Three Voices

It appears to me that a lead pastor of a local church is required to speak to his church in three different voices. These voices are equally important. The pastor doesn't have to be equally eloquent in the excercise of the three voices, but he really has to be exceptional in at least one of them.

The first voice a pastor must use is the Pastoral voice. This involves the shepherding role of a pastor, where the pastor displays his love and care for the flock that has been entrusted to him. Visits, cards, calls, polite chats, weddings and funerals are the languages used with this voice. It has been said that no one cares what you know until they know that you care. The pastoral voice builds love and trust between him and his flock. Those times spent just being there for someone or showing appreciation for someone's service or life create a relationship which can withstand rocky times later on. A pastor ignores this voice at his own peril. The pastor who attempts to introduce changes based solely on his position of spiritual authority will find opposition out of proportion to the changes proposed. It is beyond critical for a pastor to put a great deal of time in developing the pastoral voice in his ministry.

The second voice a pastor must use is the Prophetic voice. This is the voice used for vision casting and establishing direction for a local congregation. No organism or organization can remain static. It is constantly growing or dying. The pastor must be sensitive to the Holy Spirit's leading for a local church. Its reason for existing must be under constant evaluation and as it is discerned, it must be explained to the church. When the pastor is well-versed in the pastoral voice, his congregation will be ready to listen to the prophetic voice. If they know the heart of their pastor they will be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even if they don't understand the direction the prophetic voice. The pastor who is equally versed in the pastoral and prophetic voice will be able to discern how quickly to move in the prophetic voice. He realizes that it may be prudent to wait until the message has a chance to penetrate before moving forward.

The third voice is the Preaching voice. This is the voice most people think of when they think of a pastor because it is the most visible of the voices. The church shares equally in the preached word, hearing it at the same time as the other members. Since pastors many times are rated by their preaching ability, it is assumed that this voice is the most important of the three voices. But without the relationship formed by the pastoral voice, the preaching voice just becomes a weekly event without bringing about any life change. Without the prophetic voice tying the weekly messages into a consistent direction, each week is an event unto itself, and there is no sense of moving together to a goal.

Each is interrelated and equally important and must be constantly improved if the pastor is to "prepare the saints for acts of service".

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.

Tackling Tough Transitions

Churches are in transition all over the country. Many churches have their identities tied to their lead pastor. When this happens over many years of successful ministry, then the name of the church and the name of the pastor essentially become the same. It is common to hear someone refer to a church and follow up by saying, "You know, Pastor (fill in the blanks)'s church.

That would be fine if pastors never died, never failed, and never left to take another position. Experience, however, tells us that pastors commonly die, fail, and leave. As a result, local congregations all over the country from every denomination plunge into extended periods of turmoil, loss and despair. We call it by the nicer name "transition".

A shortcoming of the congregational or "sovereign" church model is that there are no resources which automatically come to bear to come alongside the local congregation during this time. The church is counseled to fill the pastor position as quickly as possible. As a result, congregations find a pastor without taking the time to acknowledge the feelings of abandonment, loss, betrayal, anger or sadness which will always be present when someone who is as important as the pastor is leaves their lives suddenly and unexpectedly.

If the pastor is promoted to a more responsible position, the church may be proud that their friend and pastor has been acknowledged as being worthy of promotion, but he will not be the same friend and pastor as he was. They fear that the new pastor won't be as close to them and anything that the new pastor does will be compared to how the previous one did it. The passage of time will erase the memories of the faults of the previous pastor and only the wonderful memories will remain. The new pastor has to live up to an unrealistic reputation.

The situation is a little different when the pastor dies, except the memories will exalt his reputation as a pastor even higher. Nothing helps someone's legacy like dying while he is on top of his game. This presents a special challenge to the incoming pastor. Although everyone acknowledges that the old pastor can't return, the new pastor's hands can be tied by traditions. Anything that he changes will bring the comment that "Pastor ***** started doing that back in 1983 and we always loved doing it that way."

