Brain Twitch

It's About People

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Fri, 08 May 2015 14:31:00 +0000

Like most walks of life, as a pastor, I get bombarded with all things leadership. I read books on it, go to seminars about it, and take classes that promise to help me become a better leader. Leadership is a key element of most enterprises.

One of the definitions of a leader I've heard over the years is the pithy little statement that a leader is someone who has followers. In other words, you're not really a leader unless you have someone following. Thank you Mr. Obvious. And yet it seems that we easily forget this little tidbit of wisdom.

Leaders often lose track of the idea of leading people and quickly begin to focus on leading an institution. In a church setting the leader begins to develop a vision of where the church needs to go, or what it needs to become, and then begins to implement a plan to get them there. That all sounds well and good but those plans often involve schedules, styles, architecture, technology, marketing, branding, and a whole host of other changes that involve the institution. What is often left out is leading people. A leader who makes a lot of institutional changes and forces people to accept those changes isn't leading, he's dictating. he may be right about those things needing to be done but if he isn't leading the people that direction he isn't leading.

Now some might say they got the church leadership's approval. But that is only leading a few people who may or may not be able to challenge the leaders assumptions. In any case, the people haven't been lead as is evidenced by the fact that they aren't following.

Leaders need to lead people so there is a lot of truth to that old saying about having followers. It may take a lot longer to get where you need to go but that is what true leadership is really all about.

Critics

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 02 Dec 2014 14:40:00 +0000

Every now and then I run across a book that I consider needs to be read at least once a year. I think I am in the middle of one right now. A Tale of a Tub is a book written by Johnathon Swift, yeah, the Guliver's Travels author. It's an odd book in that he has a lot of commentary on various topics with the story mixed in. It is quite controversial depending on how you interpret his meaning and if you find yourself in his cross hairs. Swift was an Anglican priest so I think I also have an affinity with him as a pastor. I will say that he uses a lot of words that aren't used much anymore as well as some Latin so some may find his writing in this book difficult.

Having said all that I wanted to write a little summary of his section on critics. He makes three points that I find both consoling and condemning. I need to take criticism better and I need to be careful about criticizing.

1. Unlike every other use of the intellect, a critics best work is the very first thing that pops into their heads... apparently.

2. Like a rat going for the very best cheese among many cheeses, critics go for the very best work. In other words, if your work is being heavily criticized your work must be very good.

3. Dogs will circle a table looking for discarded scraps. The fewer the scraps the louder they snarl when they find one. In other words, if you are facing loud criticism it might mean that the critics haven't really found a lot to criticize.

Spiritual State VS Expression

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:33:00 +0000

One of the issues I have been wrestling with regards whether the new emphases we see pop up from time to time are really a new understanding of faith and community or just another expression of faith and community. We have heard about healthy church, emergent church, missional church, and on and on. But my question is whether these are more about expressions of faith rather than a true change in spiritual state.

In the diagram below I have tried to map my thinking. In the Spiritual State column I have tried to demonstrate that everyone who calls themselves a Christian has a spiritual state that falls on the continuum between nominal and completely in love with Jesus. In my diagram I have rather optimistically drawn an arrow showing a move to in love with Jesus. The second column represents expressions of faith. You could fill in your own here and the list would actually be much more than three.

I am trying to make several points here. First it is possible for people in any spiritual state to give an outward expression of faith that may look the same as any other person on the spiritual state continuum. Just getting people to express their faith in a certain way does not really mean you have changed their spiritual state. However, I would agree with several authors who believe that such expression can lead to spiritual growth. Even someone high on the spiritual state will probably find nourishment in their faith expression.

A second thought is that someone who is in love with Jesus is probably more likely to express their faith than a nominal Christian. I've met people who I found out later had a significant other in their lives. But it took awhile. I have met others whose behavior made it quite obvious they had a significant other in their lives right from the beginning. Obviously personality comes into play but people who are head-over-heels in love express it.

So what do we make of all these trends like the missional church? Is being missional just an expression of someone who is in love with Jesus? If someone is in love with Jesus are they going to be missional? Are these trends simply pointing out blind spots? Like a husband who loves his wife but doesn't realize he is hurting her in some way until a friend points it out? Are some expressions of faith more likely to help our spiritual state than others?

Our Children's Passion

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:43:00 +0000

I am at that stage in my life where I often run into old friends and "catching up" has become quite common. One of the questions that is always asked is, "What are your kids doing?" I have 4 kids who happen to be in all different stages of life so I usually just give a very brief update so I don't bore then to death. (I do go on about my grandson a bit too long, probably, but I don't care.) Answering that question is not my favorite thing to do, not because I'm not proud of my kids, but because I don't feel like I do them justice and I am probably not doing a very good job of conveying how my kids are doing.

