Are You Ready to be a Leader?

Are You Ready to be a Leader?

April 9, 2013 from http://www.ronedmondson.com/2013/04/are-you-ready-to-be-a-leader-2.html

Elegant leader

I had a young man ask me recently, “Do you think I’m ready to be a leader?”

I said:

Great question. Glad you’re asking.. But, honestly, I don’t know that I’m the one to answer.

It might help if I ask you some questions:

Are you ready to stand alone at times?

Are you ready to push through fear?

Are you ready to do the right thing even when it’s the unpopular thing?

Are you ready to be misunderstood sometimes…okay…many times?

Are you ready to sacrifice for your team?

Are you ready to see things others may not yet be able to see?

Are you ready to enter the unknown…first?

Are you ready to keep confidences?

Are you ready to delegate?

Are you ready to see all sides of an issue?

Are you ready to sometimes feel like the weight of a vision is on your shoulders?

Are you ready to face conflict?

Are you ready to have your integrity closely observed by your followers?

Are you ready to receive criticism?

Are you ready to defend your team?

How’d your answers go?

Are you ready to be a leader?

Seven Distinguishing Characteristics of Unified Churches by Thom Rainer

Seven Distinguishing Characteristics of Unified Churches by Thom Rainer

The exercise was simple. I made a list of over 30 of the most unified churches I know. Some of them have been my clients in the past. I then made a list of over 40 fragmented churches (they were easier to find). From that point I began to answer my own questions: What makes this church look like it’s unified? What makes this other church look like it’s fragmented?

I then compared my two columnar lists to find the greatest contrasts between the two groups. When it was all said and done, seven characteristics stood out.

  1. Longer-term pastorates. The average tenure of a pastor in the unified churches was an amazing 8.2 years. The pastoral tenure in the fragmented churches was 2.1 years.
  2. Shorter and less frequent business meetings. Slightly less than half of the unified churches had annual business meetings only. Only two had monthly business meetings. The remainder of the unified churches had quarterly business meetings. All but four of the fragmented churches had monthly business meetings.
  3. Balance of ministries for members and outreach ministries for non-members and non-Christians. While I cannot say that the balance is 50-50, there were certainly more outreach ministries in the unified churches than in the fragmented churches. The latter group of churches focused their ministries on their members.
  4. Celebrate new Christians more. In the unified churches, the greatest joy expressed by members was hearing about people becoming followers of Christ. During one service where 14 new believers were baptized, the excitement was palpable. The fragmented churches tended to celebrate building programs more.
  5. Highly intentional small group or Sunday school ministries. The unified churches exhorted everyone to get into a small group or Sunday school class. The fragmented churches usually had those ministries, but they were not a point of emphasis.
  6. Emphasis on corporate prayer. The unified churches’ members prayed a lot together. The fragmented churches’ members did not.
  7. Most ministries led by laity. Most of the ministries, even the largest and most important, were led by laypersons. To the contrary, the fragmented churches typically insisted that a ministry had to be led by a ministry staff leader.

Of course, I don’t know which of these characteristics were cause or effect. Do you see anything in your church that adds to its unity or fragmentation?

Tom Rainer: The Main Reason People Leave a Church

The Main Reason People Leave a Church - from thomrainer.com by Thom Rainer

Numbers of gifted persons and organizations have studied the phenomenon of the church “back door,” the metaphorical way we describe people leaving the church. And there will always be the anticipated themes of relocation or personal crises. We should recognize those issues, though we can respond to the latter more than the former.

But all the research studies of which I am aware, including my own, return to one major theme to explain the exodus of church members: a sense of some need not being filled. In other words, these members have ideas of what a local congregation should provide for them, and they leave because those provisions have not been met.

Certainly we recognize there are many legitimate claims by church members of unfulfilled expectations. It can undoubtedly be the fault of the local congregation and its leaders.

But many times, probably more than we would like to believe, a church member leaves a local body because he or she has a sense of entitlement. I would therefore suggest that the main reason people leave a church is because they have an entitlement mentality rather than a servant mentality.

