The Need for Church Revitalization

          The following is an excerpt from my new book, The Revitalized Church: Forfeiting Self to Follow God, outlining the need for church revitalization.  The entire book will be released and available this fall.  I hope you enjoy! 

***************

          

            Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder! What is beautiful and inspiring to one may not be to another. Recently, I found myself engrossed in a television program in which a man was creating artwork. What seemed somewhat normal at first glance, however, was actually quite the opposite. This man was not creating art with paints, pencils, or colors. Rather, he was making his masterpiece with human vomit. When the man finished his so-called work of art, he turned to the cameras and concluded his program by sharing a rather lengthy message, but the major thrust of it was this: beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.

Most people would agree with this assertion. The Grand Canyon is grand only to some; to others, it is simply one enormous hole. Some see the Rocky Mountains as awe-inspiring, while others find them to be a road bump that they can do without. Some can gaze all day at the beauty found in a botanical garden, yet others find the garden represents an afternoon of allergy symptoms. Whether one considers a major landmark or a piece of artwork, a park or a building, a person or a picture, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

If this statement is true, then when one observes the church, what does one see? Is the local church a masterpiece or simply a piece of work? Does she exhibit the beauty that her Creator purposed her to embody? As a pastor, I have been in many meetings in which church leaders have set out to render a judgment on the beauty of the church. These pronouncements would go far beyond the scope of paint jobs and flower beds. Is the church measuring up to the standards put forth in Scripture? Is the church living out the principles of Scripture? Is the church making advances in the Kingdom of God? In short, we are asking this question: if beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder, does God find the church to be beautiful?

If we were honest, we would recognize that many things have hindered us from truly embracing the work of Christ in the local church. The scope of a pastor’s life and responsibilities range from sitting on every committee to cleaning up the nursery messes and from scheduling potlucks to changing lightbulbs, not to mention the need to serve up the Bread of Life. Yet before pastors feel puffed up with pride by looking around at all they do, they need to recognize this reality is not much different for the lay leader. A forty-plus-hours-a-week job that used to consume the biggest bite of one’s time now becomes the much-needed vacation away from the pace of after-hours activities—sports, camping, traveling, Cub Scouts, piano recitals, and church responsibilities, to name a few. All the while, the cause of Christ has suffered neglect.

In addition, there seems to be a tendency in churches today to rely solely on community surveys, polls, and reports to shape the direction of the church. In our feeble attempts to become relevant and accessible, there looms the temptation to succumb to a seeker-friendly movement that includes diluted preaching that won’t offend, weak teaching that won’t direct, and watered-down worship that is impressive to the ear but meaningless to the soul. This mindset says that if we want to reach people for Christ, we must subscribe to every principle found in a church growth book. That is not at all to say that these books don’t have their place, but why should the church settle for amusing people when, through Christ, they can be amazed?

Furthermore, it is becoming increasingly clear that we are living in a pluralistic and relativistic world, and unfortunately, those mindsets have seeped into the church. America is seeing the dawn of a new day in which undiscerning people find themselves embracing systems of belief that belong to everyone because they belong to no one in particular. To suggest that this notion will lead to the demise of the church is an understatement at best. Intolerance for loosely held convictions, malleable values, and negotiable truths is a thing of the past. Today, the culture embraces selfish and worldly desires, pragmatism, and relativism. Because this attitude has infiltrated the church, the church has been left diluted and crippled. Furthermore, if something does not change, the New Testament church will suffer its death from self-inflicted wounds, leaving a church that will find her value and worth, not in pleasing God, but in pleasing self.

If these challenges go ignored and unmet, we will continue to see a present-day church that persists but is largely ineffective. Small groups will carry on but remain underpopulated, and baptisteries will stay dry. These outcomes should not be accepted and cannot be tolerated. God has so much more in mind for His church!