When a pastor fails morally or ethically and is forced to leave, there are a myriad of issues to be dealt with. Those who aren't privy to the details will demand more information. In reality, leadership is probably constrained from giving the whole story. The demand for information, even if satisfied, won't make anyone feel any better, but it will open the floodgates of gossip. It takes extraordinary wisdom to know what information is public and what is private, and many will not agree with where that line is drawn. Some of those closest to the pastor may think he was treated ungraciously, and begin to mistrust the leadership team responsible for the removal. Many will be shocked, because they had no idea of any problem until the announced resignation or removal. They will want to know what happened. Some will know more than others, and the gossip begins. Others will darkly speak of suspicions they had years ago. Everyone will suffer a loss of respect for the office of pastor, because their trust has been broken. The pastor who steps into this situation will face people who will display open distrust of both his word and motive because of their hurt.

This same feeling of betrayal is common in the situation where the pastor leaves to go to another church. The feelings are similar to a spouse who has been left for someone younger, more attractive, richer, etc. They will think back to conversations of recent weeks and realize that the pastor was talking to the other church even while he was talking to them, and they knew nothing about it. Few churches see themselves as "stepping stone" churches, but many pastors do. The church who is left may develop the attitude that "Our people stay, but pastors leave. Pastors should just do what we want done." A pastor stepping into this situation will have difficulty casting vision or implementing progressive changes.

I have been very closely involved in a church transition at my local church, and I know from experience that "hurt people" hurt people. I know that the incoming pastor receives the brunt all of the emotions of hurt, betrayal, loss and mistrust. Many pastors don't survive the transition. When they don't, it is bad for them because if they left a successful pastorate somewhere else because they felt called to the new church, they naturally begin to question many things. Did I hear the call correctly? Did I miss God? These and many other questions flood his mind as he and his family attempt to pick up the pieces of what they felt was a calling and attempt to find a new ministry (and livelihood) somewhere else beyond the reach of this dark spot on his resume.

The church, still reeling from the feelings of loss from the previous pastor now have those feelings solidified in the rapid departure of the new guy. They begin to look to themselves for their answers and many times keep the cycle going through pastor after pastor. Once they have "tasted blood" it becomes easier and easier to get rid of a pastor if they disagree with him. Then they become what districts call problem churches and pastors call pastor killers.

In many cases, if the emotions and attitudes of the congregants had been addressed and given time to come to the surface and be dealt with, the church could be healed and be vibrant once again. The problem is that there are few resources available to churches to identify and validate their emotions. Unless the pastor search team finds resources on their own, they will most naturally just go through the process of finding another pastor without addressing the emotions of the congregation. The new pastor will find these emotions coming at him and they will seem totally out of proportion to the issues that bring them on. The pastor will identify these people as trouble when maybe they are just hurting. Many congregations split or scatter with all of the blame being placed on the new pastor, when the hurts from the previous pastor's departure are the real culprit.

We need people who are gifted in transition to make themselves available to step in for a season to help churches through this time. If churches knew that these resources were available, they could invite these resources for a few weeks to several months to help speak to the issues the congregation is dealing with. They could help the church find out who they think they are, who they think God thinks they are, and ultimately find out who God thinks they are. Once they know who God thinks they are, and where He wants them to go, they can recognize when they find the undershepherd who God has selected to lead them there. When congregations have a clear understanding of God's direction and God's choice, it is easier to rebuild the trust and love in spiritual leadership they once had. Then they can go forward to make disciples of all nations.

More Budgeting blah, blah, blah

Another wrinkle to the whole budgeting philosophy is the area of designated contributions. It is a fact that in our North American Culture we favor giving to a tangible project rather than to give to an organization. We may give a regular monthly amount to a church or an organization, but we don't give sacrificially to a "general fund". An announcement of an event, project or initiative will cause us to dig deeper and give more to see the goal accomplished. I'm not saying that I think that this is right or wrong; I am only stating observed behavior.


Because of this behavior pattern, churches and non-profits have seen the need to allow designated giving so people can give to a specific project. As with nearly everything, this has its good and bad points.

