the entire team. The first leader saw decline and eventually resigned. The second continues to see growth and the atmosphere of the entire organization is now hopeful and enthusiastic.

It is very likely that the organization you lead is a reflection of your own leadership style. If the people are defeated, it may be that you are projecting an attitude of defeat. If it is positive and upbeat, it is very likely that you, as a leader, are projecting these very qualities to your team, and from the team to the whole organization. If things are not going well, begin by removing the beam in your own eye and then being to project the possible, the positive, and the potential that is within your reach and the reach of your organization.

X) BREAKING WITH CONVENTION

2005-06-02T10:05:00.000-05:00

Luke 6:1-11

It was the Sabbath and over the centuries, especially with the rise of the Pharisaical school, many customs and traditions had been layered upon the Law. People trying to be more holy, and more righteous, had increased the severity and the difficulty of the requirements of the Law until the average Jew had to walk on the proverbial eggshells each day. This was especially true of the Sabbath requirements.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their legalistic approach in Matthew 23:4:

“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders ; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers” (KJV).

However, Jesus refused to be bound by convention and tradition when there were larger issues at hand. In Luke 6 Jesus was in a grainfield with His disciples on the Sabbath and they were hungery. So they picked some of the grain, rubbed off the husk, or the chaff, and ate the raw grain. The Pharisees saw this and immediatley began to criticize Jesus and the disciples for breaking with the religious custom of the day. According to the manmade tradition, it was considered work to remove the husk from the grain and to eat with unwashed hands. There was a long and convoluted list of what constituted work and what was acceptable activity on the Sabbath. In the process of trying to provide minute details on the subject, they had made the Sabbath a day of anxiety and frustration instead of a day of rest and recuperation. Jesus would have none of this. He understood the intent of the Sabbath and would not allow tradition to rob Him or His disciples of the blessing of Sabbath.

Jesus then gave two reasons why their criticism was unfounded. First, He provided a Scriptural precedent:

3 Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

Second, Jesus affirmed His own authority:

5 Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

How do you know if your organization is being hamstrung by convention? If you hear the people say; “We’ve always done it this way” or, “We’ve never done it like that before,” then you may be dealing with convention that imposes restrictions that have muted the original intention. Great leaders will not allow convention to keep them from moving forward.

In any organization there is a pattern of initiation, growth, and stabilization. An organization can only stay at that place of stabilization for so long. This is a critical time in the life of the organization because it will either decline and die, or it will be invigorated with new vision, new life and with the will to break out of the geocentric orbit and soar into new heights of possibility. But to break with the familiar, with the customary, with convention, requires new energy and a bold willingness on the part of leadership to chart a course that will provide a new trajectory for the future.

Jesus was bound only to the will of the Father and to the integrity of Scripture, but He refused to be bound by manmade restrictions that would have impeded His mission. Great leaders will maintain integrity and will stay true to the mission, but they will not allow custom and tradition to keep the organization from reaching its full potential.

Check out my new book, The Third Level

IX) THE NEED FOR NEW WINESKINS

2005-06-01T13:26:00.000-05:00

Luke 5:36-39
Jesus made a statement, “No one pours new wine into old wineskins.” The reason for this is that when the wine ferments it will cause the old wineskin to burst and both the wine and the wineskin will be lost. Instead, Jesus said, “New wine must be poured into new wineskins.”

Great leaders understand the dynamics involved in change. First, they understand that everything changes. As one person said, “Change is the only constant.” Second, they understand that change can be difficult. If approached arrogantly changes can debilitate an organization. Last, great leaders understand that the old wineskins will not hold the new wine. This is to say that existing structures may not be able to accommodate or facilitate a new vision or mission.

Jesus understood that what He was introducing would not fit within the old Judaistic structures that had bound culture and religion together in a rigid framework of social existence. The old structures had a vested interest in maintaining status quo. The leadership of the established order was in no mood to be replaced as a priest by a carpenter from Galilee. The established structure could not envision a concept as radical as the priesthood of believers.

Jesus had no intention of trying to fit a new paradigm into an old program. Instead, Jesus came to build His church, to create a new structure that was responsive enough to the fermenting of new ideas and fresh vision to allow for change without destroying the framework.

