The Lord's Work

I consider that there are basically two ways of looking at ministry -- it's your work, or it's the Lord's work. The difference may be subtle. One may trust God to make one a superhero, rather than trusting Him to use one's nothingness. I think this is one of the most important things to know about ministry -- it's not your work. He saves people, He grows people -- a minister just walks in, walks out, watches what God does, drinks coffee and watches the clouds go by.

Motivating Factors

I recently read an article: Motivating Factors for Ministry, by Christian leadership professor Dr. Bobby Clinton. He asks: "What motivates you in ministry?" and lists nine factors. Yet it is interesting to note that my own most crucial motivating factors are not on the list -- not even at the bottom of it. I'd put this down to typical differences between Global North and South. For instance, near the top of my list would be -- to put it very simply -- God's faithfulness. Related to this, there is little if anything in Dr. Clinton's (750-word) list to suggest that God does anything but work in me, in my ministry. Here are the nine motivating factors for ministry that Dr. Bobby Clinton identifies: ♦ finishing well ♦ the return of Christ ♦ one's giftedness ♦ confidence in the power of the gospel ♦ a burden to minister ♦ the resurrection ♦ handling God's Word for impact ♦ the perspective of eternity, and ♦ love for Christ. That's in his book Titus: Apostolic Leadership (much expanded there).

"Live And Let Live" Theology

In a recent class debate, a fellow postgraduate student commented: "Thomas, your live and let live theology from below is a fresh and empowering approach that could have transformational impact in the lives of believers. ... Can you elaborate on how this works in your Church? Does a member get to write his or her own creed for their own life? Are they free to interpret Scripture situationally without regard to exegetical integrity or a commonly upheld hermeneutical understanding? Does this happen by a committee of the priesthood of believers?" OBSERVATION: These aren't easy questions, and I won't try to answer them here. What I said was basically the following: that our Church's (vernacular) theology is enriched and shaped by diverse spiritual input, or ministry by members -- however, one needs to take certain risks in order to do that, and some Churches won't entertain it. We sometimes need to wink an eye at what we hear. I do agree that our approach is "fresh and empowering".

Older Congregants Boost Growth

I am doing a deconstructionist critique of Christian transformational leadership. Among other things, this means that I study the footnotes. Here’s a particularly interesting one from Eddie Gibbs (Gibbs E 2005:200). He writes: “In a personal email [Peter Brierley] writes, ‘Your comment that churches making a significant impact among under 35-year-olds needing folk in the 70+ category was proved by our research from the 1998 English Church Attendance Survey in a report we wrote in collaboration with Springboard called Growing Churches in the 1990s. We found [that] 42 percent of churches grew when 25 percent of their attenders were 65+, the highest percentage of any age mix.’” QUESTION: What would older congregants do for growth? And how would one effectively accommodate them with under 35-year-olds?

Priesthood of Believers

The International Coalition of Workplace Ministries in the USA has posted an article by Eric Swanson, which proposes ten paradigm shifts for the Church (see http://www.icwm.net/articles_view.asp?articleid=1395&columned). An interesting observation (paradigm shift no. 3) is that, if churchgoers are not given the opportunity to minister, they drop off in time. I think this is true. But there’s an interesting twist. Swanson writes: “In the typical church, lay people are asked to serve in five or six capacities: Teach a Sunday School class / Work in the nursery / Lead a home Bible study or small group / Sing in the choir / Be an usher or greeter / Serve on a board or committee.” These “five or six capacities” go unquestioned by Swanson, except that he notes an important need to add “ministering to ... the needs of a community”. This is good -- yet why such a short list of “five or six capacities”? There would seem to be a big gap here. There’s a multiplicity of things that churchgoers can do besides: leading the prayers, giving spiritual messages, welcoming guest speakers, preaching the sermon, and so on. We ourselves do this within a fairly “traditional” context. Not to speak of what people can do in groups. QUESTION: Why is it that Swanson’s list is as short as “five or six capacities”? Why, apparently, does he not see so many more?