Look at some of the direct quotes from exit interviews of people who left local congregations:

  • “The worship leader refused to listen to me about the songs and music I wanted.”
  • “The pastor did not feed me.”
  • “No one from my church visited me.”
  • “I was not about to support the building program they wanted.”
  • “I was out two weeks and no one called me.”
  • “They moved the times of the worship services and it messed up my schedule.”
  • “I told my pastor to go visit my cousin and he never did.”

Please hear me clearly. Church members should expect some level of ministry and concern. But, for a myriad of reasons beyond the scope of this one blogpost, we have turned church membership into country club membership. You pay your dues and you are entitled to certain benefits.

The biblical basis of church membership is clear in Scripture. The Apostle Paul even uses the “member” metaphor to describe what every believer should be like in a local congregation. In 1 Corinthians 12:12-31, Paul describes church members not by what they should receive in a local church, but by the ministry they shouldgive.

The solution to closing the back door, at least a major part of the solution, is therefore to move members from an entitlement mentality to a servant mentality. Of course, it is easy for me to write about it, but it is a greater challenge to affect it.

May I then offer a few steps of a more practical nature to help close the back door by changing the membership mentality? Here are five:

  1. Inform church members. Though I do not have precise numbers, I would conjecture that more than one-half of church members do not have a biblical understanding about church membership. Providing that information in a new members’ class can move an entire congregation toward a servant mentality.
  2. Raise the bar of expectationsWe have dumbed down church membership in many congregations to where it has little meaning. Clarify expectations of members. Again, doing so in the context of a new members’ class is a great way to begin.
  3. Mentor members. Take two or three members and begin to mentor them to become biblical church members. After a season, ask them to mentor two or three as well. Let the process grow exponentially.
  4. Train membersAlmost 100 percent of pastors agree that their role is to train and equip members. But almost three-fourths of these pastors have no plans on how they will train them (see Ephesians 4:11-13). I will address this issue more fully on my blog next Wednesday.
  5. Encourage people to be in small groups. Those in Sunday school classes and small groups are more likely to be informed and functioning church members. In others words, there is a much greater likelihood of a member with a servant mentality to be in a small group than not.

What are you doing in your church to close the back door? What are you doing to move members from an entitlement mentality to a servant mentality?

What Would Jesus Make of “Passion” (Conferences)? Guest Blog by Austin Fischer

A repost from Roger’s Blog January 9, 2013: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2013/01/what-would-jesus-make-of-passion-conferences-guest-blog-by-austin-fischer

What Would Jesus Make of Passion? by Austin Fischer (Teaching Pastor, The Vista Community Church, Belton/Temple, Texas)

 Hooray Excellence!

 At the moment I’m writing this, there are 60,000 college students gathered inside the Georgia Dome in Atlanta. They are singing worship songs, listening to sermons, and gathering what will no doubt be a massive offering that will go towards combating human trafficking. It’s pretty unbelievable stuff, but the Passion conferences specialize in the unbelievable.

Cutting edge media, excellent musicians, famous speakers. If we’re going to be candid, it’s refreshing to see something “Christian” also be something of such exceptional quality. You could invite an agnostic friend to it and not blush at the prospects of asking him to pay a couple hundred bucks to attend something that feels like a home-school prom. I like excellence, you like excellence, we all like excellence, and I think Jesus does too. Hooray excellence!

That said, as I was reading the tweets of a number of my students who are at Passion, a question kept bouncing around inside my head. Maybe I was asking it of God or maybe God was asking it of me—I often can’t tell the difference. But either way, the question was, “What would Jesus make of Passion?”

Now I know, I know. The question is both loaded and brutally anachronistic, but it just kept asking itself to me. Spoiler alert: I have no idea what Jesus would make of Passion. But here’s some stuff I threw up against the wall. Maybe some of it sticks.

Thought #1…Temple = Georgia Dome

I remember the first time I went to a Passion conference. I was a senior in high school and together with my youth pastor and a few friends, we made the trek to Sherman, Texas. And from the beginning, the trip had a certain vibe to it, a vibe I’ve since learned is the anticipation of pilgrimage.