Sometimes leaders are given the task of trying to infuse a new mission or vision into an established organization, such as a church. The vision may be powerful and compelling, but if the structure of the established church cannot endure the process of change, then the end result may be a failure. Chances are that the organizational structure and even the facilities of any organization have developed over time to accommodate an established mode of operation. The need for change may call upon a change in the way the organization operates, but without first addressing the established structures, the introduction of change may do more damage than good.

What is the answer? Jesus said to use new wineskins. Begin with the structures, begin by making incremental changes in the structure and then fill that niche with new wine, new ideas, new mission and vision. It may be a department by department progression until the organization reaches a point of self-sustaining and self-perpetuating change. The changes in structure creates the vacuum into which the new wine is drawn. It may require person to person influence as the leader helps people of influence to see and own the vision for themselves. They then become receptacles for the new wine and they help to propagate the vision through their influence on the lives others.

Great leaders are proactive, that is, they anticipate the changes that will be needed and they begin to build the structures that will sustain that change. In churches we often see an oscillation of growth and decline. It is frustrating, and over time it creates a sense of futility even when things seem to be on the upswing. The people learn to anticipate the downturn even before it manifests.

Why does this happen? It happens because the leadership has never anticipated or prepared the new skins for the new growth. The old methodologies and programs that worked for a church of 100 will not be adequate to sustain growth for 200 and beyond. Great leaders anticipate the next level of growth and build the structures to support that growth. Then, even as the growth is approaching 200, they are anticipating, planning and preparing for 300.

There will be resistance from those who enjoy privilege or prominence in the old structure, but the leader, while respecting everyone, will not allow the entire organization to be held back and denied success by any one person or program. Jesus built the church to pour Christianity into because He knew Judaism could not contain it. If the future and growth of the church necessitates changes to insure the future then we will either change or die. Jesus came to give life. Great leaders embrace change as a positive, invigorating, exciting time of possibility.

VIII) BOLDNESS IN THE FACE OF CRITICISM

2005-05-31T09:27:00.000-05:00

Luke 5:17-26
A great leader must be humble, even gentle and perhaps even self-effacing on occasion. However, a great leader must also be bold. At times this appears to be a paradox as we endeavor to be a servant and yet also to stand as a teacher, a shepherd, and an authority figure. Leaders must be willing to accept the authority that they have been given and use that authority to advance the mission of the organization.

Some leaders fail precisely because they do not have the emotional or spiritual maturity to handle authority. Some use their authority for selfish reasons. Some are too timid to exercise their authority. And others simply surrender their authority to others and thereby surrender their ability to lead.

Jesus was tender, meek and mild, but Jesus was no pushover. When a man was brought to Him who needed both forgiveness of sin and healing, Jesus knew that there were those in the crowd who would criticize Him if He forgave this man of his sins. It was understood that only God had the authority to forgive sins, so for Jesus to tell the man his sins were forgiven was for Jesus to claim Divinity. He knew that there were those who would not accept that. There were those who would use this event to garner support for themselves against Jesus. But Jesus knew His mission and He was bold in His willingness to embrace this mission even in the face of criticism.

Jesus looked at the man and said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” Those five words were powerful. They were a bold affirmation of His call and His claim to fill the Messianic role. Great leaders do not shrink in the face of criticism. When the cause is right, when the need is great, when the opportunity is before us we must be bold even if it will open us up to criticism. The greater good was that while there would be those who became more resolute in their resistance to Christ, many more saw, heard and believed in Him.

Jesus knew their thoughts. He knew that criticism would come, but He made the decision anyhow. Great leaders are not naïve. They do not stick their head in the sand and think that everyone is always going to agree with every decision. But great leaders are not motivated by what is popular. Great leaders move by what is right, what is for the benefit of the organization and by the greater good. Great leaders are willing to put their own interests on the line for the benefit of the organization.

Then, to put an exclamation point on the moment, Jesus looked at His critics and asked, “Why are you thinking these things in your hearts? Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk?’ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sin . . .” He said to the paralyzed man, “I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home.” And immediately the man stood up in front of everyone, picked up his mat and went home praising God.

When we do what is right, and we continue to do what is right regardless of the critics or the armchair quarterbacks who second guess every decision we make, then truth will out and we will be vindicated in time. The success of the organization, the changes in people’s lives, the growth of the company, whatever it may be, there will be vindication if we have boldly made the right decision.

