Everyone should have one: A personal gospel initiative - an intentional strategy for meeting and relating to unbelievers for the sake of relationship and opportunities to share the gospel.
For many of us this will include neighbors where relationships are a natural. One of my gospel initiatives is a restaurant where I often work and meet for business lunches or breakfasts. Because I am there often (I have my own table - number 40) I also know all the staff and have developed good relationships with them. They know my name and I know theirs. We talk, I have shared some of my books with them and we are friends. Friendships lead to conversations which lead to opportunities to share the gospel.
What would happen if every member of our congregations had a personal gospel initiative? People they are praying for and intentionally relating to with the goal of loving them and sharing Jesus with them? It would vastly outdo all of our programmatic evangelistic efforts (good as they may be). It might even become a lifestyle which is always the goal.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Either we disciple our kids or society will do it for us
Our investment in discipling our kids is one of the most important things that parents do. The sobering truth is that if we don't make the investment, society will disciple them for us - and that is a scary thought.
What does it mean to disciple our kids? First it means that we model for them what a sold out lifestyle for Jesus looks like: living in grace and extending it to others, thinking like Jesus thinks, aligning our priorities with His and seeing people as He sees them and loving them as He loves them. No son or daughter will miss the point when they see their parents living out a Jesus life.
I also believe that the daily interaction with kids is critical, especially when we are able to relate every day issues to a Jesus lifestyle. This is not about rules or legalism. It is about helping our kids understand that there is no part of life where our commitment to Jesus does not touch. For us, these conversations took place regularly at our dinner table where all kinds of issues were freely discussed and whether serious or humorous matters of faith and life were integrated.
As our kids get older, what about asking them if they would like to be involved in a more intentional discipleship process with their parents. Allow them to pick the materials and then meet, discuss, study and pray. Keep it separate from parenting. This is life on life seeking to understand how God relates to us and how we relate to Him. Many kids will jump at the opportunity.
However you do it, remember that if we don't disciple our kids, society will do it for us. That particular outsourcing is the cause of generations of kids leaving their faith and it is very sad. We want to leave an intentional spiritual legacy with our kids.
What does it mean to disciple our kids? First it means that we model for them what a sold out lifestyle for Jesus looks like: living in grace and extending it to others, thinking like Jesus thinks, aligning our priorities with His and seeing people as He sees them and loving them as He loves them. No son or daughter will miss the point when they see their parents living out a Jesus life.
I also believe that the daily interaction with kids is critical, especially when we are able to relate every day issues to a Jesus lifestyle. This is not about rules or legalism. It is about helping our kids understand that there is no part of life where our commitment to Jesus does not touch. For us, these conversations took place regularly at our dinner table where all kinds of issues were freely discussed and whether serious or humorous matters of faith and life were integrated.
As our kids get older, what about asking them if they would like to be involved in a more intentional discipleship process with their parents. Allow them to pick the materials and then meet, discuss, study and pray. Keep it separate from parenting. This is life on life seeking to understand how God relates to us and how we relate to Him. Many kids will jump at the opportunity.
However you do it, remember that if we don't disciple our kids, society will do it for us. That particular outsourcing is the cause of generations of kids leaving their faith and it is very sad. We want to leave an intentional spiritual legacy with our kids.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Passive boards and controlling boards in the church: Both are dangerous
Church boards operate in one of three categories: As passive leaders, controlling leaders and engaged leaders. The first two kinds of board leadership are dangerous for a church and for its pastoral staff while the third is healthy.
Passive boards are those who ignore real issues in the church or with its senior pastoral leadership. These are boards that in the name of avoiding conflict allow their congregation to drift and even go into decline because they are unwilling to address real issues. Many congregations are allowed to plateau and go into decline without the board asking the hard questions as to why it is happening. People leave, giving declines, conversion growth plummets and conflict becomes normative and the leaders of the church don't act, ask hard questions or address the issues.
Often, congregants with passive boards simply move on to churches that are missional. They recognize the problem even as their leaders either don't recognize them or are too fearful to address them. It is a fatal error because leadership passivity will eventually make it very difficult to turn the ship and move back to health. The lack of attention to known problems is often driven by fear, lack of courage and an unwillingness to deal with issues that may cause conflict. In the end it is a failure of leadership and a failure to protect the congregation and the mission of the church.
Then there are controlling boards who want to micromanage and second guess the decisions and work of a senior pastor and staff. This is equally destructive as good leaders will not say in a culture of control, nor should they. Boards are not meant to do the work that staff are tasked with doing. Controlling boards will eventually cause the church to plateau and pastoral leaders to leave. Decisions that belong with staff are co-opted by church leaders who want to do things their way. Decisions that should be made once now need to be made a second time - with the board.
Controlling boards do not understand the role of boards which is to guard the health and direction of the church and govern from a high altitude rather then manage the affairs of the church which is the job of church staff. Controlling boards disempower those who serve on church staff and undermine the leadership of the senior pastor. Essentially they don't trust the senior leader to make the correct decisions.
Healthy boards are engaged boards. They engage in the big rocks of ensuring that the spiritual temperature of the church remains high, that the congregation is led, cared for, taught, protected and that people are developed, empowered and released in meaningful ministry. They team with the senior pastoral leader to ensure a healthy ministry and a vibrant spiritual culture. They guard the values of the church and monitor the spiritual results of the ministry. They are always aware of what is happening, ask the hard questions when necessary and ensure that the mission of the church is being fulfilled. They are intentional in their leadership.
As you think about the board in your congregation, which of the three kinds of boards does it represent?
Passive boards are those who ignore real issues in the church or with its senior pastoral leadership. These are boards that in the name of avoiding conflict allow their congregation to drift and even go into decline because they are unwilling to address real issues. Many congregations are allowed to plateau and go into decline without the board asking the hard questions as to why it is happening. People leave, giving declines, conversion growth plummets and conflict becomes normative and the leaders of the church don't act, ask hard questions or address the issues.
Often, congregants with passive boards simply move on to churches that are missional. They recognize the problem even as their leaders either don't recognize them or are too fearful to address them. It is a fatal error because leadership passivity will eventually make it very difficult to turn the ship and move back to health. The lack of attention to known problems is often driven by fear, lack of courage and an unwillingness to deal with issues that may cause conflict. In the end it is a failure of leadership and a failure to protect the congregation and the mission of the church.
Then there are controlling boards who want to micromanage and second guess the decisions and work of a senior pastor and staff. This is equally destructive as good leaders will not say in a culture of control, nor should they. Boards are not meant to do the work that staff are tasked with doing. Controlling boards will eventually cause the church to plateau and pastoral leaders to leave. Decisions that belong with staff are co-opted by church leaders who want to do things their way. Decisions that should be made once now need to be made a second time - with the board.
Controlling boards do not understand the role of boards which is to guard the health and direction of the church and govern from a high altitude rather then manage the affairs of the church which is the job of church staff. Controlling boards disempower those who serve on church staff and undermine the leadership of the senior pastor. Essentially they don't trust the senior leader to make the correct decisions.
Healthy boards are engaged boards. They engage in the big rocks of ensuring that the spiritual temperature of the church remains high, that the congregation is led, cared for, taught, protected and that people are developed, empowered and released in meaningful ministry. They team with the senior pastoral leader to ensure a healthy ministry and a vibrant spiritual culture. They guard the values of the church and monitor the spiritual results of the ministry. They are always aware of what is happening, ask the hard questions when necessary and ensure that the mission of the church is being fulfilled. They are intentional in their leadership.
As you think about the board in your congregation, which of the three kinds of boards does it represent?
Friday, January 24, 2014
Convictions or cookies: Which drives you?
Cookies are nice! They are the comments or affirmations we get in ministry because of what we do - preaching a good sermon, visiting someone in the hospital, helping those in need. In fact, it is easy to become driven by the cookies because they satisfy our ego and make us feel good about ourselves. I must be doing something important for Jesus is people give me all those cookies!
But: cookies can be dangerous as well. Cookies can motivate us to please others so that we get more cookies. And a drive to please others for our ego needs can cause us to play to people rather than to be driven to please God and to push into places that God wants us to push but people don't.
Hence my question: Are we driven more by cookies than by conviction? Christian leaders must lead out of a deep place of inner conviction irregardless of whether we get cookies for our leadership. I remember rolling out some new paradigms in the mission I lead ten years ago to the consternation of many who saw it as the flavor of the month and me as out to lunch. If I were looking for cookies they were few and hard to find. And that lasted for quite a while. But what I did have was a deep abiding conviction that where we were going was where God wanted us to go and I said often, "Do not question my resolve!"
Sometimes cookies come and sometimes they don't. We are not called to chase cookies but to move in directions that God wants us to move with conviction and resolve. If I am chasing cookies I will not press into areas that are uncomfortable with either an individual or a congregation. If I am chasing cookies I will become a servant of men rather than of God. I may even compromise my convictions in the process.
I like cookies. But I recognize that cookies don't always serve me well. Convictions serve me much better. Especially those that come from God and are shared by my key colleagues as the direction God wants us to travel. Our best cookies will come from the words of our Lord one day. "Well done my good and faithful servant."
But: cookies can be dangerous as well. Cookies can motivate us to please others so that we get more cookies. And a drive to please others for our ego needs can cause us to play to people rather than to be driven to please God and to push into places that God wants us to push but people don't.
Hence my question: Are we driven more by cookies than by conviction? Christian leaders must lead out of a deep place of inner conviction irregardless of whether we get cookies for our leadership. I remember rolling out some new paradigms in the mission I lead ten years ago to the consternation of many who saw it as the flavor of the month and me as out to lunch. If I were looking for cookies they were few and hard to find. And that lasted for quite a while. But what I did have was a deep abiding conviction that where we were going was where God wanted us to go and I said often, "Do not question my resolve!"
Sometimes cookies come and sometimes they don't. We are not called to chase cookies but to move in directions that God wants us to move with conviction and resolve. If I am chasing cookies I will not press into areas that are uncomfortable with either an individual or a congregation. If I am chasing cookies I will become a servant of men rather than of God. I may even compromise my convictions in the process.
I like cookies. But I recognize that cookies don't always serve me well. Convictions serve me much better. Especially those that come from God and are shared by my key colleagues as the direction God wants us to travel. Our best cookies will come from the words of our Lord one day. "Well done my good and faithful servant."
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
The one thing that is necessary for needed change in any organization
That one thing is not what changes are necessary or even why they are necessary. Those are easy enough to discern.
No, the one thing that is necessary for needed change in any organization is the courage of leaders to admit the need and have the courage to act on needed changes. Without the humility to admit that change is needed - and that is humbling - and without the requisite courage to act on that need, nothing happens.
I work with churches and ministry organizations as well as lead ReachGlobal, an international missions organization. The reason I get called in to work with other organizations is that they recognize that not all is well. They are experiencing organizational pain and are looking for solutions.
Finding the source of the pain is not difficult. Convincing the ones experiencing the pain can be. They know that all is not well. But in come cases do not have the courage to act on the necessary steps to solve the problem - which is usually holding them back from much greater ministry effectiveness.
Why is this when it defies logical sense? Because it is more comfortable to live with what we have and the way we have been doing things than to take the risk of doing things differently. Comfort often wins out over mission.
Courageous leaders don't settle for what is when they know what could be. They take the risk to act on needed change in spite of their own comfort and what they are used to. The mission of the ministry is a higher priority than their comfort or even long established paradigms. That is the nature of good leadership.
When asked to help an organization my internal question is always this: Do the leaders have the courage to change? If the answer is no, it is best to leave them with their old paradigms. Don't be one of those leaders!
No, the one thing that is necessary for needed change in any organization is the courage of leaders to admit the need and have the courage to act on needed changes. Without the humility to admit that change is needed - and that is humbling - and without the requisite courage to act on that need, nothing happens.
I work with churches and ministry organizations as well as lead ReachGlobal, an international missions organization. The reason I get called in to work with other organizations is that they recognize that not all is well. They are experiencing organizational pain and are looking for solutions.
Finding the source of the pain is not difficult. Convincing the ones experiencing the pain can be. They know that all is not well. But in come cases do not have the courage to act on the necessary steps to solve the problem - which is usually holding them back from much greater ministry effectiveness.
Why is this when it defies logical sense? Because it is more comfortable to live with what we have and the way we have been doing things than to take the risk of doing things differently. Comfort often wins out over mission.
Courageous leaders don't settle for what is when they know what could be. They take the risk to act on needed change in spite of their own comfort and what they are used to. The mission of the ministry is a higher priority than their comfort or even long established paradigms. That is the nature of good leadership.
When asked to help an organization my internal question is always this: Do the leaders have the courage to change? If the answer is no, it is best to leave them with their old paradigms. Don't be one of those leaders!
Process in change
Knowing that changes need to be made is half of the challenge. The other half is designing a change process that is most likely to result in your desired conclusion. The key word here is process. When change goes wrong, it is usually connected to a process that is flawed or short-circuited.
Here is a key principle: Most people are willing to change even though that change causes them discomfort, if they can be convinced that the proposed change meets a value of theirs which is higher than their resistance to change. Having said that, remember that the heart acceptance of the change will be determined by where they are on the change curve.
For instance, I have helped numerous congregations change their governance systems to reflect a more empowered culture. Almost without exception, late majority and laggards were negative toward the change when it was first introduced, and even the early majority was cautious.
However, when there is a process that allows people's questions to be answered, and when they are convinced that a change in governance will help the church reach more people for Christ (a high value of believers), most are willing to consider and adopt the changes. That's because the value of reaching folks for Christ is a higher value than their resistance to change.
This is why having solid values are so important to an organization. When change is needed, it is the mission and the values that must be appealed to and if these are a higher value than the inborn resistance to change, people will be willing to consider necessary changes. If you cannot appeal to a higher value, then the argument becomes one of preference rather than one of mission.
Here is a key principle: Most people are willing to change even though that change causes them discomfort, if they can be convinced that the proposed change meets a value of theirs which is higher than their resistance to change. Having said that, remember that the heart acceptance of the change will be determined by where they are on the change curve.
For instance, I have helped numerous congregations change their governance systems to reflect a more empowered culture. Almost without exception, late majority and laggards were negative toward the change when it was first introduced, and even the early majority was cautious.
However, when there is a process that allows people's questions to be answered, and when they are convinced that a change in governance will help the church reach more people for Christ (a high value of believers), most are willing to consider and adopt the changes. That's because the value of reaching folks for Christ is a higher value than their resistance to change.
This is why having solid values are so important to an organization. When change is needed, it is the mission and the values that must be appealed to and if these are a higher value than the inborn resistance to change, people will be willing to consider necessary changes. If you cannot appeal to a higher value, then the argument becomes one of preference rather than one of mission.
Monday, January 20, 2014
When sensitive information needs to be communicated to a congregation
Is what we are sharing true? We may well not share all that we know but are we being truthful in our communication rather than trying to cover something up?
If the full story were revealed would our congregation be satisfied that what we told them was truthful?
Is the information already circulating? To the extent that information is already known, it may be wise to be more candid than less.
Do we have a redemptive purpose in mind even as we share bad news?
What is likely to come out regarding this situation? How much we share is sometimes a factor of how much information is likely to become public. The more it is likely to become public the more we may need to share.
How does our communication impact others involved if there are any? If there are victims, does our communication violate them in any way? Are they aware and OK with what we intend to share?
Have we vetted our statement with an attorney? We live in a litigious society. Be smart in one's communication.
If there is a threat to others posed by the situation (someone who has abused children, for instance) have we taken adequate steps to protect the congregation?
Have we given guidelines for how the congregation is to deal with the information we have provided?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)