So what is the answer? We must move ourselves back onto God’s agenda, regardless of the cost. We must concern ourselves with the beauty of the church as seen by our Lord. Those things that matter to God must become our supreme priority. G. K. Chesterton said it best when he said that people do not want “a church that will move with the world, [rather] a church that will move the world.” If the church is going to serve as the life-transforming institution that she was created to be, her leaders will need, once again, to seek the church’s course on their knees. The church today is in desperate need of renewal and revitalization. 

What Should the Church's Epistomological Priorities Be?

            In David Powlison’s book, The Biblical Counseling Movement, he argues for the church to recognize the epistemological priorities as expressed within the bible.  Further, what priorities must we have in our time?[1]  It is appropriately contended that the priorities identified by Powlison in the field of counseling apply nicely to the education.  Accordingly they are: 1) We must be able to articulate positive biblical truth, 2) We must be able to expose, debunk, and reinterpret alternative models, whether secular or religious, and 3) we must be able to learn what we can from defective models.[2]  We should spend time looking at each priority in a bit more detail.

First Priority

            First, the church and Christian academy has a responsibility to articulate positive biblical truth.  The first century Roman Governor, Pilate, asked a question that has been asked by every generation since: what is truth?  Whether philosophically or practically, there is a universal quest to discover truth concerning any given matter.  Throughout the class room, the board room, the court room, the hospital room, and even little Susie’s bedroom, people are searching for truth.       

Scripture teaches that Jesus came to speak truth and to testify to the truth.  In fact, Jesus proclaimed himself as being truth (John 14:6).  Thus, for this conservative evangelical, there is no problem accepting the conclusion that God is truth and that all truth is God’s truth.[3]  It makes no difference the discipline in question: psychology, philosophy, theology, mathematics, literature, humanities, science. All truth originates with God.  Though for others, this issue is not so clear. 

In the presence of Truth himself, Pilate was still prompted to ask the question, what is truth?[4]  He was staring into the very eyes of Truth.  How could this man blindly or willfully turn his back on truth and by his actions, deny the fact that he was in the presence of what he sought?  From our vantage point in time, this situation has proven to be a foreshadowing of mankind’s response to Truth.

In the early 1900’s America was seeing the dawn of a new day in which undiscerning people found themselves with a belief system that belonged to everyone because it belonged to no one in particular.[5]  Convictions regarding standards, morals, and absolute truth were things of the past. They were replaced with selfish and worldly desires, pragmatism, and efficiency (to be discussed in greater detail a bit later).  This world view infiltrated the church, and congregations were left diluted and crippled.  The New Testament Church and Christian academy found her value and worth, not in building God’s Kingdom, but in her own portion of a worldly kingdom.  A results-oriented approach for the institution trumped biblical precedence.[6] 

Christian educators can point to their faith in God as the basis of truth by referencing such biblical passages as Psalm 25:5, John 8:32, John 14:6, or John 17:17.  There is a faith presupposition necessary to confirm ones foundation of truth at this point.  Such claims are based directly on Paul’s teaching in 2 Timothy, wherein he says: “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).[7]

There is clear evidence to support that Paul is talking here about the Old Testament writings at a minimum, though we should be careful to acknowledge there still seems to be support to indicate that his thoughts were more inclusive than just the Old Testament.  A look at the context suggests that Paul was using the word scripture[8] to describe not only the Old Testament, but also the gospel writings and even possibly some of his own letters.  Hendriksen concludes that “all Scripture means everything which, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the church, is recognized by the church as canonical, that is, authoritative.”[9]   To understand this authority is to realize that Paul’s words are applicable to the whole of Scripture. 

            Scripture is inspired by God!  This Greek word that Paul uses proves to be an interesting word.[10]  Danker translates this Greek word as literally being ‘inspired by God’.[11]   However, Mounce has suggested that the NIV translation is more accurate in translating it as Scripture being ‘God-breathed’.  To say ‘God-breathed’ reflects the proper etymology of this compound word and is significant because this particular translation reflects the source of the inspiration rather than the manner.[12]   This is significant because Scripture is authoritative only because it is inspired of God.  Theories of inspiration have given many, throughout the generations, wiggle room on an issue that has been clearly distinguished.  God’s Word is breathed by Him and we can hold to it knowing and trusting that it is absolutely true.