No one will ever be a great leader by trying to please everyone all the time. The question we must ask is, "Is this the right decision for this time and this organization?" If it is, then make the decision and trust God with the results.

VII) LIFTING THE LIVES OF OTHERS

2005-05-27T11:06:00.000-05:00

John 4:4-30

Great leaders seek to lift others up. Jesus chose to go through a region that most self-respecting Jews avoided. There is a sense that Jesus knew what was ahead and that there was one women whom He could help. The fact that she came to the well at the sixth hour (noon) to draw water, and that she came alone suggests that she was something of a social outcast. This was probably due to the fact that she had had five husbands and was currently with a man who was not her husband.

Still, Jesus chose to take this route, to stop at this well, and to talk to this woman. He gave her the privilege of hearing the good news of the "living water" that He offered. He also gave her, a social outcast of dubious moral history, the honor of announcing the arrival of the Messiah.

She went to the town declaring the works of Jesus and asking rhetorically, “Is this not the Messiah?” Then she brought the city to Jesus. Jesus certainly lifted her up in the eyes of the town's folk and gave her dignity.

Great leaders are able to identify potential in people who may not even be able to see it in themselves yet. Great leaders invest time and training in people so that they may grow and become better people, workers, volunteers, etc.

Leaders never become great by putting others down. The failure of others does nothing to make us better. Our goal is to lift others up, to help them stand. If we make it our business to lift others up, and to create a climate within the organization where the potential leaders we are mentoring are lifting others up, the entire organization gets a lift.

Jesus lifted people out of sin, out of sickness, out of social distain, and into the kingdom and family of the Father. This is mark of a great leader and it is a quality that breeds loyalty and respect on the part of those we lead. Look for ways to lift others and in the process you too will be lifted to a higher level as a leader.

Check out my recently published book, The Third Level

VI) MENTORING

2005-05-24T07:45:00.000-05:00

Luke 6:13 tells us that Jesus “called unto Him His disciples: and of them He chose twelve, whom also He named apostles”. Jesus had many disciples. On one occasion He sent out seventy disciples in pairs to go into the towns and villages ahead of Him. But of those who were His disciples He chose twelve to be apostles. Jesus chose twelve men who would be closest to Him and who would see and hear things from Him that others did not see or hear. These were men whom Jesus was going to mentor and upon whom He would give the responsibility to continue to propagate the gospel.

Jesus invested Himself into these men. One of them would eventually betray Him, but even this was predicted and expected as Jesus fulfilled His role as the Messiah and the sin sacrifice for humanity. The lesson here is that even Jesus recognized the need to mentor others who would continue the work here on earth after He had ascended to the right hand of the Father.

Great leaders look beyond the moment and have the future in mind with every decision. This means that the leadership of the tomorrow must be mentored today. We must be able to identify those men and women who have the gifts and talents necessary to fill future leadership roles and to continue to take the organization forward.

When Jesus chose the twelve apostles, He chose a diverse group of men. He chose a zealot, a tax collector, and fishermen. He chose men whose temperaments were diverse as well. From the outspoken Peter, to the reserved and somewhat negative Thomas, to the Sons of Thunder, Jesus selected men with unique perspectives, talents and personalities.

Diversity in our leadership team is a positive thing. It requires skill on the part of the leader to help the team mesh together and to appreciate one another’s strengths, but the variety bring the possibility of more than one perspective to any given challenge.

Jesus kept these men close to Him. They were privy to miracles that others never saw. They heard teaching that others never heard. Jesus was investing Himself into these men and He expected them to take the church forward. He empowered them with the Holy Spirit and He sent them out to expand the reach of the gospel.

In this process, there were moments of failure on the part of these men. We know of Judas’ failure, but Peter, Thomas, James and John all had their moments as well. Jesus, however, anticipated that they would stumble and was ready to pick them back up and help them learn from their mistakes. That’s what great leaders do. If we are simply going to kick them to the curb every time they trip, then we will never develop tomorrow’s leaders. Our job is to help them learn from their failures and encourage them to do better the next time.

Insecure and weak leaders are afraid to develop or mentor tomorrow’s leaders. They are afraid that these leaders will one day take their place. That’s the point of mentoring. If we have done our job as a leader and a mentor, then when we are away or when we step down, there will be someone ready and prepared to take the organization forward. And that is the mark of a great leader, namely, that the organization outlives the founder or the current leader. If the church dies with the pastor, then the pastor has failed to do his or her job as mentor of leaders.

