Organizational Cycles and Responses

All organizations change over their lifetimes. These changes occur incrementally and may take decades. They may be described as cycles in the business world, or seasons in relation to the church world, but typically they coincide with the generation who is in command at the time. As the generations are replaced, the changes occur.

A common sequence occurs in the business world. A leader or group of leaders begins a new business from scratch. The early years are marked by sacrifice, hard work, and a determination to be successful that overrides any organizational structure or policy. The focus is on results. The founders are completely willing to do without personal comfort and will rally all available resources to insure the success and growth of the business. When it succeeds, there is a tremendous feeling of satisfaction, but a lingering idea that success is fragile and should never be taken for granted.

When the children of the founding generation take over, they remember the sacrifices made by their predecessors, but being children, they didn’t really experience the anxiety and hard work of their parents. As they assume roles of leadership, they are stepping into a successful and strong organization. They move forward with the company always hearing the voice of the founders reminding them of how valuable and fragile success can be. Typically the second generation will be better educated then the founders. That education was one of the sacrifices the founders made so their children would have a better opportunity than they did. As a result, the second generation takes the company to heights that are hard to imagine by the founders. With a better understanding of markets, newer technology, and the advantage of starting with a flourishing company the second generation makes great strides and the company becomes a force in the marketplace. Typically it branches into new products or services. It expands into new areas and adds layers of bureaucracy as it grows. Typically there are new facilities, with lifestyles that are commensurate with success.

The crisis occurs when the third generation comes into power. They are children who have only seen strength and prosperity. The stories of sacrifice seem quaint to them. Being children of privilege, they attend the best schools, travel extensively, and have unlimited access to the best things of life. When the third generation takes command, one of three things typically happens. Either they (1) take the business public and cash out; leaving the company in the hands of stockholders, (2) they keep the business, but lose interest in building it and taking risks, so they live on the fruits of their predecessor’s work until the business is run into the ground, or they (3) take the business far from its’ original direction and get lost in a diffused sense of direction until a crisis requires a drastic restructuring. Then the company may or may not recover its former glory. If it survives, it typically thrives, and goes on for many years, making adjustments as it goes. The changes don’t seem as emotional or drastic at that point, because the business is now “on its’ own”. The founders are no longer the personality of the company, and no longer cast a shadow over its operations.

It is interesting to see parallels between business cycles and what I see in our movement, the Assemblies of God. The early twentieth century Pentecostals had no goals other than the spread of the Gospel under the anointing of the Holy Spirit throughout the world. They began with very little in physical assets. What they had they made available. They made a lot of mistakes in those early years, but their eyes stayed firmly on the goal of establishing a worldwide evangelistic organization. Men and women of great quality and passion risked everything to get established. These were the pioneers. There were no established works in any of the countries they went to. They started from scratch in every country and among every people group. They encountered and overcame many great difficulties and many died fulfilling God’s call on their lives. Eventually they established a beach head in places in every region. Works were begun, disciples made, churches planted, pastors trained, children were taken care of, and believers multiplied.

The next generation, those who weathered the Great Depression and World War II followed their predecessors. This generation was a generation of builders. Where works were planted, buildings were built. The Churches of the U.S. responded with generosity and enthusiasm. The post-war boom brought great prosperity to a nation that was suddenly interested in the world. They wanted to lend a sense of permanence to the works that were begun. Here in the States and around the world, we still benefit from buildings built by this “builder” generation. Churches, Bible schools, hospitals, orphanages, and office buildings rose in metropolitan areas, deserts, and tropical forests. As you travel the world today it is impossible to go to an area reached in the mid-twentieth century without seeing buildings built by the generosity and efforts of the builder generation. This generation was willing to sacrifice because prosperity was new to them and they didn’t see “doing without” as a necessarily bad thing if they were being involved in something that reflected permanence and legacy. Their names grace many of the buildings we still use today.

My generation, the Baby Boomers, are organizers. If the local church doesn’t want to do something, we begin a parachurch organization to do it. We are the generation that became concerned with programs and procedures. Our way of thinking is that if we set something up correctly, it should run smoothly. We are not fond of exceptions and we value strategic planning and seamless execution. We are comfortable handling and spending millions of dollars, all of which was donated by others. We are into statistics and success ratios. We look at a map of the world and lay out 5, 10, and 20 year plans. We insist that our missionaries’ needs are met even if it delays them living out their calling for years. We are uncomfortable asking someone or even allowing someone to sacrifice. We want everyone to earn a good living while they are doing God’s work. Our missionaries have the best equipment and live the best lifestyle of any mission sending organization in the world. We evaluate risk/reward ratios and calculate how many gospel presentations our mission dollar will provide. We do love God, and we are passionate to see the Great Commission fulfilled, but in many ways it is more of a project than a life of commitment. We have drifted a long way from the passion of the founders. We are still getting success reports, and we have more missionaries on the field than ever before, but we have a vague sense that things can’t go on like this forever and that something needs to give before there is a crisis.