Admittedly, this argument must withstand some degree of scrutiny as well, based on claims including biblical inerrancy and theories of inspiration.  However, when the dust settles one can continue to hold to such reasoning, for without it everything in life becomes suspect.  As C.S. Lewis says: “I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”[13]  So it is when designing a philosophical and methodological framework for education.  The only honorable basis to build upon is Scripture.

Second Priority

            Second, Powlison argues that the church must expose, debunk, and reinterpret alternative models, whether secular or religious.  Take careful notice of the order in which Powlison issues his challenge.  In the present day church and academy, more times than not, we begin by debunking that which is bad and adopting that which is good.  However, Powlison correctly asserts our responsibility to first build a framework around that which is good, right, and true.  Once that is in place, it makes it much easier and more reasonable to deal with that which needs to be discredited for lack of biblical veracity. 

There is a great risk for both institutions if these two steps are carried out backwards.  One’s priority must be to understand truth, and the derivative is exposed fallacy.  In fact, it could be argued that one will not have the ability to recognize erroneous or heretical practices until a solid theology and philosophy of Christian education is developed.  Another risk is that a faulty view, philosophy, or method is adopted as a consequence of being unable to separate the good from the bad.  In short, light exposes darkness; darkness does not dampen light.

Third Priority

            The third and final priority that Powlison addresses is the need to learn what we can from defective modes.  When priority one and two are in the proper order, we become free to learn from other models without fear of inappropriate application.  With a convicted, yet open mind, we have the opportunity to learn from others; seeing what they are doing and reading what they are reading without fear of derailment.  Accordingly, it is at this juncture that one has the ability to critique, reinterpret, convert, and apply truths we might discover, as we have learned how to control and/or reorient our gaze upon priority one and two.[14] 

---

           [1] David Powlison, The Biblical Counseling Movement: History and Context (Greensboro, NC: New Growth Press, 2010), 277. 

[2] Ibid., 277.

 

[3] Robert A. Harris, The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2004), 4.

 

[4]Biblical Reference found in John 18:38.

 

[5]David F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 86.

 

[6] Shailer Mathews, Scientific Management in the Churches (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1912), 7-16.

 

[7] Unless otherwise indicated all Bible references in this journal are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB) (Anaheim, California: Foundation Publications Inc, 1998).

 

[8] The Greek word that Paul uses in this verse is γραφὴ.

 

[9] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of Pastoral Epistle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1957), 301.

 

[10] The Greek word that Paul uses in this verse is θεόπνευστος.

 

[11] Frederick William Danker, ed., A Greek-English-Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed.  (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 450.

 

[12] William D. Mounce, Pastor Epistles, Vol. 46 of Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (N.p.: Nelson Reference and Electronic, 2000), 566.  

 

[13]C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (New York: Macmillan, 1980), 92. 

 

[14] Powlison, 279.

Church Discipline in the early 1900's

Recently, I spent some time studying the effects of the efficiency movement of the early 1900's and how it impacted the church.  The following is a chapter review prepared from a book entitled, Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches.  I found this chapter interesting as we see how society can definitely impact the philosophy/theology in the church.  Regardless of one's view of church discipline, one cannot deny that society definitely impacted the church during this volatile time.  Hopefully, this post will get you thinking about the need for God to drive the church; not secular thoughts, movements, or philosophy. 

A review of Chapter 9, “Southern Baptists and Church Discipline” from Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches.

In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s while America was becoming familiar and enamored with the Fredrick Taylor’s Scientific Efficiency Theory, the Church was also going through a time of real transition.  To say that the church was devoid of the temptation to employ the major tenants of the movement would be inappropriate.  Yet, it might be equally inappropriate to suggest that they wholesale subscribed to every facet of the movement.  Regardless, there were multiple areas within the church that fell susceptible to a movement that promised “efficiency”, which would ultimately lead to greater influence of the church within society and increased numbers in participation. 

