Church Demographics

I am seeking to address some "warm topics" in our Church -- with a little help from various friends, who are joining me. This Sunday, the subject is demographics, or the way that a Church is made up -- age, income, and so on. I make some observations about our Church's demographics, then sketch two approaches. To put it simply, one may either seek to engineer a Church's demographics, or one may consider that God Himself shapes its demographics. I take the second approach. In this case, faithfulness to a few spiritual basics is important, and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the rest. For an example of the "engineering" approach, see Selling Jesus to Saddleback Sam.

Jesus: "Failed Mentor"

Stanley and Clinton define mentoring as "a relational experience in which one person empowers another ..." With this in mind, Jesus is frequently portrayed as the ultimate mentor. For instance, Campbell, Chancy, and Stanley state: "Jesus was (and is) the ultimate mentor." However, Andrew Murray suggests in his book Humility (1895) that Jesus failed as a mentor -- or maybe rather, that His disciples failed. As the prime example, Murray offers the words of Jesus: "Learn from me, for I am meek and lowly in heart" (Matt 11:29) -- and then the scene at the Last Supper: "There was a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke 22:24). So they learnt nothing. It was only when they received power from on high that things changed. OBSERVATION: The same logic may apply, in ministry, to preaching, teaching, counselling, leadership, and so on.

Lessons From Nehemiah

I completed draft work for a group study of Nehemiah tonight. Typically, in Christian leadership studies, Nehemiah is presented as a man of character. Ted Engstrom epitomises this approach: “We see how great he was." Yet what I have discovered through the study is that the breakthroughs of Nehemiah's leadership are routinely preceded by an appeal to the acts of God. For instance, he informs the citizens of Jerusalem "of the hand of God which was good on me". It is then that the people respond: "Let us rise up and build." Or when faced with their first major adversity, Nehemiah proclaims: "The God of heaven, He will prosper us." It is then that "Eliashab the high priest rose up." OBSERVATION: In my own ministry, I continually seek to reveal what God is doing. There are important parallels to this dynamic in the Bible, e.g. Moses and Aaron (Exod 4:31) and Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:12).

Evangelical [Or Not]

The way that "evangelicalism" is understood has changed during the past generation. One tends to find the old understanding e.g. in Africa -- while one tends to find the new understanding e.g. in North America. One newer definition says that evangelicalism "affirms the centrality of Scripture" -- another that it "is rooted in Scripture" (one would include the early creeds and Reformation tenets in the picture). The old understanding, however, is that evangelicalism "correlates with Scripture", or words to that effect. So in the new understanding, a theologian may claim, say, that much of the Torah was borrowed from the Canaanites after the Exodus -- as an example, Hans Schwarz. Yet Schwarz (see the scan -- you may click on it to enlarge) is described today as a fine evangelical. This is because his writing "affirms the centrality of Scripture". However, it would be hard to say that (much of) it "correlates with Scripture". OBSERVATION: Often, these different understandings of evangelicalism are used without distinction today.

Postliberalism

Recently I was invited to highlight, on this blog, a discussion of Brian McLaren's postliberalism. However, the discussion tended to treat postliberalism as liberalism, and this, in my view, does not make a good fit. Being registered as a postgraduate student at a postliberal seminary, I’ll give the question a go: What is postliberalism (or narrative theology)? To simplify in the extreme (I’m trying to make it understood), it may be summarised in two points. 1. Postliberalism considers that the value of Christianity cannot be founded or demonstrated -- much as someone might ask you: "What do you see in that?" and you reply: "Well, it can't really be explained. Just come along and see!" Postliberalism, therefore, has been called non-foundationalism (says George Hunsinger). This is a well-known philosophy, of which the chief proponent is Ludwig Wittgenstein. Therefore 2. instead of being founded or demonstrated, the value of Christianity is discovered as one becomes absorbed in the language and practices of the Church. Again, this is like "Just come along and see!" -- then you wake up one day to realise that you have been quite taken up by it all, and now you do the same things and speak the same words as "those guys". Thus postliberalism holds that one is drawn into the narrative and formed by it (says Paul Ballard). With all this in mind, postliberalism is sometimes referred to as a neutral theory of religion (says George Lindbeck), as it doesn't ask destructive questions like the liberals, nor does it construct rational proofs like the conservatives (Lindbeck describes these as experiential-expressive religion vs. cognitive-propositional). Postliberalism is a very big movement, being espoused by major seminaries the world over. OBSERVATION: However, by stating up front that becoming a Christian is to be drawn into the narrative, one tends to reject the kind of Christianity which has been described as "an encounter with the Holy" (says George Malek). Postliberalism tends to reject the idea that faith comes "straight down from above -- through the skylight, as we might say" (says Lesslie Newbigin). Therefore on the crucial issue of conversion, it tends to see this as enculturation rather than miracle (Newbigin famously spoke of “no privatised eschatology”). It also tends to disavow an “interventionist God”. To the untrained person, postliberalism is hard to spot, as it tends to "talk the talk" – however, it has many catchwords or phrases, among them community, reign of God, shalom. My post Emergent Church is related.