The good is that the donor can be sure that his gift goes to what it was intended for, and the project goes forward as gifts come in to fund it. The down side comes when an organization becomes so fragmented in its income structure that the accounting and reporting of funds and expenditures becomes very cumbersome and confusing. Also, there are times when a gift for a project go unused for a long time because there are not sufficient designated funds to begin or complete the project.


A couple of years ago I was involved with an organization that received a $50,000 gift designated to build a new facility. It was a generous and substantial gift, but a new facility would cost approximately $500,000 and there were no other contributions for that project. The result was that other projects went begging and money was actually borrowed to meet operational expenses while the $50,000 sat unused and untouchable due to the restrictions of the donor.

I assume that some of the reasons donors like the designated giving approach are that a) we are afraid that "excess" funds will be used or wasted, b)we like to fund things that resonate with us, and c) we like to have some sense of control over our gifts. Many will "reward" a pastor by giving generously or "punish" him by withholding giving when things aren't going well.

If undesignated giving lends itself to abuse by the organizational leaders, designated giving can lend itself to abuse by donors. A number of years ago, we had a man in our church who received quarterly distributions from an investment. He didn't like the fact that the pastor received a percentage of the tithe and offering as part of his compensation package and didn't want the pastor to "get a cut" of his distribution, so he would designate his "tithe" (designated tithes are not tithes at all) to one or several departments in the church. While the departments appreciated the gift, the donor lost out on the blessing of being obedient in giving by giving in such a way that he blocked an outcome that he didn't like.

In my perfect world, people would give as the Lord led them and would just give to the church to be used where needed most. Church leadership would have an understandable and transparent budgeting system with no opportunity for misuse of funds. Departmental fundraisers and special offerings would not be necessary for normal operations. But we obviously don't live in my perfect world, so how to we do the best we can while living where we are?

I'll get there in a future post.

Give Me Ideas

I've got something rattling around in my head and I need some help to flesh it out. This post will be mostly stream of consciousness and will not draw a conclusion or give a "charge to change".

For a couple of years now I have had an idea of offering chaplaincy services to businesses as an outreach in conjunction with our Project Square Mile. I recognized that many who work in the businesses around here have no church home but still have needs. My thought was to offer hospital visits, prayer, wedding and funeral services, etc. and to offer them at no cost. My dream was that by being a friend to the employee, we would become a friend to the business owner.

I made my first tangible step this morning by offering my services as a chaplain to one of the businesses nearby. The reception was much as I expected. It was polite. I don't know if I will ever hear back. I don't know what my next step should be. I don't know what happens if someone calls when I am gone.

I want to hear what you think. Random ideas, insights, warnings, whatever. I just see an opportunity to be Christ to people who don't know him, don't like him, or who think that He doesn't like them. I'm not trying to recruit new members for my local church.

Talk to me.

When is a person saved?

When does a person get saved? Is there an exact second of conversion?

At a wedding, the official pronouncement comes when the minister says, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.” But that event cannot occur without a courtship, a decision to get married, application for a marriage license, arranging for a time and place to get married, and arranging for someone who is recognized by the state as qualified to perform weddings. All of these must occur prior to the pronouncement of husband and wife. But even then, it is not all that easy. The marriage may meet basic legal requirements, but there are some who would argue that the marriage is not really complete until it has been consummated physically. In fact, if it can be proven that a marriage has not been physically consummated, it is fairly easy to have a marriage annulled, or treated as if it had never happened. So, if it is that difficult to determine the exact moment of marriage, which happens in public between two people, how can we determine when a person is saved? Salvation happens internally between one person and an invisible God.

Does someone get saved by raising a hand during an altar call? Over the years I have seen many hands raised by people I never saw again. Maybe the person feels the tug of conviction and realizes that something needs to change. Maybe they purpose in their heart to make things right. But does there need to be something else after that decision?

