The Leaders Poole

Handled

2011-12-20T13:29:00.000Z

Over on the what you think matters blog I recently ran a series of posts on how we should respond when the way others treat us is somewhat less than we would desire it to be. I thought it might be helpful to have all these posts in one place (for me at least, if for no one else!), so here it is:

Part 1: Calling out pride

“That wasn’t handled very well…” Anyone who has been in church leadership for longer than a week will have had this said to them.

It can be disheartening when someone says this to you (assuming they you really do have peoples best interests at heart and are not just lazy or indifferent) but it goes with the territory I’m afraid. A large part of being a leader is disappointing people. I’m not sure anyone explained this to me before I entered church leadership, but I have found it to be consistently true. People get disappointed because you do not promote them, or because you promote someone else. People get disappointed because you do not share their enthusiasm for a particular pet project. People get disappointed because they feel you haven’t given them enough attention. The list goes on. Sometimes people get disappointed simply because you are disappointing; which is a disappointing reality!

And of course, often the boot is on the other foot – when those who have leadership over us don’t handle things very well, which also happens on a routine basis.

Another thing I have learned, however, is that it is usually not so much how things were handled that counts, as how we respond. There is not much I can do about how someone has handled an issue, but there is an awful lot I can do about how I respond to it.

Because of my pride (Adam’s root sin that has infected us all) my perception automatically tends to be that if someone does something with which I disagree then they have “handled it badly.” Conversely (and still because of my pride) when someone does something with which I agree I tend to think they have “handled it well.”

Actually, there are four possible scenarios in how this might play out:

1. A situation is handled well, and I agree with it

2. A situation is handled badly, and I disagree with it

3. A situation is handled well, and I disagree with it

4. A situation is handled badly, and I agree with it

So, perversely, my natural, prideful, response will be to be happy (and feel that something has been handled well) in both scenarios 1 and 4, and I will be unhappy (and feel that something has been handled badly) in scenarios 2 and 3. Which simply illustrates that it is my response that needs attention more than how the thing was handled.

Getting this right requires real maturity, but I have seen even very senior church leaders responding badly. And it requires constant vigilance – just this week I was on the end of a “handling” to which my first (prideful) response was, “that wasn’t handled well,” until I pulled myself back to reality and saw that it was actually my response that needed working on, rather than the way the thing had been handled.

Of course, this is not to say that we should be casual about how we handle things. As pastors our aim should be to handle people and their issues with grace and wisdom – but even the most gifted leader never gets it right all the time, and this should be acknowledged.

So whether you are the one who has disappointed someone else, or is feeling disappointed by someone else, the key thing is how you are handling it.

Repentance and forgiveness in Christ seem to me to be the only appropriate response!

Part 2: The battle for the heart

I have had the enormous privilege of spending the past few days with PJ Smyth and the Godfirst posse in Johannesburg. Being with PJ is always an experience of ‘data dump’ – watching how he leads, and chatting with him, and the actual tangible information download of a bunch of files passed over on a memory stick.

One of the initiatives that PJ has been running with since returning to action post-cancer is the excellent 3DL leadership course. While in Johannesburg I have been looking through some of this material and found particularly juicy the module on gospel-centric counseling. In this material PJ puts the emphasis upon how we respond to the stuff life throws at us – it is about winning the battle for our hearts:

Even in situations where external pressures (such as sickness, bereavement, abuse, abandonment etc.) come to bear on us, God holds us responsible for how our heart responds during the experience (e.g. anger towards God, harbouring fear etc.) and for how our heart responds after the experience (e.g. withdrawal, resentment, self-pity, greed etc.).

This battle for the heart is very practical. It means that we are not excused responsibility when something bad happens to us, but are held responsible for how we respond.

For example, a person may act angry or grumpy in response to lack of sleep. Even if the lack of sleep was external (e.g. side effect of a medication, a crying baby, inconsiderate neighbours etc.) God still holds us accountable for our heart response and any sin that occurs through that anger or grumpiness. While empathy is given and the plans made for the external pressures to be minimized, the responsibility rests firmly at our feet and the person must be counselled to take responsibility for their response to the external pressure.

Of course, this message is easier to take from someone who has demonstrated it with integrity in their own life – and this PJ has certainly done. PJ’s response to cancer (during and after) has been exemplary. He has come through it stronger and more grace-filled, and with a keener edge to his ministry. (If you have not heard it, PJ’s message about his experience of cancer at this year’s TOAM conference is a must listen). 

If I am handled badly, or if something bad happens to me, what do I do? My natural response is to fight back, or get into self-pity. A godly response is to lean into Jesus and in him find the grace I need – to win the battle for the heart.   

Sometimes this heart battle is huge – when someone you thought you could trust does something terribly betraying, or when cancer is suddenly diagnosed. But all of us face multiple smaller-issue scenarios every week. And every time, the question is the same – not so much “Why did this happen?” That question is often unanswerable, and usually un-fixable – but, “How am I going to respond?” Or, put another way, how are you going to handle your heart?

Part 3: Grumbling isn’t the answer!

At a recent Newfrontiers wider leaders gathering the brilliant Phil Moore spoke compellingly about lessons from the life of William Booth. A couple of biblical illustrations Phil used really caught my attention, chiming as they did with things I have been focussing on in terms of the way we handle difficult circumstances.

One example Phil used was what happened to Miriam when she complained to Aaron about their brother Moses (see Numbers 12). This is a familiar story, but the point Phil brought home with fresh clarity was the mundane nature of the incident – Aaron and Miriam were having a family moan, apparently in private, and yet God’s anger was kindled against them. How many of us have had behind-closed-doors moans about those God has set in leadership over us? Or, to drive the point home, are there any of us who haven’t? We might not think these conversations are particularly serious – “We’re just letting off steam” – but God takes them very seriously indeed.

The next example was about Peter getting out of the boat to walk to Jesus (Matthew 14). This is a great story of faith – and of failing faith after Peter took a few steps and then began to sink. The question Phil posed was this: If it hadn’t been stormy would Peter have got out of the boat in first place? Probably not. A tiny boat battered by the storm might not have seemed to offer as much security as walking to Jesus. Or, if it had been calm, perhaps Peter would have simply jumped out of the boat to swim to Jesus, as he did following Jesus’ intervention in a later fishing trip (John 21).

These examples got me thinking again about how I respond to things that happen to me. Maybe there are times when Jesus allows uncomfortable things in our lives in order to compel us to respond in faith and walk towards him. Maybe if everything was plain sailing we would never get out of the boat. And maybe God really does care about the gossipy, negative things we say (even in private, with close friends) about those he has set in spiritual authority over us.

Maybe the way we should respond – even when we feel we have been handled badly – is by trusting Jesus and honouring our leaders. Doing this can be difficult and costly; but on balance I think it is less difficult and costly than getting leprosy or drowning.

Part 4: When right is wrong

When it comes to interpersonal conflict we tend to be quick to apportion blame, say “that wasn’t handled well” and feel a measure of resentment towards the other person. As we have seen already, the key thing is how we respond to the inevitable experience of being badly handled. What happens to us is often of less significance than how we respond. Will we win the battle for the heart, or give into the idol of pride and fight back?

The reality is that in any conflict there is often blame on both sides. An instructive biblical example of this is the encounter between Jacob and Laban recorded in Genesis 31. Let’s work through it verse by verse and see how this plays out, in terms of who was “right” and who “wrong”:

Verses 1-2 Laban is in the wrong as he is resentful towards Jacob.

Verse 3 Jacob is in the right, because he hears God’s voice commanding him to return to Canaan.

Verses 4-16 Jacob is in the wrong because he badmouths Laban, and encourages Rachel and Leah to do the same.

Verses 17-21 Jacob is in the wrong because he lives up to his name and ‘tricks’ Laban, by running away from the situation, with Rachel stealing Laban’s household gods to boot. (Whether or not Jacob knew Rachel had done this is not made clear. And we needn’t get into the details here of all concerned being wrong in having household gods in the first place!)

Verses 22-30 Laban is in the right this time. He sets off in pursuit of Jacob, but then heeds God’s warning about how he should speak to Jacob.

Verses 31-32 Jacob is in the right when he admits his error and says he acted out of fear.

Verses 33-35 Rachel is in the wrong this time as she lies to her father about ‘having her period’ and hides his gods in the saddlebag on which she sits.

Verses 36-42 Jacob is in the wrong – because Laban does not find what he has accused Jacob of stealing, Jacob sees the opportunity to get things off his chest and lets Laban have it with both barrels. There is truth in his argument, but his approach is wrong!

Verses 43-54 Laban is in the right as he recognizes he has to let Jacob go, and initiates a covenant between them. Jacob also then gets things right as he responds to Laban’s initiative, and breaks bread with him.

Verse 55 Laban is in the right as he blesses his children and grandchildren and takes his leave.

Neither Jacob nor Laban come out of this encounter particularly well. To a degree, they are both right, but the overall picture is of them both being wrong. Neither of them handle things very well, and it is only by the grace of God that the story concludes with them having dinner together rather than rolling in the dust punching each others lights out. (Which makes it all the more poignant that in the next chapter we find Jacob wrestling with God.)

I think the big lesson from this episode is to be alert to the fact that we might not be as right as we think we are. I’m sure that both Jacob and Laban felt themselves completely justified in their thoughts and actions (Jacob: “Twenty years I’ve worked for you, and got nothing but grief.” Laban: “You’re loaded man – and it’s all my stuff that you’re loaded with!”).

The thing is, they were both right, and both wrong, and fighting about it wasn’t going to achieve anything. Both of them could have handled the situation – and responded to it – a whole lot better. And in that, there must be a lesson for us all.

Part 5: Don’t handle it like a fool

I recently heard Malcolm Kayes speak from 1 Samuel 25 about David, Nabal and Abigail as models of how we respond to events, and found it so helpful I want to recap it here:

“I don’t suffer fools gladly…”

Rather sadly, Nabal’s parents had named him ‘fool’, for that is what Nabal means. Even more sadly, Nabal lived up to his name. He clearly had ability, as he had managed to accumulate considerable wealth, but he was not a popular or pleasant man. David and his men had kept guard over Nabal’s shepherds when they were out in the wilds with their flocks, but Nabal had no interest in showing reciprocal respect towards David. Nabal was the kind of man who says, “I’m not going to help him – I’ve worked for what I’ve got. Why should I help that waster? Let him go and get a proper job.”

When David’s request for help came, Nabal told him to get lost.

“I don’t deserve to be treated like that…”

David was not the kind of man to take an insult lying down. He tells his men to strap on their swords, and marches off to slit Nabal’s throat. David felt complete justification about this – Nabal had it coming.

It is interesting that this story comes immediately after the account of David sparing Saul’s life. When David had Saul at his mercy he did not lay a finger on him, and was even consumed with guilt at cutting off a corner of Saul’s robe. But an insult from Nabal and David is ready to start a slaughter.

Sometimes it is easier to respond righteously in the face of the big test than it is to a smaller test. We might behave with nobility when something huge happens to us, but then fly off the handle at the smaller stuff. This is like the man who handles redundancy with dignity, but then gets into a fury when another driver cuts him up. What it reveals is that there is some heart work that still needs to be done.

“I’ll respond with grace…”

In contrast to the foolish Nabal and the hot-heated David, Abigail is a model of gracious action. She compensates for her husbands arrogant folly by making arrangements for David to receive a generous gift; she prevents David from taking the law into his own hands and becoming guilty of shedding blood by flattering and charming him.

Not only does Abigail respond to a very difficult situation with incredible wisdom, but she acts selflessly. It is easy to imagine that the prospect of David chopping off Nabal’s head might be attractive to Abigail. It could be her way out of what was probably a pretty ugly marriage. But she doesn’t do this. Even when she gets back home from placating David, Abigail finds things worse rather than better with Nabal drunk and disorderly. But rather than look for a way out of a difficult situation Abigail remains faithful.

How do you handle it?

Each of us has the potential to act like Nabal – to be selfish and thoughtless and foolish. In our different ways we can find ourselves looking down on other people and making wrong judgements about them.

Each of us also has the potential to act like David – taking hot-headed exception to the sleights (real or imagined) that others throw our way.

Abigail is a better model of godly response here. Rather than fighting her own corner or running away in fear, she faces a difficult situation head on and makes wise choices that result in a good outcome. Abigail is a wonderful example of how to handle a handling. May we go and do likewise.

Lessons Learnt

2011-11-07T13:53:00.000Z

After ten days in South Africa I am shortly to head for Johannesburg airport, and the long flight home. I came to learn, and I’ve learnt a lot. Here are my ‘big five’ observations…

1. I still love South Africa! It is always a joy to come here – the people, the landscapes, the sunshine – this is a remarkable country.

2. It is good to remain optimistic. There are a lot of potential threats to the future stability and prosperity of South Africa, from global economics, to HIV-Aids, to firebrand politicians, yet the nation as a whole seems to be getting on pretty well and there are many encouraging things happening. In the UK we tend to hear about the high crime levels and other problems of South Africa, but the generosity of South Africans can be remarkable. An example: the many streets still named after, and statues still standing in commemoration of, Afrikaner heroes of old. That’s just not how things are in most ‘liberated’ nations.

3. PJ Smyth is a remarkable leader. There’s no news there, but it has been fascinating being at Godfirst Church and seeing the outworking of PJ’s leadership gift.

4. The multisite model is working exceptionally well here. The things I like about it are:

· The benefits of ‘localization’ and ‘centralization’ are plain. Individual site leaders really do lead and pastor their churches, with a team of elders working together in the mission. There is genuine empowerment of these leaders, and they have genuine freedom to contextualise for their setting and significant autonomy in much of how they run their sites – including some of the biggies such as finance. Yet at the same time the benefits of being one team, with big team resources means that each site and its leaders packs a far greater punch and has far greater momentum at their backs than they would if they were out on their own.

· There is a real ‘band of brothers’ feel to the site leaders team here. The sense of commitment to one another and the overall mission of Godfirst is tangible. Respect for and willingness to follow PJ is clear. But these are not yes men – they are ready to disagree with one another, and push back on areas that need to be debated. This robust camaraderie is very impressive.

· The commitment to mission as being the sine qua non of Godfirst is very clarifying. This is made explicit in the Godfirst site leaders handbook: I believe that the primary role of church is mission. Without a biblical clarity of the primary purpose of the church, the measure of ‘true church’ becomes the aspect of church that a person is most passionate about. I am certain that biblically there is only one contender for the top spot – mission.

· Multisite means that Godfirst is incredibly diverse, yet able to focus on reaching culturally distinct communities. For example, yesterday morning I preached at Rosebank, which felt very much like being at home in Gateway – a range of ages, and some ethnic diversity. In the evening, I preached at Wits, which was almost entirely composed of young, black, students. The vibe between the two sites was very different, yet the fact that they are both expressions of the same church rather than of different churches was clear. I love that!

· This unity in diversity also means that Godfirst is able to work out something of an Acts 2:42-47 dynamic, with wealthier communities blessing and serving poorer ones. Working out how to handle finance in a nation with the inequalities and history of South Africa is a challenge that should not be underestimated – multisite is providing a good vehicle for Godfirst to navigate these complicated issues.

· The resources generated by a big church allow PJ and team to set an expectation of high standards and to release specialised gifting, but to work this out at a local level so that the church doesn’t feel in anyway impersonal, or out of touch.

· All of the above points put together mean that the concerns many have about multisite (and which I share) do not seem to be an issue here. That is quite an achievement.

5. God is faithful! I spoke on the faithfulness of God while at Jubilee Community Church and I have really felt the faithfulness of God on this trip. Last night at Wits I was completely undone as soon as we began to worship. In 1988 I landed in Swaziland, a rebellious and gauche 18 year-old. I would never have dreamt that 23 years later I would get to worship with – and preach to – 250 fantastic, passionate students in a democratic and exciting South Africa. God has been very faithful to me.

Keep on Learning

2011-10-28T10:46:00.002+01:00

When I was about six years old my school diagnosed me as being ‘educationally sub-normal’ (a less politically correct term for what is now labelled ‘special needs’). After a few one-on-one lessons with the headmistress (during which I demonstrated a technique for observing the way that snails propel themselves and created an elaborate full-size painting of a native American chief, complete with headdress made from real feathers), they realized I was not ESN, but simply bored.

Not that they did much to alleviate my boredom.

A year or so later I remember ‘sneaky-reading’ a book about a grizzly bear. It was a more difficult book than I was supposed to be able to read and I imagined that I would get into trouble if caught reading it; so I would sneak it out of a friends tray when no-one was looking and read a chapter or two before sneaking it back again.

Madness.

I was interested in snails and red indians and bears. I wasn’t interested in most of what school was attempting to teach me – and would probably have learnt more (and certainly been happier) had I been allowed to stay at home and collect lizards and build dens in the patch of waste ground at the top of our road.

Despite these early educational frustrations, I have always been interested in learning, just so long as it is something that I have an interest in.

Today I travel to South Africa and to two churches that have been formative in my learning about Jesus and his plan for his Church. Jubilee Church in Cape Town is where I came back to faith after two years of teenage wandering, and where I began to learn about ministry to the poor and to observe church leadership in a different way from how I had previously. I’m looking forward to being back there, and preaching there for the first time. Godfirst Church in Johannesburg is the only megachurch where I personally know the lead elder, and PJ Smyth is someone who knows more about leadership than I will ever be able to grasp. As well as teaching and preaching in a number of settings while there I’m excited about the opportunity to pick PJ’s brains again.

I’m looking forward to learning lots on this trip – I don’t want to be spiritually ESN!

Nothing Doing

2011-10-25T22:00:00.000+01:00

Sometimes deliberate inaction is a leaders best policy, and one that I can't help thinking David Cameron should have followed over yesterdays vote on a European referendum. By making the vote (which wouldn't in any case have bound the Government to holding a referendum) a three line whip, the Prime Minister provoked a confrontation with his backbenchers that he needn't have had. He may claim that, "There's no, on my part, no bad blood, no rancour, no bitterness," but this is difficult to believe when prior to the vote all MPs were warned that defying the whip would mean an end to any hopes of promotion. A wiser course for the Government might have been to ignore the debate and underplay it as much as possible - rather than exacerbate the entrenched Euro-tensions in the Conservative Party.

Sometimes it's best to walk away from a fight, rather than face it up. But choosing when to do so is tricky.

Church leaders often face these kind of dilemmas too. Inaction and passivity are fatal to a leaders credibility and authority, but picking the wrong battle can be equally undermining. David Cameron is weaker rather than stronger today because of how yesterday played out. That's a mistake not to make.

Preacher/Politician?

2011-09-22T14:11:00.002+01:00

It’s party conference season in the UK – Lib-Dems this week, Labour next, and the Tories the week after that. Only the most devoted political junkie can actively enjoy these events. For most of the rest of us they pass by with a mixture of indifference and embarrassment. For me, it is largely embarrassment.