Religious pilgrimages—as far as I can tell—stretch back to the beginning of human history. There’s something primeval and elemental about the act of going on a journey to a place where we believe we will encounter something transcendent. In the Hebrew Bible, we see God commanding the Jews to make yearly pilgrimages to “appear before the Lord God” (Exodus 34:18-23). Once the Temple was built, these pilgrimages would culminate there, the place where heaven and earth came together. Indeed for a Jew, the Temple was the holiest place in the whole universe. They traveled there because God was uniquely there.

And by way of crude parallelism, it would appear that what the Temple was for an ancient Jew, the Georgia Dome is now for many young-adult, American evangelicals. They take a yearly pilgrimage to the Dome because they feel it is a place where God is uniquely present.

“Cleansing” the Temple?

So what do we make of this? The first thing that came to my mind was Matthew 21 and Jesus’ “cleansing” of the Temple. I put cleansing in quotations because contra popular belief, NT scholars point out that Jesus is not cleansing the Temple so much as he is shutting it down. Flipping over the tables of the money-changers and seats of the dove-sellers (21:12)—these are not acts of purification but condemnation. The exchanging of pagan coins for Jewish coins and the selling of animals for sacrifice were both essential for Temple worship. The Temple didn’t need rehabilitation. It needed to die.

But not because God hates buildings; rather, the Temple needed to die because Jesus was replacing it. Jesus was a one-man, walking Temple; the place where heaven and earth came together and God was uniquely present to his people. As N.T. Wright says, “What the gospels offer us is a God who is in the midst [of us] in and as Jesus the Messiah…Jesus himself is the new Temple at the heart of the new creation…And so this Temple, like the wilderness tabernacle, is a temple on the move, as Jesus’ people go out, in the energy of the Spirit, to be the dwelling of God…”[1]

Now from one angle it’s tempting to connect these dots. Jesus shut down the Temple because he was replacing it. The Georgia Dome has become a new Temple. Jesus would walk into the Georgia Dome and flip over the merch tables and slam Chris Tomlin’s guitar, Garth Brooks style. And while that sort of simplistic reasoning certainly won’t do, I do think it raises some interesting questions regarding the pilgrimage/Temple mentality that so clearly permeates the Passion ethos. So here go a few thoughts…

(c)hurch

Jesus didn’t shut down the Temple because it was evil. He shut it down because it was obsolete and no longer needed. God was doing a new thing, was making himself present to his world and his people in a new way, and the Temple didn’t have a place in this new creation. God was now present to his people through the Spirit and was present to the whole world through his Spirit-filled community = the church. And I put church in lower case on purpose. Local churches made up of normal people doing normal things…this is the God-appointed medium of God’s presence and grace to the world. Not a Temple. Not a yearly pilgrimage. And dare I say, not a trip to the Georgia Dome.

To be sure, many Passion attendees love their local church and their pilgrimage to the Dome is a noble period of spiritual refreshment. But I don’t mind going out on a limb and suggesting that for a great many attendees—perhaps the majority—Passion is the most spiritual moment of the year. It is the standard by which all other spiritual moments will be judged. They’ll have to wait a year to feel this close to God again because it’ll be a year before they’re back here, singing the resounding chorus to an awesome song, having just listened to a sermon from their favorite celebrity pastor, all while their eyes are dazzled by the glitz and glamour of it all. It will be a chore to wade through the ordinariness of actual church life for another year.

As I once told a college student, if Passion is the most spiritual moment of your year, a.) I feel bad for you…b.) you’re not going to be able to love and serve your actual church.

And that’s because your actual church actually has to be the church. It has to deal with crying babies, botched song transitions, average sermons by not-famous people, and a budget for the year that is half that for 4 days of Passion. It’ll never measure up and so you’ll probably bail and look for a church that will feed your Passion addiction (if only Passion could be a church…or wait…it is ;) or you’ll stay and complain and never put down any real roots.

