The courage to say what we really think

One of the significant marks of a good leader and healthy individual is the ability to tell others what they really think in an honest but respectful way. Too often, in the desire to make others feel good we are not completely honest with our views which causes confusion at best and a sense that we were dishonest or manipulative at worst.

Not being fully honest with our views is a form of cowardice driven by our desire to be liked and not to offend. However, the end result of a lack of clarity especially by leaders is the perception by their staff that they were not honest with them - true - and attributed often to bad motives - often not true. Either way it is a route to misunderstanding and lack of clarity.

Most of us do not want to offend others - a good thing. The route to that goal is not to withhold our opinions or convictions but to state them respectfully, allowing others to hold a different view without judgement or losing relationship. What kind of world would we have if everyone agreed on everything anyway? The best solutions are found in the conflict of ideas, not in everybody agreeing with one another.

This skill is called "self differentiation." The ability to differentiate our views from others without being obnoxious. Both of those skills are necessary for healthy relationships.

It is a skill because it is not natural for everyone to learn the art of self differentiation graciously. However, unless we do we cannot be who we really are - a characteristic of personal health. Doing so with graciousness toward others is a necessary skill of keeping relationships healthy while being able to disagree. Both personal health and relational health are at stake with this skill.

The both/and of Missions: Gospel and Compassion

In the early 1900’s there was a major clash in the American church between the liberals who emphasized good works at the expense of the Gospel and the evangelicals who insisted that good works by themselves would not help people find Christ and experience His grace. In simple terms, what followed was a divide. The liberals jettisoned the Gospel for a religion of good works while evangelicals, in an over response often jettisoned good works for a sole emphasis on the Gospel.

What the liberals lost was the life changing message of Jesus while emphasizing Jesus concern for people. What the evangelicals lost was the concern for people’s needs with a sole concern for their eternal destinies. What both lost was the both/and of the life of Jesus who was always concerned about their situations but never addressed their life issues without also addressing the core issue of the heart.

The example of Jesus in the Gospels ought to be our guide: He cared deeply for people and their situations. That is why people followed him. That is why He healed them. That is why he talked to them non-judgmentally about their sin. But He never left it at that. He always talked to them about their hearts.

In fact, if you look at church history it was Christians and missionaries who founded hospitals, schools, took care of the sick, buried the dead in the plagues, and were known for their good works. My own background was that of a Missionary Kid of a doctor who founded a hospital that took care of the sick regardless of their ability to pay – and also shared the Gospel with each patient – connected with a strategy of church planting in Hong Kong.

There are innumerable stories of evangelism efforts, literature distribution or other ministries done in the name of Jesus that have almost no lasting impact because while people made professions of faith, there was no church left behind for them to be nurtured and to grow. When you separate missions from church planting, you no longer have missions in a Biblical sense but simply compassion ministries. That is why Paul always focused on church planting while always encouraging believers to be the hands, feet, compassion and love of Jesus.

One of the guiding principles of ReachGlobal is that we are holistic in our approach. We want to care for the whole person and are deeply involved in ministries of compassion, education, medicine, caring for those who come out of sex trafficking, AIDS orphans and many other ministries that minister to the whole person as did Jesus. But front and center and at our core we are about multiplying transformational churches. We must leave behind the Bride of Christ to make disciples. The church must reclaim the concern of Jesus for the whole person but must not lose the centrality of multiplying His church in the process.

Redefining outreach in the church

Outreach programs are normal for local churches. In fact, they are so normal that they often have the effect of training our people that outreach is a program when in fact, Jesus meant it to be the lifestyle of every believer.

If outreach is a program, I am free to leave outreach efforts to the church and allow it to be their responsibility. If outreach is the responsibility of every Christ follower through incarnational living and intentional development of relationships with unbelievers then I must take responsibility. 

But here is something to think about. We get what we teach and model in the church. If we model programming as the means of outreach, that is what we will get. If we teach and model that reaching our workplaces, neighborhoods and friends is each of our responsibilities, that is what we will get. Which is more powerful? Which will reach more people?