I ran into some acquaintances the other day that I hadn't seen in quite awhile. We did the usual formalities of catching up but then the wife said something that got me thinking. She said how much she enjoyed watching her children develop their passions in life and went on to explain how that had played out in the life of one of her daughters.

That got me thinking about what a great question that would be. "What passion have your kids found in life?" or "How are your kid's passion shaping up?" or simply "What are your kids passionate about?" For some reason that questions makes me smile. Probably because I instantly can think of an answer for each kid. With some of my kids their passions are pretty strong right now. With others it is developing. In both cases it is exciting to see as a parent and gives me, and others, a good perspective of how they are doing in life right now.

So, if I get the nerve, next time I run into an acquaintance I haven't seen in awhile I am going to ask about their kid's passion. I may get some strange looks but hopefully I will get some good insight into just what is going on in the life of their kids.

Secret Church

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 27 Aug 2014 20:40:00 +0000

Over a decade ago there began yet another discussion about missional churches versus attractional churches. I have never been a big fan of the attractional model, mainly because I find it boring. But the other day I got to thinking about how damaging an attractional model can be if they draw people for the wrong reasons. If people are just there for the attraction how deeply are they falling in love with Jesus?

One of the amazing phenomenon of our time is how fast the Church is growing in places where it is restricted. We hear about incredible growth in churches that have to meet secretly. That got me to wondering how these churches are growing. They probably aren't out there advertising their church with a snazzy media campaign, high tech worship service, awesome worship band, or even a clever church sign. I'm sure some may come because a friend said they should come to this cool church service but I doubt that accounts for the incredible growth.

The obvious answer is that a lot of personal evangelization must take place outside the church. People in love with Jesus tell others about Jesus. These new followers are then drawn to church because of a desire for fellowship with fellow believers and to learn more about Jesus. They aren't there for any attraction other than Jesus and that probably helps them grow in their love for Jesus.

I wonder what would happen if I camouflaged my church. Would it help us be more missional. Would it change how we think about church? Would it change how we live our lives outside the church? Would it help people fall in love with Jesus?

The Hard Thing About Being A Pastor

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:52:00 +0000

Every now and then I will have someone tell me, "This has to be the hardest part about being a pastor." Sometimes they say, "This is why I could never be a pastor." It doesn't happen often but in my case it has only happened when I have been walking with someone through the crisis of a loved one passing away, especially if that loved one is a child. Those situations aren't easy but they aren't even close to the hardest part about being a pastor.

Those situations can are hard because there is usually a lot of pain involved. Sometimes difficult decisions are required. Emotions are very raw and sometimes things can get awkward.

But at those times I am expected to be there and most of the time I am welcomed. People are glad I'm there and appreciate the love and support. Sometimes they almost seem desperate for my presence. They want me to walk with them through those moments.

The hardest part about being a pastor is caring for my soul and the souls of my parishioners. Confronting sin is seen as an invasion of a place where I am definitely not welcome. The initial response to my presence is often hostile and unwanted. Encouraging spiritual growth is viewed with the same tiresomeness as the constant drip of a leaky faucet. Eyes are averted and even my presence can be seen as something to be avoided. This is the hard part.

One option I have is to avoid the hard part altogether. I can be there in those crisis moments and keep everything light and uplifting the rest of the time and everything will be fine. I just need to be harmless and I will be tolerated or maybe even liked. I'm afraid some pastors choose this path.

But how can pastors live with themselves if they avoid the hard part? It seems to me that there is just no option.

Change

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Thu, 05 Jun 2014 18:40:00 +0000

Disclaimer: Sometimes I feel this post is very true, while other times I don't. I'm just processing here.

I typed in the word "change" in my library search and got 21 hits. I didn't check but I would guess a lot of them have nothing to do with change but I know several are all about the subject of change. So here are my rules for change. I know they won't be exciting but here goes anyway.

#1. Don't. Yes, my first rule about change is not to change. Things have been going pretty good before you showed up on the scene so why are you trying to spoil it. And if things aren't going so well what makes you think you have a clue how to fix it? Get over yourself and do something useful. Okay, so maybe a few things do need to change. But the changes that are really needed are probably a lot more subtle than your grandiose plan. You do not have as high a change IQ as you think you do and you really don't want to know how to raise that IQ.

#2. Be Right. If you must change, you better be right about the need for change and the actual changes you are making. Don't insist on changing things and then be wrong. That creates way too much collateral damage. Does that scare you a little bit? It should. You or the people you are leading can't afford for you to be wrong about this. If you aren't sure you are right you probably shouldn't be making the change or maybe you aren't a leader who should be making changes.

