Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘church leaders’

I Love God’s Church–no matter what you say!

Posted in Other, tagged , , on July 14, 2011| 6 Comments »

I regret that some people think that I have a low opinion of the church. I assume they think that because I have said that we as a fellowship could fulfill the Great Commission better by doing a number of things differently than the way we have done them.  I respectfully disagree with them and want briefly to show you why I think I have a higher opinion of the church perhaps than even those critics.

The church of Christ

In a recent conversation, a group of mission committee members were wrestling with the fact that several of their members had become full-time foreign missionaries without actually being a part of the mission budget of the church.  Many individuals of that congregation were supporting these member-missionaries privately, giving their money directly instead of to their local church. In this particular case, the church mission budget also contributes to these missionaries, so the mission committee certainly approves of and encourages these member-missionaries, even treating them like their own missionaries to a great extent, but still the committee wrestles with the feelings that somehow the individual supporters were bypassing the church’s system and the money given outside of the church contribution was in competition or lost to the church.

Many years ago, Sherrylee and I were new members of a congregation and were looking for something we could do. Sherrylee decided to start a young mother’s class in homes during the week, which met a great need and took off like a rocket.  Several months after this class had begun, one of the elders of the congregation came to Sherrylee privately and began apologizing! He said he wanted to apologize to her for the fact that the church leaders should have recognized this need among young mothers in the church and should have begun this class.  He went on to say how appreciative he was that Sherrylee had taken the initiative to start the class, but now the elders would like to assume responsibility for it and let the staff be responsible for it.

It was all kindly said and well-intentioned—but it broke Sherrylee’s heart because she had seen a need and invested herself in meeting that need, only to have it taken from her and absorbed into the official program of the church.

I believe the church is much more than the official programs of elders, deacons, and ministers. Why aren’t all the activities of the members, done in the name of Jesus the work of the church?  Are we sometimes guilty of thinking that if it is not a budget item, it is not really a work of this local church?

Sherrylee and I have fought for years—usually unsuccessfully—to keep people from describing Let’s Start Talking as a parachurch ministry.  By this, they mean an organization other than the church that is doing work similar to what the real churches do. So what’s wrong with this designation?

We have always argued that everyone involved in LST is a Christian and a member of a local church, so we are also church—not something other than church.  For most of our 31-year history, LST has been officially under an eldership. Only in the last few years was the ministry organized under a board of Christians as opposed to an eldership, mostly because of the size of our budget and because of Internal Revenue Service’s rules.  Still, we are doing everything we do as a ministry to advance the kingdom of God and to help people go into all the world. We are acting as members of God’s church—not as anything other than the church!

So I want to argue that I have a very high view of church and that those who misunderstand this may be locked into a view of church that is defined by bricks and mortar and by staffs, committees, and budgets.

Open the doors of our churches! Empower all members to initiate, to search for areas of service, to solicit others to join them in good works that advance the Kingdom of God!

I am not saying that we should do away with our collective works, but church leaders need to be careful about hearing their top-level decisions as the entire voice of the church.  Everywhere we go, we hear of churches working on getting their members to be externally focused! Congratulations to those churches that succeed in this worthy goal without it being controlled from the board room!

I love God’s church! 

Read Full Post »

How To Change An Engine With The Airplane in Flight!

Posted in Christian Missions, tagged , , on July 11, 2011| 4 Comments »

Building a new airplane is easier than changing out an engine while the airplane is flying! For existing churches, shifting to a new model for doing mission work is more like the latter than the former.

I recently had a lengthy conversation with the minister of a new church plant about how his church could adopt a new paradigm from the beginning of its existence; I also have been approached by a person wanting to do missions that would like to explore establishing a different way of doing support/oversight.

I’m eager to continue these conversations and work on the very practical questions that arise when building a new plane—but I’m also scheduled to talk to a couple of established churches in the near future who have established mission programs, but who feel the need for re-thinking the way they do mission work.  This is the more difficult–but not impossible— task!

A Plan for Transitioning

Step One:  Reach consensus on the desire for a better model for the church’s missions program.  If the call for change is coming from the elders, perhaps the preacher, then it is easier for the mission committee, the current missionaries, and the members of the congregation to be persuaded.  The lower in the church hierarchy the call for change begins, the more difficult it will be to reach consensus.  The most resistant person/group is likely to be where the most ownership/control of the mission program currently lies—unless they are the ones calling for change! 

