Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: leadership

  • Geoffrey Lentz on Wesleyan Bible Study

    Geoffrey Lentz on Wesleyan Bible Study

    On Thursday I had the privilege of interviewing Rev. Geoffrey Lentz, pastor of First United Methodist Church of Pensacola, regarding characteristics Bible study in the Wesleyan tradition.

    Geoffrey and I have known one another for many years, and authored a book, Learning and Living Scripture, which was published, well, a long time ago. As Geoffrey pointed out in the interview, “Back then, Henry, even you were young.”

    In this video we reference the new imprint, New Fire Press, and two new authored or co-authored by Geoffrey, Bold to Say: Learning and Living the Lord’s Prayer and Project Nebo: Empowering the Generations. Energion Publications (my company) produces this artistically and editorially independent imprint.

    Here’s the video:

    (Featured image combines book covers with an image generated by Adobe’s Firefly Image 3.)

  • Worship Is All About God

    Worship Is All About God

    Bad Ideas I Learned from Good Leaders #3

    “But that’s true!” some of you are thinking. And you’re right. The statement is true. Its usage can be a bad idea.

    I’ve rarely heard this statement from someone who was actually trying to make worship about God. To those of you who use it in that way, my sincere apologies. More frequently, I hear it as a church leader’s response to complaints about the worship service.

    Now let me make an excursus on complaints. If you are a church leader, you are inundated with complaints. You get tired of hearing complaints. You want people to come help or just shut up. This is not unnatural.

    But on the other hand, the people in the congregation have grown used to mediocre leadership by people who are overworked and tired, or who have simply turned their church activity into a dead routine, doing the same thing over and over.

    So people basically give up. The habitual church goers will keep on going, because that’s what they do. The church leadership will go on doing what they do because they have always done so. Both will piously utter the line: “Worship is all about God.” They do this to tell those on the other side that they ought to do it their way.

    I discussed this issue of church work in my first post in this series, Ask Them to Implement Their Own Suggestion. Some of what I suggested there applies here.

    Let me suggest another view. For us, worship is all about God. For God, worship is all about us.

    I came to this conclusion while doing an extended study of Leviticus. People tend to skip over Leviticus. If they’re reading the Bible in a year, they try to get through it as fast as possible and probably remember very little. But when I studied the book with the three volume Anchor Bible commentary (unfortunately out of print) written by the incredibly good scholar Jacob Milgrom, I started to learn differently. Dr. Milgrom made the comment, and I paraphrase from memory, that the tabernacle rituals taught in Leviticus were a training ground.

    It was not that God is going to be injured if we fail to follow a particular ritual. God can handle many different things in worship. Both Judaism, in creating the synagogue service(s), and Christianity in creating our own worship practices now worship God in ways that are very different from those prescribed there. But God wants to accomplish something in us through our worship, and it’s defined in Leviticus, “Be holy for I am holy” (Leviticus 11:44,11:45,19:2,20:7,20:26,21:9).

    And for those Christians who might complain about my basing all this on Leviticus, it’s quoted in 1 Peter 1:14-16: “Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

    One of the things I learned from this study was that it is, in fact, very much about God, and not our desires. That applies to the church leadership, who want to keep everything under control so they don’t have any unpleasant surprises. This applies to the members, who often prefer to have things that entertain them and make them feel good, rather than things that challenge them.

    The question to ask yourself is this: Is the worship service I conduct (if you’re a leader), or attend (if you’re a member) preparing me to be holy before God? If you’re place in this week after week isn’t changing, probably not. If you are simply warming the pew, probably not. But equally, if you are simply a performer entertaining the pew sitters, probably not. I don’t think God is going to accept the excuse that the people wanted to be entertained.

    If you’re going to claim that worship is all about God, then take action as thought that’s the case. If it’s all about God, as God demonstrated in the words of Leviticus, the purpose is to make that holy people. That means worship has to point people to God, help people connect with God, be aware of God’s presence, understand God’s gifts and God’s grace, and let God get to work.

    If the main purpose is getting the same back sides into the same pews next week, then worship is not about God.

    Perhaps we ought to change that.

    (Featured image generated by Jetpack AI.)

  • If You’re Nice, Diversity Will Take Care of Itself

    If You’re Nice, Diversity Will Take Care of Itself

    Bad Ideas I Learned from Good Leaders #2

    I’ve heard this one from so many people that I would hardly know who to blame for it if I wanted to blame someone. I’ve been told that if you will just be nice and positive, you can ignore the differences in your congregation and everything will take care of itself.

    This is incorrect. If you ignore the diversity that is present in your congregation, you will likely encounter a number of problems.