Look around you and identify men and women who have the potential to be great leaders. Then begin to teach them and equip them to fill leadership roles in the organization. In this way the reach of the organization is expanded beyond one man or woman and growth can occur.

V) CLEAR COMMUNICATION

2005-05-23T06:34:00.000-05:00

If there is one area of leadership that stands out above all others as a source of conflict and confusion it would have to be communication. The ability to clearly and concisely convey a message to those who follow is a mark of a great leader. Whether it is communicating the vision, communicating directions, or communicating instruction, the failure to effectively communicate will undermine all the other favorable attributes of a leader.

Misunderstanding and miscommunication can be costly. It causes frustration for the followers and this frustration often leads to complacency and apathy. So the ability to get the message to those we mentor and lead is essential.

As the Word made flesh Jesus was both the message and the messenger. Jesus was God’s media through which He spoke of His love. The message of God’s love could not have been spoken any clearer or louder than the cross. This love brought forgiveness to the guilty, hope to the hopeless, and life the lifeless.

In John’s Gospel chapter 2, Jesus is attending a marriage feast with His disciples. Here Jesus’ mother tells Him that the host of the feast has run out of wine. It is clear that she intends for Jesus to do something about this social faux pas. Indeed, it seems she would like Jesus to use this opportunity to make a public display of His power as Messiah. Jesus, however, knew that this was neither the time nor the place.

Understanding that Jesus was not going to use this occasion for a coming out party as Messiah, Mary still desires that Jesus do something about the lack of wine. So, she turns to the servants and says, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”

Jesus gave the servants very clear instructions. His directions were simple and concise. “Take those six waterpots and fill them with water.” There isn’t much room for misunderstanding here. And then He said, “Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast.” When the master of the feast tasted it, he found that it was good wine. Clearly communicated instructions led to a miraculous outcome.

It is true that Jesus often spoke in parables to the masses. Many times they did not understand what He was saying. However, Jesus always took time to explain and to clarify His words to His disciples. He wanted those who believed, who followed Him, to understand clearly what He was saying.

We need to take time with staff, boards and councils to make sure that they understand our vision, our expectations and our directives. If the people consistently fail to get the message then the fault most likely is that of the leader. We always need to give our people the freedom to seek clarification and to gain more insight if they need it to be effective in their role.

Often our frustration with those we lead is, in fact, a failure of leadership. If our people are not accomplishing what we expect, it is easy to assume that they are not motivated or that they are lazy, when in fact, it may simply be that the did not understand our directions. Clear communication will work miracles in the workplace, in the home and in the church.

As a leader we must be willing to accept feedback from others, allowing them to assess our communication skills. If we need to improve, then we should do ourselves and our people a favor and work to improve.

THE POWER OF WORDS

2005-05-20T09:17:00.000-05:00

I’ve recently been studying the message of many of ministries (especially those on television) and I’ve been hearing a theme that I feel is doctrinally in error and one which sets sincere believers up for disappointment. I will continue my reflections on the "Leadership Lessons of Jesus," but today I want to explore a few things that address the error being propagated by too many preachers and self-proclaimed prophets and apostles.

That there is power in our words is indisputable. I can testify to an incident in my childhood where some of my aunts were gathered with my mother in my grandmother’s living-room. (We lived with grandma while my father was serving in Vietnam.) I remember my aunts telling my mother how bad of a child I was. I was only four-years-old but they felt that I was a spoiled mommy’s boy who needed to be disciplined more. The truth is that if my mother whipped me any more or any harder than she did, she would have been arrested. Nevertheless, they were convinced I needed more discipline because I was, in their opinion, a very bad little boy.

Finally, when my mother could no longer endure their criticism, she picked me up in her arms and stormed out of the room with these parting words, “You just watch he’ll be somebody great someday.” She spoke those words forty years ago but they continue to have a powerfully positive impact on my life. So I would never dispute the fact that words have power. What I do dispute, however, is that our words have some kind of magical mystical power to create and work like a spiritual force independent of some context of communication.

