IS JESUS DEAD?

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

Rational Points Against the Reports

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

Archaeological Points Against the Reports

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

Biblical Points Against the Reports

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

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

Growth on the Periphery

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

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

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

Leaving a Legacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fear and the fallacy

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

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

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

Emergent Learning Models

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

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

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

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

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

THE PERSPECTIVE OF TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

Problems are like rocks--they're hard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!”