Footage from the conferences seem largely to reveal an audience who do not contain many people I would willingly choose to be trapped in a lift with; and the speeches themselves are often toe-curling. It is difficult to hear anything beyond cliché and self-satisfaction. And the big speeches are now so tightly scripted and choreographed that the attempts at humour and the common touch feel patronizing and contrived.

I think my embarrassment is heightened by the fact that I am a preacher, and regularly stand up and speak in front of a crowd of people. My worst nightmare is to end up sounding like a politician at a party conference.

This Sunday is ‘Vision Sunday’ at Gateway, when I give some review of the past year, and try to paint a picture of what we are working towards over the next twelve months. The worst thing I could do on Sunday is make a politicians speech – but that is all too easy for a preacher to do, and I’ve heard enough preachers do it. Part of the problem is that politicians tend to borrow preachers language, because what politicians are attempting to persuade their hearers is that they offer the way to salvation. This means that most politicians are Pelagians, saying that if only everything was a little bit better, if only everything was done a little more as they liked it, then everyone would live in the promised land.

In order to not end up as a preacher who sounds like a politician aping a preacher, the preacher of the gospel mustn’t be a Pelagian!

The chasm-wide difference between the gospel preacher and the politician is the gospel. Rather than offering salvation through a particular program, the gospel preacher is charged with opening up and applying the Word of God. What we must preach is that apart from Christ there is no salvation, and that without him even the best programs – no matter how worthy – will never bring us to utopia. As preachers, we must have a vision, but that vision is founded in Christ, not in ourselves. And that means the message we preach is very different from a politicians speech.

A LITTLE LEAVEN

2011-09-20T13:26:00.001+01:00

Have you seen this clip of Mark Dever, Matt Chandler and James MacDonald talking about some of their preaching gaffs?

Preaching Goofs from The Gospel Coalition on Vimeo.

It's interesting that the guys say illustrations about sport often come off badly. This is certainly my experience - in the UK there can be an assumption by football fans that everyone likes football and will relate to a football illustration. But most people (in absolute terms) are actually not that interested in football, and tend to be immediately alienated by footballing illustrations.

Illustrations, period, are fraught with danger.

I tend not to use many illustrations in my preaching. Partly this is because it is just not a style that comes naturally to me, but it also reflects a concern expressed by Martyn Lloyd-Jones in 'Preaching and Preachers' - that illustrations can be merely distracting. Often we can come away from a sermon thinking, 'that was an amazing sermon' when in fact it was a talk with some very captivating illustrations. If I then remember only the illustration, and not the point of the sermon, well, I may as well have stayed home and watched TV.

It is interesting that when Jesus used illustrations it was always in the form of a story, which helped to cement the point in his hearers thinking. For example, this morning I was reading Luke 7, in which Jesus tells the story of two debtors:

"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly."

Now that is an illustration, but it is one that completely underscores the point, and ensures the point is memorable. Which is very different from the kinds of illustrations I have heard which tell me a lot more about the preacher than they do about Jesus.

Preachers can spend a long time thinking of the perfect illustration. Or - worse - build their whole sermon around an illustration they have found that is such a good illustration it just has to be told. Better, I think, to worry less about whether the congregation considers us entertaining, and more about whether we are actually preaching Christ. If we're not doing that, even the best illustration is simply a preachers gaff.

Christian Cliché

2011-07-21T15:25:00.000+01:00

An amusing post (HT: Justin Taylor) from the her.meneutics blog on the use of Christian clichés – with particular ire towards the word “bride” used to describe one’s wife. (I think this is probably an example of Driscoll-ese seeping into Christian linguistics, and one that I, too, find highly irritating.)

But the use of cliché is hard to avoid. In the just finished series of The Apprentice there was a beautiful moment when cliché user par excellence Jim was asked to describe himself without using a cliché. Check out his response…

Finding ways to communicate that have the pith of a cliché, but are not themselves clichéd is a skill that the best communicators have. As this years epic (there it is) Tour de France draws to a close in the Alps, there has been much talk about how, “to win, you must suffer.” That is true, and it is a cliché. Those riders really do suffer, and the ones who suffer most are the ones who win. One who knows how to suffer as well as anyone is Jens Voigt. The oldest man in the race (an ancient 40) Voigt throws his body on the line again and again (there it is). In one Pyrenean stage last week he crashed twice, but still scraped himself off the tarmac and fought his way to the front of the peloton in order to help his team leader in the fight up the hill. The man is a legend (there it is), and talks about suffering in a way that is humorous, and avoids cliché.

When I am back from holiday in August one of my tasks will be looking at our preaching calendar for the next twelve months; as I guess many preachers will be doing. What a joy, and what a responsibility. Let’s make it our aim to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly and pithily, and not to get lazy and fall back into cliché. The gospel is worth more than that.

Keeping an Even Keel

2011-06-30T15:02:00.000+01:00

Earlier this week I spent 48 hours on a yachting trip from Poole to Alderney (and back again!), on a boat skippered by Rick Ganly from Apex Church in the Isle of Wight. I’ve never sailed before, and it was a fantastic experience. Ten of us from Gateway went on the trip and I can thoroughly recommend it. Rick runs the boat with the aim of serving church groups, and if this is something that appeals to you there is more information available here.

Seas and boats feature frequently in the Bible, and I have often heard people use nautical illustrations to make a spiritual point. One that I have used myself on more than one occasion is to compare the Christian’s life to a sailboat, with a similar need to keep our sails trimmed to the wind – in the believers case, to the wind of God’s Spirit.

What I hadn’t appreciated, however, is that trimming the sails actually involves tying them into place. With a favourable wind, the angle of the sails is set, and away you go: We made it all the way from Alderney to Poole with only very minor amounts of adjustment to the ropes tensioning the sails. So perhaps the spiritual analogy is even more apposite than I had realized – after all, God’s Spirit is always at work, so what we need to do is set our sails right and not keep fiddling with the ropes.

When the sails are set, all that is needed to keep the boat on course is control of the rudder, and a compass to steer by. A spiritual analogy might see these elements as the basic doctrines of our faith – reliable truth that will guide us home. The key thing, though, is the keel. Without a keel, the boat would just fall on its side. It is the keel that keeps the boat moving in response to the wind in the sails and the turning of the rudder, rather than the whole thing ending in an ugly mess. Rick described times that he has been in a boat that has been knocked flat in a storm but the keel always brings it back up again.

Perhaps, then, it is the analogy of the keel that is most useful to us Christians – and especially those of us who lead. It is what you have below the waterline – unseen – that really counts. Sometimes life is fair winds and good seas; at other times it is squalls, storms and hurricanes. But whatever the situation it is the keel of the boat that keeps things moving. Our yacht drew a lot of attention when it came into Poole quay, because it was beautiful and impressive – but no-one was commenting on its keel. A leaders life is a lot like that – people notice and comment on what is visible, but it is our hidden life that really counts.

So rather than asking about how much wind there is in our sails, maybe we should more often enquire of one another how much depth there is to our keels.

Piper Meets Warren

2011-06-11T16:22:00.000+01:00

I guess anyone who looks at this blog has already watched the video of John Piper interviewing Rick Warren - but just in case you haven't, here it is...

I have been watching it in instalments over the past couple of weeks, and just finished it. I think it is fascinating, and moving, and totally inspirational. These are two mighty men.

It has also made me think about whether we should go through The Purpose Driven Life at Gateway...

Driscoll, Holmes, and One Member One Vote

2011-05-25T16:31:00.001+01:00

In a recent post, Baptist minister and theology lecturer Steve Holmes offers a response to a talk given by Mark Driscoll in Belfast offering his views on congregational government and missional church life (HT The Simple Pastor). Holmes’ response is interesting to me on at least a couple of levels – firstly, I have spent the past few days immersed in preparing some teaching I am giving next month on ecclesiology, which of course includes looking at different models of church government. Secondly, while the church I lead finds its primary connection with Newfrontiers, we are also part of the Baptist Union of Great Britain, and the way we govern ourselves bears some reflection of that fact.

I have reproduced Holmes’ post in full (in italics), with my response inserted…

1. This is an off-the-cuff response at a Q&A session; we should not treat it as his considered and final word on the subject. That said, Mars Hill have chosen to make the MP3 available; the comments are published, with no rider to the effect that ‘I wasn’t sure about how well I handled that one,’ so they are fair game for discussion and response.

Fair enough – I haven’t listened to it myself, but having heard Driscoll speak on these matters a few times have a good idea of what he might have said.

2. The most astonishing and worrying thing about the comments is that they are entirely pragmatic. Faced with the question of the most appropriate mode of church government, Driscoll’s response is not to turn to the Bible, or to think theologically about what God calls the local church to be, but to ask what works (where ‘works’ is defined as adding numbers to one particular local congregation, with no consideration of the edification of the saints, the transformation of society, or the wider mission of the church). As a convinced congregationalist, when it comes to church government, my fundamental response to Driscoll’s comments is indifference tinged with sadness. Indifference, because we are called to be faithful, not successful; sadness because someone who commands a great deal of attention as a Christian pastor could be so publicly negligent of Scripture and theology.

Anyone who has spent any length of time listening to Driscoll knows that he does not normally shy away from quoting scripture! To draw the conclusion from this one session that Driscoll is “publicly negligent of Scripture and theology” is disingenuous, to say the least. It might also be noted that Holmes doesn’t exactly go overboard in offering scriptural references in defense of his position in this post. Holmes also makes the classic mistake of presenting success and faithfulness as opposites, with the implication that growing large churches is somehow unfaithful – which is a straw man argument.

3. It is apparent that Driscoll has not troubled to understand congregational government before criticising it. He repeatedly characterises congregational government as if it were an exercise in democracy: ‘everyone gets a vote’; this is a fundamental misunderstanding: congregationalism takes its stand on the Lordship of Jesus in the local congregation. (Tolmie entitled his chapter on the rise of Independency in London in the 1640s ‘King Jesus’.) Because we experience the present Lordship of Jesus, and covenant together to follow only Him, we eschew any who would call themselves a leader in the congregation as simply and precisely an anti-Christ. Of course, there could then be a debate – the only worthwhile debate about church government – concerning how the congregation hears the urgent and present call of Christ: is it through hierarchy, even male-only hierarchy, or does Christ dwell with all His people, and speak through each, as He shall choose? Driscoll does not even mention the call of Christ on His local congregation.

Which is Holmes making any number of assumptions! How does he know that Driscoll does not understand congregational government? Perhaps Driscoll understands it very well, but is criticizing congregational government as it so often is in practice, rather than in theory? In theory it may well be “Christ in the midst” but in practice it is more often “everyone gets a vote.” Which is why countless Baptist ministers have been chewed up and spat out and wrecked for further fruitful ministry by their treatment at the hands of church business meetings.

Also, to “eschew any who would call themselves a leader in the congregation” is to ignore the many biblical instructions and examples about leadership. Biblically, leadership is a gift from Christ to his church, not anti-Christ.

4. Which leads on to a crucial theological consequence of congregational government. Congregational government assumes and insists that all believers are equally competent, or equally incompetent, when it comes to knowing the mind of Christ. Driscoll mocks congregationalism on the basis that someone who knows nothing about a subject is given a vote. Absolutely, because the question in hand is never ‘What do I think the best thing to do about this is?’ but always ‘What is the call of the Lord Jesus to this people in this situation?’ A question we are all, of course, incompetent to answer – but the Lord Jesus has poured out His Spirit, and so sons and daughters prophesy, the young see visions and the old dream dreams – even slaves, male and female, refused any part in the decision-making process by the culture around, are given the Spirit and so can hear the voice of the Lord calling His church.

Which is the nub of the problem with congregational government! Paul’s defense of his ministry is grounded in the fact that Christ has made the apostles competent as ministers of a new covenant (2 Cor 3). Leadership is given to the church in order to lead it competently, which is why Paul left Titus in Crete, to appoint elders in every town, who would oversee the churches (Titus 1:5-7). It is why Jesus gives spiritual gifts of administration (1 Cor 12:28 – better translated as “helmsman”, i.e., a steering leadership gift) and why those with gifts of leadership are urged to be zealous in their leadership (Rom 12:8). It is why the scripture instructs us that leadership gifts are given in order that the church might be built up and made mature (Eph 4:12). Clearly some people do have greater maturity, gift, and competence, to make decisions than others.

What then is so often missing in discussion of church government is the significance of being charismatic. In a church that believes in and practices the spiritual gifts there can be clear spiritual authority in a church, and also the “voice of the Lord calling His church” – because everyone (“even slaves, male and female”) is able to contribute. Anyone can bring a prophetic word, which is then weighed by the whole congregation – which to me seems much more in line with the NT instructions about congregational guidance and decision making than the typical Baptist business meeting. If this is what Holmes is driving for, then well and good!

5. Driscoll claims that congregational government is impossible in a congregation of over 200. This is of course, as he must know, simple rubbish – there are many congregational churches significantly larger than this, and if he can’t imagine how that could work, well, the limits of his imagination are not interesting data. It may be, however, that there is a practical upper limit for a properly-functioning congregationalism; suppose it was 200, what of it? There is neither example of nor command for a congregation larger than this in the New Testament; megachurches may feed the founding pastor’s ego, and further his/her reputation, but it is not clear at all that they are especially successful in feeding Christ’s sheep, or in furthering Christ’s mission. Perhaps every congregation should, on reaching a certain number of members, plant out, or divide itself, because this is a part of the call to be faithful to Christ? If that were so, it would not be an argument that Christ’s call is wrong or misdirected.

Well, there is a whole load of unsupported argument, and not a little mud-slinging here! There is the obviously erroneous statement: “There is neither example of nor command for a congregation larger than this in the New Testament” Jerusalem? 3,000? There is the assumption that megachurches are about feeding ego – when the sad evidence is all too clear that ministerial pride is not limited to any particular size of congregation.

I agree that there are strong arguments for congregations staying at below 200 members, and this is reflected in the strategy we are pursuing at Gateway – but this number is as much a pragmatic observation as a theological given. And the reality is that there are certain exceptional men – like Driscoll – who will grow churches of thousands simply because that is what they have received grace to do.

So, all in all, I feel that Holmes has given us a fairly poorly argued piece here. In fairness to him, however, a subsequent post makes a helpful case for Baptist business meetings stopping the practice of voting; although what should replace this is not made clear, if the church is still to be governed congregationally. (As argued above, I think the best solution to this is to be genuinely charismatic.) Also, as a push back against some of my friends, I don’t think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater on voting – my experience of recent members meetings has been that it can be a spiritually very powerful moment when the church members affirm together a particular course of action.

There are strong biblical arguments to be made for congregationalism, as there are for presbyterianism - and a hybrid of the two is the reality of the manner in which many of us minister. Ironically, episcopalianism has the weakest biblical case to make in its defense, yet has been the dominant system of church government these past 2,000 years.

Odd.

Celebrity Christians

2011-05-12T16:23:00.000+01:00

Over on the Ref21 blog a few weeks back Carl Trueman posted a short series on Christian celebrity, which ruffled some feathers. (The series starts here)

I felt Trueman landed some good punches in this sequence, but was also off target in a few places. For instance, this suggestion is an interesting one:

Market conferences on the basis of content not speakers. Send a clear signal - from the design of the webpage to the wording of the fliers - that it is what is to be said, not who is saying it, that is important. Indeed, maybe one could be really radical: do not even let people know who is speaking; just tell them the titles of the talks. "Ah, but then no-one will come!", you say. Well, if that is true, then the case for saying that conferences are all about idolising celebrities would seem to be irrefutable. For me, I believe many people would still attend. They will want the encouragement and the fellowship and the battery recharging. If your organization has a reputation for excellence, people will know that you will have assembled a great team even if you do not tell them the names.

Where I think Trueman is off target here is in failing to see the importance of names. Firstly, if “your organization has a reputation for excellence” that means your organization has a name and people attend because of the name. And the name it has will be because of the names associated with it. Why do people go to Acts29 conferences? Because they like Mark Driscoll. Willow Creek conferences? Because they like Bill Hybels. Newfrontiers conferences? Because they like Terry Virgo. And so on.

Secondly, we should not overlook the fact that the Bible is a book of names – hundreds and hundreds of them. Clearly names are important to God, and the name that someone has is important. The way we know someone is by their name – not only a label of, “this is Mr S-and-So” but “the person known by this name represents this.” So I don’t see the problem in going to a conference because of the names that are there – the names represent something.

However, the promo video that has just been released for next years Together for the Gospel conference got me thinking that Trueman might be right in some important respects.

In this video there is no reference to content whatsoever. It is all about the names. They are good names – names I would like to hear preach, and have heard preach, and whose books I have read, and blogs I have followed. But it does seem a little odd – when you think about it – that we so value name over content.

Perhaps we do have a celebrity problem? Perhaps we are getting a little too Corinthian?

More Multi Thoughts (that keep multiplying!)

2011-05-04T12:30:00.000+01:00

It’s been quiet on this blog for a while, but I thought I’d post some more thoughts about multi, as it seems to be a hot topic at the moment. The other day Mark Driscoll linked to a video in which he, Mark Dever and James MacDonald debate multi, and it is getting a lot of views.

I guess everyone knows who Driscoll is, but may not know the other two. Dever is pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, and leads the 9Marks organisation, which is well worth checking out. It may just have been the editing, but Dever gets rather squeezed out by the more voluble Driscoll & MacDonald in this video, which is a shame, as he has at least as many interesting things to say. I wasn’t familiar with MacDonald until I heard him speak at the Gospel Coalition conference a couple of weeks back, but he is pastor of a Chicago megachurch.

[A digression: A few people have asked why I reacted to a tweet that Driscoll had put out linking to a post by MacDonald on the Royal Wedding, so let me explain myself…

Basically, I thought it was ignorant and graceless. Now, I’m not above posting ignorant and graceless things myself, but I think both my readers can cope with this (hello mum!) whereas MacDonald clearly has a massive audience/influence. (And anyhow, it’s always much easier to see the ignorance and gracelessness in others than in oneself.) I am not exactly a defender of Anglicanism, but MacDonald was just way out of line (historically, as well as in tone) in some of his comments and I didn’t think the post did him or Driscoll any credit. The bio on MacDonald’s blog says, “James is down on cranky, cheerless Christians,” and in this case that definitely felt like pots & kettles. But perhaps I’m just being ignorant and graceless again…]

If you haven’t seen the video yet, here it is:

Multiple Sites: Yea or Nay? Dever, Driscoll, and MacDonald Vote from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

A few observations:

1. Contrary to what Driscoll/Macdonald say, most churches won’t be multi-site and shouldn’t be multi-site. Why? Because most church leaders do not have the leadership skills to run such an organisation. Most churches will level out at ±150 people because that is the size that human organizations tend to level out at, and the size that most pastors can handle.

