Unleashing our lay people and overcoming the dysfunction of professional ministry

I believe that one of the five dysfunctions of the church is that of professional ministry where we hire specialists to do the work of ministry rather than to equip others to do ministry. This professionalism is even more interesting in that the movement I am a part of (the EFCA) and sister denominations came out of lay led movements in the eighteen hundreds.


The free church movement came out of an environment in Europe where the state church (non free churches) had become liberal, were not preaching the Gospel and where parishioners were not encouraged to study scripture themselves. Because they were not being fed in church, many started to meet in homes to pray, worship and study scripture resulting in the pietistic movement which brought revival to a number of countries in Europe and with that revival the planting of non-state run churches (free churches) which then spilled over to the United States. It was Europeans out of the free church movement who planted the same kind of churches here in the eighteen and nineteen hundreds.


Fundamental to this movement was the belief that lay people who had not had formal theological education were qualified to teach, preach and lead the church. One did not have to be a "theologian" in the professional sense of the word or have had formal theological education. In fact, many of these lay leaders and pastors had a greater understanding of scripture and the Christian life than their "educated" counterparts. 


Today, however, it is very rare and often difficult for those in the EFCA and fellow free church movements to become ordained without a formal theological degree. The unwritten understanding is that you need to have a Bible school or seminary degree in order to pastor. And the ordination process is designed to enforce this.


As the leader of the EFCA international mission, ReachGlobal, I work in an environment that is much closer to the roots of our movement where it is informally trained leaders who lead and pastor churches internationally. Most of the world cannot afford the luxury of a formal theological education given the poverty of the majority world. That, however, does not keep them from growing churches that are often healthier from a Gospel perspective than many churches in the west with their formally educated clergy. 


I am not anti theological education. I have one of the best and it has informed all my work. What I do object to is the professionalization of ministry that requires a theological degree to be in full or part time ministry or to be ordained in many of our movements. Many large churches in the west are rejecting that paradigm, training their own leaders and releasing them to preach, teach and lead in their settings. 


In basically ruling out ordination for those not professionally trained we perpetuate the clergy/lay distinction and send the message that to really be effective in ministry one must have a theological education (read degree). It is a good thing this was not true in the early church. Or in the majority world. 


Rather than discourage lay people from leading, teaching and preaching we ought to encourage it. It would raise the level of biblical understanding in our churches and release new ministry personnel who are either part time (bi-vocational) or full time. And why would we not encourage these very people who are gifted to plant and pastor churches themselves regardless of whether they have a formal degree or not?


Further, why ordain only people who can give the definition of obscure theological terms rather than ordain those who know the bible, can explain it well and teach it diligently? Knowing what superlapsarianism and infralapsarianism means is far less important than simply knowing good biblical theology that comes from a knowledge of the bible and can be applied to everyday life. We ought to know the biblical terms. Why should one need to know the litany of theological terms dreamed up by two thousand years of theologians in order to be effective in ministry? Or for that matter, Greek and Hebrew in order to preach well? I have a hard time believing that those would be the standards that Jesus would have for those in ministry!


Why cannot we open real ministry up to those who are trained both formally and informally and encourage both to get into ministry either full or part time? The church might actually see significant growth in the United States if we again allowed it to be a movement of lay people, not just those who are professionally trained and can get through an ordination process that is designed to weed out those who are not. I wonder how many lay people were given gifts by Jesus to lead, teach and preach that we do not unleash in meaningful ways because they are lay and not professional clergy?

Increase collaboration and innovation by eliminating unnecessary silos

Recently I had a great day moderating a discussion with a ministry about how to increase collaboration and innovation. They had been a highly compartmentalized (think silos) ministry where it was almost impossible to cross departmental lines to work synergistically. 


The irony is that when one got the right people around the table ideas flowed quickly for a full day. And, individuals who had not been able to collaborate freely in the past actually had skills that complemented one another. They are in the process of removing the roadblocks that had kept them siloed and are very excited about the prospects.


In a world that ought to be flat it is unfortunate that there are still many organizations which do not encourage, or even mandate synergistic collaboration regardless of the department they reside in. There may well be good reasons for different departments but there is no good reason for a paradigm that prevents or does not encourage collaboration across those departmental lines.


Here is the rule. The more compartmentalized an organization is the less synergistic collaboration they will have and the less innovation they will experience. Neither are preferred outcomes.