My feeling is that we are poised for an exciting and scary ride in the next few years. Here are a few fundamentals. We have a growing number of missionaries going to the field. This generation of young missionaries is recapturing the passion of those original pioneer missionaries. They want to go to new, Gospel-resistant areas and share the Gospel with those who still haven’t heard after all these years. They are not afraid to take their families into difficult places. They are not afraid of hardship and sacrifice. They are ready to give all for the cause of Christ. Each year in my district, we have more new missionaries heading to the field than those who are retiring.

At the same time, the number of A/G churches in the U.S. is static. The population of these churches is staying static. Their giving is static. That means that we have an ever increasing number of missionaries raising their ever increasing budgets from a static pool of churches. I’ll be the first to say that our churches are not giving anywhere near their potential, but the current reality is that it is taking longer and longer for our passionate new candidate missionaries to make it to the field.

I am not critical of our movement. I believe that the heart of the Assemblies of God is still to carry out the mandates of the early General Councils to reach the entire world with the Gospel. I just see that it is time for some serious conversation about how we do things. What we are experiencing is normal for a 100 year old organization. We are at that critical point in the cycle when we can either keep doing things the way we are until it is too late to do anything else, or we can begin to look at our goals in new ways and make the significant changes that will prepare us for an even greater next 100 years.

The most exciting and challenging parts of the earth remain to be reached with the Gospel. It will require the radical faith of our founders to reach them. It will require innovative thinking and new resources. I believe that God is raising up the harvest laborers to do it. We have to be willing to resource them the way they need to be resourced even if it looks radically different than what we do now. We can do it. I believe that we will.

Can we make this simpler?

When I was growing up the church's way of thinking was to provide as many activities as possible so the members wouldn't get involved in worldly activities. When I was very young, they even went so far as to schedule a two week revival each year during the fair. Although we don't go to that extreme these days, churches still seem to be graded on how many "safe" activities they provide for their members. Committed followers of Christ are graded on how many times they attend services, functions, and activities on a weekly basis. We try to come up with alternatives to significant events and celebrations under the assumption that our members will not be able to withstand the temptations of the world if we let them go to purely "secular" events.

As a result, we tie up the time of our most committed members (meaning those most likely to share their faith with others) by asking them to work relentlessly on events that are safe for Christian consumption. In doing so, we deny them opportunities to connect and build relationships with people outside the church who might be influenced for Christ if they had relationships with followers of Christ.

This might be defendable if we were seeing our average members actually living lives that differed from their neighbors but we're not. Church members are divorcing, getting into financial trouble, and living in fear of the future in numbers no different than the neighbors they are hiding from. So it appears that a strategy of monopolizing church members' time is not bearing fruit.

The local church has a responsibility to provide three things for those who are attenders and members: Opportunities for worship, discipleship, and fellowship. These are not listed in order of importance because all three are crucial for the spiritual development of the individual. A church that is lacking in any of these areas is not producing strong motivated Christians who will share their faith with others.

Corporate worship brings the local body of believers into the presence of God as a group. There is energy and excitement generated when groups of believers worship together. Through congregational singing, group prayer for needs, and the shared of experience of hearing the message, strength is formed. Those new in the faith see those who have served God for decades worship and learn from them. The more seasoned saints can see the exuberence of those who are newer in the faith and be energized by the knowledge that a new generation is picking up the torch and that the gospel work will go on. It is priceless when generations worship God together and make allowance for differences in style and preference, but are willing to come together in unity of purpose.

Typically, discipleship occurs in a different setting than the corporate worship experience. The messages delivered in the corporate worship setting are typically encouraging, corrective, evangelistic or comforting. The deliberate study of the Bible and doctrine usually occur in a separate venue, whether it is Sunday School, Sunday night, or another teaching time. But even though it is not as emotional as the worship experience, it is every bit as important. Without the systematic study of the Bible, and the subequent grounding in the doctrines of the Word, the worship experience can drift into weirdness. But with a well-educated group of believers, worship will take on a rich dimension of experience combined with knowledge and it will result in a much deeper appreciation of the things of God.