What about failure? Aren't we supposed to learn to embrace failure and learn how to grow from it? There are plenty of other ways you can gain experience from failure. Don't use change for your own education and development. Change is hard and that's why only a few people probably have the capacity to lead change. You can probably learn how to do it but not from a conference, seminar, class, or even a bachelor's or masters program. It takes a PH.D. so you probably aren't qualified. If you aren't 99% sure you are right don't bother.

#3. It's all about people. It doesn't matter what you change externally if it doesn't change people internally. In fact, if you change things externally you might even get people to like it, buy it, and consume it, but if it didn't change people internally it isn't really change. I suppose there are external changes that trigger internal changes but they are a lot rarer than you think. The renewing of the heart and mind are internal processes that are a lot more resilient to external forces than you think.

Irrepressible Joy

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:35:00 +0000

In the 1990's my mom would call and let me know whenever a Billy Graham crusade was on TV. I was involved in ministry at the time so it wasn't that she was hoping I would become a follower of Jesus. I think she just thought I would enjoy it. I used to tease her that I wasn't going to watch it because Billy Graham always had the same message and I had already heard it. She really couldn't argue with that. I did hear Billy Graham speak at the Urbana Missions Conference one year and he was fantastic.

To this day, my mom also sends me her copy of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association's Decision magazine when she's done with it. I usually give it a read and find that same old message still comes through loud and clear. I was reading an article on author Bodie Theone when I cam across a phrase that caught my attention. "Like her mother, Bodie's irrepressible joy began testifying to God's power, goodness and love."

What a witness to strive for. As that phrase rotated around my brain I got to thinking that a witness like that is something we can strive for no matter what situation we find ourselves in. I recently was talking with an individual who is very concerned about the direction our country is headed. In that type of situation it is easy to become discouraged and grim. But I think that even under the worst political oppression imaginable we can still be people of irrepressible joy, testifying to God's power, goodness, and love.

A Final Thought on Forgiveness

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:48:00 +0000

As all other living humans I breathe, most of the time. I mean, I try not to breathe if I am underwater or if something or someone just stunk up the room. But most of the time I breathe, regularly and steadily without even thinking much about it. It is required for life.

Some people get excited about breathing, like a yoga instructor or fitness guru. I suppose there have been times in my life when breathing felt really good. Taking a nice deep breath of fresh air after you have been cooped up in a closed room feels great. I also have appreciated those first breaths of air after having the wind knocked out of me. But overall, breathing is simply a part of life that keeps me alive.

Sometimes we promise too much when it comes to forgiveness. I've read articles about how it will completely change your life when you learn to forgive. It leads one to believe that if I forgive someone I will be caught up in this rapturous moment of joy and will feel like all is now right with the world. I'm not sure forgiving someone is usually like that.

Forgiveness is important, just like breathing. It plays a vital role in our well being, just like breathing. It works in complex and interrelated ways within us, just like breathing. And just like breathing it often doesn't have the noticeable euphoric effect that some people claim it does. Go without it though, and you are sure to notice.

Okay, so the analogy is severely flawed. My point is that we can over-promise how forgiving will make us feel. We tend to give the impression that it will bring joy and happiness into our world and fix everything. The truth is that sometimes forgiving may actually hurt a little, or at least not have much of an impact on our overall happiness. Yet it is still vital for life.

Forgiveness

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:56:00 +0000

I have a person in my church who was abused as a kid by a neighbor and they will say, "I am not consumed by hate for that person and I don't wish them harm, but I could never forgive them." I completely understand that and I can only imagine the pain and hurt that was done. I'm actually very impressed that they can make that statement. But I have had a difficult time squaring the "never forgive" part with scripture. This morning it struck me that maybe our understanding of forgiveness is the problem.

I think it is fair to say that forgiveness is releasing another person from a debt that they owe us. Our usual narrative is that if someone does something to hurt us we want them to make amends for that somehow. At that point we will forgive them. However, if they make amends there is really nothing to forgive because they have repaid the debt. Forgiveness would be to release them (whether they are aware of my decision or not) from their debt without them having to pay anything back.

Maybe that is what this person in my congregation has done. Maybe they have forgiven their neighbor because they don't want or expect that person to repay them for the harm they have done. However, when they say they will never forgive them maybe they are really saying they won't forget because they know they need to keep a boundary there so that they will not be abused again.

The problem then is what to do about forgetting. The book of Hebrews twice quotes Jeremiah, "I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more" which is where we get the idea of "forgive and forget." My first thought is that forgiving and forgetting are two separate things so when we are called to forgive we are not necessarily called to forget. I am not even close to being competent in Greek but Strongs gives one definition for the word "remember no more" as "to bear in mind, that is, recollect, by implication to reward or punish." So maybe the forgetting is a promise not to bring that debt up again for repayment once it has been forgiven.