Step Two:  Establish the goals and the broad parameters for the new model.   For instance, if a church wants to adopt a greater member-driven, relational model as I have been suggesting, then the goals might be something like these:

  1. 80-100% of the total membership of the church will be actively involved in mission activities, including local outreach of every kind, short-term missions, youth missions, internships, and co-mission groups that support missionaries with prayer, oversight, and financial support.
  2. All future missionaries will be raised up from among our members.
  3. Current missionaries will transition to support from a Comission* group over the next three years.
  4. More members will contribute more funds to support more missionaries than ever before.
  5. The church’s Mission Committee will be transformed into a group whose sole mandate is to achieve the mission goals of the church as stated above.

Step Three: Begin to educate and to implement!  Start by reconstituting the Missions committee—perhaps with new people, but not necessarily. The most critical factor in reconstitution is that the new Mission team is 100% on board with the new model.

This is the team who is now responsible for educating members, for instance, about Comission groups. These are the people who will need to work with the preacher and ministers, and especially with the youth and adult education program to encourage a vision and a desire for missions of all kinds from all members.

It might be that those on the earlier Mission committee who are closest to the established missionaries would be enlisted to help them understand the change and to assist them in developing a plan/strategy for building their Comission group.

Yes, there is a process of deconstruction that is occurring; the old engine has to come off. The biggest fear, I suspect, is that in the process of attaching the new engine, the plane crashes, that is, the current missions efforts disintegrate.

Here are some of the bad scenarios that could occur:

  1. The people with power won’t give it up! It could be an elder or elders, it could be a missions committee chair or person, or it could be the missionary the church has supported for thirty years!  If they cannot be persuaded, then either they have to be removed from their position of power or the plan to change has to be abandoned.  There is no workaround here!
  2. Supported foreign nationals are virtually unknown to the local members.  National evangelists on American support have to be put in a different category from American missionaries on church support. We cannot lightly abandon people who have no other obvious means of support. The American church has a moral obligation to help their national worker find a new means of support and to continue helping them until they do. (This is one reason I’m almost always opposed to national preachers getting American support.)
  3. Members are not willing to support a current American missionary.  Since we are talking about moving to a relational model of support/oversight, an American missionary that has no relationship with Christians in the U.S. is going to have great difficulty building a Comission group.  Since relationships were not originally a prerequisite, I do believe a church would have to provide a missionary ample time and opportunity to establish new relationships before moving them out of the budget.

I’ll close with some lines from Alice In Wonderland by Lewis Carroll that seem somehow appropriate here:  How queer everything is to-day! And yesterday things went on just as usual. I wonder if I’ve been changed in the night? Let me think: was I the same when I got up this morning? I almost think I can remember feeling a little different. But if I’m not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle! 

Next, I want to address one of the strongest criticisms addressed to me in the course of these latest posts: “Mark, you have a very low opinion of the church!”  What do you think?

Read Full Post »

Rethinking Mission Work, Part 1: How Are First Decisions Made?

Posted in Christian Missions, Re-Thinking Mission Work, tagged , , , , , , , on May 10, 2011| 3 Comments »

The person who desires to become a full-time missionary supported by churches of Christ has an extraordinarily difficult mountain to climb—unduly difficult—before they will ever reach the mission field. Many never attempt to climb the mountain, and others fall off the mountain in the attempt.

 The current support/oversight paradigm among churches of Christ discourages both potential and existing missionaries. The results are too few long-term missionaries which means less mission work and fewer souls hearing the story of Jesus—none of which can possibly be pleasing to God!

I want to challenge us to rethink the oversight-support model for long-term mission work from churches of Christ and look together at a different model of oversight/support that will lead, I believe, to more missionaries who stay longer and can reach more people more effectively.

Let’s first work our way through the whole process of becoming a missionary as it generally happens among churches of Christ.

First Decisions

 When someone is motivated to become a missionary, he/she/they usually will go through a series of decisive steps before they actually can begin their work.  The basis for all of these decisions is usually the point of first inspiration.

