You learn a lot when you write a blog.


One of my friends has apparently moved to Budapest. LOTS of people hate Comcast. And just recently a fellow blogger informed me I am a kidney in the body of Christ. (It’s more of a compliment than it sounds.)

Because I learn so much from you all, I’m asking for your help.


Last week Byron Davis invited me to submit a video for an online conference he’s producing for the new Destiny Leader Magazine. He’s asking each contributor to answer two questions about the theme “One Nation Under ? : Living the Gospel in a Post-Christian America.”

Question 1:  How did we get here? 

Question 2: Where do we go from here?


I told Byron I would be honored to participate, but those questions were just a SMIDGE ambiguous for me. Short of packing my entire liberal arts education (existent but foggy) and seminary training (not existent at all) into six minutes, how does one begin to tackle such a huge subject?

Byron replied that while he intentionally wanted to keep the subject broad, the target audience for the conference was ministry leaders looking to engage non-Christians and equip Christians.

“I am hoping everyone speaks from a place God has ‘disturbed’ them,” he said. “I sense an unrest and I am praying that it’s not just me!”

Hmmm. Well, heaven knows there are plenty of things that disturb me, but I don’t think Destiny Leader wants a video about my dislike of “The Bachelor” or my incredulity at the number of people buying their socks at roadside stands. As I think about some of the more serious issues facing us, I’d love your insights. What is causing unrest in your spirit these days? What would you want to say about living the Gospel in our world?

And I don’t want this to be just another talking head pontificating to a video camera, so I’d love some creative ideas for scripting and shooting it.


You are a smart, creative bunch who regularly give me good stuff to think about. I’d love your help on this one—but no kidneys, Joel.

Filed under: people, resources, RM, the church, work Tagged: Byron Davis, Destiny Leader

There is a perception out there that the Christian Standard avoids the hard issues or publishes a “party line” of predictable opinions. As one leader said, “It is narrowly focused in the ghetto of the Restoration Movement.”


I find this ironic because I also read the many letters and website comments that roll into the CS offices criticizing the topics the editors choose to cover or the positions they take.

Here’s a sampling just from current stuff:

“Anyone who would shun small groups, I believe, is of a legalistic nature and is looking for attention” (in response to Brian Jones’ “Why Churches Should Euthanize Small Groups”).

“I am disappointed that Christian Standard would choose to publish or consider this divisive and false doctrine” (in response to Glen Elliott’s “What Should We Believe About Hell?”).

“Why would you even print such a story? Oh, I know, you want to present all sides of an issue…..This time, perhaps you pushed the envelope just a bit too far” (in response to John Mark Hicks’ “God, I Hate You”).

And that’s before you go back into the last few years’ archives for the many articles on creation care, politics, nationalism, Calvinism, the role of women, racial issues, and theology.

In each of these areas, talented authors have explored a variety of perspectives. In fact, I think many of those who spout the Standard’s “protectionist” tendencies actually haven’t read the thing in years.


But more important than defending the magazine to those who have already made up their minds is finding new ways to lead the discussion. There are issues we could be addressing and discussions we need to be having, and younger leaders (who are already grappling with these ideas) from whom we can learn.

To paraphrase one of my colleagues at a planning meeting last week, we can’t gripe about people not coming to the table if we haven’t set a place for them.

So consider the table set.


In its February 6 issue, Christian Standard will launch “Stake,” an every-other-week part of the magazine dedicated to “credentialing the heretics”—the many Christian risk-takers who have not accepted a party line and are asking the tough questions about faith.

The website is already live and packed with great content from our leader, Brian Mavis, and a team of “Stakeholders” including Vince Antonucci, Jim Tune, Troy Jackson and Mark Moore. We’ll be publishing more new stuff each week (sometimes each day) and we’d love your contributions.

Will we address things that shake up our regular readers? Will we attract some new voices? Yes, if we’re doing our job right. But as Brian says in the first issue, “Stake is not about being hip. This is not a place to rag on the Restoration Movement. This is not about dishonoring or discounting our heritage. Though it may be provocative, it is not about being controversial.”

Instead, the point is to provide that place at the table for anyone interested in asking questions, taking risks, discussing ideas, and pointing to Jesus as the Way. We’ll have roundtable discussions (I’ve already completed two; anyone have the spiritual gift of transcription?), videos, and links to resources.  Occasionally there will be a cheesy Christian illustration for a caption contest.