I am personally a fan of multi, have been thinking about how to do it for five years or so, and believe it is the right way for us to go at Gateway – so I am in no way down on the concept, but do think we need some healthy doses of reality. Even building a church of 500 people is very difficult (certainly in the UK). I have now been leading churches for 10 years and haven’t managed it yet, and there are plenty of men with longer ministries and more impressive resumes than me who haven’t managed it either.

2. As Tim Keller observed at the Gospel Coalition conference, “Video preaching isn’t a sin, but it’s not a great trend.” Why? Because generally preaching should involve face to face interaction with the congregation and a response to what the Spirit is doing right there, right then.

Now I know and understand the arguments that in larger churches where a live preacher is augmented by a video image people end up watching the screen rather than the man anyway. But that is hardly a great apologetic for video preaching! It’s like saying, “In supermarkets, there’s chocolate by the till, and people buy it – therefore we should give people more chocolate.” Maybe, instead, we need to ask some socio-theological questions about our addiction to screens.

Of course a well produced video of a good preacher is going to ‘work’ in a service. But there are still some questions we should ask about this working.

Also, video preaching is only really going to work where the preacher is especially good. The likes of Driscoll and MacDonald (and Dever) are exceptional in their gifts. Most of us are far more run of the mill. Making models of the exceptions is usually a bad idea. Some, uniquely gifted guys (who are more ‘apostolic’ than ‘pastoral’ anyway) will make video work well. Most of us couldn’t.

3. There are other possible ways of doing multi than using video, or having one speaker who tears from venue to venue. (Which is another model that causes me theological/philosophical problems as it seems to often mean that the preacher is never part of the worshipping congregation, responding to what God is doing there, but rather a kind of actor who pops up to do a turn.)

One of the connections I most enjoyed making while in Chicago was with a pastor from Newlife Community Church, who are doing multi in a way which is much closer to what I would like to do at Gateway. They’ve got a really inspiring video here.

In Poole/Bournemouth I think multi can work, with fairly small congregations (around the ±150 mark), led and shepherded by local elders, who also preach regularly to their own congregations, but where this eldership is joined together in one elder team. This team would prepare sermons together, and preach the same passage/topic each week, but it would be a team of preachers doing it, who know and love their people, rather than one guy on a video, or chauffeured in.

Of course, this is still at the dream stage for us, but I’m convinced it’s where we should be heading.

So, in conclusion, my urging would be that if you are thinking about multi, then great! But do really think about it! It might not be right for you, period. And how Driscoll or MacDonald do it almost certainly isn’t right for you – and I hope I’m not being ignorant and graceless in saying so.

A Sticky Message

2011-02-15T19:16:00.000Z

Yesterday Prime Minister David Cameron tried to relaunch ‘the big society’. This concept has taken a bit of a hammering over the past couple of weeks, and it is easy to be cynical. Regular readers will know that I try to avoid making party political points, but as a Christian, the big society seems a bit of a no-brainer – after all, it is what we do! Even in my little church we have a parents & toddlers group, children’s work and youth work, a group that works with the elderly and another that works with adults with special needs. And that is not to mention all the unstructured ‘community work’ that goes on in a church, of mutual care and support.

I understand why political opponents of the Tories should jump on apparent inconsistencies in the big society program, but it seems to me that many of those involved behind the scenes in this initiative are motivated more by their faith than by party politics or ideology. One such is Nat Wei, who has been taking a hammering from the media. It isn’t edifying, but take a look at the extraordinarily bitchy comments made about Lord Wei at the end of this report on him in London’s Evening Standard. Apparently some people are just too hard bitten to believe that someone like Wei might be motivated by an unusually high commitment to helping the disadvantaged, and possess unusually high abilities which qualify him for the role.

The main problem in communicating the big society has been precisely that – communication; a problem that Cameron tried to overcome yesterday. For some reason, the ideas he’s been wanting to get across have just not been ‘sticky’. Perhaps it requires someone more politically neutral to do this communicating, otherwise it too easily starts to look party political. Either way, without a greater degree of stickiness, the big society will never get off the ground.

Those of us who are church leaders face similar challenges to David Cameron. Often things that we feel passionately about, and we believe to be of fundamental importance, produce only indifference or cynicism in our audience. Under such circumstances it is always a comfort to be reminded that Jesus’ message was often far from sticky too – at times it was more like Teflon, with the disenchanted crowds slipping away from him.

The key thing is that we stay true ourselves to those things that have real value. In the end we need to stick to Jesus, because he has the words of eternal life (John 6:68).

MacArthur vs Patrick: It's All About Context

2011-01-26T09:38:00.000Z

John MacArthur’s recent criticism of Darrin Patrick has caused a minor stir in the blogosphere. British readers may not be particularly aware of either character – MacArthur is something of an American John Stott while Patrick is part of the Mark Driscoll crowd. I have never read anything of MacArthur’s, but I have been to Patrick’s church, and he was kind enough to once contribute to this blog, but I do not know him in any way.

So what interests me about this spat is not so much the characters involved but the way the argument evolved, which centres around MacArthur criticising the following statement in Patrick’s book, Church Planter:

One of the common errors of young men who surrender to ministry is to simply adopt the model of a church that they have experienced or idolized. A similar mistake is to blindly accept the ministry philosophy and practice of a ministry hero. The man who is experiencing head confirmation is thoughtful about his own philosophy of ministry, his own ministry style, his own theological beliefs, his own unique gifts, abilities, and desires. In short, there is uniqueness to the way he wants to do ministry.

Now, when I read that it is immediately obvious to me that Patrick is warning young men not to simply ape the ministry mega-stars. He is saying that every man needs to work out the issues himself, and not just copy a Driscoll or Piper or whoever. (This is a point that Patrick clarifies in his response to MacArthur.) Coming from my context that is how I automatically read Patrick’s statement, because I often see young guys who just seem to be imprints of whoever their favourite ministry guru happens to be.

However, MacArthur took exception to this statement, as he read it as saying that a man called to ministry should create his own theology, disregarding normal scriptural and ecclesiological principles. When I hear MacArthur say that, I can understand why he says it, because coming from his context his concern is about young guys who are individualistic and not theologically well formed.

So the issue here is actually one of context. MacArthur completely misread Patrick because of his context. (Which is ironic when MacArthur’s ministry has been built on preaching through the Bible verse by verse and seeking to be true to the context of the text!) And the warning to us all is that even the best of us can easily make interpretive mistakes because our context so often determines the way we see, hear, and read information.

Darrin Patrick has made a very gracious response to Dr MacArthur, and I hope the two of them are able to meet and gain a clearer understanding of one another. I hope their contexts become less a reason for confusion and more an opportunity for increased appreciation. And maybe all of us can learn to be a little more careful in how we are hearing people before we speak publicly of them.

Church Unity

2011-01-20T19:02:00.000Z

Does this sound familiar? In any typical week I will get a pile of invites from people wanting Gateway Church to get involved in their project or attend their event. A pastor friend writes,

I've got good relationships with the other ministers in town, but there is a strange view of ecumenism/unity in the churches here that if we work at doing stuff together and understanding one another then everything in the world will be lovely. That's a little tongue-in-cheek, but you know what I mean.

There is clearly a theology of unity and blessing that underpins this. I find the constant pressure to take part in things that in my view are fruitless missionally, and the subsequent perspective that we do not value or desire unity, very frustrating.

There is a lot to unpack here, but my response would be something along the following lines:

1. The starting point would be how we understand the sovereignty of God. For example, we could turn the question around and ask it this way, "Are you saying that if we don't jump onboard with this that God will keep his blessing from the town? Is that really your view of how God works?" Asking the question this way can help demonstrate how a simplistic reading of “How good it is when brothers dwell together in unity” is an inadequate way to develop a theology of God’s sovereignty and blessing.

2. We should also be theologically convinced that when Jesus prayed in his high priestly prayer that “they might all be one” this was accomplished through the work of the cross. All believers are one because we are all united with and in Christ. There then needs to be some visible outworking of this, but I think often we concentrate far too much on the “there are so many denominations and different churches which is a sign of our division” and not enough on “we were all baptised by one Spirit into one body” – our oneness is already real in Christ, and we don’t all need to be working on the same projects to prove it.

3. When discussing these type of issues I often use the analogy of a human family, saying something like, "We want people in other families to be blessed, and we often have other people in our homes and visit other people in theirs, but at the end of the day, Grace & I are primarily responsible to and for one another and for our kids. It’s a bit like that with churches – we want to bless every other Jesus loving, gospel preaching church in town, and will sometimes do things with them, but God has given me a responsibility for this family, and that means we can't always do everything that everyone else is doing." This naturally leads to a discussion about the nature and role of elders in the church, and the loyalty and commitment of church members to the church they are part of.

4. Following on from this I would want to explain that, "We are not here primarily to do projects – there are specific things we value and specific things we feel called to do. In faithfulness to God we want to be faithful to those things." This then begs the question about the existence of your church – in the end we have to say, "We believe we have a unique contribution to make here." If this is not the case you should just shut down and go join another church!

5. This sense of unique contribution then leads to saying, "It is important for us that we are focused on what we are doing, otherwise we might just bounce from thing to thing without actually achieving much." Those churches that are being obviously fruitful tend to be those churches which are obviously focussed and purposeful in what they are doing.

6. Of course, a problem with being focussed is that this focus can get misinterpreted as exclusivity. In part this just has to be toughed out, but there is also some leadership wisdom that has to be shown in making it clear our desire is to bless other people, while not having our time and energy diverted by everything they would like us to get involved in.

7. Finally, this is an area that church leaders can easily be emotionally bullied over and made to feel guilty about – in which case we need to remember that we are under grace not law, and that we are ultimately answerable to Jesus, not to men.

What’s your experience? What so you do with all those invites that end up on your desk?

Staying Put

2011-01-06T11:59:00.000Z

There is often an expectation/pressure on pastors to move on from their current church. In some traditions this can be because this is what is traditional; in the group of churches of which I am part it can be because of our emphasis on church planting. However, there are many good reasons for staying put, as described in this article from the latest 9Marks eJournal:

By Jeramie Rinne

On September 22, 1967, Dr. Raymond Edman, then retired president of Wheaton College, was preaching at Wheaton’s chapel when he suddenly collapsed and died in the pulpit. Amazingly, his sermon was entitled “In the Presence of the King.” I’ve sometimes thought that if I could choose my end as a pastor, it would be to die in a pulpit like Dr. Edman, proclaiming God’s Word with my last breath.

THIS PREACHER’S DEATH WISH

However, today I would like to amend that death wish. At the risk of sounding morbid, I would be more specific. I would choose to die not just in any pulpit, but preaching in my currentpulpit at South Shore Baptist Church in Hingham, Massachusetts.

By God’s grace, I’ve had the privilege of serving SSBC as the senior pastor since September, 1997. After more than a decade here, I increasingly see the value of long-term ministry in one church, and I increasingly want to stay.

WHY STAY AT YOUR CHURCH?

Sadly, extended pastorates are uncommon. Various statistics place the average pastoral tenure at anywhere from two to six years. While God uses every gospel ministry for his glory, regardless of its length, I’m discovering that some blessings and opportunities to glorify God come only with time. Consider a few with me:

Staying increasingly reflects the glory of God's faithfulness

First, staying increasingly reflects the glory of God’s faithfulness.

Under-shepherds model the Good Shepherd’s devotion to a flock by staying with them and ministering to them year after year. When we persevere with a congregation, we present a dim yet tangible reflection of our covenant-keeping God who never leaves us nor forsakes us.

I think for instance of the impact this has had on children in the church. After 13 years I’m seeing students whom I taught in our children’s ministry now graduating from high school. These kids (and we adults) inhabit a consumeristic culture where transience, lack of commitment, and personal fulfillment overshadow every sphere of life, from jobs to marriages to churches. What a gift for them to grow up in a church where they find not only an unchanging gospel, but also a steadfast minister who proclaims that gospel and in some small way exemplifies its permanence.

A college freshman who grew up at SSBC recently shared his sense of calling to pastoral ministry. As he told his story, he referenced my faithfulness to expository preaching as a factor contributing to his love for the Word and vision of pastoral ministry. I was profoundly humbled, especially when I consider all those times I have griped about the challenges of ministry! Such glimpses of God’s goodness make me want to stay longer and see what else God will do.

Staying creates opportunities to glorify God through more strategic gospel ministry

Second, staying creates opportunities to glorify God through more strategic gospel ministry.

Young pastors tend to overestimate what they can do in the short term and underestimate what they can accomplish over a long, diligent tenure. When I first became the senior pastor, I was brimming with ideas and dreams, new initiatives and ministry overhauls, all complete with handouts and diagrams. I had lots of energy to create and change, but my efforts tended to be shortsighted and impulsive. Looking back I realize how patient the church, elders and my fellow staff members have been with me!

After thirteen years, I haven’t lost my drive to dream. Not only does my idealism remain, but the gospel goals I have today are bigger than in the early days. But I find my plans now have longer, more realistic timetables for their communication and implementation. In part, this is because I’m not in a rush. When you visualize yourself shepherding one church for several decades, you gain the mental space to plan more strategically and work more patiently for gospel-multiplying goals like church planting, pastoral training, or positioning your church as a regional resource. These kinds of plans don’t typically develop in a church with a revolving door leadership.

Similarly, effective church reformation takes time. We recently adopted a new doctrinal statement. The process took almost three years. We’ve slowly moved toward more biblically-shaped Sunday services without declaring a worship war. We’re raising the bar of church membership by gently but consistently pruning the membership rolls, working on a new membership covenant, and gaining a deeper understanding of church discipline. This all takes time, the one thing a short-term pastor does not have. The best way for a pastor to inoculate a church against biblical reform is to strong arm the members too quickly toward a vision they’re not ready to implement.

Perhaps most importantly, I’ve discovered that it takes time for a congregation to understand and trust their pastor, and for a pastor to love and appreciate his people. Much can be attempted for God’s glory when a church and its leaders trust their pastor, the pastor has the best interests of the church at heart and a deep knowledge of the congregation’s unique character, and both pastor and congregation are committed to each other and the gospel for the long term.

Staying challenges a pastor to make God’s glory his motivation for ministry

Further, staying at one church for many years challenges a pastor to make God’s glory his motivation for ministry.

Eventually the wedding reception ends, the honeymoon is over, and the new couple must learn to flourish together amidst the rhythms of daily life. And at some point the honeymoon between a church and new pastor ends, and the pastor must discover how to carry on a faithful gospel ministry there year after year.

After thirteen years in one place, what will keep me going and the church spiritually growing? I’ve lost my faith in well-marketed ministry fads. My personality and youthfulness can’t carry the load. The church knows me way too well by now, and what little youthful “coolness” I once had evaporated long ago. Perhaps I could go to another church that doesn’t know me and surf a wave of novelty. I could re-preach some of my better sermons, re-introduce some of my more effective programs, and re-dazzle a new congregation with a few of my better insights. But to what end?

Only an expanding delight in God’s glory can dispel such thoughts and fire the soul for a long-term commitment to one church. Only love for God’s infinite worth inspires us to cherish his beloved people, not just in theory, but in a specific congregation and for a long stretch of time. Only when we treasure God’s name supremely can we overcome our instincts to build a resume, climb a ladder, and eject when we hit turbulence. Only a deep conviction about the sufficiency of God and his Word will steel us to preach expositionally Sunday after Sunday, so that our people’s confidence may increasingly rest in God’s power rather than in our wisdom.

To be sure, lengthy pastorates bring temptations as well. Over time, laziness, complacency, and stagnation can threaten a man’s ministry. But again, a vision for God’s glory is the answer. When God’s glory drives us, we can still summon courage to confront a longtime friend in the church who has fallen into sin. We can still dream and pray for the church after years of service, because we long to see the congregation cherish Jesus more. To quote C.S. Lewis, God’s infinite worth always calls us “further up and further in,” even when we inhabit the same parsonage year after year.

THE REAL QUESTION: WHY LEAVE?

Is it possible to leave a church for God’s glory? Of course. In fact, I know brothers who have been fired for the sake of the gospel.

Furthermore, many pastors long to find a healthy church and stay put, but in God’s mysterious providence that has not been their journey thus far. Even though I’ve written this article, I can’t guarantee that I will still pastor South Shore Baptist a year from now. God is sovereign.

That said, I’m arguing that instead of asking, “Why stay long-term?” we should be asking, “Why leave?”

Why not come to a church mentally committed to an extended tour of duty and leave the leaving to God’s sovereign timing? Why not enter a church with the assumption that you will pour your life out “like a drink offering” on one pulpit, rather than always holding something back for a better opportunity? As God permits, let us embody the gospel by staying with a particular flock, for the glory of God.

Jeramie Rinne is the senior pastor of South Shore Baptist Church in Hingham, Massachusetts.

January/February 2011
© 9Marks

Click here to read the rest of this eJournal

Leaders Make Things Worse

2011-01-05T09:04:00.000Z

Yes, it’s really true.

Consider the example of Moses in Exodus 5:22-23: Then Moses turned to the LORD and said, "O Lord, why have you done evil to this people? Why did you ever send me? For since I came to Pharaoh to speak in your name, he has done evil to this people, and you have not delivered your people at all."

I would guess that all of us with any experience in pastoral ministry can empathize with Moses at this point – those times when it feels like, despite our best efforts, we are just not helping at all. Sometimes it can seem that it would be better for all concerned if we quietly disappeared!

This is the peril of leadership, because leadership demands activity from people. For the Hebrews in Egypt it meant the activity of breaking free from slavery and heading for the Promised Land. Trouble was, it soon became apparent that a life of slavery – the routine of normal life – looked the easy option compared to obtaining freedom. In our context as leaders we will probably not be looking to lead hundreds of thousands of people out of one country and into another, but we do demand action: Pray! Give! Witness!

These demands (so long as they are rooted in the grace and promise of God rather than our own ego and pride) are positive in that they will result in a better future. Trouble is, the present feels pretty comfortable compared with the challenge of moving into a better future, even if that future really will be better.

This makes leadership a tough sell.

But, as Christian leaders we need to keep open ears for the voice of God, that voice that speaks as it did to Moses: But the LORD said to Moses, "Now you shall see what I will do to Pharaoh; for with a strong hand he will send them out, and with a strong hand he will drive them out of his land." (Ex 6:1) If, ultimately, God is our leader we can be confident that he will act. It is not simply that we are making life difficult for people – we are helping them step into a greater inheritance.

So let’s lead!

Book Review: Risking the Truth

2010-11-18T19:15:00.001Z

Risking the Truth, edited by Martin Downes

I got hold of this book after reading a review of it on the blog of my friend Phil ‘The Simple Pastor’. And as I am currently engaged in writing a paper on Reformed/Covenant Theology for the Newfrontiers Theology Forum it seemed like useful background reading. Phil was none too keen on it!