  • If they were inspired by a short-term mission experience, then they want to return to the field they first experienced and work in a similar manner to the missionaries with whom they have worked.
  • If they were inspired by a teacher/mentor, they will make their choice based on the teacher/mentor’s experiences.
  • If they were inspired by a challenge or a public presentation, they will look for an expert (mission professor, missionary, preacher, mission organization.) to help them proceed.
  • Decisions about the field of work are most often driven first by inspiration, followed usually by short-term mission experience in a field or a short survey trip. The experiences and information gained are then supplemented with interviews with current and past missionaries to whom the potential worker might have access.
  • Decisions about the type of work are more difficult.  
  1. First plans are often very broad plans, such as church planting, strengthen the local church, campus ministry, even community outreach.
  2. Some plans are method specific; for example, potential missionaries might decide to start house churches, or do children’s work, or do media-based evangelism.
  3. First plans made by mission teams are often very personality and role specific. For example, the team might have one couple that likes children, so they will plan to do children’s work, while another team member wants to preach, so they will plan for public preaching. Overall their plans still tend to be broad.
  • Decisions about means and types of preparation depend mostly on those advising the future missionary.
  1. Undergraduates/graduate students at Christian universities may begin by taking general mission courses and seeking contact with mentors in mission study groups.
  2. Some desiring to do mission work may seek out higher level mission training, for example, through ACU Summer Mission Seminar, SIBI Advanced Mission Training.
  3. A few parachurch ministries offer mission training.  Continent of Great Cities and Missions Resource Network come to mind right away.
  4. Other people will look for short-term internships on the desired field, if possible, with a current missionary.
  5. Many will work with American churches—often required by sponsoring congregations– and learn to work with and evangelize through an American model.And there are those who will go with little or no specialized training other than their own life/church experiences. This is especially true of those who are a bit older when they decide to become missionaries.

If you haven’t already, go back through this first section and notice the following:

  • All initiative and initial actions come from the person desiring to become a missionary, who is most often untrained, inexperienced, perhaps not completely educated, but highly motivated.
  • While capable professors, mentors, and friends are available for guiding potential missionaries, the number of options for fields, types of work, and for training are enormous. In my experience, most go along a path of inspiration and least resistance rather than a strategic path.

And this is the easy part! Next, I want to lay out the ways we in churches of Christ have typically supported and overseen foreign mission work—and why it is an unsuccessful paradigm.

Read Full Post »

Becoming a Good Missions Church, pt. 5 – Getting Leadership on Board

Posted in Christian Missions, Church Leadership, tagged , , , , , on March 15, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Fifth in Guest Series by Tim Spivey, senior minister of New Vantage Church (San Diego, CA)

It’s one of the most frustrating things in the world to have a deep passion for something and not be able to get leadership to care much or embrace it. Few places have I seen this frustration more common or misunderstood than when it comes to global evangelism. When you meet resistance proposing something to church leaders, it isn’t typically because they hate ministry or people or they want to be frustrating. The resistance you face is often based on stuff under the surface. Everything below is a generalization. However, if you are meeting resistance, some of these attitudes may be in play. Let the generalizations begin 🙂

In general, elders tend to fear conflict, ministers tend to fear failure. Church members tend to feel like the church is overstaffed and spends too much money on themselves. The minister feels like the church is under-staffed and under-resourced. None of this makes for easy persuasion or full buy-in from leadership.

If it were me, I would focus on getting the preacher on board first. Preachers tend to me more open to new initiatives and they know how to get the elders on board. Like it or not, they are also usually the functional leader of the church by virtue of having high visibility and an open mic for 30 minutes every Sunday. Some will disagree with this…but without the preacher’s support a ministry will have about half the octane it could have otherwise. The good news is that most preachers don’t know they have the power they have…and tend to care more about ministry than power-brokering anyways. However, when you propose something new, or want to go to the “next level” in global missions (or anything else), here are:

5 Things Your Preacher Won’t Tell You He’s Thinking (Some are reasonable, some aren’t)

  • “I think you might pitch the idea, and leave me with the workload.” Create a ministry that requires little more than vision-casting and cheerleading from him. Preachers enjoy these and do them well.
  • “I think you might blame me and the elders if it doesn’t work.” If it doesn’t work, don’t blame them.
  • “I think this will mean less money and human resources to carry out the work of the local church.” Most churches actually drastically underfund local ministry. I would recommend finding ways to get the job done without pulling additional funds out of local ministry. I would also find ways for the missions ministry to add value to the whole life of the Body…not silo itself.
  • “I need you to help me understand how this works, because people will judge the ministry’s success by the numbers.” This is sad but true. A ministry that doesn’t “work” will hurt credibility for all involved. Have a clear way to measure “success,” even if not by numbers–though numbers matter. Just make it clear.
  • “I’m always looking for new ministries that will work and bless the church, but ending ministries is nearly impossible.” Offer to try it as a pilot or experiment, and have a concrete end game in mind.