I got to thinking that maybe we bundle too much into forgiveness and make it a lot harder to wrestle with emotionally than we should. First, we need to understand that forgiveness is releasing a person of a debt they owe to us. Forgiveness is NOT making up with someone after they have repaid a debt they owe to us. And forgetting their debt means that we will not change our minds and ask them to repay it at some later date. Forgetting is NOT wiping it completely from our minds so that we relate to that person exactly as we did before with no boundaries in place.

Heavy Lifting

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 04 Mar 2014 14:51:00 +0000

About 25 years ago I was a student in a 7 month program at Auburn University in Alabama. Kim and I lived in a nice apartment about a block from campus and next to a large traditional church. We tried a few other churches in the area but ended up attending our next door neighbor. I call it a traditional church but what do I know. As a Yankee I found it interesting that very few people attended that weren't dressed up in what appeared to be their best. Males wore suits and ties and females wore dresses and fancy hats. We did the same thing every week with hymns, prayers, and a 15 - 20 minute sermon.

The pastor had two passions in life; Jesus and weightlifting. And I don't think a Sunday went by that we didn't hear about both. If he was talking about setting goals you can be sure he would talk about a weightlifting goal he had set, along with the struggle to achieve it. If he wanted to stress support for one another he would put on his weightlifting belt and show us how it helped him lift weights. His sermons never got very deep but he always talked about how wonderful Jesus was and he backed it up with an illustration from weightlifting.

I liked him. I know all of us pastors probably overuse illustrations from our lives but somehow it made this guy seem genuine. He never tried to be someone he wasn't. He stuck with what he knew and that was Jesus and weightlifting. Even though I am sure there were others like me who were timing his sermons to see how long it would be before he mentioned weightlifting, I think it also gave us a sense of reliability and permanence. That's kind of good to know in a chaotic world.

I think most pastors realize, after they have been preaching for a while, that there is a long term effect we have on the people who listen to us. It is not just the message we preach week to week but also the message we deliver over the long haul. I noticed this when I started hearing words and phrases that I use regularly become part of the vocabulary of people in my church. Pastors need to pay attention to the overall message they are delivering over the long haul.

10 Year Anniversary

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:21:00 +0000

On January 16, 2003 I started this blog. Ten years sounds like a long time and occasionally I see someone write a post their 10 year blogging anniversary. It sounds impressive since most folks now days can't seem to even stay married that long. And it is impressive for most of the bloggers who stay with it for that long. It takes discipline and dedication to output that much drivel. But I'm not one of those guys. My 10 years is only a testament to a computer server somewhere in the world that hasn't exploded yet and lost my blog forever.

Over 10 years I've racked up a little over 400 posts. That averages out to 40 posts a year, or less than one a week. And that isn't even the worst of it. There where a few years I averaged more than that which makes up for a majority of really thin years. Every now and then I think I'm going to take it seriously again but it never lasts. There have even been a few years when I have had to do some work to even find the backend of the blog so I could post again. (I should write names and passwords down on paper.)

The biggest reason I don't write more is because I don't like a lot of what I have written. There was a time when I slowed way down because people actually read this blog and some people got mad about what I wrote. It is not that I disagree with most of what I have written, it's that I am tired of what I created. I am good at creating criticism but I want to be good at creating beauty.

Crucified

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 14:22:00 +0000

When Paul wrote in Galatians 2:20, "I have been crucified with Christ..." he was talking about the crucifixion of his old life and not his suffering. Yet Paul suffered greatly and I imagine there were many times he felt crucified. Maybe that is not a bad way to think of it as we try to be imitators of Christ.

I have a friend who I think has been crucified. That comparison gives hope in light of the resurrection. After some dark days there is new life. I think that is a good thought when going through suffering. New life is just around the corner.

The harder part for me is reflecting on how Jesus responded to the people who crucified him. "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Okay, so I have a hard time with that. They are adults so they should be responsible to know what they are doing. But Jesus' response is profoundly good.

Desperate To Get Married

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Mon, 08 Jul 2013 14:28:00 +0000

In 1960 the average age for a woman in America to get married was 20. By 1990 it was raised to 23. In 2013 it is 27. That's quite a jump since 1990 and I have read pluses and minuses to the increasing age of first marriages. But at this moment I can name four young women that I know who are younger than that and seem desperate to get married and I wonder if they are caught in the middle of this shift.

Desperation can lead to poor choices and I wonder if there are any statistics on the marriage success rate of marriages born out of desperation. I'm not even sure how you would measure that. It just stands to reason that you would be starting out on the wrong foot.