My own read is somewhat more sympathetic, albeit sharing some of Phil’s concerns. So, before making some comments on the book, I’ll pick up on one of Phil’s points. He makes the observation that,

The most miserable, dour, joyless Christians I’ve ever met have all been ‘reformed.’ It happened too often to simply be a personality thing, instead it seemed that it was a culture thing. The ‘joy’ was in how serious everything was. Getting a smile or a laugh from these guys was nothing short of a miracle but then they didn’t believe in those.

This may be true, but I’ve met some Anabaptists who are so earnest and holier-than-thou that they are – seriously – no fun at all. And there are plenty of Pentecostals out there who are so intense and literalistic and lacking in a sense of irony that there is no way I would want to spend half an hour in the pub with them. And my own childhood summers were blighted by legalistic Bretheren who ensured that no-one was allowed to use the swimming pool of the ‘Christian’ hotel on Sundays. I’m afraid there is no monopoly on Phariseeism in any particular church tradition, and all of us are vulnerable to it.

Joy of course takes various forms. Sometimes when out in the Dorset hills I will round a corner and have to shout out my delight at the view that is unfolding before me. But on other occasions the only appropriate response is one of amazed silence. By temperament, those in the Reformed tradition are probably more prone to amazed silence than shouts of delight, in a similar way that they are probably also generally more prone to roast rib of beef and Chateauneuf du Pape than burgers and coke.

I once heard John Piper describe his joy as ‘wintry’, and there is a lot to be said for this. As people convinced of the doctrine of total depravity, the Reformed see the full seriousness and horror of sin at work in the world. Yet because of their belief in irresistible grace they also know genuine joy. They are like the blues singer, who is cheerful, despite singing nothing but misery. This means that their sense of humor tends to be of the acerbic wit variety, and if you are not tuned into the wit all you hear is the acerbity.

But enough about all that. What about the book?

Interest in Reformed theology has surged in recent years. In large part this seems to be a reaction against ‘Emergent’ – the loose collective of writers and leaders who have been following various theological cul-de-sacs over such issues as the gathered church and God’s sovereignty. In the UK, this trend was probably most accelerated by the erstwhile poster boy of evangelicalism, Steve Chalke, developing some kooky ideas about the atonement. In Risking the Truth, twenty Reformed theologians and pastors (mostly American, a few British, one African) respond to questions about the various theological errors that threaten the church at the moment.

The contribution that Phil seemed to object to most was that of Geoffrey Thomas, a Welsh Baptist pastor. But to be honest, so much of what he had to say was somewhat off the wall that his derisive comments about charismatics rather washed over me. There is a deep irony in someone so passionate to uphold the sovereignty of God, yet so fearful of God sovereignly dispensing spiritual gifts.

Thomas apart, many of the other contributors are fascinating. Carl Trueman always interests me – his historical insights are worth checking out. There is some good self-criticism at times. For example, Michael Horton acknowledging, “Conservatives are often enthusiastic about the truth, but lazy about mission.” The chapter with Kim Riddlebarger arguing for an amillennial eschatology is excellent. The contributions by Gary Johnson and Ligon Duncan should be required reading for anyone slipping down the road of NT Wright’s New Perspective on Paul, or Douglas Wilson’s Federal Vision. Duncan, especially, is helpful, writing respectfully of both Wright and Wilson but clearly articulating where they diverge from Reformed theology, and the dangers of the trajectories their theologies take. The chapter featuring Robert Peterson talking about hell is both sobering and challenging. And Greg Beale’s thoughts on inerrancy are equally provocative.

In terms of the general negativity of the contributors towards the charismatic, the inconsistency of the cessationist view is illustrated by R. Scott Clark who dismisses “continuing revelation” but then describes how “God is speaking to His people” in a service. So, in a sense, he does believe in continuing revelation. Sure, there is some whacky ‘prophecy’ out there, but genuine prophecy is thoroughly biblical, and not something to be afraid of. To dismiss it because of those who abuse it is as silly as dismissing preaching because many preachers don’t have good exegesis. The antidote to abuse is not disuse but proper use.

Overall then, I would recommend this book to anyone interested not only in ‘heresies’ facing the church today, but in a broad sweep of Reformed commentary on a number of pastoral and theological issues. I would also recommend it to anyone who has got into the habit of labeling themselves ‘Reformed’ without perhaps understanding what that term denotes. Reading Risking the Truth might serve to convince such people that they really are Reformed, or, just as likely, that really they are not.

Preachers on Preaching: Matt Hatch

2010-11-04T11:31:00.000Z

Matt leads Mosaic Church, Leeds, a church he started six years ago. Matt is increasingly involved in teaching and mentoring other church planters and is also known for his focus on spiritual formation, his prophetic edge, and compassion for the broken.

When & where was this sermon preached?

At Mosaic on Sunday 31st October

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

A regular service

Why did you choose this subject/text?

We are currently revisiting the classic 'Sex and Relationships' theme due to a pressing need to help our young congregation navigate these difficult waters.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

This one took about 10 hours of background reading, study and writing.

On average, for how long do you preach?

35 minutes, though we aim for 30.

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

Throwing my creative weight into the delivery of the preach when other needs are pressing. So I'm a big fan of interaction, using props, acting out passages, and drawing out comments from the congregation but it is tremendously hard to come up with ones that really emphasise the point you're making. It's so frustrating when you hear someone say (for example) 'my favourite preach was when Matt smoked that cigar' and you ask 'why did he do that' and they can't remember.

Not comparing myself to all the great preachers that could do a far better job with the text than me.

I'm not good at multi tasking and so I struggle to mull over the text at random moments. I'm either preparing or I'm not.

I am tempted to spend my time researching rather than writing.

I often find I can get very emotionally involved with key points in the sermon ( I weep far too often) and this makes me feel very vulnerable. I then want to retreat and not have to engage with people. The challenge comes when you know you have to preach the same sermon again (as we have two identical services on a Sunday) and Match of the Day and good food seem much more appealing.

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

I absolutely love unpacking a text, creating a new biblical paradigm for people and then delivering a killer application that everyone knows life has got to be different from this point onwards. Sadly this happens far fewer times in reality than in my imagination.

I love the silences that come as the Holy Spirit starts to bring conviction of sin and idolatry. They are precious moments, not to be rushed or squashed. It is these points that I'm most likely to go 'freestyle' and yes, you've guessed it, weep.

I really enjoy mixing up 'in your face' challenge with gentle, gracious and sensitive empathy.

Strangely I value confessing my weaknesses in front of hundreds of people. Personally I find it very difficult to admit my struggles but it seems the more vulnerably I share my failures, the greater the listeners openness to what I have to say.

I often enjoy finding Christ and the gospel in the text and helping people connect with their desperate plight and the awesome hope Jesus offers.

I usually finish my sermon by saying 'Amen' and then look people in the eye. An immense joy and satisfaction comes when I see conviction, hope and determination in their faces. It reminds me we're in this together, that God is at work and the world could look completely different if we obey the stuff we believe.

You can listen to Matt’s sermon here, and here are his preaching notes…

Preachers on Preaching: John Groves

2010-10-28T10:53:00.001+01:00

John Groves is an elder at Winchester Family Church, a church he led until recently handing over the lead elder role to Steve Chick. John teaches and preaches in a wide range of settings, and is also known for the sharpness of his prophetic gift.

Here are his answers to my questions:

When & where was this sermon preached?

It was preached at WFC on 19^th September.

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

It was my first preach on returning from sabbatical and part of a series titled 'A Church Worth Talking About' based on the Antioch Church in Acts.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

Steve Chick, our lead elder, asked me to preach on this subject.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

It usually takes one to two weeks doing occasional reading and note taking, then 10-15 hours in the week before the sermon putting it all together.

On average, for how long do you preach?

Usually for 50 minutes.

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

The most challenging aspect of preaching is getting everything I want to say in the given time slot!

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

Sharing God's Word and seeing people 'light up' in response.

You can listen to John preach here, and here are his preaching notes, which, interestingly, are our first hand-written example…

Preachers on Preaching: Chris Kilby

2010-10-25T11:47:00.000+01:00

Chris leads Life Church, Southampton and is a gifted communicator and leader. Like most of the other contributors to this series so far, Chris uses a fairly full manuscript to preach from, which might seem surprising in light of his very engaging and energetic style.

Chris is probably best known outside his home church as an evangelist, and he is also something of a poet. In his answers to my questions both his passion for the gospel and his love for words shine through …

When & where was this sermon preached?

Last Sunday – 17th October 2010. Life Church Southampton.

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

It was a regular Sunday.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

This was part three of a new series in the book of Acts, called ‘Explosive Church’ Available on www.lifesouthampton.org or from the ‘itunes store’.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

I would say in one sense it takes my whole life up until that point!

For a major series I tend to do quite a lot of background reading and study in the three months leading up to the series, making notes and jotting down initial thoughts and ideas. From then I will consider the preaching priorities, and work on a structure for the series. In this particular series, however, I have chosen to begin, but don’t yet have an end point in sight!

From my gathered notes, the actual preparation of the sermon probably takes about 8-10 hours, though sometimes things materialise a lot quicker. (particularly if my pre-prep notes are fairly comprehensive). I think my quickest has been about 3 hours, whereas those that are harder to construct may take a couple of working days.

On average, for how long do you preach?

50 minutes.

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

The balance between digging in deep, and moving on with pace. There are times when I’m desperate to delve, but know I must move on!

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

Seeing lights come on, seeing lives move forward and freedom come. I love the prophetic edge to preaching that changes the dynamic of the church as God speaks to us through the word and births new things in us. I also quite like the drama of preaching, the pathos and appeal, the challenge and the provocation, the exhortation and comforting. The best thing about preaching is that we get to bring lots of glory to Jesus.

You can listen to Chris preach here, and here are his sermon notes:

Preachers on Preaching: David Stroud

2010-10-22T11:38:00.000+01:00

David leads ChristChurch London, a church he started in 2004. He also leads the Newfrontiers UK team and has about the fullest diary of anyone I know! David is well know for the prophetic edge to his ministry, as well as a deep concern for issues of social justice. He is also spearheading the Everything conference, which I have the privilege of being involved with too.

When & where was this sermon preached?

ChristChurch London, Sunday 17 October. This recording was from our afternoon meeting.

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

It was a regular Sunday.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

It was part of a series looking at the Kingdom of God in the gospel of Matthew.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

It depends very much on the subject matter, but it can be anything from about five hours to fifteen. This one took closer to fifteen because it required a lot of thinking, reading and discussion in terms of a) what the text means, b) how it fits within the broader thrust of Scripture and c) the personal application.

On average, for how long do you preach?

35 minutes in our morning meetings and 40 in the afternoon.

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

Crafting a sermon that does justice to the individual text, is true to the whole breadth of scripture, and is engaging, contemporary and relevant. It can take quite some time to go through the multilayered process that is required to preach biblical sermons that are powerful and immediately relevant to twenty first century listeners.

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

It is really satisfying to preach and know God's hand on you, and to receive positive feedback that your preaching has strengthened, convicted and helped people in their walk with God.

You can listen to David’s sermon here, and here are his preaching notes:

Preachers on Preaching: Howard Kellett

2010-10-20T12:35:00.000+01:00

Howard Kellett is one of my most treasured friends and is currently starting a new church in Cheltenham having previously started one in Manchester. Howard is well known for his vocal enthusiasm, and for being a supporter of Leeds Football Club (which must have been a test of his enthusiasm over the years!).

When & where was this sermon preached? Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

I first put this sermon together for a morning guest service at Hope Church Manchester (now Christ Central Manchester). I have since preached it on a number of other occasions including one-off guest services, and at Gateway.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

The sermon had it’s birth in a brilliant discussion at our Alpha Course. Damien who was helping me (his story is in the new Alpha Lifechangers book) said Jesus “was not religious in fact the religious people of his day hated him because he changed the religious currency of his day” – there was some debate about this amongst the guests so I did an impromptu Bible discussion around John 8. I felt it came together so well in discussion, particularly as the guests didn’t know the story so felt it’s brilliant tension. Therefore I looked for an opportunity to work as a sermon soon after that evening. I have modified it as I have preached it around so it has challenge for believer and unbelievers.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

On average it takes about 12 hours to pull a sermon together, that does not include the original thinking / reading to pull a series framework together. I read first, then start to write. I don’t use points as I like to let the sermon organically find its own shape. I write it out in full because I use that process to get the sermon deep into me, it also helps you to build key phrases and develop any cadence. I try to order the sermon to include some tension or emotional involvement. I preach with the full manuscript with multiple highlights, but I don’t think I preach from the manuscript, it’s just there to remind me of my thoughts. I can’t reduce my full manuscript to notes either because I lack the skill or more likely because that reduces it to points and I prefer flow to points!

On average, for how long do you preach?

On average I preach for about 45 minutes, (except at Christian Unions who want three chapters of Daniel in 20 minutes - to which I answer I’ve just got past my intro after 15 minutes - so I usually do 35 minutes for them!)

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

Apart from aiming to be concise and not being overly long (which is often a content and delivery issue more than minutes speaking), I find the biggest challenge is to find something fresh that God speaks into my spirit, a new angle or some new insight for me, that I feel stirred to preach! I find it easier to preach from narrative than prepositional truth as I like to put myself and my hearers in the story. Stories have conflict, tension, climax and resolution like the gospel! I find beginning easier than ending. So I like thinking of introductions to get people to think “this is relevant to me and I would like to hear you some more on this.” However endings and calling for a response are hardest for me.

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

What I find most exciting about preaching is when you know that right there God’s word is moving peoples emotions and wills, stirring and challenging them so that they take bold faith steps. I guess preaching changes lives like ‘A’ level population demographics never can! (I am a part time school geography teacher.)

You can hear Howard preach this sermon here, and here are his notes:

Preachers on Preaching: Mbonisi Malaba

2010-10-18T10:30:00.001+01:00

One of the great joys of my life over the past six or seven years has been developing friendships with a number of pastors in Zimbabwe. In that troubled country I have experienced such hope, faith and love – and joy – when with the church of Jesus Christ.

Mbonisi is a dynamic church leader and preacher, who leads New Creation Church in Bulawayo. He is a preacher I always love to listen to!

When & where was this sermon preached?

On the 29th of August at New Creation Church

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

It was the start of a 5-part message series titled "Love Bulawayo"

Why did you choose this subject/text?

We were preaching through the book of Acts, and came to Acts 16 - 19 in which Paul pretty much sequentially hits 5 major cities in his second and third missionary journeys. We felt it would be fun to do a "series within the series" by looking at each of these cities in turn, using each narrative to inspire, instruct and equip us for our church's mission in Bulawayo. The objective in this particular message was to show the church that God changes cities by changing one life at a time - as evidenced through three snapshots of the gospel in action in Philippi

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

15 - 20 hours

On average, for how long do you preach?

45 - 55 minutes

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

1) Keeping it short 2) keeping it evangelistic and 3) ensuring I communicate one big idea through the message

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

Bringing people into a life-changing encounter with Jesus through the word

Unfortunately no mp3 for this sermon is available. However, you can hear Mbonisi preaching at last years Together on a Mission conference here.

And here are his sermon notes. Mbo says, “If I take a manuscript into the pulpit, I try not to use it like one!!”

Preachers on Preaching: Matthew Hosier

2010-10-15T11:05:00.000+01:00

While I'm waiting for some other guys to get back to me, I thought I may as well put one of my own sermons up here!

My main preaching context is Gateway Church, where I have been since January 2008. I tend to preach about 30 Sundays each year here, but do this in blocks - For instance, I am currently in a run of preaching 11 out of 14 Sundays, but then at another point in the year might go a couple of months without preaching at all. As well as preaching at Gateway I am involved in teaching in a number of training and conference settings.

Here are some answers to my own questions:

When & where was this sermon preached?

Last Sunday, at Gateway, at both our 9 & 11 services.

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

A regular Sunday.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

This term I am preaching a series called 'The Big Story - Exploring the Story of God' which is basically an exercise in biblical theology, focussing on the themes of covenant and kingdom. Last Sunday I was up to God's covenant with Abraham.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

This is actually quite hard to judge. I tend to plan preaching series a long way in advance (I knew over a year ago that I was going to do this one) which means that I am musing over the content for a long time. I have sermon titles and a precis of content prepared before the series starts. My preferred pattern of preparation in the week before preaching is to spend two or three hours in background work on a Wednesday morning, and to then talk this through with a couple of other guys in the office (including our children's worker, as he produces curriculum for the kids tied in to what I am preaching). I then leave it till Friday, when I would spend another three hours working up my notes. I often then talk it through with Mrs Hosier on Saturday evening, and then give it another couple of hours on Sunday morning.

On average, for how long do you preach?

This was a long one, at about 50 minutes. Normally I shoot for about 40.

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

Preparation almost always costs me blood, sweat and tears. It is a great challenge to stay true to the word and allow it to impose upon me, rather than me trying to impose upon it. I also find it tough when it feels as though my words are falling on deaf ears!

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

When I can see people suddenly coming into revelation about something they haven't seen before - when sinners repent, or strongholds are broken, and the saints built up.

You can listen to the sermon here.

And here are my notes - I normally preach from a page and a half or so of bullet points. The notes for this sermon were a bit denser than is normal:

Preachers on Preaching: Andrew Wilson

2010-10-14T16:07:00.000+01:00

Last year Joshua Harris ran a series of posts on his blog in which a number of well known preachers volunteered a pdf of their notes. This was fascinating, revealing the very wide range of personalities and approaches that God uses in the ministry of the word.

I thought it might be fun to do something similar on this blog, and if I can get people to cooperate (always a tricky one with preachers!) this should be an interesting series.

First up is Andrew Wilson, who zipped back a reply within a few minutes of me making the request, which was extremely impressive!

Andrew is an Elder at Kings Church, Eastbourne, which is a multi-meeting/site church and one of the largest in the Newfrontiers family. Andrew is well known within Newfrontiers as a preacher, being a key figure at events like Newday and Mobilise, and is increasingly well known as a writer, through his excellent books, Incomparable and God Stories.

Andrew sent me a Powerpoint of his notes, and says he never writes on them, so this as he preached from it. He also answered some preaching questions:

When & where was this sermon preached?

Last Sunday (10 October 2010), Kings Eastbourne/Seaford x3

Was it a special occasion or regular Sunday?

Civic service: we had the MP, Mayor and councillors there.

Why did you choose this subject/text?

It was next in our preaching series on Nehemiah, but we deliberately scheduled the civic event for Neh 5 because the topic (how to use power to pursue justice) was very relevant.

On average, how long does it take you to prepare a sermon?

8 hours (but then I have lots of time to read which isn't preaching prep, much of which no doubt informs my prep).

On average, for how long do you preach?

35 minutes (although this week was 25, because of the civic service context).

What do you find most challenging about preaching?

Humility; speaking slowly.

What do you most enjoy about preaching?

The Jesus connection at the end; getting a really good illustration.

If you would like to listen to Andrew’s sermon, it can be accessed here.