The Cause of Stress in Ministry

In my previous two posts, I highlighted the extraordinary strain that Christian leadership represents, at least in large circles. An obvious question is: what is the cause? On this, the Christian leadership literature is clear. It is the need to influence followers, and the resistance or opposition that this brings about. The “greatest trial” for the Christian leader lies in driving values and visions against the status quo (Wofford J C 1999:85,86); there is a “depth and pervasiveness” of malaise among leaders over resistance to change (Roxburgh A J and Romanuk F 2006:16); instituting change is a draining process, even under the best of circumstances (Murren D 1997:205); leaders may be decimated by negative reactions to innovation (Barna G 1997:207); casting a vision is a daunting challenge, and opposition is hard to deal with (Hybels B 2002:41); selling vision is “an onerous task” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:65); and about 10% of followers will “predictably” not only resist Christian leadership but seek to sabotage it (Hunter J C 2004:75). Emotional strain is therefore clearly linked with the notion of the Christian leader as a person whose responsibility it is to influence followers through values or visions. QUESTION: What lies at the root of needing to drive “values and visions”? The diagram shows Wofford’s conception of the process.

Simple, Simple, Simple?

Best-selling management researcher Jim Collins (Good to Great) proposes the “hedgehog concept”. This is popular today as a Church growth principle. A hedgehog does just one thing really well: it rolls up into a ball, and so outsmarts the slyest fox. Therefore, writes Collins, if you want to know how to succeed in an undertaking, discover your hedgehog concept (Collins J 2001:90). In Collins’ view, Einstein, Darwin, Marx -- not to speak of the “greats” in business -- “took a complex world and simplified it” (:91). So it’s all about “simple, simple, simple ideas” (:95). Yet Collins notes that a simple idea needs to be based upon “deep insight” and “deep understanding along three key dimensions”. These dimensions, it so happens, are each subtle and far-reaching -- as an example, one’s personal emotional make-up, which even Collins describes as “soft and fuzzy” (:109) -- not to speak of that “deep understanding”. In fact, did not Einstein, Darwin, and Marx -- apart from the others Collins presents -- have a wizardly understanding of their so-called “simple, simple, simple ideas”? In short, while the hedgehog concept may have some merits, Collins himself would seem to say too much that undermines it. QUESTION: Is a hedgehog concept really that “simple, simple, simple”? May it genuinely be useful?

Management Subtext

The management literature, I find, frequently seems to subvert itself. Here’s an example. Ichak Adizes wrote the classic work, Managing Corporate Lifecycles. Yet one continually stumbles across asides in this book, ever so briefly deposited, which would seem to subvert the text. Adizes states that “the tools for diagnosing and treating ... organizational behavior -- to change organizational culture and consciousness -- are in their infancy” (Adizes I 2004:10). That is, they are still in the earliest stage of immaturity. On the core subject of the “integration” of companies (getting it all together as a well-functioning whole), he states that this “remains elusive and an ongoing subject of inquiry” (:254). To be elusive means of course “to escape one”. He writes that “when I watch spiritual leaders, I am in awe” (:396). That is, the organisational guru himself would seem cowed by what spiritual leaders are able to achieve. Such comments are scattered throughout the book -- and indeed other such management books. QUESTION: What is the meaning of such qualifiers? What does this really say about the merits of management theory?

Naïve Faith in Leadership

I often encounter in ministry what I would term “naïve faith” as opposed to “mature faith”. Naïve faith is a faith in outcomes (e.g. “I have faith that God will heal me”), while mature faith is a faith in the God of outcomes (e.g. “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” Job 13:15). Yet in the leadership literature, I repeatedly come across an attitude to leadership that would seem close to naïve faith. Here are a few examples. Oswald Sanders states that “faith is vision”, where faith merely refers to “the goal” (Sanders J O 1994:55,56). Bobby Clinton considers that faith refers to a “God-given vision” that is about “some future plan” (Clinton J R 1988:117); while Walter Wright defines faith as “a vision that makes a difference ... seeing tomorrow so powerfully that it shapes today” (Wright W C 2000:66). It is not hard to see that this is, in each case, a faith in outcomes. QUESTION: Is it possible to distinguish such an approach to leadership from naïve faith? How would Christian leadership look different with mature faith? The photo shows Bobby Clinton’s The Making of a Leader.

Superior Beings?

Is the leader a superior being? I sense that Christian leadership authors would generally deny it. Yet the literature may suggest otherwise. Oswald Sanders considers that leaders have “superior spiritual power”, and “the Spirit works in and through [them] to a greater degree” (Sanders J O 1994:28). Henry and Richard Blackaby consider that leaders have “greater characters” than followers (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:53). John Maxwell believes that leaders are “stronger” than followers (Maxwell J C 1998:70). Andy Stanley considers that Christian leaders wear an “invisible badge” that, presumably, others do not (Stanley A 2006:118). Its name is “moral authority”. Often, leaders would seem to know better than followers what is for their good (Hunter J C 2004:31), or what God intends for them (Clinton J R 1988:26). Personally, while leadership gifts may seem to set one apart, the “spirit” of this does not agree with my spirit. I think of the many “humble Christians” who are spiritual treasures, and crucial to my so-called leadership. How could I ever claim to be superior in this way or that? QUESTION: Are some Christians superior to others? What would constitute such superiority? How would Christian theology reflect on this?