We’ll be encouraged toward unity and discouraged away from legalism. We’ll probably argue a bit. We’ll be challenged to “turn our theology into biography” (which means Brian will regularly suggest new risks for us to take).


I’m really excited to be part of this—I hope you’ll contribute a blog post or two, comment on at least that many, and join the conversation here. There’s a lot at stake.

Filed under: opinions, people, resources, RM, the church, work Tagged: Brian Jones, Brian Mavis, christian standard, Glen Elliott, heretics, Jim Tune, John Mark Hicks, Mark Moore, more at stake, Restoration Movement, Stake, Troy Jackson, unity, vince antonucci

Since I first posted this, my buddy John (who, interestingly, is a super talented musician) has started monthly gatherings for “This Church,” a church using comedy and conversation in its worship instead of music and singing. I’m so proud of the way he’s trying what God has asked him to try, and I’m interested in hearing your thoughts. Worship is more than music, we say—so what’s our response to a church that doesn’t use any?

————————————————————————————————————–

In Christian circles we like to quote Romans 12 and say worship is a lifestyle and not really about music at all. In fact, my blogging comrade Arron wrote a good post about this last week, and I agree with the points he makes.

However, while we say this, we plan “worship services” which usually include mostly music and a sermon. The budgets for “worship” and the “worship staff” and “worship programs” are often some of the largest in the entire church. And many meetings, conferences, blogs, and books revolve around rehearsing, resourcing, and relevant-izing these 15-30 minutes of music each week.


One of my friends plans to start a church that moves away from this focus. In fact, he plans to include no music in their weekly gatherings at all; instead he’ll include observational and improvisational comedy that he believes will connect more easily and more genuinely with a non-Christian crowd.

He asked me to join a small team for a day-long meeting to brainstorm about this new project, and I’d love to hear your thoughts before I fly to California next week. Why has singing and playing music become the only method for corporate worship? Is it a problem for us to know that worship is an attitude of honoring God in every moment but to talk like it’s singing—preferably with ecstatic emotion—for 20 minutes on the weekend? Are there other, equally biblical ways to “do church”?

Filed under: people, resources, the church, worship Tagged: church music, comedy, improv, John O'Campo, THIS CHURCH, worship

I’m tired of the “Don’t blame me, I voted for…..” bumper stickers. Here are some I’d like to see instead:

“No griping about the welfare state until you’ve mentored a teen mom.”

“Yes, abortion is wrong. How many of those unwanted kids would you like to adopt?”

“I got a good education so I’m tutoring someone who didn’t.”




Last week I had the opportunity to participate in a branding strategy meeting with Matthew Barnett and other leaders of the Dream Center in Los Angeles. In a city where 11,000 people sleep on the streets and 17% of all families live below the poverty line, the Dream Center is making a real difference. Food trucks feed 22,000 people each month. Dorm-style housing provides a place for the addicted to begin again. A mobile medical clinic offers treatment, lab work and pharmacy services to the destitute on Skid Row. (In true California style, the Dream Center even provides free chiropractic services at its headquarters.)

It’s trendy for churches to be involved with “social justice” initiatives, and many of them do a lot of good. But Barnett and his team are more interested in sharing the Gospel (thousands worship at Angelus Temple each week) and social transformation (in the Dream Center’s first four years, local prostitution and gang violence dropped 73%, the homicide rate dropped 28% and rape dropped 53%).


The Dream Center operates under the assumption that the Church—not politics, policy or government programs—is the answer to society’s spiritual and tangible needs. Instead of pointing fingers at dishonest politicians, they focus on restoring wholeness to a city ravaged by the father of lies. Instead of waiting for political hope and change, they’re offering real Hope (and a hot meal) to anyone in need.


I was inspired by my day with them, but also frustrated when I opened Facebook that night to see the usual status updates of context-less Bible verses interspersed with opinions about Obama, Glenn Beck, the Tea Party, Fox News and Sarah Palin. I wondered how many of these friends, across the political spectrum, not only trumpeted their views online but quietly volunteered to improve a specific problem in a specific city.

As Christians, we don’t get to complain because we voted for the other guy. We don’t get to blame everything on the red states or the blue states or sit at home wringing our hands over the state of society. We don’t get to say “the local church is the hope of the world” but be content with community outreach consisting of Upward basketball and scrapbooking.

Instead, we get to partner with God in the restoration of all things. The church can do what politicians cannot, and now I’m dreaming about how to be part of it.