And here are his preaching notes (sorry they're sideways on!):

A Time to Mull

2010-09-29T15:53:00.000+01:00

A comment on an earlier post: When do you 'mull'? Do you set aside time for mulling? Do you mull as you run/train etc? Do you mull as you go about the day? how important is mulling to you?

A good question! I would say that mulling is crucial for leaders - for those of us with an activist temperament it is important to find time to do some reflecting, as constant, unreflected upon action tends to result in exhaustion or stupidity. In extreme cases, it may even end up with one being too busy to marry one's girlfriend - and that is certainly something worth mulling over...

How does it work for me? Well, I tend to start the day with a fairly mulling type prayer time, as I wander around the park with the dogs. And running or cycling is definitely mulling time. I hardly ever plug in when I am exercising - neither to listen to music or sermons. I just don't like to have noise in my ears when I'm exercising outside as I find this an ideal time to plan and process and ponder, or - in other words - to mull. I like to observe the world I am cycling or running through, and often find that this is when I have my best thoughts, or crack a problem or difficult sermon I have been struggling with. Having an iPod on doesn't help me in this.

Sabbath time is also often mulling time. Monday is a work free day for me, but I am often mulling over the previous day and week. Doing this can have its downside - if I haven't been happy with Sunday my Monday musings might not be very energizing - but generally I think it helps get my mind and soul straightened out for the coming week.

I think one of the big challenges with mulling is that the activist type doesn't do it naturally, although they really need to do it, while the introvert can do it to an unhelpful extent. So, in either case its going to take some self-discipline to mull in a helpful way.

Hope those mulling musings help!

Unready Eddy?

2010-09-28T19:01:00.000+01:00

Ed Miliband gave his first speech as leader of the Labour Party today. Leaders speeches are always worth noting, in order to note what can be noted in them about leadership. Miliband's speech was aimed at a number of audiences, including his own party, and the wider electorate who he wants to believe that he would make a good Prime Minister.

Whether or not Miliband found his target is rather beyond the brief of this blog, but - at the risk of risking a little bit of politics - in terms of the character of the speaker I'm not sure that someone who claims he has been too busy to marry his girlfriend or put his name on his child's birth certificate is ready to lead anything.

Someone that busy clearly needs to make some time in his schedule for what should be priorities in a leaders life, not taking on yet more commitments.

More Thoughts Provoked by Hunter

2010-09-24T13:23:00.002+01:00

In To Change the World, Hunter caricatures different sections of the Church as falling into three paradigms of cultural engagement: ‘defensive against’, ‘relevance to’, and ‘purity from’. He then describes his preferred model of ‘faithful presence within’.

Mark Driscoll uses rather snappier terminology to describe the same observation:

1. Church as bomb shelter: Culture is seen as dark and dangerous and something to hide from. This kind of church is not missional.

2. Church as mirror: This kind of church simply reflects the culture. It does not seek to redeem, but rather blesses what God doesn’t.

3. Church as parasite: This kind of church uses and enjoys what the culture provides, while at the same time condemning the culture, and failing to add anything positive to it.

4. City within the City: This is Jesus language. A bible-believing, Jesus-loving, mission-focused, people loving church, who live differently from the culture but not in an adversarial way.

To be honest, I think Driscoll does a better job of summing this up than Hunter, and his application is certainly easier to follow.

My own preferred way of expressing this – and the way we summarize our vision at Gateway – is with three words: Adventure, Purity and Compassion.

1. Adventure: This is basically the great commission – the mission imperative for the church. We are called to be people who act in faith, empowered by the Spirit, to make known to the world the wonders of God’s grace.

2. Purity: The church is to be a community of holiness, not slipping into the standards and practices the world considers as normal, but living in a way that truly honors Jesus and blesses other people.

3. Compassion: The church is to be a community that demonstrates the upside-down economics of the kingdom, in which the first are last the last are first; in which the poor and the weak are served and cherished. This applies first to the household of God itself, as we help one another, but then inevitably must extend to us being a blessing to the wider community.

This Sunday at Gateway it is our annual September rallying cry of Vision Sunday and I will once again be trying to articulate this vision of what it means to be the people of God. I believe it is a vision worth living and dying for!

Getting Organized

2010-09-21T15:34:00.000+01:00

I have just finished reading one of this years most talked about and quoted Christian books, To Change the World, by James Davison Hunter. I will probably review this book at some point on my other blog, but at the moment am rather mulling over what I think of it. Parts of it are brilliant, while in other places it is very disappointing. Much mulling to be done... But in the meantime I may post a couple of thoughts here that reading it has provoked in me.

Here is the first one:

It is common in the church circles within which I move to hear people say, "The church is not an organization, but an organism." This is a snappy way of emphasizing the dynamic, organic, body-life dimension of the church, and as such is a helpful thing to say. However, to be healthy, an organism needs organization. A disordered organism is in fact a mutant. Organization is necessary from the smallest level upwards. Without cellular organization a body cannot function, and the same is true of the church.

Organization and 'being organic' should not be seen as in contrast with one another. In the church it is proper organization - leadership, church discipline, regularity of meeting together - that ensures the body can respond to the call of God and leading of the Spirit as it should.

We all know that churches can be over-managed. The dangers of 'corporate church' are very real. But that should not make us fearful of organization. I am a fan of keeping church simple, minimizing the number of programs that are run and keeping the main focus on the main thing, but organization is still necessary.

To try and dispense with all organization is to generate a mutant, and mutants are neither healthy nor long-lived.

Are You an Ordinary Pastor?!

2010-09-13T17:40:00.002+01:00

This looks interesting - "The ordinary pastors project"

The Pastor as Generalist

2010-09-11T21:00:00.000+01:00

This week the latest rankings of the worlds top 200 universities came out. This was quite gratifying personally, as the two institutions I hold degrees from scored pretty well (Newcastle at 140 and King's College London at 21). What was most interesting though was that a British university - Cambridge - has for the first time knocked Harvard off the No. 1 spot. British universities score surprisingly well, taking four of the top seven spots.

A significant weighting in how these kind of rankings are scored is the quality of research a university generates. Serious research begins at the PhD level, and this is the point at which real specialization takes place. By way of contrast to this, Carl Trueman (who is always worth reading) over at the Ref21 blog is posting a series about why pastors should be generalists rather than specialists. On the same blog, Justyn Taylor links to Matt Might's Illustrated Guide to a PhD, which is very amusing, at least for someone like me who started a PhD and then dropped out of the program!

Trueman writes:

Titus 1:8, for example, says that an elder should 'hold fast to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.' it is important to note, of course, that this is only one quality noted by Paul at this point: the others are all moral qualities, something of which we should not lose sight and which, if you like, indicate that the elder is to be that greatest of generalists in the broadest sense -- 'an all round good bloke,' as the English would say.

And this is something that isn't necessarily learnt at university - not even Harvard or Cambridge!

Speaking Truth to Power - Updated

2010-06-29T17:24:00.003+01:00

You can now watch video of President Zuma at Godfirst church.

Here he is being interviewed by Sibs Sibanda and being presented with a sword and receiving prayer. (Its worth checking out the other interviews as well - especially the one with Nelson Mandela's former bodyguard.)

And here is PJ's message.

Speaking Truth to Power

2010-06-22T09:41:00.002+01:00

On Sunday evening PJ Smyth had the awesome responsibility of preaching at Godfirst church in front of the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma. He did a great job! You can read a transcript of the sermon here, or listen to it here.

Every time we get up to preach we are speaking before the king of king's, or, as PJ put it, before the 'president's president'; so we ought to feel a sense of awe about the task of preaching, rather than see it as something routine or mundane. Having an earthly head of state in the front row must add a certain piquancy to the preaching experience though.

PJ's three points were a good, solid, exposition of the biblical attitude towards secular power:
1. I have made you the President of South Africa
2. Anticipate submissive and prayerful followership by Christ-following South Africans
3. In view of me appointing you, lead confidently and humbly

Most of us will never have a president or prime minister come to our church, but let's all pray for those in authority, in recognition of the One from whom all authority flows.

Going Multi, Part 7

2010-06-16T09:23:00.001+01:00

Conclusion

Overall, I would suggest that Piper’s four points are all necessary for a church, but am not quite convinced that even when taken together they are sufficient for a church.

Pragmatically I am convinced of multi – it just makes sense at so many levels, and I think it is probably how we will go at Gateway at some point (doing multi-site that is - we're already multi-service). But theologically there are questions we should not be afraid to ask.

In some ways there are more questions than answers… However, as a compromise position I like this recent explanation by Tim Keller of the approach to multi at Redeemer:

1. First, we sent our services out into different locations so that people could worship closer to where they lived. People can become more deeply involved in the community and can more easily bring friends if they attend services in their neighborhood. This was an ‘anti-mega-church’ move, since huge churches create a large body of commuters who travel long distances to attend church. We wanted to resist this tendency and root people more in their locales.

2. Second, the multi-site model is a transition design for us. Redeemer has a timetable for turning each site into a congregation in its own neighborhood, with its own pastoral leadership. I was the main preacher at all sites, but two years ago we went from four to five services at three sites, which is too many for me to preach in a Sunday. Rather than beaming me in by video, we determined that other pastors on the staff would always preach at least that fifth service. When we get to six and seven services, about two years from now, each site will have its own Lead Pastor who will share the preaching with me.

We will then transition from a ‘multi-site’ to a ‘collegiate’ model. Though still under one unified board of elders, each church will have its own pastoral team, elder team, and set of lay leaders.

But then Keller is a Presbyterian, so of course he ends up with a presbytery!

There is also the question of the sacraments, and church discipline, that Piper doesn’t reference at all in his four tests of what defines a church. I am sure we would not want to ignore these issues. And on the flip side, there is the reality that for many people (including elders) the Sunday meeting is what defines the church – should it?

In conclusion, I see no definitive reason to oppose multi, and there are many things to commend it, but at the same time there is good reason to be cautious.

In order to help those churches that are considering going multi, with some friends from the Newfrontiers Theology Forum, I came up with the following checklist of questions to consider…

• What is your motivation for going multi?
• Are you going multi as a strategy, or because you have to (E.g., because of limited seating capacity)?
• What are your non-negotiables about the church? What can change?
• Will going multi result in a split along ethnic/age/class lines between the meetings/venues? Is this a problem or not? Why? How will you express ‘one new man’?
• Will going multi result in a squeeze on service time/ministry? How will you handle this?
• How will the elders personally reproduce their lives in the church? Is this important to you?
• Where are the lines (relational distance and geographic distance) which when crossed would mean that this can no longer be defined as one church?
• Will you ever gather everyone together? How? When?
• How will you express unity? What does unity mean to you?
• Is the ‘main meeting’ the defining element of your church, or is there some other measure you would use in preference?
• Is your plan to eventually develop autonomous congregations or to maintain linked campuses?
• Will your use video preaching? If so, what are your motives in doing this?
• How will preaching be applied to the life of the congregation?
• What will be the impact of going multi on your involvement in church planting?
• How will you stay open to the Spirit and not just do repeat meetings?
• How will you practice the sacraments?
• How will you practice church discipline?

Going Multi, Part 6

2010-06-15T09:14:00.001+01:00

Is Multi Biblical? Contd.

2. A unity of teaching
Does this really make a church? As Matt Chandler puts it,

After studying the issue, we decided to go multi-site. Yet we still have some serious concerns and questions about the multi-site idea even as we participate in it. The problem that haunts us is a simple one. Where does this idea lead? Where does this end? Twenty years from now are there fifteen preachers in the United States?

The biblical instructions about the role of elders would indicate that elders in situ are to teach their congregations:

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you… He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

The average Joe might prefer to listen to a Driscoll or a Virgo than to me, and technology now means that they can, but is that necessarily healthy? Or biblically appropriate?

A consideration of this point and the previous one might drive us towards the conclusion that generally our churches should be small, and pastored and preached to by elders who know the congregation as a father knows his family.

3. A unity of philosophy of ministry
Again, this would seem a necessary but not sufficient totem of church identity. A whole movement or network of churches can share a philosophy of ministry, but that does not make them one church.

4. Very significant clusters of relationships that are biblically life-giving and involve all of the "one another" commands of the Bible
I think most of us would say “Amen” to this, but how many multi churches actually manage to pull it off? And is there the danger that in pursuing this we end up with a fragmentation of the church rather than an all-together-ness?

It does seem that in the NT whole churches met together, and that to some extent at least it was this meeting-together-ness that defined the church. It is in Acts and 1 Corinthians that we are given the most details about how the church met, and there it is epi to auto (in the same place):

1 Cor 11:18-20
For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat.

1 Cor 14:23
If, therefore, the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and outsiders or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are out of your minds?

Acts 2:44
And all who believed were together and had all things in common.

Acts 5:12
Now many signs and wonders were regularly done among the people by the hands of the apostles. And they were all together in Solomon’s Portico.

Acts 6:1-2
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, "It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.

Acts 15:22
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.

So it would appear that in Jerusalem and Corinth the whole congregation gathered together. The Jerusalem church was presumably a large one, while the church at Corinth seems to have been small (judging by Paul’s comment to the Romans [16:23], written from Corinth that, “Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you.” Archaeological evidence suggests that even the larger Corinthian home would have been unable to accommodate more than 70 people). If this is the case, then small groups are only part of the answer, and not the whole story.

But it is debateable as to how much we can read in to the Acts accounts of the Jerusalem church gathering together. The data is limited and hard to be definitive about.

For instance, what does the Acts 2:46 description of the church “attending the temple together” mean? Did the Jerusalem church really all meet together in the temple? Surely the temple authorities would not have allowed believers to meet together; certainly not for what we would recognize as Christian worship. The argument could be made that this might be language used in a similar way to how we might say, “I met with the church” if we happened to bump into ten church members at the shops. However, whatever went on in their meeting together, that they did meet together was in some way defining for the Jerusalem church.

It would seem very odd to dispute that when Acts 2:1 records, “they were all together in one place” it means anything other than they were all together in one place. The similarity of this phrase to that in Acts 5:12, “they were all together in Solomon’s Portico” [NIV: “all the believers used to meet together in Solomon’s Colonnade”] is a clear indication that the Jerusalem church did indeed continue to meet all together, at the same time and in the same place, until the persecution broke out, even if they were not having a ‘worship meeting’.

Of course, the question that must then be asked is to what degree the meeting habits of the Jerusalem church are prescriptive or merely descriptive. To me, the evidence from Corinth, and Acts 15:22 (after the persecution associated with Stephen) clearly suggests a pattern of the whole church meeting all together at the same time and in the same place that was normative in the NT churches.

Going Multi, Part 5

2010-06-14T14:26:00.000+01:00

Is Multi Biblical? contd.

1. A unity of eldership
We have a strong emphasis upon eldership but do we overemphasize eldership at the expense of the congregation?

Are we in danger in the multi model of making eldership unity the thing whereas biblically it might be argued that ekklesia unity is the thing? In emphasising an important part are we in danger of missing the essential whole? Do we define the church around the unity of the leaders, or around the community of believers? We need to recognize that defining unity around leadership moves us towards the Roman Catholic position where the church is defined by the Pope and his bishops. Is this where we want to go?!

Arguably, churches (NB not ‘church plants’!) in the New Testament existed before eldership was set in place. The example from Paul’s instructions to Titus on Crete makes it plain that churches need elders, but that churches can be churches even when leadership is not in place. This would suggest that unity of the congregation rather than unity of the elders should be our measuring stick for determining when a church exists.

There is then the question of once elders are set in place, to what extent they need to know their congregations. Is it sufficient for elders to be united in their eldership team, or do they really need to know the members of the congregation, especially if it is congregational unity more than eldership unity that defines a church? The multi response to this tends to be along the lines that once a church grows above some arbitrary figure (150? 300?) the elders cannot have meaningful relationship with every member of the congregation anyway, so does it make any difference if the church goes multi. In fact, it may mean increased eldership knowledge of the members if the individual sites/meetings are broken down into groups of +/-150. But then the counterargument to that would be that in effect these smaller gatherings are actually fully fledged churches, and should be regarded as such.

And round and round it goes…

Another consideration is what happens about discipleship and discipline? If someone migrates from one meeting/site where they are under the covering of one particular group of elders to another meeting/site is this not just as much an issue as someone leaving one church and going to another? Does multi in fact encourage a lessening of commitment by making it easier for someone to float from site to site?

What we can say in all this is that defining what elders are and do is key. Clearly, elders need to know the flock but this doesn’t mean every elder needs to know everyone in the congregation. What is must mean is that there is an impartation of the elders life (“You know my ways among you”) to the congregation, as well as teaching, and this must be difficult if no-one knows the elder personally.

How we think about eldership will shape how we do multi, and there is clearly a danger in moving towards a corporation model of church. It is a problem when shepherds no longer want to shepherd and when the elders are relieved to be relieved of personal pastoral responsibility!

Going Multi, Part 4

2010-06-11T14:24:00.000+01:00

Is Multi Biblical?

John Piper has summed up the theological/ecclesiological arguments in favour of going multi like this:

I think the essence of biblical church community and unity hangs on a unity of eldership, a unity of teaching, and a unity of philosophy of ministry. And then, within the church, it hangs on very significant clusters of relationships that are biblically life-giving and involve all of the "one another" commands of the Bible. And you do these in some kind of smaller gathering, call it "small groups," "cell groups," "fellowship groups," "shepherding groups," "mid-sized Sunday school classes" or whatever. Those are the places where you get to know people and where you get to fulfill the biblical commands of community.

Is this apologetic biblically sound?

What is a church?
Many of us are probably happy with Calvin’s definition of a church being,

Wherever we see the word of God sincerely preached and heard, wherever we see the sacraments administered according to the institution of Christ, there we cannot have any doubt that the Church of God has some existence.

As implied in Calvin’s ‘some existence’, these things are necessary but not sufficient for the identification of a church. The question for us is whether a church doing multi really is a church, or if going multi actually creates multiple churches rather than one church in several places. (NB I wonder how different our discussions on a whole range of ecclesiastical issues would be if our Bibles followed Luther and Tyndale in translating ekklesia as ‘congregation’ rather than ‘church’?)

As one of the authors of the 9Marks ejournal expresses it:

In one sentence, let me put it like this: (1) the advocates of a multi-site or multi- service model functionally use the word "church" like my wife and I refer to ourselves as one "family"; (2) they biblically justify their functional use of the word in this fashion like one might refer to different branches of a bank as one bank; (3) but what they really are is McDonalds, that is, they are different churches which comprise nothing more than one corporate entity, which they are misnaming a "church," as if we were to begin referring to all McDonalds restaurants collectively as a "restaurant."