Of course it may be just my judgment that these women are throwing themselves at bad situations and maybe these relationships are better than I suspect. I am not really saying that these guys they are chasing are losers either. I'm just saying they don't really seem ready for that level of relationship.

This got me thinking about why these women settle when they have so much to offer. I don't claim to know anything about biological clocks but I wonder if the late average age for marriage is part of the problem. It seems that in past decades there were a lot more people thinking seriously about marriage at a much earlier age. That would mean that for someone looking to get married they would find plenty of possible partners. In 2013 that pool of partners is significantly smaller and I would guess that that is frightening for someone desperate to get married.

The fear of missing your opportunity is strong but I think making sure you have a solid foundation for a relationship makes up for it. I have a strong urge to yell "relax and be patient" but I don't think they would find it very helpful.

One last thing, There could be just as many desperate young men out there as there are women. Ijust don't know any.

Cool Tool

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:26:00 +0000

Well, after using it for about a month I have to say that I really like using Scrivener for writing. It really doesn't do anything special but it works in a way that really fits how I work, and that makes all the difference.

It is really geared to someone writing a book which is not something I am doing. I can see why it would work well for that though. They also recommend doing final formatting in another application but I haven't bothered with that so far. It is good enough for me as is.

I think the best way to think about it is as a 3-ring binder with subject dividers. Anything you would organize that way would probably work great with Scrivener. Right now I am working on my summer sermon series. So inside my binder I have one folder for each week. Inside each week I have one file each for my scripture, order of service, announcements, kid's sermon, big's sermon, and research. (I do use a separate research file in the binder for general research that is not week specific.)

All of this is easily done with any word processing software and file system. The thing I like about Scrivener is how easy it is to switch back and forth between ALL the documents in the binder. That may not seem like that big of a deal but it just makes a huge difference to me. Like I said at the beginning, it just fits how I work. It feels right, comfortable, and it makes me smile, which isn't something software does very often.

There are a lot of other cool little features that it has, including some they make a big deal about that I think are cool but don't really use too much. And there are a few annoying quirks that leave me scratching my head. But for anything that would fit in a binder that you would use text on, rather than numerals, it is simple elegance.

Going Wild

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:55:00 +0000

On a regular basis we see people going wild when they make a decision to cross a line. Sometimes it is the result of new found freedom like when a child reaches adulthood and is no longer under parental restriction. We all probably know of someone who went from a "well behaved and respectful" kid into a wild, party animal when they got out from under their parent's wings. What I am focusing on here is the extremes.

While probably most kids open up a bit they often retain a good deal of the characteristics of their upbringing. But why is it that some seem to try and run as far away from everything they have known? Do they really reject EVERYTHING they have known or is there something else that goes on that makes it difficult to accept even a portion of their past belief?

I think there is a psychological reason for the total rejection. There seems to be a need for validating their rejection so the brain works overtime finding reasons to reject everything. They find it difficult to mesh some of their new ways of seeing the world with their established ways of seeing the world so they can only choose one or the other. My guess is that these people have difficulty with gray areas and uncertainty and like to see things in black and white.

This doesn't happen only with young people either. I have seen people leave their faith and become some of the harshest critics of their former faith. Most would probably say this is because they have seen the inside and don't like what they saw. My guess is that this has more to do with their personal struggle and uncertainty. I have also see this with people who were once politically conservative but are now quite liberal. They consistently attack conservatives while defending liberals. My guess is that they really don't feel that their liberal side is always right but they have spent so long living in an unbalanced, conservative view that they subconsciously feel the need try to put it back in balance.

The sad part about all of this is that it stifles honest discourse. Our ability to have constructive conversations seems to be disappearing. It isn't safe to say anything because it will probably be taken the wrong way or someone will read something into it that was never intended. That's sad.

Missional (Again)

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:03:00 +0000

As I have mentioned before, I am concerned about how missional is defined because I think it is one of those words that is starting to mean a lot of different things and will soon become useless. I also think there is a real danger of people mistaking missional activity for being missional. Before long a person thinks they are missional, not because they are using what God has given them to serve in His redemptive mission, but because they help out once a week at the local community center. Working at the community center may very well be missional but it could just as easily not be.

I want to find an accessible definition that makes it clear that there is a difference between being misisonal and missional activity. There are two scripture references that help for me. The first is Colossians 1:13-23

Colossians 1:13 "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."