I am all for church wide opportunities for people to bring their friends in venues that are favorable to them hearing the gospel. But, that presupposes that there are unbelieving friends to bring and that we have enough capital with them to even be able to invite them.

The real challenge in evangelicalism is to convince every believer that they, not a program of the church, are responsible for developing meaningful relationships with unbelievers that can result in opportunities to share God's love, being the example of Jesus to them and speaking candidly about one's relationship with Christ. Until that happens, we will never have the impact in our world and community that the early church did and that Jesus desires us to have.

How do we do that? First we model it ourselves. Second we tell stories of others who model it. Third, we set an expectation that every Christ follower has an intentional strategy to share the love of Jesus with those they have relationships and contact with. Fourth, we pray together for those divine appointments that God can use and finally we celebrate whenever a breakthrough comes and another individual becomes a son or daughter of the king.

God loves when people seek him so He will answer the prayers of people and congregations who ask Him for these divine opportunities. I had several last week. I thank Him for every one. And I long for the day when we all expect it to happen as He allows us to be His representatives.

Go with a program and you will reach a few. Go with everyone and you will reach more than you can ever imagine.

Programming that drives out real ministry

A short worthwhile conversation about the church, programming and God's intentions for His people.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/02/how-churches-fake-gods-work/

What is missions? Be careful how you define your mission efforts

This may seem like a simple question to some but there are many churches today who are redefining missions in ways that are problematic. To answer this question we need to look at the mandate of Jesus to the church and the strategy of the Apostle Paul in the early days of Christianity as he applied the Great Commission in his mission travels.

Remember the words of Jesus to His followers: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore, go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age (Matthew 28:18-20).

His mandate was to make disciples of all nations, to baptize people in His name and to teach them what it meant to be a follower of His. Perhaps the most important part of His command is “Therefore, Go.” It is taking the Good News beyond our circle to all nations on the face of the earth.

Our best example of what this meant is to examine the ministry of the Apostle Paul. He and Barnabas were not only the first missionaries sent by the church (Acts 13) but it is obvious from the careful record of his missionary journeys in one of the longer books of the New Testament (Acts) that we are to pay attention to what happened.

Paul’s strategy was very simple. He was focused on establishing churches, training leaders for those churches and setting them loose to live out the Christian life and be the Bride of Christ in their community. At the core of his strategy was establishing local churches. The methodology of establishing churches was the intensive discipling and training of men and women who responded to the Gospel.

In fact, some of the well known New Testament books  were written to churches that he had established. In addition, Timothy and Titus were pastors that he had trained.

It is interesting that in some places where Paul planted a church there were already Christ follower present. This was true in Ephesus according to Acts 19. The presence of disciples, however, was not enough for without proper teaching and fellowship those disciples were unlikely to grow. Thus, Paul gathered those Christ followers, taught them intensely for three years and the church that was planted had an impact in a wide area of Asia minor.

Paul calls the local church, the Bride of Christ. The point I am making is that biblical missions may involve many things but at the center and core it is about establishing the church so that those local expressions of the Bride can continue to reproduce themselves therefore reproducing Christ followers and committed disciples. There is no concept in the New Testament following the ascension of Jesus of Christ followers who were not connected to a church.

In our own day there is sometimes a de-emphasizing on the establishment of the church for a focus on other ministries that are called missions. These include ministries of evangelism, compassion, orphan, sex trafficking, caring for the poor, literature, illiteracy, micro-enterprise, education, medical ministries and others.

All of these are good in themselves and worthy of being a part of our missions paradigm but they are not the core of what we are called to do. As long as these efforts are connected to the establishment of transformational churches they are deeply valuable and reflect the heart of Christ. However, when they are not connected to the church, they are often compassion without the Gospel.

Definitions of success: be sure to get it right!