Power to Serve

The Christian leadership literature frequently mentions the need to serve, and advances various examples of those who did: Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Nelson Mandela, and so on. “If you choose to lead, you must serve” (Hunter J C 2004:72). Yet does the literature mean quite what one would imagine it does with “service”? James Hunter quotes George Bush Sr.: “There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people” (Hunter J C 2004:63). Similarly, Walter Wright considers: “Leadership is the use of power to serve the people” (Wright W 2000:180). Yet is not true service the relinquishment of power, not the use of it? Christ “made Himself nothing” (Philippians 2:7). QUESTION: What constitutes “power”? The power to earn? The power to leave? The power to lead? The power to fund? The power to adjust? The power to protect? The power to advance? Which kinds of power should one be ready to relinquish? The photo shows Hunter’s The World’s Most Powerful Leadership Principle.

The Absence of God

My researches have brought me to the “absence of God” in the Global North leadership literature. This is by no means a universal feature of the literature, but it is a common one. Here are some examples: Paul D. Stanley and J. Robert Clinton (1992:130) consider that Numbers 27 describes “Moses’ sponsorship of Joshua”. Yet the Scriptural emphasis is absent: “So the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua the son of Nun ...'” J. Oswald Sanders (1994:73) considers that Joshua “used wonderful tact” in dividing up the Promised Land. Yet the Biblical perspective is missing: “So the Israelites divided the land, just as the Lord had commanded ...” Viv Thomas (1999:33) considers that David found his strength through “organic friendship”. Again he fails to note the Scriptural theme: “David found strength in the Lord his God.” Doug Murren (1997:200) states that Jeremiah was “a biblical change agent”. Again the Biblical perspective is missing: “The word of the Lord came to him.” Ted W. Engstrom (1976:34) comments on Nehemiah’s leadership ability: “How great he was ...” And again the Biblical emphasis is absent: “The God of heaven [gave him] success”. Myles Munroe (2005:106) considers that, when Jesus sent out the Seventy, He was excited because “he saw humanity exercising power”. Yet he omits the Scriptural theme: “in your [Christ’s] name”. Similar examples cover several pages of my thesis. While some such examples might be dismissed as being overly critical, the “weight of evidence” is considerable. QUESTION: Why this “absence of God”? What does it signify? What implications does this have for Christian leadership theory? The photo shows Ted W. Engstrom’s classic, The Making of a Christian Leader.

Emotive Language

It is not uncommon for Christian leadership literature of the Global North to use strong terms to dismiss alternative approaches or attitudes to leadership. Alternatives may be described e.g. as “arrogant” (Barna G ed. 1997:55), “stupidity” (Thomas V 1999:24), “a grave form of mental illness” (Munroe M 2005:176). Not seldom, the views under fire would seem to have much in common with Global South values. For instance, the “arrogant” are those who forego vision-casting, while “stupidity” refers to the leader who is assured. QUESTION: Is such language necessary or justified? Would there still be any basis for dialogue where such views are expressed?

Just the Facts?

J. Robert Clinton bases his mentoring model (The Mentor Handbook) on “600 case studies of [serving] leaders” (Clinton J R 1991:1-1). Most of these studies reveal “between 3 and 10 significant people” who served as mentors in a leader’s life. A major purpose of the model is, of course, to limit dropout from Christian leadership. But consider this. How many “significant people” were there in the lives of those who dropped out? And how many of those included in the case studies will YET drop out? We have no idea. Therefore what do the 600 case studies prove? At first glance, 600 case studies has a convincing ring to it -- yet there is a fallacy at the heart of it, which is the subject of my next post. QUESTION: To what degree are the data invalidated in this example? Completely?

Ignorant Kings

Myles Munroe, author of The Spirit of Leadership, considers that we all have the latent power of leadership. But we are “victimized by ignorance ... we have become ignorant kings. Not only do we not know who we are, where we came from, and what we are capable of, but we also don’t know how to use the resources the Creator has given us” (Munroe M 2005:167, 173). Therefore, “[God] sent the Word (his thoughts) to earth to correct and redirect our thinking” (:191). So we need to “patiently allow the new information to settle into your subconscious” (:202). QUESTION: What is the origin of such teaching? It would seem reminiscent of Socrates’ notion that evil is ignorance.

First Person: I, Me, My

I've just completed John C. Maxwell’s The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. He states: “I realized that I had leveraged my time as much as I possibly could ... That left me only one choice: learning to work through others” (Maxwell J C 1998:116). Here’s a similar quote: “You see, I know I have more potential that I haven’t yet reached, and if I want someday to get there, I’ve got to surround myself with the best people possible” (Maxwell J C 1998:116). What caught my eye was the many references to the first person (eleven of them here). QUESTION: Is it egotism? If so, might this be a natural outcome of a leadership theory which considers that “everything rises and falls on leadership”? (Maxwell J C 1998:225). The photo shows John C. Maxwell.