Far too often verses have been ripped bleeding from their context and then pieced together in some Frankensteinian fashion to form the monster known as “Word of Faith.” Let me give a few examples. One that is common, and which I hear quite often, is that we are to “call those things which are not, as though they are.” To use this phrase, torn from its context, and to suggest that if we have enough faith we can simply speak things into existence is a total misrepresentation of the verse.

This phrase, or something like it, is in Scripture. However, it is never applied to man speaking something out of nothing. It is referring to God. Read the verse again:

17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. (Rom 4:17, KJV).

Some will try to twist the verse to suggest that it is Abraham who “calleth those things which be not as though they were” and since God is no respecter of persons, we too can speak something out of nothing. Such a translation shows a basic ignorance both of the Greek and of sound biblical exegesis. Every translation available makes it even clearer that it is God who is calling things which are not as though they are.

The danger of the Word of Faith theology is that it attempts to give man authority that God has reserved from Himself. In fact, many will unashamedly say that God has given us all His authority on this earth. Let me give just one example where such a claim breaks down. Jesus could forgive a man of the sins that would condemn that man to hell. We cannot speak that, therefore God has authority that we have not been given.

Another argument is that Jesus said, “We shall have whatsoever things we speak.” This comes from Mark 11:22-24

22 "Have faith in God," Jesus answered. 23 "I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. NIV

This looks fairly straightforward. If we have faith when we pray, whatever we ask for will be ours. Here are some questions that have to be addressed: 1) Does this verse say that can ask for whatever we want? 2) Does this verse say that the creative power is in our words, or does the power reside in the One to whom we pray? 3) Is our faith in our words, or is our faith in the one to whom we pray? These questions are often ignored in a rush to take Jesus’ words as support for faulty doctrine.

The context begins with the words, “Have faith in God.” This means that we trust Him, we obey Him, and we serve Him. Then Jesus uses a figure of speech known as hyperbole to make a point. Jesus often used hyperbole as it was a common form of illustration used in rhetoric in that day. The failure to recognize the use of this form of speech has resulted in many ridiculous mistranslations of Scripture. For example, Jesus was using hyperbole when He said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of needle than it was for a rich man to be saved. He uses an extreme example to make a point. The point is that it is difficult for the rich to be saved because they tend to have more faith in their money than in God. He was not talking about a gate in the wall around Jerusalem known as “The Needle’s Eye” that was a tight squeeze for camels. Such a gate never existed.Check out this Bible Study on "The Needle's Eye"

The point of Jesus in the message on speaking to the mountain, which was a fairly common rabbinic phrase, is that it takes faith in God for our prayers to be effective. It means that even the greatest of difficulties can be overcome through prayer and faith.

Still, the Word of Faith folks will insist that this be taken literally and that with enough faith we can simply go around speaking to mountains and they will move. If the mountain doesn't move it is a lack of faith on our part. It is interesting that these folks will insist on the literal when it supports their doctrines, but will readily explain away verses dealing with opulent attire and the silence of women in the church. I’m simply saying that every text has a context and that entire scope of Scripture must be in agreement with any single verse.

Asking and receiving must be understood in the light of other verses dealing with this subject, such as:

John 14:12-14
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. 13 And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If you ask anything in My name, I will do it. NKJV

The caveat is that we must ask in His name. That doesn’t mean we simply tag the name Jesus at the end of our prayers like some hocus-pocus, and then presto-chango we get what we want. Praying in the name of Jesus means that we pray in accordance to His will and His plan for our lives.

James says:
15 Instead you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that." 16 But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. (James 4:14-16, NKJV)

Then, again Jesus gives us this condition for asking and receiving:

John 15:5-8
5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8 This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. NIV

Our asking and receiving has everything to do with God’s will and God’s Word. When His Word and His life are flowing through the vine into the branches, then when we pray we should be praying, “Not my will, but thine be done.” It isn’t our shopping list that we are to bring to God, but surrender and submission to His work through us. The vine gives the branch the power to produce fruit, and not the other way around.

The key to answered prayer is God’s desires in our heart, God’s word in our mouth, and God’s will in our mind. The Word of Faith movement seeks to put man’s words in God’s mouth. This is the mark of a false prophet. The false prophet says, “Thus saith the Lord,” when God has not spoken. A true prophet has God’s Word in his mouth. He only speaks what God wills.

Do I believe that God hears and answers prayer? Sure I do. But I do not believe that praying for things that are outside of the scope of the plan of God for our lives is a prayer that God obligates Himself to answer.