This is especially important today in a day when financial resources are less available meaning that effeciencies are more critical. Those effeciencies are often found in finding ways to maximize the intellectual capital of the organization, regardless of where it resides.


Another factor is that departments and people get into ruts in their thinking. When you bring in new talent from the outside (another department) you bring in someone who can look at problems and options with new eyes. 


Innovation and solutions are always better when done with the best intellectual talent possible. But that means collaboration and every organization either affirms and encourages it or does not. Hint: when leaders model it, others often follow suit.

Running process

"We need to run a process" is a common phrase in our organization. Whether we are considering hiring, transitioning an individual to a new role, putting someone in leadership or believe that we need to transition an individual out of the organization, running a process is a non-negotiable part of the equation.

It is one thing to believe that you are making the right decision in any of these cases. It is another thing to know for sure, to understand the upsides and downsides, to know what training and coaching will be needed with a new hire or a transition, or in the case of helping someone transition out of the organization that we have done due process and have a plan for how to proceed. With new hires it is understanding the wiring and experience of the individual to ensure that they are placed in the right spot.

Many organizations do not pay enough attention to the process. Mainly because it is because it is time intensive and hard work. 

How well we run these processes is a measure of how much we value people in our organization. People matter. They are the most important asset we have. Proper process is what we owe our people because the consequences of how we deploy them impacts them directly as well as the organization.

Process is an investment in our people, our organization and mission. It is some of the most important work we do.

Is your heart restless?

The older I get the more restless I am. For something more, something deeper, something that will fill my soul. There is a reason for that restlessness.

God created men and women specifically to have a relationship with their creator. In fact, it says that in the cool of the evening God would physically stroll in the garden with Adam and Eve. He took great pleasure in their company. The popular view of God for many, including Christ followers is that we should be afraid of Him. Yet, the creation account would indicate that God delights in the fellowship of His created.

Remember that God is three in one: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They, as One, experience perfect relational peace with one another. In the same way, God created Adam and Eve to experience that relational peace with Him. As the Father delights in fellowship with the Son and the Holy Spirit, so He delights in the fellowship of those He created. In fact, he created us for fellowship with Him. Until they disobeyed God and understood what sin was, Adam and Eve simply took it for granted that they could commune with Him. It was natural, unimpeded, and just as God created it to be.

Here is the mystery of God’s heart: That he would want to create us in order to have fellowship with us. In order to love us and be loved by us. He delights in our worship of Him and he delights in showing His love to us. It was to men and women that God gave the capacity through our souls to have a relationship with Him. Of the created order, only mankind has this great privilege! It is no mistake that Satan went for the juggler with Eve: he specifically tried to sever and destroy this relationship that they were made for with God. In doing so he went to the very core: the fellowship and relationship between the created and the creator.

We often think that we have an obligation to spend time with God. That somehow by doing so we gain God’s favor. Here is the truth: God delights in our presence with Him. It is hard to understand but He, complete as He is in Himself, loves to be in our presence. This is the lesson of Mary and Martha in the Gospels. Martha was full of doing (obligation) while Mary simply sat at the feet of Jesus to listen. Jesus said to Martha, “Mary has chosen what is better and it will not be taken away from her.”

It has been said that there is a hole in every human heart that only God can fill. It is why mankind seeks in all kinds of ways to discover the transcendent and relate to God even when looking in the wrong places. The reason for this is that our hearts were designed from the beginning for relationship with our creator. We were designed for Him! It is integral to being made in His image. That is why the longings of our hearts are never completely satisfied by anything else – or anyone else. As image bearers we are never complete until we are connected in heart relationship with the One who created us and the closer that relationship the more complete we become.

Positional and personal authority

Authority is an interesting concept. There are really two kinds of authority: positional and personal. Positional authority is based on one's position and responsibility in the workplace. Personal authority is the standing I have with others because of my behavior, values, treatment of others and morality. 

What is interesting is that it is possible to have positional authority without personal authority. Here, someone above us has title and position but does not have credibility or respect in our eyes. They think they have authority but it is actually a weak authority because they lack the trust of those they lead.

This is true of leaders at all levels whose personal lives, treatment of others, competencies, attitudes, or behaviors are not worthy of respect. Those under them may cooperate because they must but it is not a cooperation or followership based on respect or trust. And a leader who does not earn the respect and trust of those they lead is a leader who cannot truly lead. 