The Most Pressing Issue

The previous post referred to the “Herculean effort” of Christian leadership. This will inevitably go hand in hand with the effect of such effort on the lives of Christian leaders -- and here are some examples. Hybels (2002:231) writes: “The single most pressing issue [for Christian leaders is] enduring.” Ford (1991:131) asks: “Is there enough strength to stand then?” Christian leaders are under enormous pressure (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:5); many have a sense of desperation (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:31); and there are countless leaders who would quit today (Blackaby and Blackaby 2001:3); deep depression is not uncommon in Christian leadership (Engstrom 1976:100); the burdens of pastoral ministry are onerous (Jinkins 2002:39); it is demanding and exhausting (Jinkins 2002:50); the Christian leader faces grief and abandonment (Jinkins 2002:45) and the desire to flee resistance and sabotage (Jinkins 2002:44); and many are overwhelmed by the challenge (Gibbs 2005:139). Sanders (1994:53) suggests the prayer: “God harden me against myself,...”; Thomas (1999:135) is guided by the prayer: “Lord have mercy”; while Jinkins (2002:32), quoting Eugene Peterson, calls for Christian ministers to be lashed to the ministry mast. Of course, Christian leadership would be expected to involve some strain -- but these examples surely qualify as “abnormal strain”. They represent intense emotional conflict. Again, all the authors quoted here represent Christian transformational leadership, a popular Christian leadership model of the Global North. QUESTION: Why does this model of leadership engender such strain? Again, would this be true of all Christian leadership?

The "Herculean Effort" of Christian Leadership

The subject of my M.Th. thesis is Christian transformational leadership. With this in mind, it is interesting that Christian transformational authors consistently emphasise that such leadership requires a superhuman effort: it requires a “Herculean effort” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:7); it requires courage “of the highest order” (Sanders J O 1994:59); it comes with a high price (Gibbs E 2005:173; Hunter J C 2004:144; Sanders J O 1994:19); it involves heavy struggles (Engstrom T W 1976:14); it requires a great deal of motivation (Hunter J C 2004:19), and enormous efforts (Hunter J C 2004: 157); it demands personal suffering (Thrall B, McNicol B and McElrath K 1999:128), in fact “more than sacrifice and suffering” (Wofford J C 1999:164); it may face incredible odds (Munroe M 2005:209); it represents a daunting challenge (Gibbs E 2005:26); it requires a ribbon of steel running through one (Jinkins M 2002:30); and it demands superior spiritual power (Sanders J O 1994:28). In future posts, I hope to focus on the personal impact that such demands have on leaders. QUESTION: Is the above true of all Christian leadership? or is it something specific to certain types of Christian leadership? For those not familiar with “transformational”, this is possibly the most popular leadership model in the USA.

Definition of Religious Persecution

I have been closely involved in discussions surrounding the establishment of the World Evangelical Alliance’s (WEA’s) International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF). At the same time, an academic publisher hired me to proofread a text: Re-Examining Religious Persecution. Here is the author’s definition: “Religious persecution should be understood as an unjust action of varying levels of hostility directed at a believer or believers of a particular religion or belief-system through systematic oppression or genocide, or through harassment or discrimination which may not necessarily limit these believers’ ability to practice their faith, resulting in varying levels of harm as it is considered from the victim’s perspective, each action having religion as its primary motivator” (Tieszen C 2008:42). I’m not sure, though, about religion as the primary motivator. Is this doing justice to what happens “on the ground”? Some examples (both of these actual): a pastor reveals corruption discovered through counselling, and is framed; or a Church dismisses an employee for unchristian practices, and is summoned. I might try a definition like this: “Religious persecution is suffering at the hands of others for religiously grounded practices”. Of course, there might be religiously grounded practices for which one deserves to suffer. QUESTION: Can religious persecution be restricted (Chambers Dictionary) to suffering for “religious or political opinions”? Are such definitions adequate? What about the suggested one-liner?