    1. You will find that people will have differing definitions of the boundaries and thus create conflict in the church unnecessarily.
    2. Different people offer different gifts, and if you fail to discover these gifts, there will be missed opportunities.
    3. Problems in the surrounding society may cause division in the church unnecessarily.

    If you don’t believe me on any of this, read 1 Corinthians. Here we have a church with division, and Paul tells them that God has brought them together from differing backgrounds, with different talents, and made them into one body with different gifts. Read especially 1 Corinthians 12. As a follow-up, read Romans 14, or even better Romans 12-14. (I’m not a good proof-text person. Read a few chapters!)

    Note here that I’m not talking about some sort of quota system or diversity inclusion. I believe in inclusiveness, but in this case, I’m assuming what I’ve seen in most churches, and that’s a variety of people already present. The problem is that they are carrying out a one-day-a-week religious program because the church has failed to incorporate them into a single body, the Body of Christ, to have an impact on their world.

    To accomplish this, it is necessary to actively acknowledge the differences among the members of the congregation. These differences should be recognized not for the purpose of a select group of individuals asserting superiority over others, but rather to appreciate the diverse gifts that have been gathered, value those gifts, and collaborate effectively by utilizing all available resources.

    Diversity in any organization is valuable. It allows us to accomplish things that none of us could achieve on our own. The problem is that many of us are so focused on our own strengths and weaknesses that we fail to recognize how others operate and what they can achieve.

    This could be as simple as finding the nerdy young person who doesn’t seem to fit in socially, but who, unknown to you, has a talent with electrical systems and would be able to run your sound system better than anyone else. That young person, being socially uncomfortable, is vanishingly unlikely to volunteer. They probably assume they’ll be pushed aside or ignored for no better reason than that they have been pushed aside and ignored over and over.

    This “different” person doesn’t need you to change their personality. They need you to let them be who they are and do what they are gifted to do. To do this, you need to have a clear understanding of what is a moral difference that is a standard for the church and what is a difference of personality. Too often, we treat Christian discipleship as a personality change.

    Don’t figure that you have to make the Jock do lots of hours of detailed Bible study. God may well have called them to a straightforward understanding of their faith and to be a good, kind, fun loving, and active person. And don’t expect the Nerd to be ready to engage in all those physical and social activities that you think are so essential to life.

    Oh, and don’t expect everyone who gets involved to be ready to serve on a committee. They might be quite willing to take direction but not to spend seemingly endless time discussing.

    In addition, there is value in being clear about the core beliefs of your church (or any other organization for that matter). This is not so you can go hunting for heresy. I recommend a short list of essentials, the common beliefs that unite this specific group. The purpose of clarity is to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings.

    Let me recommend a couple of books to help learn about and deal with diversity, whether in the church or in the community. I commend both of these books for making diversity a value rather than a burden to be borne or a duty to be carried out diligently.

    The first I already mentioned in the first post in this series, Perfectly Square by Dolly Berthelot. This book is short, illustrated, easy-to-read, and fun. It’s not particularly directed at churches. That’s a good thing. Your church is not perfectly square either. Church people are people. There are thought questions and discussion topics listed in the book. It’s good for group reading and discussion.

    It is also not a prescription for programs, but rather it is aimed at changing attitudes and opening up new ways of thinking about the differences we find all over.

    The aim is to recognize these differences and profit from them as a community rather than making them a cause of discord and division.

    The second is a book explicitly for church groups. I Know We’re All Welcome at the Table, but Do I Have to Sit Next to You? Now there’s a long title! But this book provides ideas and courses of action that a community group can use to begin to deal with those people we don’t want to deal with. The focus is on people and groups we may already have identified, probably stereotyped in our minds, and determined that we dislike or worse. How can you get back together.

    My suggestion here is that to really lead we need to learn how to work together, and use all of the diverse gifts and resources we have in our congregations in order to impact our communities.

  • A Sinful Job Description

    Christ's Charge to Peter by Raphael, 1515. In ...
    Image via Wikipedia

    The Christian Post has an article on depression amongst pastors and ministry leaders, which, in turn, links to an article at The Gospel Coalition. Now the Gospel Coalition article is part one of a five part series, so I’m not going to comment on how far they will go before they are done, but I think they could expand on their first item: Unrealistic expectations.

    Not only are our expectations of pastors unrealistic, but they are sinful, and our descriptions of them are deceitful. The surprising thing is not that there are depressed pastors and ministry leaders. The surprising thing is that we have any functional leaders at all! I have long believed that if we described what we want in a pastor in a job description, nobody would be able to fulfill the role.