If you can find a way to put these concerns (many of which are shared by elders) at ease…odds are…you’ll not only get leadership on board–you’ll have real champions for your area of ministry.

 

 

Read Full Post »

Becoming a Good “Missions Church,” pt. 4 – Alignment

Posted in Christian Missions, Church Leadership, tagged , , , , , on March 14, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Fourth in a Guest series by Tim Spivey, senior minister at New Vantage Church (San Diego, CA)

No-silosBuilding on the three previous posts, here are a couple of introductory steps you can take that will help your church more effectively embrace God’s call to global mission:

Seek alignment. Understand the church is like a mobile. Everything is connected, and this is a great blessing. Look at your existing ministries and see how your missions ministry can be properly aligned with what the church is already doing. In some churches, church planting, short-term missions, benevolence, long-term missions, etc. are all very separate ministries with independent objectives and marked territory. For the purposes of involvement perhaps this feels good. However, if ministries are organizationally, strategically and philosophically siloed, it will take twice the money and publicity to achieve half of the results with half of the joy.

“Alignment” means riding the wave of where the church is already going rather than charting your own course. It means building missions ministry around the broader objectives of the church, and with all church ministries in mind. This will not only bring the blessing and support of church leadership to missions more quickly, it will relieve “sideways energy” in the church system that creates a tug of war effect–lots of effort, little movement. If everyone heads in their own directions, the church will stuggle to make progress of any kind. With alignment, forward progress is much easier and results exponentially enhanced.

Here are some steps to this effect:

  • Seek a firm grasp on the mission and vision of the church. Ask, how can we build a missions ministry that affirms and accentuates that vision? If missions becomes a para-church ministry in the church, it will never soar, and those involved in it will find themselves wondering why leadership and the congregation don’t seem to care much about it.
  • Have those who lead ministries in the “externally-focused” areas meet together. Relationships are everything in the church. Knowing one another better and communicating what’s going on will help coordination and make it easier for people to give to one another when necessary down the road. Tomorrow’s post will talk more about the importance of relationships in global missions ministry.
  • Integrate those ministries by choosing to do things together. Could a short-term missions team be sent to build up and encourage your long-term missionaries instead of going to countries that aren’t a part of what the church is already involved in? Could some of the church’s benevolence money go to support the poor overseas? Here’s another one–can the global missions team play a part in helping further the cause of the poor and and reaching the international community around the building through a ministry like Friendspeak?
  • Trade out traditional “mission reports” for storytelling opportunities in sermons, giving time, communion, and other things that weave the narrative of what God is doing globally through all of church life. Consider having one of your missionaries video a communion thought or a brief thank-you for the morning and stream it to the screen. Now they aren’t a visitor from a faraway land. They are part of the church.

Those are just a few possibilities. There are many more. There are two more posts in this series. One with more practical ideas–and one talking about getting leadership on board.

How have you seen partnership between ministries rather than “siloing” pay dividends in furthering God’s mission in the church?

 

Read Full Post »

Becoming a Good “Missions Church,” pt. 3 – Integrate & Mind the Goose

Posted in Christian Missions, Church Leadership, tagged , , , , , , , , on March 11, 2011| Leave a Comment »

World_face_north_america

Third in a series of guests posts from Tim Spivey, senior minister of New Vintage Church (San Diego, CA).

Today’s post offers some relatively blunt observations regarding the relative strength of a church and it’s ability to be a good “missions church.” I offer these with redemptive intent–wanting churches to become all God wants them to be.