That Vision Thing

George Barna writes: “A person who attempts to lead others without vision is simply playing a dangerous, arrogant game” (Barna G 1997:55). I asked my mentor, a well known minister, whether he had a vision. He said, “We’re a family. Like a family, we just muddle along.” He has a postgraduate degree. He’s been in his present Church for more than a decade, and it is vibrant and prosperous. It would also seem to have its heart in the right place, having just taken in some 200 refugees (see my ministry blog). QUESTION: Is the vision of one man or woman really necessary? Might it not engender resistance? or place an undue sense of burden on a minister? Could it not be stirred by the Spirit among all? The photo shows George Barna.

God and Church Authority

Andy Stanley, in The Next Generation Leader, relates an incident where he disagreed with a major decision of his elders. He writes: “I was really tempted to do an end run around the elders' decision. But I had been brought up believing that God works through channels of authority. ... Now, five years later, when I think back on how close I came to ignoring the advice of that discerning group of men, it makes me feel sick” (Stanley A 2003:97). In my own Church, the official view is that the decisions of the Church Meeting (the whole membership) are “those which Christ Himself imparts”. Personally, I take this further, and believe, with Stanley, that the decisions of the elders and deacons are given by God, both when I agree and disagree. I take a dim view of those who pick a decision apart, asking who decided what why and how. QUESTION: Agreed? How is a Church to know God's will through its routine governance? Could the prudent decision of a meeting be the wrong one in God's plan -- and vice versa?

Is It Manipulation?

H.B. London Jr. quotes Lyle Schaller: “Three-quarters of all church ministry is significantly reduced because of nonproductive conflict.” He then recalls a meeting with Dr. Norman Shawchuk: “He told me the number one reason for conflict is that leaders generally have poor interpersonal skills. A second major reason is that many congregations are determined to resist change even though they must inevitably come to grips with the sweeping changes all around them. When a church resists a leader's efforts to change strategically, it is only a matter of time before the church becomes riddled with conflict” (Barna G ed. 1997:118). But notice the language. The leader needs to exert “efforts”, and these need to be applied “strategically”. Further, such efforts are necessary in view of apparently widespread “resistance”. Presumably therefore the need for the “interpersonal skills” to gain the advantage? QUESTION: Is it manipulation? Can the priesthood of believers be reconciled with “efforts” applied against an intransigent Church? Why should the Church be intransigent in the first place? And why is the leader apparently thought to have a special advantage of foresight? The photo shows H.B. London Jr.

Leadership Dropout

The Christian leadership literature yields many examples of leadership “dropout”. There is a “high dropout” in local-church ministry (Gibbs E 2005:176), “many” leave after serving less than two years (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:19), there is a “rather large” dropout in the first several years of full-time ministry (Clinton J R 1989:328), and 50% of trainees for local church ministry are no longer serving ten years later (Gibbs E 2005:79). Also, there are “many reasons” for dropout in latter ministry (Clinton J R 1989:356), “few” leaders finish well (Stanley P D and Clinton J R 1992:11), and “few” achieve “afterglow” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:45). The casualty rate has reached “disturbingly high levels” in local churches (Gibbs E 2005:19), and thousands of leaders shipwreck their careers every year (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:230). But notice something about these statements. They are all generic -- they are applied universally -- and this is the overwhelming trend in the literature. QUESTION: What does this mean? That is, why is there such generality about dropout, and how does this reflect on current attempts to address the situation? The photo shows Eddie Gibbs.

Transformational: My Experience

The first time I came into close contact with transformational leadership, at Fuller Theological Seminary, I didn’t know what it was. I experienced it as being highly authoritarian -- yet the talk was continually of equality, consensus, dialogue. Since then, I have found these apparent opposites explicitly described and (some might say) reconciled in the literature. Perhaps Robert Banks and Bernice Ledbetter state it most clearly. It is a leadership model which “navigates between” hierarchical (top-down) and egalitarian (leaderless team) styles. This implies that the egalitarian aspect lies in its teamwork, not in “the structure of decision-making” (Banks R and Ledbetter B M 2004:86). J. Oswald Sanders similarly states that, while leadership seeks “common purpose” among those who are led (Sanders J O 1994:27), it is nevertheless “always from the top down” (:113). Jerry C. Wofford perhaps describes it most concisely as “directive consensus building” (Wofford J C 1999:68). This surely explains how the language may appear to emphasise equality, while the experience is one of authoritarianism. QUESTION: Has this been your experience at an institution in the U.S.A.? What are the manifestations of “top-down” style? What would alternatives look like?