Does someone convert by repeating a sinner’s prayer? There is no doubt that someone who is unchurched has no clue how to talk to an invisible God who he has never met or had interest in before, so it is probably helpful to give them a template for prayer. But if the words are someone else’s words, can they really come from the heart? Can a life be transformed by saying a few phrases a few words at a time, led by someone else? I have heard people say that the important thing is saying the words, but that sounds like magic to me. If there is no internal transformation, the words don’t matter.

So, can we accurately identify an exact moment of eternal change when sins are forgiven and we become a new creation, with old things passing away and all things becoming new? I would say “yes”, but that salvation is a beginning point; not a destination. We have a direct example of the instantaneous nature of salvation in the story of the thief who was crucified with Jesus. He said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” And as a result of that brief prayer, Jesus promised him that later that day he would be in paradise with Christ. There was a short journey of discovery for the thief as he realized the sinlessness of Jesus’ life and realized that Jesus had authority to forgive sins. He realized the hopelessness of his own situation and that it was a situation of his own making and took his one chance to reach out for the salvation that was available to him. So, I would say that salvation occurs in an instant.

But even in that instant, there were a lot of things happening prior to salvation. Someone brought the good news; maybe many people brought it many times over many years. The Holy Spirit softened the heart and made the person realize his need of a saviour. The opportunity was given. So even that instant took some time.

Having said that, however, I would say that if the thief had lived beyond the cross, he would have needed to go beyond that simple declaration of faith and begin to live a transformed life. His life would need to begin to show evidence of significant change. I’m not saying that just after his salvation experience he should have been looking, walking and talking like a long-time Christian, but that he should have been growing in relationship with God and displaying a life of increasing relationship.

Here is where I feel that we as the Church of Jesus Christ sometimes fall short. Someone raises their hand for salvation. Maybe we go to them and pray with them. Maybe they cry. Maybe they say they feel better. We say, “Praise God!” and tell them to start reading their Bible and start attending a church. Then we move on. Next week we look for new hands to be raised. At the end of the year we count all of those conversions but see that our weekly attendance hasn’t increased.

My point is this: We can’t get focused solely on counting salvations. That is like saying to a new baby, “Okay, you have been successfully born. Try to eat regularly and stay clean.” Just as birth is a beginning event, so is salvation. The newlywed is married, but the marriage builds in strength over time. After time spent in the realities of life, the marriage transforms from a legal transaction to a lifetime covenant. So it is with salvation. It is a first step. It is wrong to leave the new convert to their own devices. They won’t make it. The new convert is just as saved as we are. But it is a fragile relationship at first. He will make messes and mistakes. We must be there to help clean up and to reassure that their relationship with God is still intact even when they make mistakes. We need to instruct them in sound doctrine and move them toward baptism. We need to show them how to grow in Christ so their lives will not always be dependent on the counsel of others, but that the goal is that they become disciplers of others. Their lives will bear fruit when we nurture their tender new roots until they mature.

Yes, salvation happens in an instant, but conversion happens over a lifetime.

Deacons and Trustees

First let me issue a disclaimer. Although I am on the staff of Lakeside, the posts on this blog are my own thoughts and opinions and they are not necessarily the opinion of the leadership of Lakeside. If there is any controversy arising from anything contained in this blog, it should be directed at me and no one else.

As a companion post to the previous post on church governance, I would like to address the topic of deacons and trustees; their roles and qualifications, and the selection process to bring them into their roles.

There has been a great deal of confusion about what a church board should do or not do. It seems to boil down to how an individual feels about how "the board" has handled an issue close to him or her. In other words, if I don't like something and the board changes it in a way that pleases me, they are functioning correctly. If they don't change it, or if they change something that I like, they are either "the pastor's yes-men", or "out of control".

The biggest source of confusion, in my opinion comes from the use of the word, "board". It conjures up comparisons with corporate boards of directors. In fact, there is a legal qualification for a board of some sort to qualify for tax-exempt status. Banks and lending institutions require board resolutions to extend their services. It is difficult and cumbersome for a non-corporation organization to own real property. So there is a real and compelling need for a board that serves in an official legal capacity, with all of the minute taking and rules of order and such.