Though one could argue benefits of such an approach, the negative repercussions within the church were likely more devastating than any of the benefits.  White, Duesing, and Yarnell in Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches” explore the effects that the Efficiency Movement had on ecclesiology; specifically on the diminished view of church discipline. 

In the late nineteenth century into the twentieth century, church discipline was viewed as a matter of biblical obedience among church leaders.  They fundamentally believed that God would bless the church for their pursuit in helping to keep the church pure, holy, and blameless.  Beyond that, discipline was practiced regularly for a myriad of reasons.  In fact, between 1845 and 1900 Baptist churches Baptist churches brought before their congregations upwards of 1.3 million with nearly 50% of ultimately being expelled.[1]  The issues being addressed included, but were not limited to: murder, abortion, arson, assault, theft, fraud, blasphemy, falsehood, drunkenness, abuse, fornication, adultery, hostility, anger, slander, threats, habitual absences, refusal to submit to the church, indulging in worldly amusement, participation in open communion, those responsible for inciting divisions within the church, those, spreading erroneous doctrines and anyone who embraced heresy.[2] 

In 1880, the use of church discipline was on the decline.  This preceded the Efficiency movement by 20 to 30 years.  Yet, by the 1930’s (arguably after the Efficiency movement had run its course) conduct that warranted a church meeting for discipline was down 80 to 90 percent over fifty years earlier.  Historians see a correlation between the Efficiency movement and the diminished role and utilization of church discipline.  Ultimately, the church had embraced new commitments, which made it difficult to hold an allegiance to the commitments and discipline simultaneously. 

Those commitments include: “first they now based church practices on their apparent effectiveness more than on an apostolic patter.  Second they redefined Baptist identity in ways that privileged subjective values and individual freedom and thus undermined the church’s authority to judge belief and behavior.  Third, they modified the church’s mission to include curing social ills, which diminished their sense of separation from the world and secularized the churches.  These were tectonic shifts with expansive consequences.  Together they undid discipline.”[3] 

The Efficiency Movement within society, bled into the church at the hands of a results oriented approach.  Though it did not start out as attacking theology as the infrastructure of the church, it later became an unintended byproduct.  The church became interested in efficiency, order, and results.  It was contended that if an organization, including the church, could minimize inefficiency, while developing systems and order, growth within said organization was inevitable.  It is clear that the church’s submission to this pragmatic approach, ultimately served to bring about a willingness to compromise with the world, in the hopes of reaching the world.  It could further be argued that the church has maintained this secularized approach, creating a church that finds her delight in “reaching people” despite any degree of impurity within that church, which might result.   

---

[1] Thomas White, Jason G. Duesing, and Malcom B. Yarnell III, eds., Restoring Integrity in Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2008), Kindle Reader e-book, loc 2071/3699.

[2] Ibid., loc 2099/3699.

[3] Ibid., loc 2149/3699.

A Quest for Truth

*The following is excerpts from a recent essay that I wrote.  I hope you enjoy!

The first century Roman Governor, Pilate, asked a question that has been asked by every generation since: what is truth?  Whether philosophically or practically, consciously or unconsciously, there is a universal quest to discover truth concerning any given matter.  Extending from the class room to the board room to the court room to the operation room and even to little Susie’s bedroom, people are searching for truth.  Not only that, but once truth is found, there is a moral, ethical, and arguably theological, mandate to live according to truth.  It is no more permissible to deny Jesus as truth as it is to deny the laws of gravity.  Whether derived from a study of social sciences or a faith presupposition, truth is truth and should dramatically impact the lives of people when it is discovered.  Yet the question remains: what constitutes truth?       

Scripture teaches that Jesus came to speak truth and to testify to the truth.  In fact, Jesus proclaimed himself as being truth (John 14:6).  Thus, for this conservative evangelical, there is no problem accepting the conclusion that God is truth and that all truth is God’s truth.  It makes no difference the discipline in question: psychology, philosophy, theology, mathematics, literature, humanities, science, all truth originates with God.  Though for others, this issue is not so clear. 