  • My experience is that struggling churches struggle for good reasons. It usually has something to do with leadership issues, and those issues by nature permeate all aspects of the church. It’s important for the sake of missionaries these issues are dealt with. Typically (though not always), churches will do mission work with the same level of health and excellence they do local ministry. Bad local ministry, bad missions ministry. If they don’t show care for what is happening locally, they typically won’t care about what God’s doing half a world away. This is another reason to pay attention to local ministry…it buoys the eventual effectiveness of whatever happens overseas.
  • A lack of well-formed theology and ecclesiology manifests itself in silo thinking. In this mindset, church-planting, benevolence, global missions, local ministry, campus ministry, etc…are all completely different ministries needing their own advocates at the church leadership table. In this way of thinking, each ministry is separate and altogether disconnected. The silo mentality is one of the great enemies of global missions ministry and healthy ministry. The church is a Body, and each part is connected. Both practically and theologically, when all parts are working together for the common good of the Body according to their place, the church grows in unity, vibrancy, and effectiveness. We cannot just report on missions. Biblical teaching on the church, ministry and the nature of evangelism is an important part of becoming a good missions church.
  • Integrated ministry recognizes the symbiotic relationship between all ministries of the church. It leverages the strengths of all for the sake of all. This why effective global mission requires more ingenuity, a strong focus on integration with the ministries of the whole church and less initial funding than one might think.
  • Most churches still view “successful” mission works as those they have supported for many years…regardless of their effectiveness or the real impact of continual support for decades. This way of looking at missions bottlenecks resources at a national level and tends to build co-dependent relationships between congregations and mission points. Relationally, it’s wonderful to continue to support a particular work. However, the relationship can continue regardless of support…as a parent doesn’t cut off relationship with a child once they leave the house. It’s important that mission efforts become self-supporting after some reasonable period of time–for their good and that of the supporting congregation.
  • Here is a difficult one. Struggling churches usually have declining budgets as well. They often will only cut missions as a last resort and will thus kill the proverbial “goose” by first slashing local ministries, cutting salaries, etc. in draconian fashion–which often means more decline, which means less revenue, which means more cuts, etc. This is a noble impulse, but HUGE mistake. Sometimes this must happen–but not usually. More on that in another post. For now, I would recommend cutting what isn’t working wherever it’s located and moving the resources to where the most good for the Kingdom can be accomplished. That’s a delicate process of discernment…but a necessary one.
  • If the “goose” continues to be plucked or starved, at some point, the ministers of the church come to view missions as a competitor rather than an ally in what God’s doing in the church. This is never good…and isn’t necessarily all the minister’s fault. The minister may fear blame for the church’s decline when he or she didn’t have much to do with it–they simply had the ball taken out of their hands. The ministers need to be strong allies in building a vibrant global missions ministry. In fact, I would start building buy-in with them first.

Which brings me to the next posts in this series: Concrete steps to improve both your church and the church’s global mission efforts.

I would enjoy hearing to what extent to you believe world missions is separate or different from other ministries of the church? Why?

 

Read Full Post »

A Question for Older Church Leaders: Do You Want To Be Mubarak or Mandela?

Posted in Church Leadership, tagged , , , , on January 31, 2011| 1 Comment »

Hosni Mubarak is 82 years old and has been a driving political personality in Egypt since 1975 when he became Vice-President under Anwar Sadat. He assumed the Presidency in 1981 after Sadat’s assassination and is the longest serving Egyptian president in modern history. Today, however, our daily news reports are full of images of dissenting Egyptians in the streets, protesting Mubarak’s government and demanding his overthrow.

Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa in 1994 at the age of seventy-five and decided not to run again in 1999 at the age of eighty-one, although he was still immensely popular and surely would have won reelection.  He withdrew from public life in 2004, but continues to be a extraordinarily popular father figure in South Africa. His 90th birthday was a national celebration, and his brief appearance at the closing ceremony of the 2010 FIFA World Cup games was marked by a “rapturous reception,” according to The Guardian.

Mubarak’s situation in Egypt is a classic example of why older church leaders might need to step down—as did Mandela—before they are thrown out.  Older church leaders would do well to look at the reasons Mubarak should step down and why he will not be celebrated like Mandela.

1.            Mubarak made a name for himself as a heroic Air Force pilot and officer during and after the 1967 Arab-Israeli conflict—but nobody cares about that anymore! The glory of former deeds is short-lived when your current actions are out of sync with your people.  Church leaders may have been great missionaries, former preachers, university professors, large contributors, community leaders, and so forth, but all of that is meaningless to church members who don’t remember, never knew, or weren’t around then. God will certainly remember your good works, but your ability to lead must be based on what you can currently do, not what you have done in the past.

2.            For many years now, Mubarak has been intolerant towards his critics and his opposition! A feeling that one is above being criticized is a sure sign that it is time for you to step down. No leader is above criticism. If you feel in anyway exempt from or entitled to a free pass from criticism, then you are showing signs of staying in leadership too long.