James 4:2-10
2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. 3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?

6 But He gives more grace. Therefore He says:

"God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble."

7 Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. 8 Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up. NKJV

The danger of the Word of Faith message is that it tries to give man prerogatives that are God’s alone. It promises that with enough faith our health and wealth are assured. Therefore, it sets men and women up for spiritual crises in their lives. No one dies of health. There is a sickness unto death and to live in denial of that fact only makes the end more painful. Furthermore, it implies that people who have achieved wealth have more faith than those who are poor, that those who have had the benefit of a great healthcare plan and have been healthy are somehow greater examples of faith than those who live in countries where disease is a daily reality, regardless of your “faith.”

There is the power of influence through our words, the power to positively or negatively affect the lives of others and ourselves through “self-speak.” There is the power of speech in prayer when we pray according to God’s will. There is the power to rebuke Satan in the name of Jesus and gain the victory over temptation and trials. There is power, but is not a creative power that is mirrored in creation. That is God’s power and is demonstration of the Creator’s omnipotence in contrast to our limitations as created beings.

IV) A MARVELOUS MISSION

2005-05-19T08:34:00.000-05:00

Luke 4:14-21

After overcoming Satan and triumphing over temptation in the wilderness, Jesus returned to His hometown and to the Synagogue. It was there that Jesus received scroll of Isaiah and He found the place where it was written:

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (Luke 4:18-9, NIV)

After reading the text Jesus told those listening, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21, NIV). Jesus was clearly applying this Messianic text to Himself. The verses which follow reveal that those listening understood that this was what Jesus was doing and they were having trouble accepting it.

One thing is evident, and that is that Jesus knows who He is and He knows what He has come to do. He has declared a marvelous mission. In other words, when Jesus came out of the wilderness, He knew where He was headed. He had a direction, a mission, a purpose to fulfill. It is one thing to have a general sense of purpose, to know that you’ve been called to accomplish more with your life than what you are doing at the moment. But it is another step in the journey to know what it is that you’ve been called to do.

It is frustrating for both the leader and those who attempt to follow him or her, when there is no clear direction to travel. Who would want to follow a leader who rallies the people with the cry, “Come and follow me!” But when they ask where he is leading, to here him say, “I’m not sure.” This isn’t very assuring.

However, when a leader has a mission (and it may be the mission of the organization he or she represents) at least the people who follow have the security of a direction. Jesus was saying, “Here is who I am (the Anointed One) and here is what I’ve come to do (preach to the poor, proclaim freedom for the prisoners, bring sight to the blind, release the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.)"

That mission should have resonated with the people who heard it. They were looking for Messiah. They were seeking someone who would do these very things. Unfortunately, because they had known Jesus for most of His human life, they had a difficult time accepting Him as Messiah. (Tomorrow I will address the issue of overcoming the contempt of familiarity.) As mission statements go, however, this was a marvelous one. Leaders need to offer those who follow, a mission that will inspire. Leaders should hear from God, know where He is leading, and then paint the picture of a marvelous opportunity to achieve greatness together as a team working toward a common goal.

People want to be inspired, they are willing to follow someone who can build confidence and who will embrace a mission that leads the team to a higher level. Give them a mountain to climb, give them the training and the equipment to climb it, and then lead them to the top and they will follow.

III) TRIUMPHING OVER TEMPTATION

2005-05-18T10:14:00.000-05:00

After being baptized Jesus experiences His wilderness temptation (ref. Matt. 4:1-11;.Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13). The same Spirit who descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, now moves Him to go into the wilderness where Jesus goes on a forty-day fast and afterward He was tempted by the devil. There are two lessons on leadership that the account of the temptation of Jesus provides. First, there is the issue of the wilderness experience, and second, there is the issue of triumphing over temptations.

A. Walking in the Wilderness

When we look at great leaders of Scripture we find that many of them had a wilderness experience—Moses, David, Elijah, Elisha, etc. Being elevated to a position of leadership can sometimes be a lonely experience, at least initially. Our relationship with people who were once our peers will change once we are placed in a position of authority over them. It doesn’t mean that we have to change, or that we begin to treat them as though they are inferior to us. It simply means that the relationships change. They will look at us differently. The people we lead have expectation of us as a leader that they did not have when we were their peer. As a leader we are suddenly responsible for them. We are responsible for equipping them, motivating them, providing vision for them, modeling good work habits, and so on.