I have been mulling for some time on our definitions of success in ministry. I think about these things because I am wired to win and to help the organization I lead make the largest mark for Jesus that it can. But where do the societal and biblical definitions of success overlap and where do they differ? Or is there a difference since often there does not seem to be any?

How we frame the question has a lot to do with the answer we get.

For instance, if my definition of success is doing better than my peers in ministry what I am really doing is competing with others according to their definitions of success. I see a lot of that among pastors and ministry leaders who love to compare attendance, budgets, staff, facilities and programs - which could simply be different language for sales, market capitalization, employee count, dividends, and new product in the pipeline. Again, where do societal and biblical definitions of success overlap and where do they differ?

Many leaders like visibility and believe we have something to say so we speak, write books, and often try to get into the "right circles" where we belong (of course) in our drive to accomplish great things. How many leaders do you know who run on fumes? If my definition of success is making a mark then I suppose these activities contribute to it. Leaders are visible, after all, and leaving a mark is often seen in that light. So in the business world, you might make the cover of Fortune and in the ministry world, a Christian publication, maybe CT! But these do not satisfy my soul nor do they seem to be consistent with Scripture.

Here is how I frame the question of success: When I see Jesus, what will He value and commend me for? 

Here is what I know about that question. What Jesus will (and does) value and commend me for is very different than what society generally values and might commend me for. So I need to make a conscious effort to focus on those things that are important to Him rather than those things that are important to me or to those around me. 

It seems to me that His definition of success will look something like this:

- A deep abiding relationship with Him that defines my life
- Being a Christ like husband, father and grandfather
- Focusing on becoming ever more transformed into His image
- Deep Humility
- Using the gifts He gave me to their fullest
- Having the greatest influence for Him that I can
- Being faithful in good times and hard times
- Treating those I lead with dignity, love and respect
- Being willing to suffer hardship for Jesus
- Developing, empowering and releasing my staff as He did
- Aligning my life priorities around His priorities

What is interesting to me about His definitions of success is that they differ radically from how success is defined in our world and by many who serve in full time ministry but are infected by a faulty definition of success (all of us are vulnerable on that). Jesus is deeply interested in the person I am and become, how I do what I do, the motivations behind it and how I interact and treat people.

It would be sad to get to the end and realize that what we had been chasing after so hard was not what God intended us to chase after. And that in succeeding, we had neglected the things that meant the most to God. 

The leadership stewardship of necessary but hard conversations

One of the most difficult things a team or organizational leader does is to say the hard things to individuals when behaviors, attitudes or performance are problematic. No one likes to have these conversations and if someone relishes them I question their qualifications for leadership. However, those hard conversations are one of the kindest things a leader can do for the individual involved and for the organization.

What is kind is not always easy but it is necessary. Pressing into the hard things is a great favor to the individual. First, because you have given them the courtesy of hearing what others around them are saying or thinking - which they may be oblivious to. Second, it opens up a dialogue regarding issues which if solved will make them better people and better staff. 

That dialogue may also reveal that the individual is not in their correct lane where they are likely to be successful. If that is the case, they probably know in their gut that they are in the wrong spot but don't know what to do about it. Helping them find their lane whether in your organization or another is the prelude to a happier existence.

If the hard conversation meets great resistance and defensiveness you know that you are dealing with an individual with EQ deficits which will manifest itself in other unhealthy ways and must either be resolved or will cause relational damage. In fact, how an individual responds to hard conversations is a very telling factor about their ability to become healthier. Your willingness to press in, however, is often the prelude to greater happiness and satisfaction on their part - if they choose to respond well.

It is also a huge favor to the team or organization. When there are behaviors, attitudes or performance that are problematic it impacts others in the organization. If we choose to avoid the issue (it is an uncomfortable conversation) we effectively disempower others who are impacted. This is why I call this an issue of leadership stewardship. As stewards of our staff or team we have a responsibility to create a healthy and empowering work environment

Often we wait too long to have necessary conversations out of our own issues and discomfort. When we put it off we forget that we are not doing either the individual or the organization a favor by doing so.