3.            Age itself can expose an inability to keep up with inevitable changes. Both Mubarak and the recently overthrown dictator in Tunesia Zine El Abidine Ben Ali ignored—or at least underestimated—the power of social media like Facebook and Twitter until it was too late for them to survive as leaders. Older church leaders should ask themselves if they are in touch with what their flock is watching, listening to, thinking about, even twittering about?? If you don’t know—or worse, don’t care—then you should consider stepping down before you are overthrown!

4.            Age-related physical weakness affects your ability to lead others. We laugh about “senior moments.” We sit around the table talking about surgeries, arthritis pains, and friends who have recently died.  I was with an older church leader just the other day who listed off ten of his family members that died in a ten-year period, and I thought to myself, why did that surprise him? He was 78 and his family members and close friends were all slightly older or slightly younger. This particular Christian was very much alive and very spry, but many church leaders get to a point where they are physically unable to be a leader. Mandela had reached that point after the abuse his body took under apartheid, but he stepped away before it inhibited his ability to lead—so he continues to have great influence!

5.            Mubarak has dismissed his government in an attempt to appease his critics; he has also imposed curfew to control the protesters. Both these defensive and offensive orders have been ignored by the people! When no one is following you, you are no longer a leader—regardless of the title that you wear.  When older church leaders can no longer effect change without resorting to their office as the sole reason for demanding obedience, they have remained a church leader too long. If you have ever said, “We are the elders and we will decide, not you!” then you should resign immediately. Power can be exercised long after leadership has evaporated, but church leaders  are given the gift of leadership from God, not power!

6.            The 86-year-old Saudi king came out strongly backing Mubarak. If only people your age are backing you, if only people in your generation agree with you, if only people in your family are following you, then it is time to step down.

Good News for Older Church Leaders

The good news is that many great leaders do recognize that it is better to step down than to be a top-level leader too long! More good news is that stepping down does not mean the same thing as becoming non-productive or losing one’s influence.  In fact, one’s influence probably grows because you show such vintage wisdom!

What stepping down does mean is usually giving up power!  And power is the opiate from which it is so difficult to withdraw!  If we could only realize that losing power is inevitable–almost no Mubarak-type leaders avoid eventually being thrown out.

Churches don’t have demonstrations. We might sometimes see mild protests, but no riots in our churches against older church leaders who should but don’t step down. We just have mass frustration and mass exodus!

So do you want to be a Mubarak or a Mandela?

 

 

Read Full Post »

Deadly Diseases in Churches#2 — Silent Killers!

Posted in Church Leadership, tagged , on January 29, 2011| 1 Comment »

Sherrylee and I were just sitting with some friends in Nashville today talking about church. Our friends told us about a church in Georgia that had just expanded and doubled the size of their usable space. To encourage one of the church leaders, she commented, “Just think, with God’s help you will soon outgrow this new space as well!”  He replied, “Well, we don’t want to grow too fast! You know, you don’t want just anyone in your church.”

That’s a pretty good illustration to introduce a conversation about church diseases that are silent killers—those insidious ideas or actions that, if not reversed, will certainly lead to congregational death. Here’s my list. It’s probably just a good start, so please add to it through your comments!

Vision Deficiency

The church leader in the above conversation had pretty severe vision problems. First, he didn’t see the same people that God sees. He probably only saw people like himself–and probably only people who were already some kind of Christian. A church that is happy simply being a nice club for nice people suffers with very narrow tunnel vision, not seeing many at all of all those God loves! If this church does not get new eyes, it will die.

Then there are those church leaders that see as far ahead as the next contribution, or the next capital drive, or the next new minister. These leaders are so short-sighted that they only see what they can do and have no vision of all that lies beyond that God can do! When “we” get tired or external challenges reduce visibility to zero, then this church will become virtually blind and definitely endangered!

Leadership Deficiency

No one doubts that lack of leadership in a church will hasten its demise, but perhaps it is not the lack of leadership that is the biggest problem, but the wrong leaders that is the silent killer in dying churches.  God has promised to bless His church with the gift of leadership (Romans 12:8).

Unfortunately, instead of looking for those that God has given the gift to, we look for those who are recognized by the business world or by society as leaders. So churches suffer under a lack of spiritual leadership as well as an overabundance of “gentile” leadership—as the world leads. Such churches are much more ill than they often realize.