Sometimes fellowship is considered to be fluff, but in reality, fellowship is the glue that holds the local body together. In times of fellowship, believers get to know one another in ways that they will never get in other corporate settings. Most of the stories of Jesus interacting with his disciples take place around meals. It is in those settings that people establish relationships that last a lifetime and cause individuals to give the benefit of the doubt when differences of preference arise. Just as discipleship is necessary for powerful worship, it is necessary for healthy fellowship. Without intentional discipleship and powerful worship, fellowship can turn into the cliques and factions that destroy churches.

When any of the three parts are supplied disproportionately, you have problems. If the predominate focus is on worship, then worship rules and excess and heresy will usually be the result. In a church that focuses solely on discipleship, the joy and spontenaity of worship is lost and legalism is the normal outcome. In a church preoccupied with fellowship, our relationships with one another take precedence over our relationship with God, and we become a club instead of a church.

But let's consider the church which achieves balance and is strong in worship, discipleship, and fellowship. What then? If we are producing believers who are growing in spiritual maturity, is that enough? Isn't there more to church than that? Of course there is. We owe something further to our members. But we do not owe them an unending list of programs and events designed to protect them from the world. We owe them the opportunity to share their spiritual walk with others who do not yet believe. We have the responsibility to reach the world and tell them the Good News. Our people can't reach out to others if they are spending all their time with other Christians.

But there are several problems with this. In our culture, activity is esteemed more highly than productivity. People who stay busy are honored for doing so much for the church. People who may be spending their free time with unbelievers tend to be looked upon with suspicion. When a church begins to eliminate programs and events the members, even those who may not attend those events, feel that the church is moving backward. Churches pride themselves in having pages-long lists of ministries they provide, but in reality, the vast majority of those ministries are aimed at the comfort and care of the membership. It will take a long time to change that mindset. Foolish is the pastor who attempts an "overnight" change in direction. His direction will probably be changed out of town.

So where am I headed with this? I envision a church (I don't attend this church and you probably don't either) where there are intentional opportunities, open to all attenders, for worship, discipleship and fellowship. This could take many forms. A simple example would be Sunday School (or whatever you want to call it) for discipleship. This would be predominately age based curriculum that teaches through the Bible on a recurring basis so the students get a well rounded exposure to its truths. The Sunday morning worship service is an easy call to provide corporate worship. It contains worship through singing, worship through giving, worship through prayer, and worship through hearing the Word. The fellowship dimension can take on many appearances such as small groups or fellowhip dinners. These could even take place immediately following the Sunday morning worship service. Each believer would be challenged to take part in each of these three experiences for the good of their spiritual development.

Beyond that, the committed believer would then be challenged to undertake some form of ministry devoted to those outside the church, or as mentors to new believers. They would be encouraged to put substantial time and energy in one program or ministry area. If they wish, they could also help someone else in another area, but they would be discouraged from having a level of involvement in several programs. The goal would be for them to be effective at that they do best instead of being average at many things. The hope is that as believers grow in worship, discipleship and fellowship they will see an area where they can work effectively in ministry and do their part to fulfill the Great Commission.

I know this sounds idyllic, but isn't that the way of concepts? Probably no church will ever get that simple and focused because it is improbable that an entire congregation will ever "get it". But it is a goal. And those individuals who find their way to that ideal must be recognized and applauded. We reproduce what we celebrate.

Running the church like a business

I come from a business background. I was a business major in college. I have worked for locally owned businesses and publicly held international companies. I have started and owned several businesses. Most were successful, and one was a tremendous economic failure. I have had as many as 300 people who worked in divisions I managed, and have had spending authority into the millions of dollars. God granted me some wonderful experiences, and some success in the business world in several different fields.


But now I work in a church in the role of administrative pastor. I love working in the church. Even though I experienced some success in the business world, I could never make business important enough to really give my life to it. I remember two instances. First was during the time I owned an oilfield service company. It was early in the morning after I had worked all night. I was walking to the rig floor feeling good about the night's work I had just done. I remember thinking to myself, "I'm really good at this. I wish I enjoyed it." A number of years later I worked as assistant general manager in a manufacturing operation. I was in a production meeting with several people I really respected.
We discussed ways to save pennies per unit. Over hundreds of thousands of units, the savings would be substantial. But I remember thinking to myself, "There's no way I can ever make this as important to me as it is to them." Shortly afterward, I felt God leading me to quit a six figure job even though it was the best working environment I had ever experienced. I couldn't make business be important enough to me to give my life to it.


I hear people many times say, "we need to run this church more like a business." I hope they mean that it be run according to accepted accounting principles, with transparency and integrity in the processes. But there is a huge difference between using good business practices in church and running the church like a business.