What happens, unfortunately, is that it is do easy to drift into the thinking that the board is the official decision making arm of the church and that all policy is dictated or approved by it. Then churches are run like businesses, and we have all of the discussions about "checks and balances" and "balance of power" that completely suck the Holy Spirit out of the decision making process. It becomes a body that is ruled by "the will of the people".

In my mind, using the terms "board" and "deacons" in the same phrase is a contradiction of terms. I am not a Greek scholar by any measure, but the extensive reading I have done has revealed that the root word from which we derive the term "deacon" is best translated as "servant". So we are saying that we have a governing body of servants, which is contradictory. At least we find deacons in the Bible. Not so with trustees. Trustees are a completely recent introduction into church organizations and come completely from the legal sphere. Not necessarily anti-Biblical, but for sure extra-Biblical.

In the formation of our constitution back in 2003, there was a lot of talk that unless we had two boards, a board of deacons and a board of trustees, there would not be any chance that we could ever have integrity in our organization. The argument was that there had to be an equal number of business minded trustees and spiritual minded deacons to offset one another's excesses and shortcomings. Both were to make sure that the pastor didn't go too far out of whack. The trustees were to be custodians of the assets and approve the finances. The deacons were to oversee the membership rolls and the ministries of the church. The pastor was to preach and do hospital calls.

What has happened since the adoption of this plan? Those who pushed for the two boards got mad at the way the two boards were implemented. All of the vocal proponents have since left the church. Pastor Darren meets with both boards separately, as mandated, and both are unsatisfied. The deacons are frustrated when ministries are discussed without financials, and the trustees are frustrated when financials are discussed without information about ministries. If pastor discusses both, he is having the same meeting with two different groups. When they have met together, there is confusion when it comes time to accept a motion. Who is entitled to speak to a topic and who is entitled to move or second and vote? It is very cumbersome.

I would like to see a call for a new constitution that fulfills the legal requirements of a charitable organization, but recognizes spiritual authority and exhibits true servant leadership. I would like to see one church council which works in cooperation with the pastor to see God's Kingdom built. Within the church council there could be different offices. Two trustees, the church treasurer and the church secretary could fulfill the legal role of church officers along with the lead pastor and act as signatories of official documents. They would be chosen because of their experience and giftings in business matters. They would not be decision makers; they would be facilitators. Deacons would be chosen for their reputation of service to the local body of believers, their deep faith in Christ, and their solid reputations in the community. They would serve as spiritual lay leadership and do significant ministry in many of the areas of the church. When vacancies occur, the remaining deacons would take their time to find a replacement who they feel would be an asset to and a complementary member of the team. Each deacon would love and support all of the ministries of the church, not just the one closest to his heart.

The pastor would have one council with whom to share his thoughts and vision. Financial reports, membership issues, spiritual issues within the church and individuals would be addressed, discipline administered, and ministry responsibilities would all be discussed and implemented by this one group.

I know that this sounds like a panacea. I know that it is impossible for it to work as well in reality as it does in concept. As long as we have to rely on people to do the work, we will have difficulties. And, as was discussed in the prior post, there is no governmental structure that is the "right" one. All of these noble concepts break down when we allow our own personal agendas to invade the dialogue. Any structure or church is only as strong as the spiritual commitment of its leadership, so I won't throw a fit to see this reorganization take place. I have had fragments of this conversation with several people and I wanted to put the entire thought into one post. I know that I have not comepleted some thoughts as well as I should, and I have left a lot of room for discussion or even disagreement. But my feeling is that as we discuss the shortcomings we struggle with now, we at least begin to move toward improvement. And as we strive for spiritual solutions over strategic solutions, we make more room for God to do what He would like to do among us.

That's always good.

Church Governance

Over the past 6 years I have had many occasions to discuss, dispute and formulate church governance policies. After reading quite a number of books, studying what the Bible says, and investigating many other church governance structures, I am ready to make only one conclusion. At this point, my conclusion is that nearly all of the assumptions that I carried into this learning journey were wrong. I will detail them later in this article.