Generosity Deficiency

Love is meant to be given away. Mercy is meant to be given away. Blessings are meant to be given away. Grace is meant to be given away. Forgiveness is meant to be given away. Hope, kindness, encouragement are meant to be given away. Wealth is meant to be given away. Time, Energy, really Life itself is meant to be given away.

A church that hoards any of the above will suffer spiritual bloat! If it doesn’t love, nobody will even know that they are Christians. If they are not merciful,  if they are not forgiving, if they are not kind, if they are not full of grace, that church is dying a pitiful death!

A simple blood test will help you diagnose this illness: ask yourself, if Jesus had not emptied himself and poured out His blood, would I have any hope of Life?  If I don’t empty myself, if my church doesn’t empty itself, is it really imitating Jesus? And if we are not imitating Jesus, are we really alive?

Mission Deficiency

Let me suggest you ask your church leaders what the basic raison d’etre for your congregation is. Why should you not join the larger more successful church down the street?  What would the kingdom of God be missing if you closed your doors?  For that matter, what would your community miss?

Having no unique reason for existence steals the strength of a church—as well as its future!

Identity Deficiency

We are in a time of identity breakdown! Established churches are abandoning their denominational names, traditional churches are becoming untraditional, liturgical churches have brought in evangelical praise bands. Someday some scholar will show us that there is a correlation between a church knowing who they are and their ability to thrive and persevere!

We may have created a Jekyll and Hyde situation, i.e., a false dichotomy between that which we have always been and that which we believe we need to be in order to live  I fear that most of our identity crisis is the result of observing the world around us and trying to adapt to what we see out there!  If our mission is clear, if our theology is alive, then changes will happen, but they will happen from the inside out, not from the outside in!

Prayer Deficiency

If your church leaders meetings do not begin and end in prayer, then your church may suffer severe loss of vitality! If your ministers do not lead the church in prayer, your church is ill. Jesus taught us to pray, not because God needs our words in order to know our hearts, but because we need to pray. Not going to the throne of God is avoidance of the Great Physician.

The Doctor’s Advice

People hate doctors. Some even refuse to go, saying that doctors just make you sick!  Jesus spoke to a group like this once, saying, “It’s not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick” (Matthew 9:12)–but don’t miss the irony. His words were condemnation to those who rejected His offer to heal.

These are words of hope for churches/church leaders who recognize their illness and turn to the One who heals!  Jesus may be asking you as he did the Centurion in Matthew 8: Shall I come and heal you?

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

Deadly Diseases in Churches #1 – Diseases With Obvious Symptoms!

Posted in Church Leadership, tagged , , on January 27, 2011| Leave a Comment »

Some life-threatening diseases have obvious symptoms that send us immediately to the doctor. Other illnesses are what media sometimes refer to as “silent killers.” Hypertension, diabetes, obstructive sleep apnea, as well as colon cancer and heart disease are examples of diseases that present only mildly, if at all, in their early stages.

The best chance for treating and surviving any of these silent killers is early diagnosis, usually as the result of regular physical checkups! I suspect that the health of a congregation also depends on early diagnosis as the result of regular spiritual checkups.

Let’s look at some of the diseases from which congregations/churches may die, differentiating between those that are symptomatic and those that are silent.

Church Diseases With Obvious Symptoms

Heresy: I’m not talking about disagreements over worship styles. I have listened in classes where the exclusive claim of Jesus as Savior has been denied. I have heard apocryphal literature read as Scripture. I have sat in churches where the only resurrection offered was the memory of deceased loved ones that lives in our hearts.

True heresy denies the divinity of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and/or the sovereignty of God. (It’s dangerous to even start such a list because one almost immediately feels the need to include more and define each item, i.e., create a creedal statement. A blog is a poor instrument, however,  for writing creeds.)

I myself find a wonderful list of non-negotiables in Ephesians 4:  one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one Body, one Spirit, and one God and Father of us all. Christians do argue over the full understanding of each of these, but that in no way for me detracts from their unity and essentiality.

Immorality: If you have been a Christian very long, you know of churches destroyed quickly by immorality, often committed by church leaders—but not exclusively!  When church leaders do not address perversion and corruption among their flock, they endanger the entire church because “they know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too” (Romans 1:32).