I almost don't know where to start on this passage.
- Rescued from the dominion of darkness into the Kingdom. (verse 13)
- Redemption and forgiveness of sin. (verse 14)
- The supremacy of Christ. (verses 15-19)
- The reconciliation of all things. (verses 20-22)
- A servant of this gospel. (verse 23)

I'm not fleshing all this out here but I see Paul presenting the gospel here which speaks of our redemption as well as His mission to reconcile all things. Then I see Paul saying that he is a servant to this gospel. To many, the servants part is to proclaim this gospel to the ends of the earth and we see that Paul fits this description. But I do not believe that being a servant of the gospel simply means verbal proclamation. At this point I go to another passage, 1 Peter 4:10.

1Peter 4:10 "Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms."

So then, we are to use whatever gift we have received to serve the gospel of redemption and the reconciliation of all things to God through Christ. That means a missional person is one who:
- Is aware of his gifts and seeks to develop them.
- Studies the world in which he lives seeking the Holy Spirit's to places he can use his gift to bring reconciliation and restoration.
- Lives out this mission in community as a part of the body of Christ.

One of the dangers I see is that our in our western world view we tend to like everything neatly organized. That is why I see "Missional Communities" organized around a single task. I'm not sure that should be the norm. It is good that a Christian work together with others from their community but a truly missional person will not limit themselves to just one task or need. They will be constantly on the look out for opportunities to be a servant of this gospel in everything they do, whether it is volunteering at a local community center or at the store buying groceries. Being a servant of the gospel is not like a job that you clock in and out of. We are to be slaves to the gospel in a way that it encompasses our whole life.

Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 20:03:00 +0000

One of the major issues in denominations is providing accountability for pastors. In my denomination that is done on two levels. I am accountable to my local church's governing board and I am accountable to my denomination through my cluster leader, the Pastoral Ministries Leadership Team, and our Bishop. But there are problems with all of these relationships.

The governing board has the closest relationship with me and that is both good and bad. I am not sure how effective it is in a small church setting. It is difficult to keep it effective and healthy at the same time. The denominational structures are based more on numbers rather than relationship and that is very misleading. So is it possible to have an accountability structure that is highly relational but also free from some of the conflict of interest that can occur in a small church?

I have a friend who works for a company that employs over 200,000 people worldwide and in some respects the employees operate similar to pastors in that they don't punch a clock and work in a wide variety of contexts. So I talked with him about their system and this is how I think it might work.

Each pastor needs to have a ministry counselor (MC). In our case it would probably be the cluster leader. The MC would keep track of everything the pastor is involved with; my church, denominational teams, mission trips, and other boards, committees, etc. Obviously a system would need to be developed to keep track of this. The MC would also communicate weekly with the pastor to develop their relationship, learn what the pastor is trying to accomplish in the immediate as well as long term future.

Once a year the MC would also contact several of the groups the pastor has been involved with. For example, the MC might contact the chairperson of a board the pastor was involved with and ask how effective the pastor was as a member of the team, what were the pastor's strengths and weaknesses, and what skills the pastor needed to develop. From year to year this feedback would be used to help the pastor improve his skills and lay out a direction for the coming years.

The MC would also insure that the pastor is practising a lifestyle that is healthy for ministry. This would include volunteering in the community, a healthy amount of leisure time, vacations, etc.

Obviously the MC would have a huge commitment to this and there would need to be a strict limit on how many pastors an MC would be responsible for. It might also need to be broken out of the cluster system so that every pastor has an MC and most pastors are an MC for another pastor.

Got to run so I will need to finish this later.

Addition:

Okay, so I don't like the idea of the cluster leader being the MC for all the pastors in their cluster. An MC should consult with the cluster leader but an MC should have no more than 2 or 3 pastors that they counsel so that would make it impossible for the cluster leader to also be the MC for every pastor in his cluster.

Okay, time to flesh it out a little more.

Assumptions: - Accountability is necessary. - Accountability must be highly relational. - Pastor's are in a unique situation that requires a unique approach to accountability. - Current systems usually focus on data that is often ineffective at measuring a pastor's performance.

How It Would Work

The MC and the Pastor would have an initial interview that would cover strengths and weaknesses, ministry philosophy, educational goals, family, community involvement, physical health, spiritual health, etc. This interview is designed to help the MC understand where the pastor is and where he feels led. These can, and most likely will, change but that can evolve as the relationship with the MC develops. The MC also helps the pastor develop goals for the next week as well as longer term goals.

Each week the MC communicates with the pastor to discuss progress being made, obstacles encountered, etc. The MC may also suggest resources that could help the pastor reach educational and career goals. Those resources could be books, seminars, conferences, experts, veteran leaders, etc.

Once or twice a year the MC will assess the progress of the pastor by compiling information from personal contact, interviews with the pastor's cluster leader, interviews with the local church board chairman, chairman of boards or committees that the pastor serves on, etc. The MC will ask about the pastors effectiveness, weaknesses, relational skills, etc. Once he has completed the assessment he will discuss the assessment with the pastor and his cluster leader.