I have studied churches that are so organized and the authority structure is so spread out that there is no sense of a spiritual leading in anything. If it doesn’t make it out of committee, it doesn’t happen. On the other hand, I have observed churches where the lead pastor establishes every policy and dictates every happening. His word is law and anyone who questions him is marked as divisive and un-submissive. Obviously, as with any issue, the true answers do not lie at the extremes.

I learned that there is no established definition of terms. In one church, elder means pastor and in another it means deacon. In one church deacon means servant, and in another, it means director. In some, trustees rule the roost, and in others, trustees oversee only the church property. In each of these structures, from democratic to autocratic, whatever the terminology, there are both successes and failures. I found that whatever structure the church utilized, there were those who were ready to defend their model to the death, if necessary. Each, with the possible exception of the democratic model, is able to defend its structural model with scripture.

So, the issue remains; is there one “correct” model of church governance? Is there one model that the Bible clearly defines as proper? It seems to be one of those things in the Bible which is left intentionally vague. I suppose that is because the Bible is transcendent beyond our current cultural filters. It is a Word that instructs cultures in remote locations and in large metropolitan areas. It speaks equally to simple forms of organization found in rain forest people groups and to the super organized Western world. And, as it is with so many issues in the Bible, it depends mainly on the heart attitudes of those who lead.

Well, here we are five paragraphs into this post and I have not really made any assertions; I have only given my impressions. Where do I stand, and what did I find to be wrong about my assumptions? I’ll begin with a story.

In 2002, our church was in a state of flux. Our pastor of 25 years resigned, and his top associate was elected to replace him. It was not a good time in the life of our church. We were generally cranky, and there was a lot of infighting, much of which I was involved in. At the time of the pastoral election, it was discovered that no one could find a copy of Lakeside’s constitution and bylaws, so it was determined that a new one would be written. What I didn’t understand (or didn’t want to understand) is that a time of transition is the worst possible time to write a governing document. During the 23+ years of growth and prosperity, no one was concerned with the location or contents of the constitution. Generally, people only get worried about governing documents when they are mad about something. Since we were mad as a church, it was wrong to write a constitution, because it would inevitably convey mistrust and a desire to control activities. As a result, after nearly 8 months and several contentious congregational meetings, we approved a constitution that provided for a “balance of power” and put up boundaries for leadership that were designed to keep a pastor “in check”. I was one of the principle authors of this document, and although I have repented of it, it remains the governing document of my church today. As I read it, my heart breaks when I remember conversations that brought about the formulation of many of the contents. I had conversations about things that make me ill, in retrospect. They were unscriptural, unholy, and purely intended to put control of the church in the hands of “the people”. I repent of ever using the term, “balance of power” in relation to spiritual authority. There is no balance. The scale is tipped completely by God. A church which can quote more of its constitution and bylaws than it can of the Bible is a church that is in trouble. We were in trouble.

The pastorate of the man who followed our long-time pastor was doomed from the start. He was a great guy, but he wasn’t the man he replaced. Much of the church expected him to magically become the pastor they wanted him to be, but he could only be the pastor he was. He had supporters, but they were predominately of a younger generation which did not place high priority on business meetings. Those who didn’t support him knew how to pull the strings of power. After a year and a half, he resigned, and we found ourselves looking for a pastor. We were confused, conflicted, and contrary. It took just over a year to find God’s choice. It was during that year that I began to see how wrong my spirit and attitudes were, even while I filled an important leadership role for the church.

Here is the one thing I know. Democracy has no place in the church. We have seen the success of the U.S. form of government and believed that it should be copied in the church. We forget, however, that our form of government is based on arguing, compromise and razor thin majorities. These are elements that we should be vigilant to drive out of the church instead of inviting them in. Every vote produces winners and losers, something else the church does not need. Also, votes can not reveal the will of God unless they are unanimous and every voter has spent the time necessary to seek and determine the will of God. We know that this doesn’t happen. We know that the phone calls and visits concerning an upcoming vote are just to persuade someone based on our own human reasoning, even when we say that we are “just trying to protect the church”. And what is this business of electing a pastor to a term of office? If we have determined that he is God’s choice for our church, why do we need to keep determining it? I have seen that these subsequent elections serve only one purpose, and that is to keep the pastor a little bit off balance and afraid that if he truly does what is on his heart to do, he might find himself out of a job. Also, pastors leave when there are unfilled years on their term. If they feel a call to go somewhere else, they don’t wait until their term is up. If he feels that the church is not behind him and there is no hope of reconciliation, he will leave regardless of his unexpired term.