In the presence of truth himself, Pilate was still prompted to ask the question, what is truth? (John 18:38).  He was staring into the vary eyes of truth.  How could this man just blindly on one hand or willfully on the other, turn his back on truth and by his actions deny the fact that he was in the presence of that which he sought.  Even more frustrating is that from our vantage point, this situation has proven to be a foreshadowing of what would come of the human race.    

Society has become insidious in their attempt to distort truth, along with its logical and reasonable expressions.  Regardless, it is unacceptable to live by any other standard than truth.  By definition, truth is “a correct account of reality, what really is the case, or the way things really are.”[1]  Accordingly, it should be noted that a truth does not have to be known in the present time to be validated as truth nonetheless.  Despite the fact that there are experiments yet to be carried out and hypothesis yet to be proven does not invalidate the fact that there is truth out there, just not yet discovered. 

In a broad sense, there are two disciplines where truth emerges, which seem to have a monopoly in the debate concerning integration.  The first is found in faith while the second is in the discipline of social sciences.  Though some may favor one over the other, it is much more healthy to employ and utilize truths found in both spheres.[2] 

Further, failure to correctly address the issue of integration leaves a society open to a type of pluralism and relativism that can destroy the infrastructure that holds that society together.  At that point, society becomes intellectually weak, morally unstable, and pragmatically dangerous.  Yet, what is even more disturbing is the reality as to why the discipline of integration is often overlooked: intellectual laziness.  Though the church (both universal and particular) have a great deal to say on the matter, conviction of speech appears to have given way to apathy in action.    

Integration deals with bringing truth together, allowing its implications in all fields, both faith and social sciences (reason) to impact one another.  For one who looks at life through the lenses of a theistic worldview, this process is critically important.  To know that all truth is indeed God’s truth and recognizing that God does not contradict himself, then truth from Scripture and truth from other sources will be found in coherence with one another.[3]  Accordingly, “genuine integration occurs when an assumption or concern can be shown to be internally shared by both the Judaeo-Christian vision and an academic discipline.”[4]  Please time the necessary time in your areas of influence to help people integrate faith and reason.

---

[1] Robert A. Harris, The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2004), 8.

[2] Frank E. Gaebelein, The pattern of God’s Truth: The Integration of Faith and Learning, (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 2009),  29.

[3] Holmes, 18.

[4] Harold Heie and David L. Wolfe, eds., The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith Discipline Integration, (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004), 5.

Discipleship

            The American church is facing an uncharted expanse in the wake of a mega-church movement that is steering in an upsurge of numerical growth.  While the church has been developing a passion and commitment to growing numerically, she also needs an increasing devotion to growing spiritually.  There is no need to debate Scriptures obvious challenge for believers to grow in their relationship with Christ, with the end result producing fully devoted followers of Christ.  However, two presuppositional questions must be asked: (1) what is a fully devoted follower of Christ and (2) how is that person produced?

            In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus makes a statement that plunges into the depths of discipleship.  Jesus says, “A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.  It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant to become like his master” (Matthew 10:24-25).  In a worldly philosophy a challenge like this is not that hard to achieve.  If we were the students and consider our boss, our close friend, our spouse, our co-worker, our professor, our ideals, and/or our worldview as our teacher, then I believe we would succeed in Jesus’ challenge.  The reality is this: how hard is it for the ‘fallen’ to live up to the standard of the ‘fallen’?

            However, our plumb line for true discipleship mandates a comparison of our lives in relationship to Christ’s holiness.  When under this microscope we come up very short.  If we are to succeed in our quest to become like Christ, we are going to have to dedicate ourselves wholeheartedly to studying, knowing, understanding, and applying God’s Word in our life. 

Discipleship is a key component of growing healthy people and healthy churches.  Though one can debate that evangelism is the primary call of the church, even at the expense of discipleship, the argument is really futile.  You can not have one without the other.  Thus, we would all reap the physical and spiritual blessings, if indeed the church would dedicate herself to disciple all men, women, boys, and girls.  Even though the job is vast, the calling is high, and the work is hard, the results of discipleship will ensure the church’s growth until the Lord’s return!