The Meaning of Conflict

What is the meaning of conflict? The answer of Christian transformational leadership tends to be: “God uses conflict ... to develop the leader” (Clinton J R 1988:145). It is “for the development of personal resources” (Jinkins M 2002:20). It is “for holiness of heart” (Sanders J O 1994:120). Therefore, in the event of conflict, leaders “need to face their own inner wars” (Ford 1991:258). They need to ask: “What is it about me?” (Barna G ed. 1997:250). QUESTION: While it COULD be about me, wouldn’t it seem like too much navel-gazing, or self-absorption? Isn’t there the well-being of a Church out there? The photo shows J. Robert Clinton.

Change Course or Hold On?

Oliver Cromwell said: “No one rises so high as he who knows not whither he is going.” This is a quote that Brendan Simms of Cambridge University uses to sum up the finding that great leaders “have transcended their origins”, i.e. have the ability to change course through the duration of their leadership (Swain H ed. 2005:17). Yet Christian authors James Halcomb, David Hamilton, and Howard Malmstadt (Courageous Leaders) consider that leaders “always, in every circumstance, and against all difficulties hold on to the God-inspired vision” (Halcomb J, Hamilton D and Malmstadt H 2000:185). It seems, that is, that there should be NO change of course. QUESTION: So which is it? Was Cromwell mistaken? And how might authors reach such apparently opposite conclusions? Thanks to www.generalmonck.com/biography.htm for the picture of Cromwell.

Digging In

Many authors on Christian leadership, where resistance to leadership develops, endorse what one might describe as a non-negotiable stand-off until victory is won. After a decision has been made, a leader “will not waver” (Blackaby H and Blackaby R 2001:192), and "will not vacillate" (Engstrom T W 1976:20). The “power of mental conditioning” will enable the leader to “overcome incredible odds” (Munroe M 2005:209). Where there is backlash, the leader will “persevere” (Clinton J R 1988:109). He or she is to exercise “obedience” (Guder D 1998:186), and “long-term stamina” (Gibbs E 2005:155). When opposed, “courage is a non-negotiable quality” (Stanley A 2003:34). Or, the leader may simply meet opposition “by not responding” (Barna G 1997:246). Followers must “not be allowed” to hinder a leader’s “visions and purposes” (Wofford J C 1999:155). QUESTION: Might not such an outlook bring extraordinary pressures to bear on a leader? Are there alternatives? What is the source of such an attitude? The photo shows Dr. Myles Munroe.

Historic Turnaround

The Invasions decimated the Church in Europe around 600 A.D. Bishoprics fell one after the other. The Church decided on a plan to reverse its losses -- which turned out to be a historic turnaround. What was the plan? According to the great Church historian Henri Daniel-Rops (The Church in the Dark Ages), "The essential weapon was preaching" (Daniel-Rops H 1959:258). In addition to this, the preachers were instructed "above all to refrain from 'bombastic pathos'". Daniel-Rops gives a fascinating insight into the content of their preaching. QUESTION: Would it work today?

Church Conflict

I met yesterday afternoon with a Church consultant. I said, “What is the cause of Church conflict?” He said, “Where are you coming from?” I said, “From the point of view of theory -- theology -- underlying causes.” He said, “It’s ownership. People passionately own their beliefs. They say, ‘It’s my Church, and God is invited,’ rather than, ‘It’s God’s Church, and I’m invited.’” QUESTION: How would one overcome this attitude of “ownership”? Does a leader need to overcome it, too?