The pastor has the option of selecting another MC if he does not feel he has a good fit. This should not be taken personally and it may be the case that the pastor may return to his original MC at a later date. It is very important that the MC/pastor relationship be one that is functional.

After a year or two the pastor should take on the role of MC for another pastor while maintaining his relationship with his own MC. Eventually, every pastor should have an MC, including denominational officials.

Implementation

The first step would be to bring together a small group of pastors who have experience and vision for such a program. Experience might include coaching, mentoring, counselling, etc. This group will develop the initial policies and procedures and begin a pilot program. They will closely monitor the program and make necessary adjustments

All for now.

Tri-UNE

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:26:00 +0000

Just a brief note to remember something. When we talk about the Trinity it seems that we go to great pains to talk about each person of the Trinity and how they are different from the other. We have a formula that says that God the Father is not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, but he is God. Likewise, God the Son is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit but is God. Then we do the same for God the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that we spend most of our time showing how each person is NOT the other and very little time focusing on the IS God part.

I think one reason for that is that we look through the lens of a Western (Greek) worldview rather than an Eastern (Hebrew) worldview. We seem to be focused on separating and not so good at thinking about things as a whole. There is probably some good reason for this and it probably is helpful for a lot of people. But I also think it is helpful for us to focus on the IS God aspect of our formula too.

Probably the hardest person of the Trinity for us to think of as God is the Holy Spirit. Maybe that is because of how Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as a comforter, guide, and helper. Yet we do make the connection when we use the terms "God's leading" and "lead by the Holy Spirit." We see that as one in the same but in other instances we somehow see the Holy Spirit as less than God.

The incarnation probably gives us the best example of looking at it both ways. John 3:16 tells us that God (father) sent his Son (Jesus). That would be the focus on the separation of the Trinity. Yet we also read in Matthew 1:23 that they will call him Immanuel- which means 'God with us." That would be a focus on the whole of the Trinity.

This probably makes little sense to most people but it popped into my head this morning that we don't focus on the wholeness of the Trinity very much and that sometimes it is helpful to do so.

Contending

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 22:03:00 +0000

"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love: they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." --Harry Lime, “The Third Man”

Was this Orson Welles character on to something? James 1:12 says, "Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him." It seems that the refining that comes with trial brings out our best.

It seems to me that we spend an awful lot of time trying to figure out ways to avoid trials of any kind. Some have put forward the idea that we need to be challenged in order to grow. I believe that but I really don't think challenge is the same as trials. Maybe we need trials to bring out our absolute best.

Do we do ourselves and others a disservice by trying to avoid trials? How does management deal with this? Don't we try and manage our way to perfection?

What would happen if we turned the line into, "In 30 years the persecuted church produced ______________. While the church in North America produced _______________." If we filled in those blanks honestly would we be embarrassed?

Doctrine of the Hymn

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:42:00 +0000

Warning: I'm going way out on a limb here.

One caution that is thrown out about church music is its doctrinal components. We hear that we should check our music for accurate theology. We also hear that we need to be careful that we don't lose the doctrine that has been taught through the hymns down through the years. But how much doctrine is really taught by the hymns?

I wonder what the studies say. I don't mean the obvious doctrine that is obvious to any believer. I would assume that any believer believes that God is great. Songs reinforce that but I think you would be stretching it to say that such doctrine is really taught by music. What doctrine is there that is primarily taught through music?

I believe there is a lot of doctrine in the hymns we sing but I am not so sure that it is really the primary teaching medium that some claim it to be. In fact, I think there is great danger in relying on hymns to teach despite the efforts of Luther, Calvin, and the Wesley brothers. If you are counting on them you may be disappointed.

I have been trying to think of doctrine that I primarily learned through hymns. I have discovered several brilliant nuggets of doctrine in hymns that became apparent after the fact. "Oh, so that's what that line means."

When I arrived at my current church I had a bunch of 18-20 year olds. I asked them about the hymns we sang in church. They could hardly remember the words to them, where not aware of the hymn's doctrine, and were very bored with them. Something isn't adding up.

You are going to have to show me. I don't feel guilty for not singing more hymns. I am not worried that the people in my congregation are missing some key doctrine. And I am not convinced that music is the primary medium for teaching doctrine. Reinforcing, yes, teaching, not as much as we think.

Buzzzzzzzzz

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 20:09:00 +0000

A friend of mine was explaining to me the objectives of a new role he was taking on. That makes me nervous because I just used the words "objectives" and "role" in that first sentence and I figured I was about to get a whole lot of buzz words. He didn't disappoint. How's this for one of his objectives? "To provide assistance in increasing ministry objectives each year."