Filed under: giving & giving back, opinions, people, the church Tagged: abortion, addict, community service, Dream Center, homeless, inner city, LA, Los Angeles, Matthew Barnett, politics, pro-life, social justice, welfare

A few weeks ago I opened up the blog to guest posts because I knew there were people out there with insights I wasn’t smart enough to think of myself.

Then people began emailing me with ideas and I thought, “Publishing this will confirm that I was not smart enough to think of this myself.”


But in the spirit of humbly taking one for the team I bring you this latest guest post, which also talks about teamwork. Matt Johnson, the author, knows whereof he speaks; he’s the senior minister at Levittown (PA) Christian Church near Philadelphia.

What do you think—are there weaknesses in our church leadership structures? What’s mandatory and what’s optional? Why have we defaulted to the current system?

Share your thoughts. Because I’ll say one thing for guest posts—someone else has to respond to the comments.

———————————————————————————————————

“I don’t like organized religion.” Every few months I run into someone honest and bold enough to say this to my face. “Great,” I respond with a wry smile, “we’re not that organized.”

How about your church? How organized is it? Perhaps a better question: how is it organized? Chances are you either have a CEO or Commander-In-Chief at the top of the flow chart. The Christian churches/churches of Christ are largely the product of frontier America, rugged individualism, and enlightenment thinking, so it’s no surprise that the organizational structures of our long-established churches suspiciously resemble the American government.

“No, no,” you say, “we have elders and deacons, just like the Bible says. Right?” Right. Reality check—we vote a senior minister (president) into office. We elect elders (senators), deacons (representatives), and have board meetings that resemble a joint session of Congress (and are often just as productive).

In many churches we have even initiated term limits for our representatives. Elections and term limits—not sure where to find those in Acts. Matthias was chosen by lot, not ballot.


A more recent development is the emergence of a CEO. Many churches have pragmatically chosen an organizational structure based on a business model. These churches head hunt for the right senior pastor (chief executive officer), hire support staff (vice presidents), and often have outside supervision (board of directors). This business model mentality in the church is why Thom Rainer could make bank by repackaging Jim Collins’ modern business classic Good to Great by researching congregations and calling it Breakout Churches.

Now before anyone gets defensive and holds a committee meeting to condemn this post, let me say I think the New Testament focuses more on principles of leadership than prescribed organizational structure. I am by no means a purist in this area (which will become evident momentarily), and I believe the scriptures are designed to allow flexibility in these matters.

To use a 200-year-old phrase, our organizational structures are man-made innovations. I’m okay with that, as long as we admit it. But I think we have to ask some questions.


First, are our models working? We must admit our current models place a lot of responsibility and authority on one person. In some ways it is an ancient throwback to the days of the mono-episcopate, which was instituted to expedite decisions in times of persecution and instances of heresy. Today some people still see the advantage of one man charting the direction of a church. Others see the dangers. (Insert praise or horror story of a megachurch pastor here.)

Second question: is there a a better way? Maybe. Let me suggest one I’d like to try—the sports model. (I think of it in baseball terms, but you could go with another sport.)


The baseball model would require something distinct from other models—a manager. This person would be responsible not for preaching or teaching, but for calling the shots on the field so that people who are strong in different skills could each perform at their best.

Since I already oversimplified other organizational models, allow me to oversimplify this one. Each church would have one manager (I don’t have a Christianized name for this), pitchers (preaching staff), position players (specialized ministers/deacons) and owners (elders). Additionally, various coaches (mentors) could be brought in from the outside to sharpen the team.


And there is the word—team. This model is truly rooted in a team approach. It does not rely on one person to pitch, hit, manage and take ownership of the team while others take advisory and supplementary roles. It recognizes the diversity of gifts in the church and allows people to serve where they are talented.

This approach could find a nice balance between the value of a manager’s experience and maturity and the benefits of younger staff with fresh talent and energy. It could place the elders in the role of broad-minded vision casters instead of micromanagers. It could allow more members to take their turn on the field and spend less time on the bench (or in the stands).

I’m sure this model has drawbacks. Admittedly, it is radically different from any other model I’ve heard of. It is an innovation (as is any other organizational model), but perhaps one worth exploring.

 

So what about it? Any “pastor emeritus” types want to move to the suburbs of Philly and get back in the game? Until then, please excuse me—I have to attend a meeting with my board…….

Filed under: opinions, people, RM, the church Tagged: baseball, Breakout Churches, church leadership, church staff, deacons, elders, Good to Great, Jim Collins, Levittown Christian Church, manager, Matt Johnson, organizational chart, team, thom rainer