There is also the issue of the church taking on the personality of the lead pastor and the devastation to the local church that is caused by the departure of a pastor. We are happy to turn over the keys of the church to a new pastor as long as everything is going well. We are happy to let him do all of the ministry, all the teaching, all the vision casting, and anything else that someone who is around the church all day might be able to do. But when that pastor leaves and another one takes over, there are abrupt changes in styles, goals and procedures. People leave the church and the church takes years to recover. It is madness that we continue to stay with this structure year after year in church after church and see the same problems play out time after time.

Election of Deacons or whatever lay based spiritual leadership is called in your church is another issue. I have seen many instances over the years where deacons or trustees were elected to 1) represent our constituency, 2) oppose the pastor on some issue, or 3) honor him for faithful attendance or extraordinary giving. Many times people are nominated by members who do not know something about an issue in the candidate’s life that would preclude him from serving. Then when the nominating members don’t see that person’s name on the ballot they ask questions whose answers may violate confidentialities. I have also seen instances when good men were not retained or elected, and they were hurt because they were told by the ballot that they were not good enough to serve in the position. Once again, we should not be inviting these issues into our churches. As long as we operate under the notion that church boards are elected representatives of the congregation and responsible to speak the “will of the people” to the pastor, we will continue to see powerless churches which are more interested in maintaining the status quo than reaching our lost world. I have to confess that I was once the chief of sinners in this regard.

So, what is my solution? I have spelled out what I have repented of. I have made it clear what I think is wrong. What do I propose? How do we protect against the “bad pastor” without voting to let him know how we feel? How do we get boards that are unified and effective? Well, here we go. Remember, that I am not dogmatic about any of this except the area of spiritual authority, so if you differ with me on terminology or details, we can still be friends. You don’t have to drink my Kool-Aid to be in agreement or fellowship with me. I reserve the right to continue to tweak my conclusions as time goes by.

In my perfect world, a lead pastor would be the spiritual leader of the church. As such, he would be responsible ultimately to God for his actions. The spiritual leader will be judged very harshly by God if he misuses or misrepresents his God-given authority. For a spiritual leader, that should be enough to keep him on the straight and narrow. As it has been said, however, the best of men are men at best, and there should be accountability structures that allow a select group of trusted individuals to ask him hard questions and to probe into areas of weakness without fear of being ostracized. These should be men of the pastor’s choosing, but he should make it known who these men are. It would be better if these men were not members of a board or committee which is charged with his oversight. It could put a board member in a tricky place when the pastor reveals a struggle that could potentially be grounds for discipline or dismissal. This accountability group should be men who are free to discuss and pray with the pastor as he shares the deep struggles he faces. These men may or may not be members of his church, but it is important that select members of the church know who the members of this accountability group are. Pastors are failing and burning out in record numbers. They are held to unrealistic expectations and live in fear of someone knowing that they struggle with the same issues as their church members. Without someone to confide in, those temptations become spectacular failures that damage the reputation of their church and the Church.

Next the lead pastor has his ministry team. Depending on the size of the church, these may be full or part time, paid or unpaid. Regardless, they are the ministry team. They are responsible for the spiritual health of the church. They should not do all of the ministry, but they are ultimately responsible for all of the ministry. They are responsible to insure that the teaching is Biblical and it is with this team that the lead pastor formulates the basics of the vision and direction of the church. It is not enough for the lead pastor to form this vision by himself and then expect his team to carry it out. It is important that the team have an almost equal vote with the lead pastor in this formulation and strategy. If they are not part of the formation of the plan, they will not be able to fully articulate it or make sure that it is carried out properly. The ministry team should spend a lot of time together in prayer and fellowship and should have absolute trust in one another’s heart and motivation.