I inhabit and am thus aware of a rather small sliver of reality that I know as my life, and speaking from here, this is not hypothetical. I work with college students, I watch it happen, and I deal with the aforementioned phenomena. For the longest time, I didn’t quite know what to call it and I still don’t. But I know it involves a skewed understanding of the spiritual life in which a streamlined, hyper-spiritualized gathering has replaced the gritty reality of incarnation, of learning to be a human, among other humans, through whom God is reconciling the world to himself. It invigorates the spiritual life to be sure, but it does so by immersing them in something that just doesn’t seem to bear much resemblance to the real world.

And so as ironic as it may sound, maybe what Passion is doing is not progressive or ground-breaking so much as it is, well, antiquated. That’s hyperbolic to be sure but maybe, just maybe, Passion needs to make sure it doesn’t build something that Jesus already tore down. And I really hope it doesn’t build it on top of the church.

Thought #2…Going Vegan in a Steakhouse

Maybe you don’t buy the “Passion or church” thought above. Maybe you think you can have your cake and eat it too. I’m not so convinced most people can, but moving on, thought #2 is something I hope we can all agree on, even though it is uncomfortable.

So I’m told that at the beginning of this year’s Passion conference, Louie Giglio got up, surveyed the energy and buzz of 60,000 students packed into the Dome and said, “Is this not incredible?” He went on to talk about how Passion has become a global movement, impacting millions of lives and followed that up by telling the story of a student who had been addicted to drugs, but as a result of last year’s conference is a year clean. Louie then said, “The testimony of these days in the Dome will be, ‘I know that He is the Lord,’ and ‘I know He can do immeasurably more because He did it in my life,’ and ‘I don’t need an event, I don’t need a Dome, I need Jesus’.”

“I don’t need an event. I don’t need a Dome. I need Jesus.” Amen! See, Louie and company know it’s about Jesus and not an event. But let’s allow ourselves to sit with the irony for a moment. Louie stands before a crowd of 60,000 people, in the Georgia Dome, talking about how this is a global movement, telling a story about how this event helped a guy be sober for a year…and he says, “I don’t need an event, I don’t need a Dome…” But Louie, you’re in the Dome, at an event, hyping the event. We hear you saying something about not needing a Dome, but it’s hard for us to take you seriously when your face is being projected on that 5-story tall LED screen suspended in the middle of the Dome.

Perhaps it’s something like taking a group of people to the best steakhouse in town, providing them with a buffet of the finest cuts available, all the while telling them that eating meat is wrong and we should all go vegan. You can talk to people about the virtues of going vegan all day long, but as long as you’re feeding them steak, I doubt they’re really listening to you. And perhaps even more importantly, I question whether you really want them to listen to you.

Means = Message

There is a more technical way to say all of this: your means is your message. When delivering a message, our words are not the only things that communicate. Everything communicates, and in particular, the “way you do things” communicates, perhaps the loudest. I’ll borrow an example from an excellent book.

Kent Carlson and Mike Lueken were the pastors at one of those suburban, fast-growing, soon to be mega-churches. Fearing they were bordering on becoming a “seeker-sensitive” church, they started really emphasizing discipleship from the pulpit. But they noticed it wasn’t changing the culture of their church. It was still trending towards consumerism and impotent discipleship. What was the problem? In their own words, “We couldn’t merely change the words we used to communicate the gospel because there were too many other messages ingrained in the Oak Hills culture that would contradict our words.”[2]

In other words, you want to make sure you’re creating disciples and not voyeuristic consumers? Then you’re going to need more than words spoken in a context that contradicts everything you’re saying. It’s naïve to think we can hook people with a massive, consumer experience, and then not expect them to act like consumers. As Carlson and Lueken say, “Our attractional methods are not neutral. We are training people as we attract them.”[3]

Some Conclusions

So what would Jesus make of Passion? I don’t know. I think he’d enjoy hearing 60,000 people singing to him. I think he’d love a massive offering taken up to combat human trafficking. I think he’d rejoice in the refreshment and repentance taking place. And as mentioned earlier, I think he’d enjoy the excellence of it all. These are—in and of themselves—indisputably good things. But I’m not sure what he would think about the new Temple we’ve constructed, the celeb-pastor cults, or the Passion fever. But deconstruction is easy, so how about a little reconstruction.