Congregational Leadership

            The word, leadership, evokes an expectation of expertise by anyone who serves or works in a leadership capacity.  For as many leaders that there are in the world, there are definitions, theories, models, and books, all aimed at helping a leader become more effective.  In fact, a recent internet search on the word leadership revealed nearly 440 million web entries dealing with leadership and its many facets and factors. 

            Corporate America is consumed with leadership competency and efficiency.  Better leadership will inevitably render effective personnel management, clearer vision, more production, better time management, happier customers, and increased revenue.  Since increased revenue is what motivates corporate America it makes sense to invest in leadership development, both with time and money. 

            Yet, within the church there seems to be a bit of a lethargic view of the value of developing and maintaining strong leadership.  The reasons are many: there may be diminished funds for the church to advocate the training of its leaders, there may be a lack of desire on the part of the leader to be developed, and undoubtedly there is not enough accountability by all parties to ensure the maturation of leaders.  However, regardless of the reasoning for this predicament, the results, if not addressed, will certainly accent a lack of ministry effectiveness, leaving only ourselves to blame.  Furthermore, the results will not be measured in monetary terms, but in the eternity of souls.  There must be renewed sense of dedication within the church to see the revitalization of leadership education and development. 

Over a decade ago, George Barna made the comment concerning the importance of church leadership,

I have reached several conclusions regarding the future of the Christian Church in America.  The central conclusion is that the American church is dying due to a lack of strong leadership.  In this time of unprecedented opportunity and plentiful resources, the church is actually losing influence.  The primary reason is the lack of leadership.  Nothing is more important than leadership.[1]

            Though it may be inaccurate to suggest that nothing is more important than leadership, Barna’s correlation of church leadership to church health and church growth is reasonable.  The church, both universal and particular, will experience their success or lack thereof through the hands of capable, godly, and God-fearing leaders.  This reality is not at all meant to diminish the blessing of God or the working of the Holy Spirit, which is supreme.  However, to suggest that leadership plays no part in the outcome of the church would be at best, disingenuous, and at worst, a fallacy. 

A cursory stroll through a public library or bookstore will reveal a myriad of books dedicated to the topic of leadership or management.  Throughout the thousands of pages written on leadership and years of study and analysis, there have emerged over 850 definitions of leadership.[2]  However, a narrowing of the possibilities can come when distinguishing the difference between leadership in secular world and leadership within the local church.  That is not at all to say that latter cannot or should not learn from the former.  However, the end results will often times be measured differently and so the separation must be maintained.  Accordingly, the rest of this study will deal primarily with pastoral or congregational leadership.  Furthermore, when considering a definition for pastoral or congregational leadership, it is fitting to survey the Bible.  Scripture has numerous passages and examples displaying the principles and qualities of leadership.  To review each and every one of those examples is unrealistic and largely unnecessary at this juncture.  Rather, the current task should be to evaluate definitions submitted by practitioners who have proven themselves to be effective pastoral or congregational leaders. 

John Maxwell is considered by many to be an authority on leadership in today’s world.  As a pastor, author, and speaker he recognizes the complexity of leadership.  However, when defining leadership he reduces it down to one word: influence.  Leadership is influence.[3]  Chuck Swindoll, in agreement, expands it just a bit further by saying leadership is inspiring influence.[4]  If one does not have the ability to influence or persuade others to follow them on a journey, then is that leader really only leading a revolution of one?  Though influence is obviously an important ingredient in leadership and an intriguing way to define leadership, it appears to be incomplete by itself. 