To return to the two multi-site proof texts in Acts, I'm happy to say that the church in Jerusalem is still the "church" when they are spread out from house to house, just like I would say a basketball team is still a team even when its members are spending the night in different rooms or cities. But I'm happy to say that for the basketball team because, at some point, they will come together and do that which constitutes a basketball team. Likewise, in Acts 2 you have the church coming together in the temple to do that which constitutes them as a church, and then scattering to break bread and share fellowship in smaller groups. Fine. They're still constituted as a church not by what they do when they're scattered, but by what they do when they're together. Then in Acts 8, you simply have a statement about Paul going from house to house and persecuting the members of the Jerusalem church, just as if you said something like, "The coach went from room to room, alerting the team that basketball game had been postponed." That strikes me as the plainest reading of Acts 8 (and apparently Christians have read it that way for 2000 years). What's strange about the multi-site and multi-service church is that they are happy to do away with "gathering" as one component of what it means to constitute a church, even though there's clear biblical evidence that the Jerusalem church all gathered—yes, all thousands of them (see Acts 2:44; 5:12; 6:1-2)! It sounds as if the multi-site and multi-service advocates point to these passages to say that their "team" (church) is a "team" even though they never gather as a "team" because being a team has nothing to do with getting together. But is that what these two passages teach? Couldn't it be the case that it's whatever the Jerusalem church is doing together that constitutes them as a team?

To help us bore down on this some more, in the next post I will take Piper’s apologetic clause by clause, and make some brief observations/questions.

Going Multi, Part 3

2010-06-10T10:57:00.000+01:00

Newfrontiers and Multi, Part 2

The situation now
A number of us were looking seriously at multi before Driscoll came to the Together on a Mission Conference, in Brighton in 2008, but it was his comments in the elders seminars which really lit the blue touch paper. Driscoll seemed to strike just at the moment when we ready to hear what he had to say. After all, many of us had seen multi before, without being impacted by it in the same way. For example, a gang of us went to Singapore to visit Lawrence Khong’s church back in 1999, but because we were focussing on what he was doing with cells we hardly noticed that he was also doing multi.

It is probably worth considering why we were ready to hear what Driscoll had to say at this moment. A concern raised about ging multi is that it can have the effect of limiting space for the charismatic. Being multi almost inevitably means that our corporate gatherings have to be shorter and sharper. Maybe ten or twenty years ago we would have resisted this, but over the past five years or so an increased emphasis on mission means that many churches have already taken the philosophical decision to make meetings shorter and sharper in a desire to reach out to the unbelieving guest. Having already done this, we were in a position to accept the constraints that multi implies.

In this regard, multi-venue, with only one meeting per venue, might offer us a better model than multi-meeting – this would offer the benefits of increased meeting options, but avoid the problem of always watching the clock.

Whatever the philosophical and spiritual issues involved, pragmatically there was just so much sense in what the Seattle dynamo said: Why spend millions (and in most towns in the UK it is millions) buying a building that seats 1,000 when for far less cash and stress you could stay in your existing facility but run two or three meetings? Why always plant a church, with the huge attrition rate upon planters, when you can just open another campus and enjoy all the economies of scale that brings? Why dilute ministry gift if there are some star performers who can serve across a number of meetings?

It all made perfect sense! And as a result a number of our churches are actively moving towards multi-site.

Also, many more of us (Gateway included) are now doing multi-meeting.

The outstanding example of this move in Newfrontiers is Godfirst, Johannesburg. At the time of writing Godfirst has just gone to ten meetings across seven venues and is gathering a total crowd approaching 2,000 people. Godfirst is also utilizing technology, in that PJ Smyth is ‘preaching’ via DVD at a number of these meetings. (PJ’s explanation for why Godfirst has gone multi can be found here)

The trickle-down effect is very real in church leadership, so it is likely that more of our leaders will pick-up on the successes of PJ, Driscoll, et al, and see multi as the latest silver bullet to make all their dreams-of-growth come true. I fear that rather than being the silver bullet, for some this will be a shoot-yourself-in-the-foot bullet, which it would be good to avoid.

In the next post I will try to do some theology on the multi model.

Going Multi, Part 2

2010-06-09T10:53:00.000+01:00

Newfrontiers and Multi

Multiple ‘congregations’
Sidcup, Brighton and Vineyard (as Jubilee, Cape Town, was then known) certainly used this method in the late 1980s (and there may be others I am unaware of). Under this model, the church met in congregations that were geographically defined. In many ways what was happening at this time was very close to what many multi-siters are now doing. What was different from a Piper/Driscoll type model is that the individual congregations were led by elders who preached in their congregations, rather than having one preacher serving multiple locations. Also, as I recall, these preaching elders were not even necessarily preaching the same text/theme, but were free to set their own agenda, and in this sense were operating far more as autonomous churches.

The other distinguishing factor was that the model these churches were operating under was Cell-Congregation-Celebration. London’s Icthus church/churches were the most consistent advocates of this model in the UK, and for some time these ideas gained traction with us. Practically what this meant was that the whole church would gather together on a regular basis for a celebration meeting. At Brighton, that meant regular gatherings in the Dome, or Hove Town Hall. At Vineyard, it meant meeting in congregations in the morning, and as a whole church in the evening.

(Personally, the eight months I spent at Vineyard in 1989 was one of the happiest periods of church involvement I have experienced – part of a small group that was genuinely fun and spiritually nourishing, a Sunday morning congregation which offered some level of personal interaction (led by Francois Heunis), and a Sunday evening celebration which was just that, with the brilliant preaching of Graham Ingram holding it together.)

This model dropped from favour because of fears that the congregations were becoming too autonomous, and because of a fresh sense of being ‘more together than we are apart’ with the impact and influence a single, large congregation could have in a town. Also, in some cases congregations became autonomous churches.

Multiple services
Over the years a number of our churches have held more than one service on a Sunday. For some, especially those that were historically Baptist, this functioned as a morning and evening service which were different in content. However, there have also been numerous examples of churches doing two services at which the preaching was the same, and generally this has been due to limitations of venue size.

For example, when I took on the lead role at New Community Church we moved to a morning and evening service with the same sermon at each because we were doing a building project which meant we had to use part of our meeting space for storage. This was a period when the church saw its only really significant growth in the whole 13 years I was there. At the time I put this down to my dynamic new leadership of the team, but in retrospect I think it was simply that the axiom, “when you give people more options more people opt” proved true.

However, there have been those who have more intentionally gone for a multi-service model in response to, and in order to sustain, growth. For example, Steve Tibbert at King’s Church, Catford.

Going Multi

2010-06-08T10:48:00.001+01:00

Going multi is the new buzz in church life. Inspired by the likes of John Piper and Mark Driscoll, many eldership teams are considering the possibility of having more than one meeting or meeting in more than one location. A quick survey suggests that something like twenty-five percent of Newfrontiers UK churches are already doing multi in some form; the vast majority of which are multi-meeting. However, as yet there seems to have been little theological reflection upon this, or consideration of some potential pragmatic pitfalls. Is multi a biblically justifiable model of church life? What are some of the dangers as well as opportunities of this approach? My plan here is to spend a few posts exploring these things.

For the purposes of this post I will use the term multi to refer to both multiple services and multiple venues; the context should make it clear to which I am referring. Please note though, that although going multi-site seems the big step, I consider going multi-service to be the Rubicon – once this is crossed, going multi-site is just a step or two further along the way.

However, a key area is the line at which further Rubicon’s are crossed! The decision to go to more than one meeting is a substantial one, but I would argue that doing multi in extreme form (E.g., calling a ‘campus’ in another nation part of one ‘church’) is a step too far. Exactly where the lines should be drawn between these two points is moot, but would seem to be predicated on the point at which relationships cease to be meaningful.

In terms of resources, the most widely quoted text promoting multi-site is The Multi-Site Church Revolution, by Bird, Ligon & Surratt. While stimulating, this could hardly be described as theological in tone. The most helpful critique I have seen is the 9Marks ejournal on the subject. Some of the articles in this are favourable towards multi, but the general tone is negative. In large part this reflects the Baptist polity of the authors.

A quick sketch of the situation in Newfrontiers

Before getting into the meat of the matter it may be helpful to consider our experience of multi in Newfrontiers – the church context with which I am most familiar. While it may seem that this is a very new phenomenon, there is actually quite a history among us of having more than one meeting. Over the years, a number of Newfrontiers churches have experimented with having more than one Sunday service. In the next post I will re-cap some of these experiments.

Why the New Atheists are Shallow

2010-05-05T13:41:00.002+01:00

This one might be a bit of a brain stretcher, but it is definitely worth reading if you have any interest in what the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are saying - David Hart doing a thorough demolition job of the intellectual vapidness of so much of this school of thought. Todays atheists - he argues - are just not atheist enough.

I love this quote:

The principal source of my melancholy, however, is my firm conviction that today’s most obstreperous infidels lack the courage, moral intelligence, and thoughtfulness of their forefathers in faithlessness. What I find chiefly offensive about them is not that they are skeptics or atheists; rather, it is that they are not skeptics at all and have purchased their atheism cheaply, with the sort of boorish arrogance that might make a man believe himself a great strategist because his tanks overwhelmed a town of unarmed peasants, or a great lover because he can afford the price of admission to a brothel. So long as one can choose one’s conquests in advance, taking always the paths of least resistance, one can always imagine oneself a Napoleon or a Casanova (and even better: the one without a Waterloo, the other without the clap).

HT: Justin Taylor

Book Review: Explosive Preaching

2010-04-30T18:45:00.002+01:00

Explosive Preaching, by Ron Boyd-MacMillan

Preaching is a funny old thing. It is a fairly unique communication method in contemporary society – in very few settings other than churches do people turn up week after week to listen uninterrupted to someone else speaking.

As someone who preaches regularly, preaching is a massively important part of my life. It takes up hours of my time in thinking and planning and preparing, and it is an area in which I feel acutely aware of the need for continued improvement. Part of that improvement must involve the study of preaching, including the reading of books on the subject, so to all my fellow preachers out there I would commend this book.

Boyd-MacMillan (and as that’s a lot to type it’ll be BM from here on) divides his book into four sections, so I’ll review it under those headings. Each of the sections is presented as a letter from one preacher to another, somewhat like the advice of the older devil to his junior in the Screwtape Letters, but hopefully with more godly intent!

1. The Crisis in Preaching – the Problems
This part of the book offers a survey of the state of contemporary preaching, some of the pitfalls we should avoid, and why we should value preaching. Its all good, workmanlike stuff, but I don’t have many sentences underlined here, which is a sure sign I wasn’t feeling too gripped. I do like this paragraph though, near the end of the section, and something I did underline:

“What other form of speech has these five effects: to delight God, to astonish angels, to discourage devils, to encourage saints, and to restore sinners? I’ve done my time preaching to virtually empty halls and churches, and it is a great fillip to remember that three of the five audiences of a sermon are unseen.”

2. Great Preaching – the Elements
This is a helpful section. BM takes seven chapters with seven ‘tests’ of good preaching: Do I have a central focus? Does my sermon enable the hearer to experience the truth I am preaching? Am I preaching the divine insight from the Bible? Am I preaching the greatness of God and addressing the universal questions of life? Do I really love those to whom I am speaking? Why the preacher should sound different to the Dalai Lama!

I like this:

“Words are actions! When it comes to the gospel, we do not speak, then act. Speaking the gospel is an action. The utterance of the good news is the good news! God said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” In the same way, when we proclaim the gospel, then the gospel event is underway!”

3. The History of Preaching – the Forms
This is an incredibly helpful summary of the historical sweep of preaching. BM skewers some pet hates of his, which are also pet hates of mine, such as a false distinction between preaching and teaching, “Folks, just drop it. What use is this distinction? In practice, it isn’t there. Jesus was called ‘teacher’ far more often than a ‘preacher.’ The fact is, when you preach, you teach; when you teach, you preach. Think Siamese twins, and to operate to separate them causes death to one or to both.”

I also appreciate BM’s defence of the monolog:

“A good gospel monolog is an urgent need today because people are so busy: always talking, always rushing, always acting. Their real need is to sit down in silence to listen to an interesting talk that has content, that moves them, and makes them think.”

This section is incredibly helpful as a self-diagnostic tool, to answer the question, ‘What kind of preacher am I?’ BM surveys famous preachers from Augustine to Billy Graham, and getting a greater appreciation of how they operated is very helpful in analyzing one’s own preaching.

4. The Preachers Life – the Issues
The shortest section of the book, and a bit of a catch-all, with some things that are truly inspiring and some practical pointers. I like BM’s encouragement to be appropriately ambitious in what our preaching can achieve, and I like his dissection of why the use of PowerPoint in preaching is a bad idea (it is you know!), while not being hostile to the use of images to aid preaching.

The book ends with a quite staggering account of BM’s involvement in training house church leaders in China, which consisted of, “Taking twenty people away to a house in the country for a year, with one change of clothes, no books, a few notebooks, a bible, a daily bowl of rice and a few vegetables.” Over the course of this year the trainees had to write and memorize 100 one-hour long sermons: one on every book of the Bible, 33 on the life and work of Jesus, and one (which could be as long as they liked) “for the end of time” – a sermon imagined for the wedding priest of the Lamb, telling the whole salvation story.

All that certainly made my hours of sweating over the scriptures look somewhat half-baked…

In summary then, this is definitely one to get. Ironically, for a book with a lot of emphasis on making our preaching engaging, I thought it could have been slightly shorter, but BM is a witty and insightful writer, and what he writes will help you preach.

Who Should We Listen To?

2010-04-20T09:48:00.001+01:00

As so often, I find myself agreeing with Carl Trueman.

If You Like Books...

2010-04-19T12:33:00.000+01:00

... check out these videos from the Together For The Gospel gang, in which they show us around their studies.

Al Mohler's is the most jaw-dropping, so you may want to start there.

7 Ways to Blow Up Your Church

2010-04-16T22:32:00.001+01:00

This is a helpful reality check:

By Chuck Lawless, Dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism at Southern Seminary

I served as a church pastor for 14 years, have now served for 12 years as a church consultant and have watched hundreds of students begin their local church ministries during my 14 years as a seminary professor. Based on my observations from these various vantage points, here’s what I would do if I wanted to “blow up” a church.

1. Begin my ministry as a teacher and refuse to be a learner. Seminary does this to us sometimes: we spend three or more years learning, and we are ready to use all of that knowledge in the first few weeks of a new ministry. What we fail to do is listen to the people, get to know them and understand their culture. Consequently, we are viewed more as an outsider than a pastor, and the fault most often lies with us.

Click here to read the other 6 points

Staying Connected

2010-03-24T19:26:00.002Z

Here's a helpful post about leaders staying connected to people, using the analogy of a mobile phone.

If you have ever experienced going through a tunnel and the line going dead, or being out of network coverage, you'll relate...

Want to plant a church?

2010-03-17T11:45:00.001Z

Perry Noble warns of five tests you will face:

TEST #1 – THE FINANCIAL TEST
TEST #2 - THE CRITICS TEST
TEST #3 – THE FAITH TEST
TEST #4 – THE COMMITMENT TEST
TEST #5 – THE FOCUS TEST

Click http://www.catalystspace.com/content/read/five_tests_a_church_planter_will_face_noble/ to read the rest.

Out of Africa

2010-03-03T12:41:00.002Z

Godfirst Church, Johannesburg are stepping up their media output. Check out these video snippets from PJ Smyth's current preaching series:

Influence

2010-02-20T22:04:00.001Z

For all those interested in politics, this is an interesting list of the 50 top political influencers in the UK from Total Politics magazine.

Readers with a Newfrontiers background might recognize one of the names...

Happy Birthday Terry Virgo!

2010-02-20T00:54:00.001Z

Terry Virgo is 70 today, so an appropriate time for an appreciation of the great man – one of the finest leaders I know.

I first met Terry when I was ten years old and he came to the church my father was leading at the time, and to our house for lunch. So I have known him for three-quarters of my life and he has had a profound influence on me, both from a distance as a platform speaker and leader of a movement, and more close up as someone I know personally and have had the privilege of spending time with.

When I was 16 my family moved to Brighton and I was a regular caller at the Virgo house, visiting Terry’s oldest sons, Ben and Joel. When Grace and I were first married and visiting Brighton to see my parents we would sometimes drop round to see Terry and Wendy at their home. In more recent years I have had evenings with Terry, talking about the church and theology, stayed overnight at his house, and then prayed with him in the morning. And there have been other days when with a group of other pastors I have been at Terry’s to pray.

What these experiences demonstrate are some of the qualities that make Terry the man he is, and a man that so many of us are happy to follow…

Terry is hospitable. The Virgo house is usually full and the door normally open. Terry does not stand aloof, but is welcoming and embracing of all kinds of people.

Terry is prayerful. No-one has taught me so much about prayer as Terry. He is a genuinely spiritual man. He is more passionate about Jesus than anyone else I know and he loves to pray. To pray with Terry is an educating experience! He goes straight for it, and is enthusiastic, persistent, and joyful. I first learnt to pray by being at prayer meetings Terry led at Church of Christ the King, and I have continued to learn to pray by being led by Terry at our leaders Prayer & Fasting days, and by being in his home.

Terry loves to encourage other leaders. Terry is generous and wants others to succeed. He loves to see younger men pushing forward in their calling and is always encouraging of this.

Terry is humble. There is no arrogance about Terry. He doesn’t expect special treatment.

Terry is determined. He has an incredible focus and drive and a great confidence in what he has been called to do.

Terry loves the church. In a day when so many Christian leaders are disparaging and cynical about the local church, Terry has never wavered in his passion for it and belief in what God can accomplish through it. Terry expects great things from local congregations.

Terry has global vision. When you pray with Terry, you pray for the world. Just as he is passionate about the local church, so he is passionate about the advance of the kingdom of God throughout the nations of the world.

Terry commands respect. Because of what he has done, but more because of who he is as a man of God, Terry is someone who I would never want to offend or embarrass or get on the wrong side of. He is a man of incredible stature.

Terry keeps on learning. Terry is always reading a new book, always looking for fresh expressions of God’s blessing, always open to being used by God in new ways. This is deeply impressive, as so many people get lazy or complacent with advancing age or success. Terry may be 70, but he is still hungry, still curious, still wanting more.

Happy Birthday Terry! You are an inspiration.

10 Questions for Leaders: Dave Smith

2010-02-02T10:36:00.004Z

Three times a year leaders from Newfrontiers churches gather for two days of prayer and fasting, and this has really been the key event in keeping the movement together, and moving forward. Over the years we have met in various venues and are currently meeting at Kingsgate Community Church, Peterborough. At our most recent Prayer & Fasting event I was able to get a fascinating 30 minutes with Dave Smith, leader of Kingsgate. Dave was the subject of the very first post on this blog, as I reported on a talk he gave us at Prayer & Fasting about the journey the church had been on in building their massive facility.

Kingsgate is making a big impact in Peterborough, and increasingly across the nation. Last year a service was broadcast from the church by the BBC, and then suddenly went viral when Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles talked about watching the service on his show (available here). So Kingsgate represents something fairly unique in the UK, and it was great to be able to ask Dave about the things that make him tick as a leader. Dave’s academic background might not indicate much in the way of leadership nous, but leadership clearly oozes from him. He comes across far more as an entrepreneurial leader than a bookish history don – so all in all an intriguing character…

Who is your leadership hero? Why?
This is the hardest one!