I suggest this: Do some massive downsizing for Passion next year. Minimal media, no celeb-pastors or musicians. Get people who are good, just not famous…they’ll cost less. Maybe just leave the regular lights on. Maybe you could charge $50 instead of $200. By my calculations, that’s somewhere around $10 million dollars you’ll save the attendees. Then, challenge everyone who attends to put that $150 they saved at Passion towards their local church’s budget. Or if they really hate their local church and don’t believe in it enough to give $150, then give it to Compassion, International Justice Mission, etc. And then maybe Louie could stand up in the Dome in front of 60,000 people and say, “I don’t need a dome, I don’t need an event, I just need Jesus”, and we’d actually be able to hear him.

And one more thing. We Christians do have an unfortunate tendency to be cynical towards things that are doing well—especially when it’s not “our” thing. Whatever the psychology behind it, it’s all too easy to be swept away by some latent notion that if it’s Christian and successful/excellent than there must be something wrong with it. The success and excellence of Passion should be something we rejoice in. But success and excellence—from a truly kingdom perspective—are things only achieved through ruthless self-evaluation and continual repentance. Like most things, I don’t think the Passion conferences are all black or all white. Like most of us, they do some good things and bad things. So here’s to exposing the hype and nourishing the good.

 

 


[1] N.T. Wright, How God Became King, 239.

[2] Carlson and Lueken, Renovation of the Church, 57.

[3] Ibid., 67.

When leadership decisions aren’t easy… you really only have three options

When leadership decisions aren’t easy… you really only have three options

 from MMI Weblog by Todd Rhoades

Carey Nieuwhof shares some valuable advice when decisions are really hard to make?

Ever been there?

Well… it turns out you only have three real possibilities when it comes to your decision… this should help you get a good start.  Carey writes:

Option 1.  Make no decision.

Sadly, this is what many leaders do. Faced with competing voices and competing visions, they refuse to choose one over another because it would mean wading into the inevitable conflict that would follow if they made a choice. They just retreat.

When you fail to make a decision, organizational drift and paralysis follow. The whole group gets stuck, and leaders (who are waiting for you to lead) drift away in search of someone who will lead them. Everyone loses.

Option 2. Try to please everyone. 

This is only a slight variation of option 1. Leaders who try to please everyone will bend their vision until it isn’t a vision anymore, only a compromise. Of course you realize what you end up doing: pleasing no one. But that doesn’t matter. Because people pleasers always choose the short term gain that results in long term pain.

Option 3. Separate the competing visions, and choose one. 

Essentially, when you have several ‘good visions’ the problem you face is not choosing between the ‘good’ one and the ‘bad’ one. The bad visions were eliminated or disappeared long ago. The reason choosing between good visions is so difficult is that most leaders don’t have the courage to simply pick one and run with it. So you resort to options 1 and 2.

The best thing you can do is prayerfully consult with wise counsel and pick a vision.

Just decide. And then move on.

Leading Change – Thom Rainer

When Leaders Lead Change Too Quickly  from thomrainer.com

Ron Johnson is not off to a good beginning. The former Apple retail leader is now CEO of J. C. Penney. The most recent quarterly results are not encouraging. After making wide, sweeping changes, same store sales have dropped 26 percent and stock prices are at a three-year low.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, is attempting a turnaround at Hewlett-Packard. The challenge is daunting. Though she has a long-term strategy in place, many people believe she is moving too slowly.

A pastor of a large church recently resigned after leading the congregation in several major changes. Attendance at the church dropped precipitously as many members voted against the changes with their feet.

At another large church just twenty miles away, the pastor is moving so slowly that people are also moving out. They are waiting on this leader to provide visionary leadership, but he is simply too reticent to move forward.

Volumes have been written on change, the pace of change, and the consequences of change. In simplest terms, leaders move at a perfect pace, too slowly, or too rapidly. In this brief article, I address what fast-paced leaders should consider. I offer five basic issues these leaders should grasp.