It is precisely these leaders who often make it clear to those they lead that they have positional authority over them ("I am the boss"). This is a sign of a lack of personal authority, a result of their lack of personal influence. Because they lack personal influence they are forced to use the positional authority card. Interestingly, those who must lead from primarily positional authority usually see those they lead as serving them, rather than them serving those they lead. 

This raises the question of which kind of authority is the most powerful. Without a doubt it is personal authority where people listen, respect, follow and cooperate based on who we are rather than position or titles we have. It is a life that has authority based on its authenticity, care for others, moral fiber and consistency. There are many who have personal authority but not positional authority. Personal authority is all about the influence one has with others and it can be very powerful indeed. 

Through personal authority, anyone in any position in an organization can have significant influence. In fact, in many cases, people who are not in positions of positional authority have more influence than those who are.

Healthy leaders lead from personal authority first and positional authority second. They are truly servants of those they lead which gives them huge credibility. Their lives and commitments give them influence with others and the respect of others.

All of us can develop personal authority and influence regardless of the position we hold or the titles we have. In fact, in healthy organizations only those who have personal authority are put in roles of positional authority.

TJ Addington of Addington Consulting has a passion to help individuals and organizations maximize their impact and go to the next level of effectiveness in both the for profit and non profit sectors. He can be reached at tjaddington@gmail.com

Redefining what it means to be pro life

I would like to redefine the "life" issue from a one topic agenda to a holistic view of life from a broader theological framework. Being pro life for me is not being anti abortion (although I am) but about understanding the sacredness of all human life and what it means to be a life giver like Jesus (John 10:10) in all situations. 


Why is human life sacred? Because God imbued it with an eternal soul! This is part of what it means to be made in His image. This is why God was so angry when Cain killed Able in the worlds first homicide. He had taken the life of a living person with an eternal soul who was made in God’s image. That eternal soul is a reflection of God’s eternal being and to treat it without the greatest dignity is to demean God Himself.

How we treat other human beings matters because they are made in His image. Unlike the animal kingdom they have eternal souls. This is the foundation of the command, “Thou shall not kill.” This is why Able’s blood cried out to God when Cain killed him (Genesis 4:10). This is also why God demanded strong punishment for those who murdered others, "For in the image of God has God made mankind (Genesis 9:6)."

Based on this understanding of the sacredness of human life, it was the early Christians who fought against the infanticide of unwanted infants in the Roman empire. It was Christians who cared for those dying of the plague throughout the Middle Ages, at the risk of their own lives. It is why Christians established orphanages, hospitals and homes for the elderly. Human life is sacred. It possesses an eternal soul. It is to be honored, cared for, and treated with dignity and respect. Anything that detracts from the dignity of human life is to be resisted. It possesses an eternal, God given soul.


This is why we care about those that others often ignore: the sick, the elderly, the marginalized and the disabled. It is the "widows and orphans" that scripture talks so much about. This is why we care about issues like human trafficking, pornography, prostitution, racial discrimination, injustice, famine and the atrocities of war. Human life is sacred and anything that takes away from its dignity is an affront to God and the image He gave each one.


Being pro-life is caring about the dignity of all people, understanding the intrinsic value of all people based on their eternal soul and being made in the image of their creator. I want to be pro-life in every relationship I have by treating each individual with dignity and honor.

A common leadership trap: Adding without subtracting

As leaders grow they take on new responsibilities. Often however, they fall into a common leadership trap by not jettisoning other activities to make space for the new. You cannot add without also subtracting! If you do, margin disappears and the quality of what you do is not what it should be. 


Regardless of our abilities we all have a finite amount of time and energy. We choose what we place in that available time and energy. But once full it is full. To put something new in requires that we take something old out. For something new to grow, something old must die, or be passed on to others.


Why do we hold on when we should let go? We know how to do something and may be very good at it. We may not like to disappoint people who want our time or attention. We may not be good at saying no. Or we enjoy doing it. Whatever the reason, to put something new in requires that we take something old out. 


This is actually the price of personal growth. Without taking on something new we don't grow. So the price of growth is to let go of other things that we have already mastered. As we grow in new areas our effectiveness also grows. The cost is giving something else up. You cannot effectively add without also subtracting.


What do you need to subtract?