How Do You Do?

As one who teaches pastors and those considering ministry, I often have students ask, “What is the best model of doing church?” They go on to inquire about the emerging church model, the emergent church, and/or the cell church. “What is G12?” they say, or “Is the seeker model still viable?”

Such statements flow from the presumption that the question of how to do church is the most important consideration of all.

Church growth conferences tend to reinforce this. They showcase mega-churches that have experienced skyrocketing growth. They offer workshops on ways to do music, methods of small group ministry, techniques of teaching, processes for assimilating new members, etc. At the risk of being labeled someone against large churches and the value of numeric growth (which I am not) and in contrast to the focus of such conferences, my study of and experience in mega-churches leads me to the conclusion that they have not grown primarily as a result of the way they do church. I believe most large churches (most certainly all the ones I know personally) have “grown” primarily as a result of the person, persona and/or personality of the pastor- but that’s another discussion for another day.

In ministry, growth almost unequivocally means more in numbers. In fact, we really don’t have to clarify what we mean when we say the word growth. It’s now assumed to mean numeric increase. Thus, in a wholesale way we’ve come to measure success very much like the world. The conclusion is that because a church has grown numerically it is effective at reaching lost people- which of course may or may not be true. Also, just because a church has many people and programs does not mean that it is making disciples. Activity does not equal productivity and growing good church attendees does not necessarily equate to developing authentic disciples of Jesus. In fact, some might argue that in the Western world these are polar opposites.

So if the primary goal is gaining more people who attend church (and let’s face it- that is the goal for most pastors) then how to get them there would logically be front and center. But that focus misses the most important consideration of all and I believe pastors dismiss this more critical matter way too quickly. Instead of how, the first consideration should be why... Why are we doing this thing called church?

When was the last time you went to a conference where there was a workshop on that?

Confusing My Vision with God's...

Barna (book: The Power of Vision) defines vision as "A clear mental picture of a preferable future imparted by God to His chosen servants, and based upon an accurate understanding of God, self, and circumstances." Inherent in this definition seems to be the caution that vision should come from God and should possess a congruence in it's relationship to the leader's theology, self-awareness, and to the context in which the vision will be implemented.

As a church researcher, Barna's wisdom in this definition may stem from experiences of churches replete with leaders who believe that their dream equals God's vision- as if God has committed himself to finance our plans. Leaders become passionate about their hopes and aspirations, and then ask God to bless them, calling it His vision for the church. Or, even visions granted by God initially, can be held so tightly by leaders that they in essence steal it away from God- and possibly disqualify themselves from being a part of its achievement.

Wagging the Dog...

As defined, systematic theology informs our understanding of God and enhances our ability to bring the parts of the Bible into congruence with the whole. Some might make a disctinction between systematic theology and biblical theology, saying that many "theologies" are not rooted in God's Word from a conservative/evangelical stance. Conservative theologians would vie for a biblical-systematic theology... and I would agree with that terminology. Yet with either, the solution that any systematic theology brings may create a more serious problem.

When theologians adjust the interpretation of Scripture to fit a theological system, they(we) commit a grave error. As the saying goes, the tail is now wagging the dog. We should remember that any “system” is ours and that the Bible is not primarily a systematic theology- just as nature is not a system of chemistry or mechanics. If we're not careful, we end up defining nature, or God, only through the lens of our system.

The scientific positivism of the 20th century has created a mental model that says that truth is known only through a scientific method (i.e. a "system"). Theology, just like many other disciplines of knowledge, has been deeply influenced by this paradigm. When we overlay our system (or framework) on top of the Scripture to make God's Word make sense to us- then we inherently are tempted to downplay the power of the paradoxes (some would say contradictions) found in the Bible and seek to resolve every irresolvable. A systematic theology is an a posteriori position and it remains secondary to what the Bible says at face value. Exegesis is our first commitment, followed then by hermeneutics, from which a systematic theology flows.

Systematic theologies are beneficial, but they are imperfect. I have known theolgians more committed to a systematic theology than to simply what the Bible says. These people fall prey to the need to squeeze the square peg of what the Bible says into their system's round hole. At this point, they tread on thin ice to make the Bible say something that it possibly does not.

In response to the need...

The more I interact with people in leadership, the more I believe a conversation is necessary. Beyond a video or a lecture, people need to dialogue about the difficult and complex world of leadership. Leadership carries with it unique challenges unlike any other sphere of life. Leadership undulates to impact not only our positions of influence and the measure of effectiveness we experience in work or ministry- but also to our sense of identity, our families and our general well-being. When leadership is good, life tends to be good. But the nature of leadership itself involves change and challenge. As a result, ambiguity develops, complexity rises, and the leader struggles for answers. Unfortunately, in response to this reality, the content of leadership has often only been comprised of trite and insufficient cliches. Leadership is demanding. Leaders often feel alone. They need to express thoughts and process principles- and the need for encouragement has never been greater.

My heart for leaders and my experience in leadership has brought me to create this blog and provide a community for people to interact- people who happen to be leaders- people who want to make a difference. My prayer is that I will be an encouragement to you, that together we will inspire each other to continue and to conquer, and that joy will be ours in the journey of leadership.

Mike