    What we want, I believe, are Christ figures, who, rather than leading the church, will be the church, and will eventually sacrifice themselves, and probably also their families on behalf of a local church. That local “church” is only a church in name, because they are not behaving as the body of Christ, but rather delegating that task to a paid professional. Visiting the sick and shut-ins, serving in the community, spreading the gospel message, giving, and study of the Word are all functions of everyone, not just one ordained person.

    Just leading the teaching ministry  of a mid-sized congregation would be a solid, full-time job for one person, and that only if he or she spends most of the available time equipping other teachers in the church.

    As long as we have unrealistic–yes, sinful!–expectations enshrined in our church organization, we’re going to have leadership problems, not to mention plain old “living the good news” problems.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Dashboards, Discernment, and Responsible Leadership

    Logo of the United Methodist Church
    Image via Wikipedia

    Yes, that’s a big collection of topics, but I think they’re connected. John Meunier links to an excellent post by Dan Dick, which you should read before you read this one. The topic here is the conference dashboards in United Methodist annual conferences, such as this one for the North Alabama Conference.

    I do have substantial problems with the church dashboard, including a great deal of the way in which the statistics are presented. I also am concerned about numerical measures of success in the church. It’s quite possible to build up numbers and be missing the mission and ministry of the church, and the proclamation of the gospel message. Some people will leave a church that is aiming for full commitment and discipleship. At the same time, as Dan Dick pointed out, some people’s professed disdain for such numbers is the result of laziness. But all of this has been thoroughly discussed amongst the Methodist blogs.

    It seems to me, however, that the use of these numbers on conference dashboards is just a symptom of a certain retreat from personal responsibility. I don’t mean by this that our United Methodist bishops are off trying to avoid hard decisions. Rather, we are systematically trying to codify and quantify so much of human behavior and organizational policy that not only can avoid taking personal responsibility; they must.

    For example, in my district, the district superintendent has 53 churches for which he is responsible, and the conference as a whole has more that 600 pastors, for which our bishop is responsible. Each year, pastoral appointments are made by the bishop, with the advice of the cabinet and many people in the churches, for those 600 churches. I think the temptation is going to be very strong to put some kind of simplified set of numbers on performance. The more details you have to consider, the harder it is to make a choice.

    What I wonder is how often a bishop could get by with ignoring the numbers because, let’s say, one pastor is making better disciples, even if his numbers (for some reason) didn’t look as good. Could the popular pastor with the watered-down message be overlooked in favor of the pastor with the harder message of sacrifice and service? I recognize here that the pastor with the good numbers may be an effective disciple maker. I know some pastors in that category. The pastor with the bad numbers may be either lazy, or much more likely simply too beat up by parishioners, the system, and the unrealistic expectations we have for pastors that he is, in fact, performing badly.

    But can the leadership determine this with accuracy in all (or nearly all) cases? Would they be willing to send the less popular pastor to a larger church?

    It seems to me that collecting statistics is valuable, though I think someone well qualified in analyzing data should rework the conference display. I sense a few cases of deceptive use of numbers. Most importantly, the numbers are not related to the nature of the existing church body and the community in which it is located. All of that requires personal knowledge such as cannot be collected remotely.

    But what if such information was collected and available? Would our leadership be willing to act against popular pressure? I see this as a common problem in leadership, at least in the United States today. We have a problem making a decision and standing up for it. Of course, in employment situations, the decisive leader may well have to present statistics as evidence in court in order to justify a decision.

    That’s one reason for “zero tolerance” policies in so many cases. “Zero tolerance” means that people in leadership don’t have to make responsible, nuanced decisions. But “zero tolerance” is just the extreme case of avoiding responsibility. Putting it all on a set of numbers is another one. It’s a trend I don’t like, even though I recognize it as a response to the other extreme–a complete lack of accountability. (I have tremendous respect for Bishop Willimon, for example, whose dashboard I linked as an example. Yet I’m still not happy with it.)

    I ramble because I don’t know a solution, other than to say we need leaders to take responsibility, and we need to make sure we know who is responsible for what, so they can be accountable. I also think we need to bring leadership closer to the local church so that each person in leadership is responsible for a reasonable number of people and churches. That would allow individuals to seek out all those nuances that back up the numbers.

    I don’t know the solution, and since I am neither a pastor nor a church administrator, and have avoided most church committees, I am probably the wrong person to propose one. What I do believe is that, though structural changes can help, the answer doesn’t lie in precisely how the church is organized. There are congregational style churches that are just as dysfunctional as any Methodist church whose bishop sent the “wrong” pastor.

    What we do need is a change of our personal culture, from that of an organization that must maintain itself to one of gospel driven discipleship.

    Enhanced by Zemanta