As a leader we often find ourselves feeling isolated and alone. The old adage that “it’s lonely at the top” has some truth to it. The wilderness experience is not necessarily a bad thing. It was in the wilderness that Moses had his burning bush experience. It was in his wilderness that God was training David to be a warrior and a military leader. It was in the wilderness that Elijah saw God give miraculous provision and he learned to hear the still small voice of God. Jesus in the wilderness identified with the human struggle with temptations.

There are lessons to be learned about trusting the Lord and standing strong. In the wilderness we cannot lean upon others, we can only lean upon God. In the wilderness we learn more about who we are and what we are made of, because there is no one there to take up our slack. And we find that if we will keep walking, keep moving in the direction toward which our moral compass points, we will come out the other side of the wilderness stronger and more prepared for leadership than we were when we went into the wilderness.

B. Triumphing over Temptation

It is often in the wilderness where we are tempted to quit, to compromise, or to engage in self-aggrandizement. Jesus was hungry and He was tempted by Satan to use divine power to turn stones into bread. Jesus was tempted to use His authority and His power to serve Himself. Unfortunately we see far too many leaders fall to this very temptation. It happens in business and it happens in ministry. We begin to rationalize and to reason that we deserve this because, after all, we are the leader. Leaders holding lofty positions have come tumbling down because they used their position for personal gain and lost sight of the greater good.

Often a leader does receive some “perks” that they did not enjoy before being elevated to a new position. Such benefits should always be received in humility and never with arrogance. But the pay raise, the new office, or the company car does nothing to make us better than those we lead. These things are provided so that we may be more effective and efficient as a leader. Using our position to gain greater privilege for self, and viewing ourselves as separate from the organization we lead, is a big mistake and it can only lead to trouble.

Jesus overcame this temptation by putting things into perspective. He said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God” (Luke 4:4, NJKV). In other words, “There are some things more important than meeting the immediate desire of the flesh.” When tempted to use our position for personal gain we should always consider the implications beyond the moment. The impact upon those we lead, when we appear to be self-serving, can be devastating and we begin to lose respect in their eyes.

The second temptation Jesus encountered was to take a shortcut to attain the goal. Satan promised to give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if He would bow down and worship Satan. Jesus had already been promised this by the Father. However, the path that would take Jesus to this end was to go through Calvary and an old rugged cross. Satan was telling Jesus that there was an easier way.

Leaders are often faced with the temptation to take the easy way. To take shortcuts and to make compromises. We can cut a little quality here, save a little there, cut back some benefits here, increase the workload there and “presto chango” we’ve reached our goal. But at what expense? Nothing is worth selling our soul for. No profit margin, no advancement in ministry, nothing is worth our soul. What have we profited if we gain the whole world and yet lose our soul? (Mk. 8:36)

Jesus responded, “It is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Luke 4:8, NKJV). I do not believe that it is possible to be a great leader apart from God. We always need to be aware that we will answer to a higher power. We need to remember that we are not God, we do not deserve worship and all the glory should go to Him. There is no one who should ever have more influence over our lives than God and His Word.

The third temptation Jesus encountered was to throw Himself off the pinnacle of the temple and see if God the Father would dispatch angels to catch Him. There is a difference between a leap of faith and a fool’s rush. Wisdom, is knowing the difference.

Jesus told Satan, “You shall not temp the LORD your God.” Leaders are sometimes tempted to make decisions that have not been carefully considered or analyzed and then expect someone to catch them if they fall. In many Christian circles this has been equated with faith. But faith is not about devising plans independently of God’s will and expecting Him to bail us out if it looks like it is going down. Faith is, first and foremost, about hearing God, getting His direction and then (and only then) moving forward with the trust that if He calls us to it, He will see us through it.

Jesus overcame these temptations, and many others, to live the life He had come to live, and to become the leader He had come to be. If we cannot endure through the wilderness walk, and if we cannot triumph over the myriad of temptations we will face as leaders, we will never be a great leader. Instead, we will more likely be a fallen leader.