The first reason is that business success is measured in revenues and profits. Church success is measured by changed lives. How a church interacts with its vendors in the marketplace is one of the opportunities we have to share Christ with the marketplace. In a business, it is expected that deals will be driven hard. It is common for ethical corners to be cut to make a better deal. But the church has an opportunity to model the Christ life in its dealings. That doesn't mean that we should roll over and accept shoddy service and high prices, but it does mean that we should hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards in our dealings. Businesses should look forward to doing business with a church. They should expect to have to deliver top service and products at competitive prices, but they should also expect that the church will keep its word and honor its commitments. The church should never be seen as mooches who want something for nothing. Nor should it be known as a group that fails to honor its commitments because they know no one wants to sue a church.

Also, this may come as a shock for many, but the biggest difference between church and business is that the church has no customers. Our consumeristic culture has fostered the notion that the people in the pew are to be catered to because there is another church (business) down the street who will welcome their attendance (business). This way of thinking has effectively neutered the concepts of discipleship and church discipline. If something is taught that is unpleasant to the listener, or if one of the "customers" is rebuked for a wrong action, he just "takes his tithe (business) elsewhere." When we begin to develop ministry around what the people want, we begin the decline into consumerism, and it is nearly impossible to return to true discipleship that leads people to be the body of Christ.

When we run the church like a business, the most important number becomes the surplus or deficit we see in the income statement. It is true that we have a responsibility to steward the resources that have been entrusted to us. But that stewardship responsibility is greater than hanging onto large reserves of cash and feeling secure that they can weather a financial storm that never arrives. We are given the charge to seek first God's kingdom and righteousness because if we do that he promises to give us the things we need. But we see churches and individuals storing up great amounts of cash in savings accounts while we send our missionaries and inner city works begging.

Can we as the Church get to a place of absolute trust in God to lead and provide? I don't know. But I do know that we must be very careful about "running the church like a business".

Rules of Giving

I was reading one of the blogs I follow the other day. It had a thread that asked if tithing was a Biblical requirement for Christians. The debate was spirited with both sides scoring points. As I read, I had a couple of wierd thoughts, which is normal for me.

First, we love requirements. And the tithe is just so easy to figure. Just give us some rules to follow and we know where we stand. I can look at my charitable giving at the end of the year and if I'm over 10% I'm good.

Second, we love money. Even while we preach against the love of money, we love it. We trust it. We know what we can do with it. Take faith to the grocery store and see how many Pop tarts you can buy with it. Tell the electric company you are praying for them instead of sending them a check and see how long they leave the lights on.

Besides, giving money is easy. We can give some and make more. It is much easier to give money than to give time. It is also easier to teach people to give money than to convince them to give time. People understand the concept of paying for good service, so if a pastor gives good service, people will pay. Many in church will never be able to join a country club, but they can attend a church and give regularly and expect to be attended to. Many would prefer to give toward hiring a janitor than to empty wastebaskets and clean toilets. After all, they have to do that sort of thing at home. They want to come to the church and be served.

And we as preachers propagate that thinking. If we attempt to teach servanthood, that is all well and good. But if we attempt to have our people practice servanthood, we are in for a battle. So we preach on the guaranteed blessings of giving in the hopes that bigger offerings will produce some leftover that we can use to fund people who are actually serving. We keep everyone comfortable and happy and maintain their country club. And as a result, we are powerless because we are operating from our budget instead of operating from our faith. We protect our jobs and rationalize it by hoping that eventually we can nudge our people in the right direction, but until then, we can support some worthy projects. We know that it is less than God's best, but it acknowledges the realities of pastoring in North America in the 21st century.

This post is not as hopeful as my normal posts. It acknowledges the situation in which we find ourselves, but as yet I do not know how to change this culture. The Jesus of the Gospels wasn't really as concerned with us having fulfillment and happy marriages as he was with us dying to self and being ready to divest ourselves of anything that hindered our relationship with him. He modeled homelessness. He had no possessions. He said that unless we were ready to forsake even our closest family members we couldn't be his disciples. But we are not preaching those things. Those topics won't "grow a church". We as church leaders have, in most instances, taken the easy way out by giving our people what they want to hear instead of what Jesus actually taught. And as long as we reward and recognize pastors for the number of people they attract instead of the quality of discipleship they provide we will have this. But it will be hard to change. I am not without sympathy. Pastors can really put their careers in danger by changing their message from "come and dine" to "come and die". But the ultimate freedom is in serving Christ without reservation. That means giving 10% is a nice start, but it isn't a rule. A life that is wholly committed to following Christ is a life of leaving everything behind. Nothing reserved. Nothing held back. Only Christ. I'm not there yet. I'm still sorting things out. But the small moves I have made in that direction have opened new vistas in my relationship with God. I suspect that the more I am willing to give, the better I'm gonna like it.