That makes me chuckle every time I read it. i don't know what it means other than it sounds like someone is keeping busy, or at least trying to look like he is keeping busy. I also like how it is always good to "increase" something rather than decrease it. Wouldn't it be nice to be recognized for decreasing something for once? "Hey, I decreased our objectives this year. "Good job man. Keep up the good work."

It is amazing to me how accurate the Dilbert comic series was. I guess I thought it would fade over time but it hasn't. We have one idea of success and it is all tied up with more, bigger and better. Since most people can't compete with that we make up buzz words to cover the deficiencies. We may not really produce but if we have the right words we can fake it.

I have a friend who is sure I am failure simply because I have been the pastor of a small church for almost 15 years. I don't think the thought has ever entered into his head that I like ministering in the context that I am in. He always asks me if I am going to move on soon. But I think his hope for me is about gone. I'll have to hit him with some great buzz words next time I see him so he'll know I am doing okay.

I am planning on going to a conference this week. I can't forget to check out my friend Jim's Buzz Word Bingo tool and print out some cards to take with me. I'm sure I'll hear tons buzz words.

The Conversation

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Sat, 26 Jan 2013 15:55:00 +0000

My kids tell me they are unique. We were talking with 3 of them last night and two of them say that they have asked their friends and not one of them have ever had "the talk" from a parent. The other one said a few had had "the talk."

The interesting thing is that this is true for both Christian and non-Christian homes as far as they can tell. I suppose that should be expected from non-Christian homes. They probably figure that they would rather have the school have the talk or let them find out in some other way. But Christians often complain and worry about sex ed in schools so it seems that they would be very quick to make sure they had the talk.

The main reason I think parents neglect to have the talk is because it is awkward and embarrassing. But if we really believe that sex is a beautiful gift from God, and that sexual intimacy is a core element of a strong marriage, it seems we would be much more inclined to have the talk. Apparently our churches are lacking a good theology of sex and it probably is because we don't address it enough in our churches.

I also think that it is unhelpful to refer to it as "the talk." The questions should not be when you had "the talk" it should be, "when did you begin 'the conversation.'" You can't explain it all in one talk and your kids can't process it all in one talk. It needs to be an ongoing conversation.

Literature

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:51:00 +0000

A few days ago I posted about my dislike of non-fiction here. As I thought about it, it occurred to me that I never said why. Well, it is because it isn't good art.

We all use graphic art to get a point across. Pictures have the ability to communicate so much better than words. But when I use graphic art it usually isn't that great. It still communicates, it is useful, and I don't have a problem using it. But I would hate to do away with great graphic art from the past or what is being created now. The great stuff speaks at an even deeper level. It also encourages, inspires, and even teaches us who can't produce great graphic art to at least improve what we do have.

The same is true for great fiction. It encourages, inspires, and helps me produce better non-fiction. Unfortunately I think a lot of non-fiction writers don't really think much about the quality of their writing. We aren't as careful as we should be with language. We take too many liberties in the name of efficiency and I think non-fiction suffers because of it.

I think being around the quality use of language rubs off on us. I am not aware of any studies on it but I would guess that children who are raised in homes where good grammar is the norm in every day language do better in school when it comes to grammar. (I imagine this has to have been studied.) Likewise, being around good writing has to make us better writers.

That's why I think great fiction is important and why we should all be partakers of it.

Leadership?

noreply@blogger.com (Tom) — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:34:00 +0000

For the last several decades the western world has been infatuated with leadership. Go to any bookstore and you can find bookshelves full of books on leadership. The western church has the same infatuation. A quick search of the word "leader" in my librarything catalog returned 40 books and I probably have more than that that aren't tagged right or not cataloged yet. Apparently everything would work if we were better leaders.

I read that a survey of pastors showed that a high number of them believed that leadership development was one of their most pressing needs in their churches. I have no doubt that that is what they believe but I wonder if it is truly what they need most.

If you asked me what I would like to have most in my church it would be people who are totally in love with Jesus, who are filled with the Holy Spirit, and have the gift of evangelism. Just a few of them would be far more productive than dozens of new leaders.

Leaders build great institutions. The Holy Spirit builds a movement of God. The picture I see in scripture and down through history is the Holy Spirit on the move and leaders working like mad trying to keep up. When they do manage to catch up you find that they were filled with the Holy Spirit too.

In my tribe we talk about the Holy Spirit but we are cautious about it because so often the focus is on speaking in tongues or prophecy or the like that has ended up causing division instead of growth. But if you look carefully at scripture you see repeated occurrences of the Holy Spirit helping people share Jesus with the world boldly, courageously, and wisely. And that is what my church needs.