II) THE NECESSITY OF HUMILITY

2005-05-17T11:32:00.000-05:00

Matt 3:13-17

13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
NIV

The next major event in the life of Jesus was that He was baptized by John in the Jordan River. This event is of major significance, as evidenced by the fact that it is recorded in all four Gospels. John was a man of some renown in his own right. He was drawing large crowds who came to see this rough wilderness man who wore camel’s skins and ate locusts. What they found in John was someone who had no patience for hypocrisy and compromise. His was a call to repentance.

Instead of focusing on himself, however, he was preparing the way for the coming Messiah. He spoke about the one who would come who would baptize people in the Holy Spirit and with fire. John humbly confessed that he was not worthy to even unlatch the sandals of this one. And then, one day as John was speaking, his cousin Jesus began to make His way to the river to be baptized by John.

How John knew that Jesus was the Messiah is not known. It could be that his mother, Elizabeth, told him the story of her visitation from Mary. It could be that there was the witness of the Holy Spirit in John himself. But it seems that even before the confirmation by the Holy Spirit and the declaration of the Father, that John knew that Jesus is the One. He said to Jesus, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Consider what Jesus was doing. He was altogether holy. He was righteous through and through, and yet He came to the river in witness of the crowd to allow John to baptize Him in the Jordan. Why? He had no sins. He did not need to repent of anything. He created the very ground upon which He stood and the river into which He would be baptized. It is no wonder then that John should be reticent to baptize Jesus.

But Jesus said, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Consider those words, “It is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” This phrase has been the source of much conversation through the years of theological reflection. There are some who believe that the word “us” refers to Jesus and John and that they needed to follow through on this to bring righteousness into reality. If this is the case then point may well be that just as the cross gave meaning to all the types and symbols of sacrifice in the Old Covenant, the baptism of Jesus gives legitimacy and reality to the baptisms that John had previously performed. Just as Jesus knew no sin, and yet become the sin sacrifice in order to bring fulfillment to the Old Covenant sacrifices, Jesus who knew no sin is baptized to bring the power of righteousness into the lives of those who have repented and who were baptized.

As second understanding, is that the word “us” refers to Jesus and those whom John is baptizing. It was the proclamation of the prophets of old that the people of God repent in order to be reestablished in His favor. If Jesus this is reference, then it may be that Jesus is identifying with the people to the extent that He is willing to step into their shoes and be baptized with them. In this, they are fulfilling the call of the prophets and are embracing righteousness through repentance and forgiveness.

Either way, what Jesus is willing to do here is an example of profound humility. Though many modern leaders are portrayed as brass and arrogant, it occurs to me that humility is a necessity for great leaders. Scripture makes it clear that God will exalt the humble but He resists the proud.

Humility is not weak and placating, but is honest and empowering. Humility is willing to suffer the loss of acclaim for the greater good of others. Humility is the expression of a personality that is secure and confident. The lack of humility is often a smoke screen for insecurities and fear.

Consider the humility that Jesus displayed. Paul writes in Philippians 2:5-11:

5 Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. 6 Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. 7 He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. 8 And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal's death on a cross. (NLT)

Jesus embraced humility as a decisive aspect of leadership. He was willing to take on the role. He was willing to sacrifice the grandeur of heaven to embrace the humility of humanity. Great leaders understand the need to identify with those whom they lead. Jesus did not stand off at a distance and decree salvation, but Jesus came to us, became one of us, and became our salvation. Great leaders understand their people. They know what they need and what their best interests are, even when the people may not understand it at the moment. They are willing to put their own self-interests on the line to serve the people as a leader.

Some leaders simply put their finger in the wind and whatever is popular is the decision they make because they fear that they may lose some popularity. But real leaders do what is right, even when there may be negative consequences for themselves personally. Jesus was a real leader.

What is the result of humility? People are much more willing to forgive the imperfections of mere mortal leaders when they are humble. A proud and arrogant man or woman who fails is often portrayed as someone who got what was coming to them. But leaders who have led with humility usually find forgiveness comes easier.

People also like to see humble people promoted and advanced, more than they do in seeing the proud moving up the ladder. In fact, Paul goes on, in Philippians 2, to tell us that God the Father responded to the humility of Christ by exalting Him:

9 Because of this, God raised him up to the heights of heaven and gave him a name that is above every other name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. NLT

We are never too big to be humble. In fact, the greater the role and responsibility we have, the more humbled we should feel. We should never fain humility, but be genuine and honest in the expression of humility in our lives as leaders.