Still others have offered their thoughts; consider the following:

1.      The central task of leadership is influencing God’s people towards God’s

                   purposes.  Leaders must develop a ministry philosophy that simultaneously
                   honors biblical leadership values, embraces the challenges of the times in which they        
                   live, and fits their unique gifts and personal development if they expect to be productive 
                   over a whole lifetime.[5]
            2.      Spiritual leadership is moving people onto God’s agenda.[6] 
            3.      A person influencing people to accomplish a purpose.[7]
            4.      A leader, according to its simplest definition, is someone who commands
                   a following.  To lead is to go ahead, to show the way and to inspire other people to  
                   follow. [8]
            5.      Spiritual leaders are those who have influence throughout the church and the
                   respect of the members[9]

Each of these definitions adequately addresses pastoral/congregational leadership, yet each of them could stand to delve into the topic in a more comprehensive way.  What this exercise has proven, however, is that the discipline of leadership is easier to recognize rather than define.  Nevertheless, I will offer, yet another one

Congregational leadership is the ability of one, called by God, to use their influence (in word and/or deed) to help others to see, understand, accept and fulfill God’s purposes.  The discipline of leadership implies a journey not just an outcome.  It involves the process of getting a person from one point to a different point; supposedly a point that will prove to be more beneficial than the previous.  If you find yourself, with that type of influence or position: what are you doing about it today?  Be the leader God called you to be! 

---

[1] George Barna, Leaders on Leadership (Ventura, CA: Regal, 1997), 18.

[2] Warren Bennis and Burt Nanus, Leaders: Strategies for Taking Charge (New York: Harper Business, 1997), 4.        

[3]John Maxwell, The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 11-20.

            [4] Chuck Swindoll, Leadership: Influence that Inspires (Waco, TX: Word Books Publishers, 1985), 20. 

[5] J. Robert Clinton, The Making of a Leader (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1988), 203.

            [6] Henry and Richard Blackaby, Spiritual Leadership, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2011), 36.

            [7] Pat MacMillian, The Performance Factor (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 94.

            [8] John Stott, Basic Christian Leadership (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2002), 11.

[9] Aubrey Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 59.

Man's Vision or God's Vision?

          Who gives vision in the local church?  The answer: God!  Accordingly, we must recognize the incredible need to seek God for God’s vision for God’s Church.   Though there is an incredible temptation to go down to the local bookstore and purchase the last greatest vision that God gave to a different leader in a different church.  We read about it and attempt to employ it and wonder why our results are not the same as the originating church.  Ultimately, God has a vision for you and your church that isunique to you and your church.  No amount of reading of other successful churches should take the place of hearing a divine word from the Lord. 

          Yet, I understand the daunting task that confronts us all.  What if God were to call us to walk around the walls, like Joshua?  What if God trimmed our army down to virtually nothing, like Gideon?  God’s ways often make little logical sense to us.  Regardless, if God is in it, there is nothing so great that we can’t accomplish it.  Likewise, if God is not in it, there is nothing so menial that we will be able to accomplish it, without Him!

          The following is a passage from Henry and Richard Blackaby’s book, entitled “Spiritual Leadership."  In this passage, the author is attempting to show the difference between human reasoning and God’s reasoning.  It is a compelling reminder for us all to focus on receiving God’s vision, regardless of the challenges or cost. 

          They say, “Jesus identified many of the world’s commonly accepted principles as being contrary to God’s ways.  The world says being first is preferable.  Jesus said the last shall be first.  The world idolizes strength.  Jesus said God demonstrates his strength through people’s weakness.  The world values large numbers.  Jesus chose a small group to be his disciples and often ignored the crowds to focus on individuals.  The world seeks happiness.  Jesus said blessed are they that mourn.  The world is attracted to large, spectacular performances.  Jesus said his kingdom would be like a mustard seed.  The world does good deeds in order to win people’s praise.  Jesus said, do you r good deeds in secret, because the Father will see them and give a reward.  The world uses slick marketing campaigns to attract people.  Jesus said no one can come to him unless the Father draws them.  Over and over again Jesus rejected human reasoning in favor of God’s wisdom.  What is the difference between human reasoning and God’s wisdom?  Ephesians 3:20 says: “Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us.” (Henry and Richard Blackaby, Spiritual Leadership, 66-67).

          Take some time today to seek God and His vision for your life and your church!