One of the things that characterize Kingsgate is having lots of connections and part of my own remit is wanting to glean from lots of people and movements. For example, Bill Hybels is an inspiration as a leader of leaders, but that doesn’t mean we are trying to build Kingsgate the same as Willow, with its seeker services. So I really couldn’t say any particular heroes. In terms of historical figures someone like George Whitefield stands out.

How long have you been in leadership?
I started in church leadership 22 years ago.

What was your first leadership role?
A caretaker leadership role of a house church in Oxford – this only lasted about a year. When I was 25 I moved to Peterborough with Karen, my wife, to start the church, having never led anything before. I had never captained the school football team or anything like that – I had never really thought about leadership. In Oxford I was working with Simon Matthews of Plumbline ministries, and he suggested we come to Peterborough. We had no knowledge of the town and knew no-one. I worked in Stamford school teaching history and after 18 months there were still only six of us in the church!

How long have you been in your current role?
We started Kingsgate 22 years ago. Before that we were in Oxford, where I had studied for six years. I was converted at St Aldates, before connecting with Simon Matthews. At Oxford I was doing a PhD on Whitefield as Inter-confessional Evangelist.

How long has your church been established? Did you start it?
See above.

What has been the growth curve of your church?
After 18 months there were six of us, and up to year four there were still only 25 people. I then decided to take a step of faith, give up teaching and go full-time in serving the church. We saw immediate growth to 50 people, and in the following two years doubled and doubled again. Then for a numbers of years, we saw a sustained 20 per cent annual growth. In September 2006 we moved into the building and saw nearly 50 per cent growth in six months. (Since then we have still been growing, but focussing on consolidation, and preparation for future expansion!)

The team was already pretty tired from doing the building project, but it was very exciting, although a real push. We had staffed up a little in the previous year which meant we could carry the growth, but it is only in the last six to twelve months that we have got properly tanked up again. We brought in volunteer group pastors – ‘captains of 100’s’ – who secured the pastoral dynamic of the church and helped prevent major fallout. The reality is that our small group growth hasn’t yet caught up with our Sunday growth and we have had to make a lot of internal adjustments in getting used to a bigger platform, the bigger dynamic, and so on.

I am naturally quite impatient and had to learn how to wait, learning how to be “on a pace to match my grace.” I have had to learn not to run ahead of God, but keep in step with the Spirit – not trying to create growth, but working with the Spirit. We have been careful not to try and copy the ministries/programmes of others while at the same time learning from others.

What has been your biggest leadership challenge?
A big challenge has been the building project. We started the search for land in the late ‘90s and the first site we found didn’t work out. I had to lead the church through that. In the end we got this site, which is much bigger, better, and had the favour of the local council.

(NB For more on this see my earlier post.)

What has been your greatest leadership success?
Having a strong united team. We have never had a major leadership split and have a great sense of unity. There is an absence of cynicism in the church and this is more precious than the building.

How are you developing new leaders?
Going on all the time through our equipping track. We have a culture of movement, discipleship, and growth, that is a bedrock in the church. We have a strong discipling culture.

I am just piloting a new leadership course (‘Expand’) with 50 people on it. This will be a mixture of teaching, group work, and personal study. There is also a development track in people serving as a cell leader, then a cluster leader, and so on.

We have 35 people on staff and these are my priority. If I can raise their level I can raise the level of the whole church.

How are you continuing to develop your own leadership gifts?
Primarily through my personal connection with God – daily reading, journaling, lavish doses of praying in tongues, listening to the Spirit.

I also make the most of apostolic connections in the UK and overseas. For example, on a recent sabbatical Karen and I visited key worldwide ministries to learn from them. Francois van Niekerk, from Hatfield church, South Africa, acts like a personal mentor to me.

Up to five years ago I had never read a book on leadership, but under Hybels influence now do so regularly.

I knew I liked this guy...

2010-01-29T15:31:00.002Z

I enjoy Carl Trueman's writing, and reading an interview with him makes me like him all the more, as it it pretty much the answer I would give to the same question:

If you were not in ministry, what occupational path would you have chosen?

Tough one: I like to write, so journalism would have been a desirable path; but I also like to argue, so maybe a trial lawyer. If I had enough money to just do whatever I wanted, I think I would want to work as part of a Tour de France team, a park ranger in the mountains somewhere far away, or the owner of a traditional English public house, with open fire, horse brasses, fine ale, and a dart board. I could just stand behind the bar, pulling pints, and complaining, in good English fashion, about the weather, the cricket, and the fact that nothing tastes quite as good as it did when I was young.

To read the rest, click here.

Learn to Affirm

2010-01-27T14:09:00.000Z

A helpful post from Rick Warren on how to affirm the people you work with:

Make affirmation real. Your affirmation has to come from the heart to be effective. Your people can smell it a mile away when you’re faking it.

Make affirmation regular. Don’t be stingy with your affirmation. This isn’t something you do every now and then. It’s something you do as a consistent part of your relationship with those you lead.

Make affirmation recognizable. Be specific with your affirmation. Don’t just tell someone they’re a good person. Tell them why. Tell them a character trait you appreciate in them. Affirm them for something you saw them do that you liked.

Make affirmation written. A written note means you’ve taken the time to affirm. I used to send most of my encouraging notes through email, but one sentence in a handwritten note is better than three paragraphs in an email.

To read more, click here.

Evangelical Liberalism

2010-01-25T13:49:00.000Z

The Jan/Feb ejournal from 9Marks is out and well worth a read. As leaders we can tend to focus very much on the pragmatics of leadership. If you are a church leader this can be fatal, ending up in all kinds of gospel compromise. So take some time out to have a look at this, and be called back to the gospel.

Maxwell on Character

2010-01-22T13:46:00.000Z

Tiger's story is a cautionary tale about character. All of the momentum you build through decades of hard work and dedication can be erased if you do not craft the character to support it. Character is forged daily through the decisions we make. It comes from within and cannot be purchased. Be diligent about working on your character so that you become a person worth following and someone worthy of harnessing the momentum of success.

Click here to read more.

Leader or Manager?

2010-01-19T16:05:00.001Z

And is there a difference?

Tony Morgan asks these questions:

# Are you a leader or manager? (How do you know?)
# Are you in a role that allows you to lead or manage according to your gifts?
# Do you know whether or not the people working for you are leaders or managers?
# Are they serving in roles that fit their giftedness?
# Have you defined what roles in your organization need leaders and which ones need managers?
# When one of those roles are open, are you trying to find the person who is best gifted to lead or manage?

Click here to read more and consider the difference it makes to church leadership.

Resolutions for Leaders

2009-12-31T09:45:00.002Z

Rick Warren's five New Years resolutions for church leaders:

1. When someone serves you, be understanding not demanding.
2. When somebody disappoints you, be gentle and not judgmental.
3. When someone disagrees with you, be tender without surrender.
4. When someone corrects you, be teachable rather than unreachable.
5. When somebody hurts you, be an actor not a reactor.

Click here to read more.

Losing While Winning

2009-12-23T15:34:00.001Z

A morality tale to warn leaders to keep their egos in check...

John Paul Jones is regarded as The Father of the American Navy, and rightly so given his heroic courage in battle and his devotion to America's struggle for independence. Yet sadly, Jones alienated himself from the country he loved, dying penniless and alone in France at the age of 45. Why did the war hero's story end so dismally? The answer is simple: John Paul Jones never valued relationships.

Click here to read more.

McLeadership

2009-11-24T10:52:00.001Z

The story of the rise and rise of McDonald's and the lessons that can be learnt for leadership has often been told. Here John Maxwell tells it again, with some application from his own life.

Feeling Tired?

2009-11-21T16:56:00.000Z

Leadership is hard work. Which means we get tired. Which means we need to take regular breaks.

On my other blog earlier this year I posted a series on keeping the sabbath. To see what Rick Warren has to say on the subject, click here.

Leadership Lessons from U2

2009-11-19T16:54:00.000Z

In an industry where bands combust regularly, U2 have stuck by one another to achieve unrivaled success. Mutual respect has laid the foundation for their longstanding musical partnership, and personal friendships have carried them through tough times. Each band member's willingness to elevate the U2 brand above their own popularity has kept the group unified. Meanwhile, a refusal to be content with prior accomplishments has compelled U2 to pursue change and push the boundaries of their artistry.

Click here to read more.

More Leadership Principles from John Maxwell

2009-11-17T16:50:00.000Z

Five Responsibilities of Good Team Leaders

1) Seek Out and Removes Barriers to Make the Team's Job Easier
2) Give The Team Freedom to Grow, Learn, and Deliver
3) Set Crystal Clear Expectations
4) Hold People Accountable for Performance
5) Foster a Culture of Inclusion by Hiring People That Are Different Than They Are.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Acts 29

2009-10-19T19:26:00.001+01:00

Very good interview with Scott Thomas, director of Acts 29, on Challies site.

Check it out...

More on Multi

2009-10-02T16:06:00.002+01:00

Multiple meetings & multi-site are the hot trends in growing churches in the West. There is a lot to be said for it (Gateway is going to two meetings in January) but it also needs to be thought through theologically and missiologically.

In this video, Ed Stetzer, one of the sharpest missiological thinkers out there, fires some warning shots across the multi-site bows,

HT Out of Ur

8 Principles for leading a team

2009-09-24T08:05:00.000+01:00

Mega-church pastor Perry Noble gives 8 principles for leading a team:

#1 – You will never effectively motivate someone with feelings of guilt
#2 – People don’t respond to need – they respond to vision
#3 – A person cannot be held accountable for unspoken expectations
#4 – Keep short accounts
#5 – Don’t be afraid to set high standards
#6 – Beware of the all-star
#7 – Each team member is a human being
#8 – Ask questions

Click here to read the whole thing.

Beating temptation

2009-09-23T22:10:00.000+01:00

Brilliant article on beating temptation by Rick Warren here.

When the media comes calling

2009-09-22T09:36:00.003+01:00

My (limited) experience with the media is that having them visit a church is usually something of a mixed blessing. Pastors are usually glad for the publicity, but very often what is reported is not how the church would like to be represented! Media involvement is a double-edged sword...

Sometimes, though, the press do just report things as they are.

PJ Smyth has been stirring the waters in Johannesburg with provocative sermon series (on subjects like sex) and provocative meeting venues (like a casino). The South African Sunday Times interviewed him and has run a feature on Godfirst Church titled Praise the Lord and pass the beer.

You can read the whole thing here. And here is an extract,

Fancy thrashing out the meaning of a psalm over a beer before the church sermon starts? Then you may want to join the roughly 1500 Johannesburg residents who have become congregants of GodFirst Church, which has adopted a string of sexy ways to lure non-religious people to church.

Earlier this year, GodFirst caused some controversy when it hosted an eight-week course called Sex in the City, which included topics titled All Night Long and I Kissed a Girl and Liked It. The billboard advertising the event contained a provocative image of a woman's red lips and read: "Jozi loves sex. God loves sex. Let's talk."

But it proved to be too hot for the Advertising Standards Authority, which ruled that it "trivialised" God by creating the impression "that God loves sex in the same way ordinary people do" and ordered the church to remove it.

Don't fear the routine

2009-09-13T21:00:00.001+01:00

I always find Carl Trueman's posts thought provoking. Here he does an excellent dissection of the 'Young, Restless & Reformed' movement (of which I would consider myself a part), pointing out the dangers of the cult of personality, and the value of the routine.

Well worth reading.

Fueled by Passion

2009-09-10T15:45:00.000+01:00

By their 60th birthday, a majority of leaders have begun to contemplate retirement. By age 70, most have bid farewell to the working world. Past 80 years of age, no one is expected to work, and it's virtually unheard of for a leader to remain at the pinnacle of his or her profession.

Don't mention retirement to Joe Paterno, though. Spurred on by an unquenchable passion, the 82-year old legend recently signed a three-year contract extension to continue coaching the Penn State football team. The contract wasn't simply a gesture of loyalty, either. Paterno led Penn State to the Rose Bowl last year, and his teams boast a 40-11 record over the past four seasons.

Click here to continue reading.

Do you church discipline?

2009-09-05T14:14:00.001+01:00

9Marks eJournal on church discipline available here.

Authentic Leadership

2009-09-04T13:48:00.002+01:00

Steve Gladen writes,

As a leader you need to share your weaknesses as well as your strengths. You need to share your messes and your successes. You need to speak with honesty. It may not always be easy, but you need to be truthful with those you lead. Truthfulness is part of sharing who you are. We need to speak the truth in love, growing in every way more like Christ.

Click here to carry on reading.

Do you plan?

2009-08-25T11:58:00.001+01:00

The latest from Maxwell,

If you've ever gone whitewater rafting, then you know the importance of planning. Whenever the raft approaches rapids, the guide has to plan the best route to navigate safely through them. If the guide fails to plan, then the raft can easily smash into a rock or capsize.

Four Types of Planning

Passive planning happens when leadership allows the raft to travel downstream at the mercy of the current rather than steering, rowing, and turning. This kind of non-planning eventually leaves you unprepared to face whitewater rapids. Worse yet, in the absence of a plan, the current may take the raft over the edge of a dreaded waterfall.

Panic planning happens only after the raft is in trouble. At this point, all of the organization's resources are scrambled in a reactionary pattern in an attempt to solve the problem. With panic planning, you may or may not come out alive and well, but you are guaranteed some bumps and bruises.

Scientific planning is viable, but can be laborious, mechanical, and often ends up abandoned in the process. Imagine if a raft guide constantly tried to measure the depth of the water, the distance between rocks, the wind speed, and the water current. Although the information might be helpful, oftentimes the water would be moving too swiftly to take the measurements. In a like manner, leaders often have to respond to change in an instant. There's no time to collect scientific data on all of the variables before deciding which course of action is best.

Principle-centered planning is the key to effectiveness. It is the artistic or leadership approach. Principle-centered planning recognizes that life in general (and people in particular) can't be graphed on a chart, but sees that planning still remains essential.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Gaining Momentum

2009-08-04T14:38:00.001+01:00

Check out this article by John Maxwell:

A train travelling 55 mph on a railroad track can crash through a 5-foot thick steel-reinforced concrete wall without stopping. That same train, starting from a stationary position, won't be able to go through an inch-thick block in front of the driving wheel.

It is never the size of your problem that is the problem. It's a lack of momentum. Without momentum, even a tiny obstacle can prevent you from moving forward. With momentum, you'll navigate through problems and barely even notice them.

Click here to read the whole thing.

What Mega-Pastors Think

2009-07-16T09:30:00.001+01:00

Leadership Network recently conducted a survey of 232 pastors of churches with an average weekend worship attendance of at least 2,000. Here's what they said:

They think of themselves more as teachers and directional leaders than as pastors.
Preaching tops the list of things they do best.
They haven't always worked in churches.
Being an extrovert isn't mandatory.
Family stays at the top of mind when it comes to prayers.
They usually like the people they work with.
They believe their top gift is leadership.
They are actively involved in sports.
They find worship at their church helpful for personal spiritual growth.
They're not thinking about quitting.

HT Ed Stetzer

More Mistakes

2009-07-15T16:10:00.002+01:00

A good article by another American mega-church leader I have never heard of!

The top 3 leadership mistakes made by Stovall Weems:

Mistake #1: Allowing Ministry “Business” to Affect My Personal Time with God
Mistake #2: Not Being Me
Mistake #3: Over Committing

Click here to read the rest.

Mission

2009-07-02T11:37:00.002+01:00

The latest edition of the 9 Marks ejournal is available here - all about mission.

From the editors note:

A country can only export what it manufactures. That's a pretty basic principle. But now apply that principle to the topic of missions: if generations of American churches have been characterized by pragmatic church growth principles, what would you expect to see characterizing their overseas missions endeavors?

Okay, so maybe American missions work is driven by the same kind of pragmatism that characterizes so many American churches. Is that really such a big deal? Well, stop and consider the differences between planting pragmatically-driven churches in America versus planting them in most Majority World contexts. Such churches in America have the luxury of building themselves upon the foundations of a culture imbued with several hundred years of Christian influence and ethical norms. Fill a room with nominal Christians, as pragmatically-driven churches do, and you still have a dame that looks half way
decent. She'll dress up alright.

Now build that same church with those same pragmatic principles, yielding once again a room filled with nominal Christians, but do it in a country with strong traditions in polygamy, or animal sacrifice, or ancestor worship, or Islamic chauvinism, or Hindu castes, or nepotistic social structures, or so on. Build it on the shoulders of leaders who didn't grow up in Sunday School and were not groomed in seminary classrooms with tall genealogical trees, where orthodoxy, even if it's doubted, has been defended in book after book after book. What should we expect of this church? I've been around the Majority World block enough times to suspect something very different, indeed.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 15. Jesus before ministry

2009-07-01T09:18:00.001+01:00

‘I want to know Christ…’ (Phil. 3:10)
One day our ministries will be over. We may lose our health or even our husband or wife. What will we have then? Don’t live for your ministry – live for Jesus – that I might know him.

And so we come to the last of my reflections on my fathers reflections on 40 years in ministry – and it must end with this, that it really is all about Jesus.

Much of what sells itself as the gospel these days seems barely to give a nod to the author of that gospel. It is all health and wealth and wacky experiences and sorting out your self-image. Too much of it is about sticking a band-aid on the obvious problems of humanity rather than performing the radical heart surgery that is really required, but not always so obvious.

All of us can be drawn astray from a focus on the Savior to a focus on our ministry, and how well we are scoring compared to our peers. Too many of us get our sense of identity from what we do rather than from who we are.

Faithful under-shepherds of Christ do not fall into these errors. They preach Christ and follow Christ and keep their focus on Christ. They know that the measure that counts is not so much how we are measured by popular opinion in this life, but how we are measured by Christ in eternity.

We will be measured by what we treasure, so let us treasure Christ over all.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 14. Develop an outside interest

2009-06-29T10:46:00.001+01:00

You don’t have to have a hobby to be a Christian leader! But an outside interest will bring you into contact and relationship with those who are not Believers.

I sometimes think that one of the reasons I have not been more ‘successful’ as a church leader is that I am too interested in too many things! I find all sorts of stuff interesting – rugby, running, rowing, brewing, baking, building, politics, poetry, plants, dogs, ducks, dictionaries, motorbikes, mycology, music, fishing, fruit, flamenco, gardening, garages, glossolalia… I love going to places where other people work and seeing what they do. A magazine stand is a dangerous place to leave me – I could be there for weeks delving into the more obscure hobbies represented there. Maybe if I were just a bit more focussed!

But it is good to have a hobby! Yes, it gets you out of the Christian ghetto. Yes, it gives you some sermon illustrations. Yes, it helps you get a broader perspective on God’s creation.