Immorality is not exclusively sexual. The entire list from Revelation 21 could be included:  8 “But cowards, unbelievers, the corrupt, murderers, the immoral, those who practice witchcraft, idol worshipers, and all liars—their fate is in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. I know that’s strong language, but we are talking about people who destroy the body of Christ!

Apathy: Many churches meet out of habit or tradition. Their leaders continue to lead worship, celebrate communion, and present a homily because that’s what church leaders are paid to do. A few members attend because . . . they themselves are not yet dead! The Messenger to one church said:  “I know all the things you do, that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish that you were one or the other! 16 But since you are like lukewarm water, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth! (Revelation 3:15-16)

If your church just really doesn’t even care if it is alive or dead, that is the definition of apathy. If your church refuses to even ask the question or take the pulse of the church, that is apathy.  If your church has no ears to hear those who warn them, that is apathy!

An Inevitable Outcome?

The angel’s warning to the seven churches of Asia is not only a great wake-up call for modern churches, but also a sign of true hope. If there were neither hope nor means of recovery, then why the warning? Just blow the candle out and put out the light!

No, our God is One who heals the sick and raises the dead! If you are afraid your church is deathly ill, turn to God and ask Him to intervene! “Won’t he leave the ninety-nine others in the wilderness and go to search for the one that is lost until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he will joyfully carry it home on his shoulders. (Luke 15:4-5)

Next time, I will offer you my list of the church diseases that are silent killers!

 

Read Full Post »

13 Reasons Church Leaders Cannot Recognize That Their Church Is Dying!

Posted in Church Leadership, tagged , , on January 25, 2011| 8 Comments »

!Years ago, I was a church leader in an ill church, and I really didn’t even know it! Certainly I had my concerns about different issues and challenges that we were facing, and I threw my influence as far as it would go to help enliven the church, but never did I think that the church might be in a death spiral!

Now, many years later, I ask myself why I did not recognize the very obvious signs of terminal decline. As I have searched my own soul, the following seem to me to be some of the reasons why church leaders do not even sniff the rottenness that is corrupting the Body!

1.     Too inexperienced. Few of our church leaders are trained church leaders. They are usually excellent volunteers, but how many would let an excellent hospital volunteer examine and diagnose you?  What if they couldn’t tell a mole from melanoma?

2. Too busy leading the church! The more rapid the decline, the more work there is for those trying to keep it alive! Hard to see imminent danger because of all the people needing your immediate attention.

3.     Too optimistic! Optimism–trust in God’s victory—is a highly desirable quality, but look at how difficult it was for Jesus to convince His closest disciples that He was going to die! Facing reality is also highly desirable.

4.     Too invested! Your family is in this church; your life-long friends are in this church; you grew up in this church! Unfortunately, none of these investments will save a declining church!

5.     Too satisfied. You have a great group! The building is paid for. Sure, you are a little smaller, but it is still alive for you!

6.     Too comfortable. It takes a lot of time and energy to change things. It is MUCH easier to just keep on doing what we have always done—and maybe it will work out!

7.     Too fearful. You can’t even go to the idea that this church might go away—too much pain involved!  Too many unanswerable questions about the unknown future.

8.     Too proud. After all, you are one of the leaders and things don’t fail that you are a part of! Not on your watch!

9.     Too tradition-bound. We’ve always done things this way and we’ve had rough days in the past, so if we just keep on course and not mess with the formula, we’ll be OK!

10.   Too much ownership! Granddaddy was an elder, Dad was an elder, and now I’m an elder. This is my church and my family’s church, and we will never let it fail!

11.    Too influenced by others. We’ve talked it over at the elders’ meeting, and the consensus is that  we are OK.  The members aren’t complaining.

12.    Too short-sighted. Even if it were true, what can anyone do about it. Might as well just ride to the end of the road.

13.    Too power-oriented. I’m one of the leaders. I can’t imagine not being a leader, so I think I’ll just keep on being a leader!

Rarely is leadership blindness the result of just one of the above Such lists are always an oversimplification of complex bundles of ideas and emotions, but no item on the list above allows church leaders to see clearly the plan of God for the people entrusted into their care.

I’ll end by just challenging church leaders to search their hearts and look for symptoms of reality blindness.  It’s not a fatal disease. Leaders can discover their vision and wisdom in time to take responsible action.

“If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt.”   James 1:5-6

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »