Don't Confuse Teaching Your church With Leading Your Church

[from Awake From Atrophy, Chapter 19...]

“I don’t understand,” Jessica said. “Are you saying spiritual leaders are supposed to stir up conflict so they can have hard conversations? I thought pastors were supposed to be teachers and guides—making sure we stay on track. To borrow a metaphor from my medical world: isn’t an ounce of prevention—good teaching—worth more than a pound of correction?”

“Oh, I’m all for good teaching to prevent errors,” Jacob replied. “That’s why we study the Bible intently every other week. I’m just saying that most spiritual leaders design services so that the members can’t disrupt their careful plan. These leaders are actively avoiding one of the roles they’re supposed to play as spiritual leaders. In an effort to keep out incorrect content, they’ve shut down their members. They end up reducing Christian leadership to teaching and administrative oversight. To be hard on my own kind—and, yes, I used to do this, too—many pastors dodge the hard work of dialogue and settle for predictable monologue. Leading is not the same function as preaching. There are some similarities. But they are not the same.”

Jacob had remained casual talking about the confrontation with Ted. Apparently that wasn’t a big issue to discuss. But church leadership was a topic that stirred him.

“Well, I suppose that you can lead an organization without being a preacher,” Drew said reluctantly. “But clearly preaching is among the most significant ways that pastors lead people, spiritually speaking.”

“You can exercise leadership by preaching,” Jacob conceded. “But speaking to a group doesn’t mean you are always leading. If you look at the biblical passages on spiritual gifts, like 1 Corinthians 12, you see that leadership and teaching are listed as distinct spiritual gifts. Most typical pastors don’t have a biblical definition of church leadership. What they have is a medieval definition of church leadership. Leading the church, they believe, requires being the primary teacher. And that assumption has really damaged the church—including harming the pastors themselves.”

Drew had a sudden flash of concern. “I can see what you’re saying about the need to do more than preach,” Drew acknowledged. “But you can’t abdicate your role as the primary teacher without your leadership suffering. Doing that damages the church. You asked about concerns earlier, I do have one concern about your church model. When you turn over the pulpit to your members at large, then you end up weakening your spiritual authority. You can’t limit the authority of the leaders of the church like that without the church suffering. Take this guy you corrected on prayer! Yes, when you corrected him in front of the group, he backed down. But what if he hadn’t?! When you give up control of the pulpit and let others speak to the church like that you risk someone undermining your authority and creating real division in the church. What if a clever, charismatic speaker with bad theology grabbed the attention of the room and didn’t allow you to quiet or correct him? You have to be careful who you allow to teach the church. You have to be careful to whom you hand that kind of influence.”

Jacob met Drew’s charge with an uncharacteristically blunt reply, “Drew, you’re still stuck on Christian leadership being defined primarily by teaching. You think that when I’ve reduced teaching time, I’ve reduced the leader’s authority. But I disagree. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that those leaders who are uncomfortable with members disagreeing with them—who feel that their authority needs to be protected by not allowing dissenters to speak—those are leaders who are insecure about how much authority they really have. Spiritual authority does not mean you’re the only one who gets to speak. Spiritual authority means you have the respect and wisdom to exhort and even rebuke others when they wrongly speak. Avoiding hard conversations not only keeps the members’ immaturities hidden, but robs the leader of the chance to exercise real spiritual leadership.

“Drew, it requires more leadership to develop authentic relationships, to coach people to become better ministers, and to confront people about inappropriate behavior, than it does to prepare a solid three-point sermon.”

Drew expected Jacob’s usually gentle manner and was taken back. Jessica had gone quiet, both fascinated by the sight of a man on fire and a little intimidated by it. But Jacob’s passion was not spent yet...

Typical Church Leadership Is More Like Obamacare Than We Realize

In March, 2012, the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented three days of arguments on whether the government can make citizens do what's "best" for themselves--i.e. pay for healthcare, eat low salt foods, etc. In late June, they announced their ruling: Obamacare is constitutional--because it really is a tax, that is. This leaves that big question somewhat unanswered.

What does that have to do with church leadership? At the core, the question was about the government's right to force people to do the right thing. And this question is very pertinent to church leaders. The argument goes something like this...

ON ONE HAND...

Our government was not designed to give our leaders great power to effect great change. The Framers designed government to limit the damage leaders can do.  They believed in the fallen nature of man and feared what fallen men in power would do. Most of all, they feared another monarchy, saying, "A government capable of doing great good quickly is also capable of doing great harm quickly." Limited government, based on an educated and mature citizenry.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

If you have the power to make people's lives better, shouldn't you? Don't parents make their kids eat their vegetables? I do. My 2 year old daughter doesn't get to choose whether she eats green beans at dinner.

And those same Framers also said, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint."

We already have to drive the speed limit. I live in a neighborhood association that requires us to keep our house presentable. (I'll refrain from discussing the picture sent to me of our offending overgrown vine trellis...that had to have been taken from within my back yard! Nothing quite like petty tyrants, eh?)

This is a fundamental leadership question--not just a governmental leadership question. Maybe we should also require everyone to go to church? In Austria, where my brother lived up until this past December, if you register as a church member your tithes are automatically deducted from your paycheck--government enforced. Isn't that good? They're helping people make the choice they're supposed to make anyway. It just makes it easier for them to do what's right.

MY OPINION...

My position depends on whether we're talking short-term or long-term--oh, and there's a crucial assumption required.

CRUCIAL ASSUMPITON…

We're assuming that the government will choose well, when it tells us what to do. We're assuming that our leaders won't enforce the wrong thing. No, I'm not about to suggest that Obama and his party are out to destroy America. That's as immature as blindly accepting their judgment. I think they're doing their best. But government leaders aren't any more free of the struggle with sin than the rest of us--complete with the blind spots and miscalculations we all have. But, for the sake of our argument, let's make this HUGE assumption and move on.

In the short-term, it's very good for people to have their leaders require them to make wise choices. Good behavior increases and lives are improved. Success!

But in the long-term, there's a terrible price to pay. The more leaders decide for their people, the more they remove the need for people to learn how to make good decisions. The wisdom of the people will atrophy. Yes, I do require my toddler to eat well, but if I continue to treat my children like toddlers as they grow up, I will stunt their ability to think and choose wisely when I'm not around.

From Awake From Atrophy:

Jacob frowned back and leaned forward intently. “I would agree that most of the believers in a typical church wouldn’t know what to do if you said, ‘Go minister to each other.’ But I believe members’ inability to minister without being told exactly what to do is an indication of immature or selfish leadership, not immature or selfish members.”

Drew’s eyebrows rose skeptically. “How is that the leader’s fault? We’re wearing ourselves out trying to get them to grow up!”

“It’s kind of like bad parenting,” Jacob explained, unfazed by Drew’s outburst. “You may have seen parents who did so much for their children, who worked so hard, but allowed their children to do little, so that their children became adults in name only. The adult children remained dependent on their parents. It’s like always making your child drink from a sippy cup, even into their teens, to be sure they don’t spill anything. Instead, as every good parent knows, as children grow they need increasing opportunities to make their own decisions. Yes, they will make mistakes. Yes, when you take the lid off the cup, they will spill their drink sometimes. And, no, it’s not wise to leap from zero responsibility to total life responsibility. I wouldn’t move from sippy cups straight to crystal goblets. But to never take the lid off their cup is even worse.

“When pastors decide that members will never be able to minister as mature adults because they aren’t ready, it usually comes from one of two postures. In the best case, they have no idea there is another option, which I think describes the great majority of pastors. But, in the worst case, there are probably a few pastors who also crave the sense of importance that comes from having members so very dependent on them—just like poor parents.”

CONCLUSION…

Most churches have more of an Obamacare-approach to leadership than empowering the individual. They're deciding for their people. On giving: they advocate a 10% tithe left up to the staff to manage. On music and teaching: the staff (and a few key volunteers in small churches) decide what happens--and then do all the execution on Sundays. Even in small groups, the rare opportunity for members to minister in a typical church--they're given step-by-step curriculum. Typical church leaders choose everything that needs to be done, then they teach, cajole, and pressure their members to do what exactly that. When do members get to make any decisions?

The more policies like Obamacare that are enacted, the less individually mature our citizens will become. If you want a preview of an immature nation, over-dependent on their leaders, just look at a typical church--at the prevalence of "cultural-Christians" and the edge-of-burnout lifestyle of the staff and few volunteers.

Stooping To Greatness

I recently heard a presentation from Pat Lencioni (Bestselling author & CEO of The Table Group) about doing the simple, humble things that create great organizations. He says that time after time people study the great leaders to see what they're doing. They discover that what's unique about them are behaviors that they could easily implement. "But only if they're willing to stoop down and be human, to treat their customers and one another in ways that others might find corny."

Greatness, it seems, comes to those who are willing to stoop low enough to reach it.

Jesus didn't just preach to the lepers--he touched them (Matthew 8.1-3). Jesus was known for the low class company he kept, not the opposite (Luke 7.34). Jesus came to us as a vulnerable, pooping baby instead of glowing warrior on a chariot.

Calling them to Himself, Jesus said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many. --Mark 10:42-45 NASB

And I know that this challenge isn't limited to CEO's. Pastors struggle with this, too.

Servant's don't get special parking spots next to the door. Servants don't have special seats on the stage. Servants don't ask others to add special titles of honor to their names...but many pastors do.

Trying to live this out, I don't introduce myself differently on Sunday (I'm just "Scott"). When I teach, I walk around the room or even sit at a table and just talk to people. And I don't give myself extra time during the open ministry sessions we have. Some Sunday's I take a turn in the children's ministry watching the babies while another elder leads the teaching time. Why wouldn't I sign up for what we ask others to volunteer for?

If you're a pastor and people choose to show honor to you (as the Bible does command them to do), maturity says you accept their gift gratefully. But requiring honor from your members, allowing special treatment to be an official part of your church's routine, is entirely different than accepting a gift. If you tell your friend they're supposed to buy you a particular present and give it to you every week, is it still a gift?

Just because others allow you to claim a high position doesn't mean God is pleased with your posture. God might get more glory if stooping was more normal than standing tall.

Which Leader Holds the Key to Fixing America? (Hint--not who you might think)

Presidential Primaries are all over the news. I think leadership matters (I did get a Masters Degree in Leadership). But I think we're leaving someone out the conversation.  You and me.

We seem to think that if we pick the right uber-man, a Great Leader, then he or she will do it all and solve our problems. Our national strategy: 1) Pick the right leader. 2) Go back to our regular life and leave it all to them to fix the country.

Is that strategy really going to work?

For example, we want our President to grow the economy. But what am I doing to grow the economy? Instead, over the next four years, 300 million of us regular people could be a little more creative (i.e. think up one new product or service to our company) and a little more disciplined (save a little more and spent more carefully). Wouldn't 300 million of us making just one small improvement make a huge difference?

Yes, I’m know improving the economy is more complicated than just working harder. And, again, I'm NOT saying that leaders don't matter. For example, the President can sign into law something stupid that ruins a whole sector of the economy. I'm not saying we ignore the leader's role. Let's keep debating who should be our President.

But we shouldn't ignore our role, either. Let's not forget that we can be leaders, too.

If we want a better America, then everyday Americans, like you and me, have to step up and do at least one thing differently--one thing better than we did in the last four years. We are America. If we want a better America, we're saying we want a better us. And even the best leader can't make us different. Only we can choose to improve.

This "leader who will do it all for us" bias isn't restricted to politics, either.

For example, we do this in our churches, too. We pick leaders (pastors, priests, rectors, etc) and then we leave all the ministry to them. But no matter how great our pastors are, they'll never come close to matching the impact of a whole church fully engaged. God has called all of us to be ministers--leaders representing Him to the world.

Making a better America, or a better church, isn't just the leader's job. It's our job, too. Choosing one great leader helps. But 300 million leaders can radically change their nation. Let's not lose the involvement and energy we're spending on which leader is better. Let's carry that energy beyond elections and, maybe, in our own spheres of influence, become the more like the kind of leader we want.

What can you do differently in the next year? How can you be the leader who changes your part of America? Because you and I are the leaders who really hold the key to fixing America.

Open Ministry: Chaos on Sunday? (Part 11: Values & Practices Unpacked)

If you thought our approach to teaching was risky, then this practice might worry you even more.

Our third defining practice we call Open Ministry. Put simply, it's an open time with no preplanned activities or even themes. Every member is expected to prepare throughout the week to offer ministry to at least one other member (based on their gifts) and/or request ministry (prayer, supplies, etc).

Even though I'm the leader of the church, I only prepare my 5-10 minutes of ministry activities, like every other member. And, as I've said to my church many times, if I'm the only one who comes ready to offer something then it will be a very short service! Our members share verses, play songs, pray with one another, give practical gifts (once, a member gave another a potted gardenia as a housewarming gift), whatever the Holy Spirit leads them to do that week. It's never the same.

At this point, you might be thinking, "Isn't that chaos? What about heresy? What about immature members offending people? Why would you allow this mayhem to do destroy the sacred time of Sunday worship?"

First, we think it's helps our members grow faster.

Our core values of Growth Through Practice (see previous post on that core value)drives us to provide regular time to practice. We don't want to only talk about our faith together and hope they plan to practice out in the world. We want to practice our faith together--getting better together in practical ways before we step out into the world.

We design our church more like we're a sports team, practicing weekly to prepare for the games, rather than a philosophy class, discussing ideas with no behavioral expectation after our meeting.

Very optimistic (you might still be thinking), but in real life this wide open time must result in chaos. What about 1 Corinthians 14? Paul gives instructions on how to organize church services and he says, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people….everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way" (verses 33 & 40).

Out of context, these phrases sound like Open Ministry is unbiblical. You should sit the members down and let the staff do all the ministry. It's more orderly that way.

But in that same chapter, in fact the verse that begins that same paragraph, is support for open ministry time.

1 Corinthians 14:26 says, "What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up."

In the early church, the expectation was that each of them brought something to the gathering. And Paul's challenge is to find an orderly way to allow everyone to share. Being orderly doesn't mean telling everyone else to shut up and sit down. It's about training the members to operator in an orderly fashion.

Most of the time, even though we all prepared without consulting each other, a clear theme emerges (i.e. many verse and songs about forgiveness). I suppose it shouldn't surprise me, if we're all really listening to the Holy Spirit as we prepare.

Is conflict going to happen from immature members making mistakes? Yes. Is heresy going to be proclaimed by a confused member? Probably. But rather than use that as an excuse to restrict Sunday ministry to the leaders, I see those as reasons to make practice time a high priority. The alternatives are to 1) hope those immature members never try to minister to anyone during the week; or 2) require them to make all their mistakes with those they're trying to impact for Jesus.

Open Ministry isn't preplanned. But it isn't a free-for-all with no rules, either. The leaders of the church have to engage--challenging and encouraging the members as needed. But there's a huge difference between overseeing members who minister to each other and doing all the ministry yourself.