And it just makes you less boring!

Don't Cheat on Your Family

2009-06-28T13:57:00.001+01:00

According to Andy Stanley, we'll never have enough time to attain our ideal career productivity, relationship to our spouse and kids, physical fitness, service to the community, financial goals, and devotion to hobbies. Regardless of our discipline in managing time and controlling our schedules, something or somebody is going to feel cheated. It's unavoidable. The issue isn't whether to cheat, but choosing where to cheat and how to go about it.

Click here to read more.

Counting the Cost

2009-06-27T11:54:00.002+01:00

John Maxwell's latest article for Catalyst on counting the cost,

All dreams have price tags attached, and the cost is always higher than we expect to pay. Not once in my conversations with successful people have I heard someone say, "Getting to the top was much easier than I anticipated." The reverse is true. Those at the pinnacle of their professions point to the hardships and sacrifices they had to endure to reach the top.

Click here to carry on reading.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 13. Be flexible

2009-06-26T10:45:00.001+01:00

Fast moving changes in our society and rapid cultural change mean we need to be culturally aware. Paul says, ‘After beginning with the Spirit are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?’ (Gal. 3:3). Flexibility shows openness to the Spirit. 10.00am on a Sunday is not sacrosanct for a church meeting, nor is it wrong. We need to be flexible in today’s world.

It is scary how quickly we build walls of religious practice around our Christian faith. The stories are legion of how a particular way of doing things in a church becomes the reason that things are done. But Jesus promises us living water, and the thing is that the water will soon leak out of structures that are simply structures – which is why the world is littered with so many things that call themselves ‘church’ but are in fact just empty shells. My kids like collecting shells from the beach. They are interesting, they can look pretty, beautiful even. But they are dead!

Too often we spend our time admiring the shell, and trying to protect the shell, all the time failing to notice that the life has gone.

A better model for ministry is the hermit crab. The hermit crab isn’t fussy about shells – he doesn’t bother to grow one of his own. Instead he takes an empty shell and slips it on his back; until the day he gets too big for it, when he shrugs it off and finds another one which is the right size.

We should be more like the hermit crab. We need structures, but we also need the freedom to shrug them off and find more commodious ones.

It is a tragedy that we so closely associate “church” with a particular building or place. It makes it far too easy for us to put all our efforts into safeguarding that particular place. It is great that so many churches now are buying and building bigger and better buildings – I’m all for it. But that mustn’t hold the life of the church hostage. It is the life that is the thing, and life is always flexible.

Getting Things Done

2009-06-25T13:49:00.002+01:00

Last Friday I was teaching on Vision to a group of emerging leaders and made the observation that without implementation there is no vision - just futile thinking. We can have the most brilliant ideas in the world, but they won't count for anything unless they get put into action.

Here is a helpful article that explores the power of completion.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 12, Pay attention to team

2009-06-24T09:40:00.000+01:00

A team needs complementary team members in terms of gift and personality, etc. Successful teams work when each member of the team is prepared to make personal sacrifices in order to gain the benefit of being on a team. Team members need real stuff to do.

In our office recently we were discussing the remarkable success of Sir Alex Fergusson as manager of Manchester United. “Why is he so successful?” was the question.

There are lots of factors that contribute to Fergusson’s effectiveness, but surely absolutely central is his focus on the team as a whole. No one player is allowed to get bigger than the team, and when they do (whether it be Beckham or van Nistelroy or Ronaldo) they are shown the door. Individual brilliance is not sufficient if it jeopardizes the overall team performance. Other teams are sometimes able to recruit more Galacticos but if they do not gel as a team they usually don’t win championships. I will always remember back in ’95 when Newcastle should have won the Premiership, but then Kevin Keegan brought in the brilliant, mercurial Faustino Asprilla – he was amazing to watch and scored some incredible goals, but he didn’t help the team. And Manchester United were champions again.

Fergusson has an uncanny ability to nurture home grown talent and recruit judiciously from outside the club, creating a blend that brings success again and again. And he has been able to do this repeatedly – just when it looks as though one set of players are fading and that the team might slip back, Fergie refreshes the blend and brings them back to the top.

And he brings them to the top with a passionate desire to win. Somehow he manages to keep the hunger of multi-millionaire footballers alive, and has them more focussed on trophies than on their Ferraris.

All this is very galling for those of us who do not support United, but it is a good lesson in leadership of a team.

My observations of church teams that work well are that:
• The leader is very secure in their own gifts and position. This means that he doesn’t have to fight for territory but is ready to delegate real authority to other team members and have his ideas questioned by them.
• At the same time there is no question that he is the team leader, and he is held in real respect by his colleagues.
• The best teams are led by someone with vision, and energy, and determination, and are staffed by people who are willing and able to implement the vision and plans of the team.
• There is a greater focus on what the team is doing than on what any individual team member is doing (which means team members are not trying to build their own power bases).
• Great teams are good at developing new players from within the church, but also at times cherry pick people with particular skills from outside. They hire slow and fire fast.
• There is a sense of fun and camaraderie in the team, but also a certain ruthlessness – things just move too fast for their to be much sentimentality.

The Church needs more Fergies!

Reflections on 40 years... Part 11. Use the different ministries

2009-06-22T14:58:00.000+01:00

The church really does need all the ministries – Apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers. Ask them in. And if they say what you have said a 100 times before but now people ‘hear’ it for the first time – Rejoice!

Note to leaders of smaller churches: I know you would love to have lots of high-impact ministries come into your church, but you can never get them to come.

It’s a tough one.

So, grab what you can when you can. Develop and ruthlessly exploit whatever relationships you can. Team with other churches in town. Maybe set your targets a little lower as to who you ask to come in. Take your congregation to conferences. Don’t give up.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 10. Don’t fret too much about those who leave

2009-06-19T14:52:00.000+01:00

Pastors always feel it personally when individuals leave the church – especially when they tell you that it’s not personal! The fact is people always leave churches. Generally for everyone that leaves you unhappy someone joins you ‘cos they are unhappy somewhere else! It tends to even out!

I hate it when people leave!

You know the ones that annoy me most? Its when we’ve had a long chat and they seem to be happy, only to call the following week (or more likely send a note) saying they’re off anyway. That just feels like a waste of time!

However, I think I’m getting more relaxed about people leaving. Every body needs a bowel, and sometimes people need to pass through one church before (hopefully) entering another. Always trying to ‘block up the backdoor’ isn’t always a good use of energy. Sometimes its better to hold it wide open!

I have made the mistake in the past of desperately holding onto people who were pillars of the church, in fear that if they left the church would fall down, when of course it is Jesus who actually holds this thing together. At times we have to be positive about even our very best people moving on. If we hold onto people too tight they only stagnate where they are – and stagnating things have a tendency to start stinking. Better to send people with your blessing and trust God to replace them – and add more in return.

Of course, it would be great if there was a more profound understanding of loyalty in some people. We live in faithless age, and those who bounce from church to church are a menace. And I wish people more often made decisions about which church to join on genuine theological and missiological grounds, rather than on style and personality.

But there it is.

So the approach I try and follow is this:
• Let people go if it is right they should go
• Fight, but not too hard, for those who shouldn’t go but want to
• Hold the door wide open for those who are just getting in the way
• When it cuts the other way and someone from another church in town comes to you, pick up the phone and check things out with their previous pastor (at the least this is simple courtesy, and it amazes me that more people don’t do it)
• Try not to get too stressed about it all!

Reflections on 40 years... Part 9. Beware the latest fad

2009-06-17T14:34:00.000+01:00

It’s easy to believe that if we do it this way or that way we are guaranteed great success. But exceptions make poor models. There are exceptional churches around today that we can learn a great deal from. But their leaders are not your church’s leader. “…the best way to be lastingly relevant is to stand on the rock solid durable old truths rather than just jumping from one pragmatic bandwagon to another.” John Piper

Woe! Twice woe! to the copiers of another mans vision!

This is such an easy trap to fall into, and so understandable. Good leaders want to keep on learning. We go to conferences, read books, keep up with the blogs, and are eager to learn from anyone more ‘successful’ than we are. These are all good and commendable things to do. But it is so easy to jump from appropriate learning to an assumption that the latest book or conference offers the silver bullet that will turn us into superstar leaders and our churches into the kind of places that other people come to visit in order to copy us!

Sometimes it feels as if the primary ambition of some church leaders is to lead a church that provokes other leaders to envy because of its size, financial resources, and cutting edge ministry.

And that’s not very Christ-like.

Only Rick Warren can be Rick Warren. And Orange County is different from my town or your town. Only Mark Driscoll can be Mark Driscoll. And Seattle is different from my town or your town.

Lets be the people Jesus has called us to be, and build the churches he has called us to build.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 8. Go for students

2009-06-15T13:27:00.000+01:00

Some say ‘you can’t grow a church on students’ – you can! It doesn’t happen in the first 5 minutes, but eventually students will begin to get jobs in your area, get married and settle down. Students are the nation’s influencers in the future. International students return to their own countries and take a vision that has come from your church. Some students plant a church overseas and take your church to the nations.

One of the great frustrations of student work is the way in which students only tend to be around for half the year. In some student towns this means that for half the year churches can be half the size they are for the other half.

Glass half-full or half-empty?

Glass half-full! It is always worth going for students – and it isn’t difficult. When I came to Poole there were only two students in the church, although there are thousands in our area. Simply by making the decision that we wanted to reach students we began to gather some, and now have a decent crowd coming along. We hope to build on this when the new academic year begins in October.

It is a bit painful when term ends and the students depart, but part of my longer term strategy is to win students who will eventually get jobs locally and build into the church permanently. I also see students as prime church planting candidates, both in this church and overseas.

I also just like reaching students because they bring a different dynamic to church life – it is healthy for a church to have a bunch of people in their late teens and early twenties around, who are trying to find their way in the world and have creative and crazy ideas. It is also very good for students to be part of a church family. It is good for them to be in a setting where they are mixing not just with other students but with children and older adults. There is a lot of symbiotic benefit for the church and for the student.

So go for students!

Book Review: Church Unique

2009-06-14T15:56:00.000+01:00

Church Unique by Will Mancini

I read this on the advice of a friend who is church planting in Belfast, with whom I was discussing the thorny subject of vision.

First a gripe: the jargon in these kind of books drives me mad! I know what Mancini and his ilk are trying to do – grappling for language that expresses new concepts – but I was never keen on alphabet spaghetti as a kid, and I’d like to read a leadership book without it now I am a man.

Gripe done with; to the content…

Doubtless many church leaders struggle to articulate a clear and compelling vision for their church, and even more fail to implement it. Vision is much agonized over and many books have been written about it. The thing is, we all know it when we see it! Certain leaders simply embody vision. There is something about them, some charisma, chutzpah, pizzazz which just seems to make things happen, and which often denies analysis. These are the mega-leaders of the mega-churches. Men who are just somehow, well, different. I think of my friend PJ Smyth who planted a church in Johannesburg four years ago and now has a congregation not far short of 2,000 people. Not many people can do that.

So I am always a little bit sceptical about vision books, as I don’t think just anybody can be turned into a great visionary leader. You’ve either got chutzpah or you haven’t. But I do believe that all of us can work on our strengths, sharpen our edge, and do better at what we are doing.

Does this book deliver at this level?

To large degree I think it does.

Probably the most liberating thing about it is the insistence not to simply copy another mans vision. Mancini warns against the ‘Conference Maze’ in which pastors jump from conference to conference and idea to idea trying to copy the latest successful model. The point of this book is to argue that every church is unique, and by definition, trying to copy the unique success of one model will only lead to disappointment, because the circumstances that created that success are unique to its context. Every church needs to find her own unique vision.

(As an aside, I am concerned that the massively growing influence of Mark Driscoll means that many people will be jumping into a multi-service/campus model when it is not right for them. I was an early advocate of multi-site, but I’m sure it isn’t right for everyone. And is this the kind of thing we really want to be encouraging?)

Mancini is critical of the Willow Creek type model of strategic planning, advocating instead a framework that enables the leader to recast, clarify, articulate and advance the vision. He blasts strategic plans as being overly complex, and leading to burnout. He also criticizes the approach that measures success purely on the A,B,C’s (Attendance, Buildings, Capital). He is highly critical about overly long mission/vision statements, with multiple goals, too much jargon, and too little specificity. Instead, we should be focussing on what kind of Christian our churches are designed to produce. One thing that was encouraging to me, being 18 months into leading my current church, is that Mancini says it takes three years to get an established church re-engineered so that everyone is pulling in the same direction. Only another 18 months to go then!

One of the most thought provoking single-line statements in the book comes right at its close: “Religious people have preferences; missional people have stories.” As visionary leaders, we need to be building churches where people have stories to tell of the transforming work of Christ in their lives.

Central to the book are Mancini’s concepts of Mission Mandate (What are we doing?), Mission Motives (Why are we doing it?), Mission Map (How are we doing it?), Mission Marks (When are we successful?), and Mission Mountaintop + Milestones (Where is God taking us?). But to see what he says about those things, you need to buy the book!

Hiring Well

2009-06-13T13:32:00.000+01:00

Some great advice on hiring staff from Nelson Searcy's blog.

I'll definitely try this one next time:

One of my favorite things is to toss them the keys and let them drive the car. That’s always revealing.

Good & Bad in Seattle

2009-06-12T14:29:00.001+01:00

This may be of interest - Scott Thomas (Director of Acts29) talking recently about the strengths and weaknesses of Mars Hill Church.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 7. Preaching and teaching

2009-06-11T13:22:00.000+01:00

I believe that generally on a Sunday we should seek to handle the great doctrines of the faith. But increasingly people don’t know how to live day to day. Given my time again I would run a ‘School of Life’ in which I would want there to be Biblical and practical teaching not just on obvious things such as marriage and money, but on issues like reliability, integrity and loyalty.

Now this one has got me thinking…

The trouble is, if I were running a session on reliability, would anyone turn up?!

Like my dad, I am not a particular fan of the Bill Hybels style of life-issue topical preaching on Sundays. It can have its place, and sometimes I do it, but generally I think it is healthier and safer (and more biblically faithful) to work systematically through a book of the Bible, or a biblical theme. However, if we are preaching faithfully, real-life issues should be tackled through systematic expository preaching. This must be one of the reasons behind Mark Driscoll’s current popularity – he almost always preaches through a book, but makes it very, very applicable to life.

But running a ‘School of Life’ sounds like a great idea. It sounds like discipleship – which means it could not be merely classroom based, but would need to be worked out in relationship. And this is what we are meant to be doing anyway!

I am always reluctant to add more programs to the church calendar, but I might do something with this one…

Jim Collins: How the Mighty Fall

2009-06-10T13:09:00.003+01:00

There is a lot of pressure on church leaders to go for more, so this cautionary book by Jim Collins might be worth a look...

In another groundbreaking leadership text, How the Mighty Fall, Jim Collins has hit upon a root cause of organizational / societal decline: The Undisciplined Pursuit of More. To maintain a healthy sense of discipline, leaders ought to be wary of the hazards of excessive ambition. In a similar vein, leaders must put growth in perspective. Bigger isn't necessarily better. Finally, leaders would be wise to realize that growth has to be fueled by the right people. Otherwise, the expansionist urge will bleed an organization of its resources.

Click here to read all of this review.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 6. Play to your strengths

2009-06-09T13:04:00.001+01:00

Leadership is the greatest need in our churches. But leaders need to ‘fan into flame the gift of God’ and sharpen up on what they are good at, not waste time on what they are not good at.
Every leader can help serve the body of Christ more widely by specialising in something. This could be an area of teaching or skill that we can bring to others.

Putting this one into practice is easier in a church of 1,200 than one of 120.

In the smaller church, inevitably, leaders have to be more generalist in how they operate. But as the church grows – indeed if it is to grow – it becomes increasingly important to develop specialists.

Whether we are in a larger or smaller church the challenge for us is to work most on our strengths, while the temptation is to focus on our weaknesses. In a small church the leader might need to do something of everything, but wherever possible they should do so in line with their strengths. This means if you are strongest in personal discipleship to focus on that and not feel guilty about not spending 15 hours in sermon preparation each week. It means if you are strongest at administration and strategy giving your best time to that, and finding someone else who is better at hospital visitation to help you with that. It means that you need to staff (or recruit volunteers) to cover the things you are not so good at and resist the demands that you do the stuff that drains energy without producing much fruit.

This means you need to have a certain toughness of skin, because people will always pick up on the areas where you are not so strong and demand you give that more attention. We cannot afford to give into these demands. This is not an excuse to be lazy or ‘selectively sluggardly’ but it does mean choosing to lead efficiently and fruitfully, and not be a people pleaser.

Playing to our strengths means we need to keep developing our strengths – just as Tiger Woods never considers himself to have mastered his golf swing but keeps on honing it, we need to keep applying ourselves to the development of our gifts.

Reflections on 40 years... Part 5. Ask more from your people

2009-06-05T15:41:00.000+01:00

Believers are prepared to give a lot of time; effort and money to those things they see have purpose and are worthwhile. Good leaders can be quite demanding, but get a response.

The demands church leaders sometimes make of their people can be shocking.

Even more shocking is when we fail to ask enough.

Asking a lot of people takes some nerve, and many pastors are simply not cut out to be that brazen. Too many churches settle into mediocrity and decline because their leaders do not have the courage to ever make a big ask.

I moved from a church where it was relatively easy to make big asks for money, because that was in the culture of the church – time and again we had raised the bar for giving and seen people respond in faith. This didn’t mean it was always easy, but it certainly made things easier. Moving to a new church I had to dig deep in order to confidently ask people for an increase in giving when our bank balance was looking very wobbly earlier this year. I didn’t have the same track record with the church; the national economy was in recession; I knew some people were uncomfortable with me talking about money – but I had to ask.

Often it is money that we have to ask for, but there are many other things that will cost our people. We must never become manipulative. We must be sure we have heard right from God. But we mustn’t be afraid to ask.

Approachable and Accountable?

2009-06-05T09:57:00.001+01:00

A helpful link from Between Two Worlds

A wise set of companion articles by Ken Sande:

Approachability: The Passport to Real Ministry and Leadership
Accountability: The Mark of a Wise and Protected Leader

One of his suggestions is to go beyond your inner circle with regard to approachability and seek the candid feedback of others. Here's a suggested email:

Dear ___, I would like your assistance in gaining an accurate assessment of how “approachable” I am to other people. Therefore, I would appreciate it if you would do me the great favor of reading the attached article and giving me your candid feedback on how approachable I am in your eyes. You may do this in any way that is comfortable for you, whether offering some general observations, or evaluating me in light of any or all of the characteristics described in the attached article. It would be especially helpful if you could provide specific examples that illustrate my strengths or weaknesses in any of these areas. I sincerely want to become more approachable to others, so the more candid and specific your feedback, the better. Thank you!