Please Teach This

I feel that in one large way our Bible schools are failing the ministers they are training. They are not preparing our up and coming ministers in the realities of church transformation. There is a huge shift in the approach to ministry that has been occurring over the last 10 years or so. Our young ministers are as passionate about God as any other generation, they are well-grounded in the faith an in our doctrines, and they possess skills and intelligence that are on a par with any generation ever produced. They are passionate about social justice, life change, worship and discipleship, but in a way that differs significantly from the previous generation. I truly believe that the changes in perspective from this generation are more significant that any previous generational shift. These ministers are truly effective, technologically savvy, and relational. The problem is that the churches they are inheiriting haven't seen this new way. Many of them have had wonderful long-time pastors who served their congregations for decades. These churches are still doing things the way they did them decades ago. Then the long-term pastor retires or dies and it is time to get someone new.These churches, with a core group of older people who have belonged to the church for decades realize that they need an infusion of young people and think that bringing in a young pastor will do it.

Where the breakdown occurs is in the differing of expectations. The people of the church are good people who love God and the church. They don't know any other way, and aren't especially interested in learning any new ways. The young pastor knows only the new ways and isn't especially interested in learning any old ways.

Of course, no one admits to any of this in the selection process. The church falls in love with the new pastor with his pretty wife and kids. They see an infusion of energy in their midst that they can enjoy. They just know that this young family can round up some more good solid young families and their church will be happy again. They can do some painting and fixing up of the nursery, and they will be ready to go and grow just the way they did when they were the young families. After all, it worked then, it should work now. They tell the new pastor that they know some things have to change, and he should feel free to do whatever it takes to get the church growing again.

The young pastor takes the reins and his mandate for change and goes to work. The hymnals disappear and new choruses are sung. Guitars and drums show up on the platform. There is talk of a projector and screens replacing the song books. Maybe the people grit their teeth and endure that because, after all, that's what the young people supposedly want. But things get tense when the young people the new pastor brings in start showing up. They are disrespectful. They wear shorts and flip-flops to church. They have tattoos. They are of different races. Now, instead of having the monthly pancake fellowship, the new pastor wants to have a before school breakfast for really rough kids around the neighborhood. These kids cuss and speak rudely to the servers. Even though they live in walking distance from the church, they have never been inside the church before. The new pastor thinks things are going really well. Attendance is growing, people are being reached for Christ and all of a sudden he is informed that the board is calling for a meeting to vote on his ouster.

This scenario plays out over and over, but we keep doing things the same way. We teach our Bible school students to pray, how to seek and cast vision, and how to take spiritual authority in their congregations. They are told to lead with confidence. But they are not told what to do when they take a declining church. They are not counseled how to build relationships before casting their vision. They are not taught that being voted into office does not automatically give them permission to do things their way. They are not told that they should not believe the encouragment to make changes. They need to make friends, first. They will eventually be invited to lead, but that will only happen after they have gotten to know the folks well enough to earn the benefit of the doubt. They need to be told not to change a thing- even if it means gritting his teeth during every service because the song service is awful and no one seems to care about outreach. They need to be told that they need to listen to all of the long boring stories of how wonderful their predecessor was. Until that is done and he is truly "one of them", he will be the outsider and will be in the minority in every controversy. These people have been there their entire lives; he just got there.

But we're not doing that. Instead, we are sending these highly qualified people into situations without basic tools for survival. Churches and ministers suffer needlessly as a result. I think that is just awful.

Barbarians at the Gate?

In my relatively brief lifetime I have seen a tremendous change in the Assemblies of God. When I was a little boy back in the 60's the A/G was unknown to most of my school friends. When we would talk about where we went to church I envied my Baptist and Nazarene friends, because the other kids had at least heard of their church. The A/G was regarded in many circles as a ragtag group of holy rollers, residing outside the mainstream of church. I find it a little ironic, now, to see the A/G viewed as not only mainstream, but hopelessly bogged down in old-school tradition in the view of the generation now coming to influence. The baby boomers, of whom I am a young member, are no longer the revolutionaries and world changers. We are the obstacles. We are the establishment we railed against so many years ago. Back then many articles were written about the "generation gap". There was a huge chasm separating the worldviews of the boomers from their parents. Now the boomers are separated just as far from their children. As we saw our parents holding us back, our children see us as obstacles to their clear vision for the future.