The area of church governance most misunderstood is the area of boards, or councils. There are many jokes and horror stories about the relationships between pastors and boards. In many churches, the idea is that the pastor may leave, but the board stays. As a result, boards become the rulers of the church. In my perfect world, the board in cooperation with the lead pastor would select board members. In a proper relationship with a board or council, the lead pastor would have a strong personal relationship with each board member. Just as with the ministry team, the pastor and board should be comfortable together in extended seasons of prayer. As members of the congregation, they will hear things that the pastor will not. As the lead pastor shares the vision formulated by the ministry team, he should solicit thoughts from the board. They should be free to share insights and offer suggestions that would facilitate the implementation of the vision. If the lead pastor senses strong opposition to the plan, he would have the ability to delay implementation until the factors causing the opposition could be addressed. This could serve to prevent the right idea from being presented at the wrong time. But if there is trust between the pastor and the board, there is no animosity in this process. The pastor draws on the collected experiences and wisdom of these members. When there is buy-in to the idea by his board, the pastor then can proceed to the congregation with confidence that he will not be undercut by these influential members.

This would be very difficult to attain if the board was elected by the members. They would not have the understanding necessary to know if their nominees were a good fit with the other members of the board. My suggestion is that board appointments are for an indefinite period of time, and as vacancies occur, the board itself along with the lead pastor should nominate a new member. This nomination could be brought before the congregation for ratification, if desired, but this appointment process limits the potential for winners and losers and campaigning for a particular candidate. It comes closer to insuring that there is continuity of heart and true spiritual leadership on the board. And it helps to create an atmosphere of trust and respect between board and pastor. If the pastor leaves, the board would have a good sense of the focus and direction of the church and would be able to continue operating during the search. They would also have a much better sense of God’s leading to a new pastor, when that time came.

The board, or council, whatever it is called, should not be just an approval agency or screening committee. They should be actively involved in ministry, such as hospital calls, visitation, teaching, mentoring, and interfacing with various ministries as spiritual advisors. Remember, the first recorded deacons were selected to take over the feeding ministry of the church from the ministry team. They were not selected to determine the need or effectiveness of the feeding ministry. In this way, by doing the ministry they could do, they released the ministry team to do the things only they could do. This lends great strength to the structure of the church and makes it less likely to topple if there is a failure in the ranks. Willingness to serve humbly would be a primary qualification for a board member.

Next, in my perfect world, pastors, however they are selected, called, invited, or whatever term you want to use, would be called to an indefinite term of office. If the search is conducted by a search team that is really in prayer for God to reveal His choice, then we should not have to revisit the election every four years. If things are successful, it is apparent to everyone. If things do not work out so well, but the search team knows that they heard from God in the selection, they can stick with the pastor until things do work out. And if the pastor fails morally, ethically or legally, the board or council can confront him. But God does not work in percentages. He is either 100% sure this pastor is His choice, or he is 100% sure that this pastor is not His choice. God is never 51% or 76% sure of His will.

Finally, in my perfect world, members would stay at their church through good times and bad. We have developed a consumer mentality in church that tells us that we will continue to attend and give in the offering as long as we like the way things are run. At the first sign of trouble we look for a new place to do our church business. We have no sense of attaching ourselves to our local church family and committing to stick it out in good times and bad, praying all the way.

I know that we are a long way from being a perfect world, and we will never achieve perfection. But we can have a heart that is perfect and upright and we can spend time with God until we know what He is asking us to do. We can commit to adjust our agendas to come into alignment with His, and we can make this church thing a lot simpler and more satisfying than we have made it.

My specific prayer for my church is that we as a church will rise up and throw off the shackles of man made theology, however that may look. I pray that we will embrace spiritual authority and the fellowship of saints deeply rooted in the Bible and our love and trust of one another in our body of believers.