In watching the online streaming video of the business sessions of the recently completed General Council, I saw that the generation gap is alive and well in our movement. Resolutions were debated and although the words were civil, the attitudes were dismissive and distrustful in several instances. I saw resolutions which would have changed some things that had good technical reasons for their success or failure, seemingly voted up or down based on the emotional pleas of those arguing for or against their passage. It all boiled down to the attitudes of "protecting the institutions" vs. "bringing change to institutions that don't work". And it got pretty intense at times. Challenges were laid down, and threats of leaving were made.

It doesn't have to be that way. As we move forward, both young and old need to realize one important thing. The old will not be "in control" much longer. The old need to remember this and begin to think in terms of legacy. We need to see if the issues we defend so vigorously are transcendent issues or merely institutions of our own making. Organizational structures and matters of polity are not the altars we really want to sacrifice our legacies on. We need to explain the heart of how we got here instead of giving the impression that we are fighing off the barbarians at the gate. We need to be mentoring the young and asking for their counsel and advice on decisions we make that they will be living with. There is no room for "if you don't like it you can hit the road" attitudes. Let's be smart. The old might have a majority now, but their members are dying off. The ranks of the young are growing. They will be the majority soon. We can be mentors with respected opinions or we can wait to be replaced and see every change as an attack on what we have built.

The young need to realize the same thing. They have time on their side. They will be in charge, and soon. Much of what we are doing now will be changed, and for the better in most instances, because the changes will reflect current realities of how organizations should relate to the organized. Fabricating long-term solutions to short-term problems will cause greater troubles down the road. Threatening to leave the movement if a particular resolution is not passed will not help anything. Disrespecting the life's work of the current generation will not help. It is good that the young are frustrated. It means that they are thinking and that they are passionate about what they are inheiriting. In the few short years until the young take over completely, it would serve them well to get to know their predecessors; learn what to hold on to and what mistakes not to make.

Both groups need to be willing to try new things. We have much to learn from one another. Old folks, the non-essential stuff we are defending so vigorously now will be changed. Get ready for it. Young folks, some of your sure-fire ideas will fizzle. Count on it. But we will all benefit more from a commitment to unity than we will from a consolidation of political power.

Political Appointments

I want to rant today about a couple things relating to politics in general and Supreme Court nominations in particular and how they relate to the Christian community.

Of course, anything having to do with anything political has always been an opportunity for the politics of extremes to have a field day. Judicial appointments have always been seen as an opportunity for the majority party to tilt things toward its current proclivities. That alone is fine. That is how politics operates. Political people find ways to achieve majorities so that they can further the issues that enabled them to be elected in the first place. I have no problem with that. Politics is politics. Do or say whatever is necessary to get elected and re-elected while trying to get more like-minded people elected instead of the people of a different mindset.

What upsets me and has caused this rant today is twofold. Starting with the unsuccessful nomination of Robert Bork back in the 80's, the attacks on court nominations have left the realm of principled opposition and have become an opportunity to forecast apocalyptic results with each subsequent nominee. The left screeches that any nominee presented by the right will result in poor people being denied the right to vote, women forced to endure "back-alley abortions done with coat hangers" and a hateful disregard for the disadvantaged. Equally shrill come the charges by the right about the nominees presented by the left. Those charges are predictable, regardless of the nominee. They forcecast that the nominee will re-write the constitution from the bench, will cause the doors of our prisons to be opened up and give more rights to criminals than to law-abiding citizens, and will strip away the foundations of our American values.

In the past twenty plus years, it hasn't mattered who the nominee was, the charges remained constant. The minority party is portrayed as obstructionist for challenging the nomination, and we are supposed to forget that the majority party did the same thing when they were in the minority. So, the first thing that I want to rant about is that politicians of every stripe think that I am stupid and have no memory of previous justices that have been seated and what was said of them during their nominations. When a nomination occurs and the charges begin to fly I am supposed to be offended in one of two ways: If I am aligned with the majority party I am supposed to be offended that such a fine jurist is being attacked so unjustly. If I am aligned with the minority party I am supposed to be deeply offended that the other guys have nominated someone who will undermine the very foundations of what we hold dear. Regardless of which party I am aligned with, I am supposed to forget that we acted the same way last time. I am just supposed to write letters, and most importantly, send money.

The second thing that makes me mad about all of this is that the Christian community has become such visible and predictable participants in all of this. Immediately upon the nomination, I know the content of the e-mails that will be forwarded to me. If the nominee is presented by the conservatives, the e-mails will tell of the deep spiritual walk of the nominee, and how we need to pray that the evil forces of the left will not be able to overturn this nomination. If the nomination comes from the left, the messages tell of the dark, sinister nature of previous rulings by the nominee and that we need to pray that this person will not be able to destroy our "Christian Heritage". And we respond predictably. We see everything as black & white, good vs. evil, and light vs. darkness.

What we forget is that America never gave us freedom of religion and no law passed will ever take it away. America has laws that say that no one will be punished for the practice of a religion and those laws could be overturned someday. But we have freedom of religion just as every person in the world does. The personal cost is much higher to practice your religion in many other countries. It may cause you to die. But the free practice of your religious beliefs is not legislated. It is an individual choice made internally. If every lawmaker and every justice was fully Christian and even if they were practicing Pentecostals; and if every law passed was in complete agreement with the King James Version of the Bible, we would still be a nation of sinners. Laws establish penalties for behaviors we want to discourage, but they don't change hearts.

So, are Supreme Court nominations important? Of course they are important. As Christians who are citizens, we have an obligation to be the best Christian citizens we can be. But please realize that no political party fully encompasses the teachings of Christ. Only Christianity does. Have political opinions. Vote your values. But never forget that neither laws nor lawmakers have a say in our relationship with and our responsibilities to Christ.

Team Ministry and Planned Transition in the Local Church

Something I have seen over the past several years is that by and large senior pastors do a poor job of leaving long-time pastorates. Our churches suffer as a result. The typical pattern goes like this: A pastor builds a thriving church over many years. He sets the direction of the church and is in the pulpit every Sunday except for 3 or 4 times for vacation or a conference. When he is going to be gone, he calls one of his evangelist friends to fill the pulpit, and although the people understand that he has to miss occasionally, they don't like it. Many times they will skip church if the pastor isn't going to be there, so the pastor hides the fact he will be gone. The church rallies around his vision, and over time, takes on his personality. Those who really like him stay, and those who don't care for him find somewhere else to go. As long as he stays healthy, turns down offers from other churches or denominational positions, and doesn't experience a moral or ethical failure, everyone does fine. The church supports missions, sends a nice contingent to youth camp, and is represented at district meetings. All in all, this pastor is known as a "good" pastor because he has been able to stay in this one place for many years.

What happens over time is the pastor becomes very protective of his pastorate, and the church willingly complies. They like the stability and the comfort of knowing their pastor well, and he enjoys great status and forms his entire self-image around being the pastor of his congregation. People come to him with their deepest struggles. He marries them and their children. He dedicates their babies. He buries those who have gone on to their reward. Neither he or his congregation ever want this to change.

However, no matter how much we resist, things do change. Pastors get old or they contract diseases that bring them down prematurely. Sometimes they succumb to sins of the flesh and it becomes necessary for them to step down. Sometimes they are presented with the district appointment they have dreamed of all their life, or the call from the one church they said they would leave their church to take. Whatever the situation, eventually every pastorate comes to an end.

What happens at this point has been happening to churches everywhere. Every day more churches are plunged into this situation. There is a huge void left behind because the position of pastor has been overtaken by the power of personality. The church will flounder around until it elects a new preacher. They can call him "pastor" but they are not ready for another "pastor". In their hearts they still have one. The new guy is most likely younger with different interests and ministry priorities than "pastor". People who once had the ear of "pastor" now are on equal footing with everyone else. In many cases, someone who didn't have much influence with "pastor" will become fast friends with the new guy. The new guy doesn't preach like "pastor", doesn't serve communion the same way, or even pray like "pastor" did. Some will leave and some will stay, but those who stay will be cautious with the new guy because if they act like they like him too much, they are being disloyal to "pastor". Sometimes attendance plummets, sometimes not. But in nearly every case, momentum is lost. The church is set back for a period of months or even years while they get used to a "new normal". Eventually, the new guy rides out the storm, the people eventually get to know him and his family, and life gets good again. The new "pastor" preaches every Sunday, establishes a vision for the direction of the church, marries and buries, and the cycle begins again. When his time is over, the cycle repeats itself. Many churches never recover from the departure of a long-time pastor. They spend decades remembering when they were full and exciting.

I have wondered in some of the situations I have observed if these pastors get some sense of accomplishment when their churches suffer upon their departure. If they do, it would answer a question I have struggled with: why don't we structure our churches in such a way as to survive inevitable transition?

Coming from a business background, I am accustomed to evaluating organizations. In my management positions in large corporations, I knew that a major responsibility of mine was to raise up the people around me and to keep a constant crop of potential replacements for my position. I was not promotable unless I could demonstrate that someone could fill my position easily. I also had to evaluate departments around me to see if anyone was becoming a "bottleneck". If I saw a department where the supervisor was making himself indispensable by gathering all of the knowledge and authority to himself, it was my responsibility to replace him. In other words, "if I have to have him, I have to replace him" was the mantra given to me by one of my employers.

So from that vantage point, it is frustrating for me to see churches forced into the position of having to essentially start over every few years because of the failure of pastors to value the strength of the church over the strength of their position.

Now that I have layed out my case for the problem, what do I propose as a solution? Two ideas which have already been tried in some quarters with success but are used but rarely; team preaching and planned transition.

Team preaching is simply put, having several preachers. This would include the lead pastor, of course. It would also include any associates with a preaching gift. In a smaller church, or any church for that matter, the preaching team could include qualified lay members. Three or at the most four persons would make up the team. The preaching team meets together to lay out the preaching calender for the year. After blocking out holiday services and special events, the preaching team decides together what principles should be presented to the congregation. These are then divided up among the preaching team. There is no need to try to divide the opportunities equally. The more experienced preachers should have the most opportunities. But the strength of the preaching team comes from two areas.

Team preaching allows the supervised development of younger or inexperienced preachers. Under the tutelage of the more experienced preacher, the young preacher develops his outline according to his assignment on the preaching calender. Instead of being given an off week or lightly attended service to deliver a sermon he has prepared by himself and is in a position where he is likely to flounder, as a member of the preaching team he is involved in the whole aspect of sermon preparation from subject, to scripture, to outline, to illustrations, to conclusion of not only his own sermon but also to the sermons of the other preachers. What an incredible gift to a young preacher to be taught by seasoned veterans in the fundamentals of sermon preparation and in knowing how the sermons were developed, to see those sermons actually presented. So team preaching is valuable to raise up a new generation of effective preachers.

The second benefit of team preaching is that it allows variety in styles and personalities of preachers within a predictable schedule. The people of the church grow used to hearing a known number of preachers. They aren't hearing someone different every week, they are hearing the same three or four preachers over the course of the year. If one of the preachers has to be gone, the replacement is a known quantity. If one of them leaves to go to another ministry post, as many surely will because of the experience they have gained, it doesn't cause a major disruption in the church. If the lead pastor has the opportunity to preach at a conference or an event overseas, the congregation is left in good hands. Also, many associates who would like to preach occasionally but do not want the burden of preparing sermons each week will be more likely to stay at their positions even if they only preach four or five times a year. The lead pastor gives up his every Sunday pulpit, but he gains the opportunity to pour his experience into the less experienced preachers on the team. He also gets a break from the weekly grind of sermon preparation, and even allows him the freedom to see what is going on other places occasionally.

If we can begin to celebrate the preacher who raises up preachers as much as we celebrate the preacher who preaches well, we will begin to see an increase in team preaching. Most likely, the proponents of team preaching will be the younger pastor. But it would be great if the older experienced pulpiteer would see the value in this for the coming generation. It could even extend his preaching life and his legacy!

The concept of planned transition is a tough sell. The generation of preachers who are reaching retirement age were brought up in a paradigm where the leader never shows all of his cards. Far too many retirement announcements are sprung on their congregations without any warning. Many older pastors have their entire self-image wrapped up in their identity as pastor, and they hope to preach until they die. Unfortunately, many of their churches will die shortly thereafter. Planned transition is simply put, grooming your successor. The lead pastor would select someone some years ahead of a potential retirement and begin to pour into that person. At some point, the potential successor has to be brought into the plan. Many pastors have had potential successors accept other churches just months from a retirement announcement because they wanted to keep everybody guessing. It would be wise to increase the preaching load of the designated successor so the congregation gets acquainted with his style. He would be brought in on leadership meetings and in vision development. Eventually, it would be made known to the congregation of the plan of succession. Two or three years would be the optimum transition time. In the beginning, the successor would just be present for pastoral responsibilities. But over time, the lead pastor would hand more and more responsibilities to his successor until the time came for his retirement. He would then make it known that he would no longer be responding as the lead pastor and that he will now take the role of lead supporter of the lead pastor.

As I said earlier, I don't have any allusions about our older pastors doing this. It is too different from what they have seen before. My dream is that this idea will resonate with our younger generation of pastors and that the day will come when we judge the effectiveness of a pastorate on how smoothly he is able to hand off his church to the next generation.

I am burdened for our churches. I grieve everytime I hear of an ugly transition. I hear of them far too often. There is never only one answer to any problem as large and complicated as this one, but I do know that the way we are transitioning churches now is costing momentum and valuable resources needed to spread the gospel in this day. Many churches are undergoing leadership transition every year. My prayer is that we stop making the same mistakes over and over and look for ways to strengthen our churches. These proposals are just two of many possible ways.