Understand the Change Tolerance of Those Directly Impacted

Some fast-paced leaders look at the organization only from their perspective. They fail to put themselves in others’ shoes to consider what this change might feel like to those directly impacted. These aggressive leaders need to ask more questions and listen more carefully. They may be surprised to hear how those directly impacted will respond to the proposed changes.

Understand That Change Tolerance Is Contextually Driven

I have seen too many leaders move to a new area and assume that change tolerance would be very close to their previous place of leadership. If they came from an organization that dealt well with change, they might assume that the same leadership pace would work at the new organization. Unfortunately, many leaders have been burned when they discover their assumptions to be wrong. Many contextual factors affect the tolerance level of change. Again, it is incumbent upon leaders to know their contexts and how to lead in those contexts. Listening to the stories of those in the organization is vital to this process.

Understand That Most Change Resistance Is Emotional, Not Rational

Such is the reason that well-thought, calmly-presented, rationally-explained reasons for change might not be well received. The leader must understand the hearts of those impacted, not only the heads. Why are they so emotionally attached to the status quo? What stories can the leader share that would address the hearts of those feeling the changes?

Understand That Leaders Must Have Sufficient Tenure to Deal with the Change

Too many leaders initiate change but fail to see the obstacles before them. As a consequence, they often leave before the changes are fully implemented. The organization is thus left with frustrated people and a void of leadership. If a leader is seeking to lead change, he or she must be willing to stay at the organization a sufficient time to see the change accomplished, and to deal with any aftermath caused by the change.

Understand That Leaders Must Understand Themselves in Leading Change

Self-awareness is vital here. If you are a slow-change leader in a fast-paced organization, you will likely encounter frustration and impatience. If you are a fast-paced leader in a slowly-moving organization, you will likely encounter resistance and resentment. A good simple exercise is to rank yourself on your comfort with the pace of change on a scale of one to ten. Then do the same for the organization you lead. If you have a gap greater than two, you have major work to do before you even begin to lead change. Sometimes the work must be done on yourself. At other times, there is greater work to do in the organization. The gap must be closed or the leader will find himself in a position of frustration and, ultimately, failed leadership.

Should A Pastor Be Fired For Teaching Calvinism?

Should A Pastor Be Fired For Teaching Calvinism?

Submitted by SEA on Mon, 10/15/2012 – 7:03am

written by SEA member Roy Ingle

I saw a brief post the other day where a Calvinist brother was complaining about a pastor who was fired for teaching, in his words, “the doctrines of grace” or for us Arminians, that would be Calvinism. Do I believe this should take place?

A couple of thoughts about this.

First, was the church an Arminian church? If so, the man out of integrity should have resigned and moved on to a Calvinist church. I had a friend who was Assemblies of God which is historically an Arminian fellowship. This brother embraced Calvinism and I applaud him because rather than try to argue with the Assemblies of God, he resigned from the fellowship and moved on to Reformed Baptist church. Though I disagree with his Calvinism, I applaud him for having the integrity to not lie to the Assemblies of God and moving on. If the man above was pastoring an Arminian church and he began to teach “the doctrines of grace” then I too would have asked for his resignation. He would know that the fellowship is not a Calvinist fellowship and yet he sought to undermine the fellowship by bringing division into the church with his teachings. This is neither biblical nor right. Would a Calvinist appreciate an Arminian taking a Calvinist pulpit and teaching the “doctrines of grace” as we see them in Arminius? I suspect not.

Secondly, I believe it is dishonest not to tell a church what you believe if in fact you disagree with their views. I know of one man who pastored an Assemblies of God church and he not only embraced Calvinism but he openly opposed the Assemblies of God. It took the A/G’s over a year to get the church to remove him and he left with about half of the congregation to start near by Reformed Baptist church. I believe this man was not honest with his church nor with the Assemblies of God. The A/G’s require each pastor once a year to agree with the A/G doctrines and practices. If they disagree, they can resign and move on. It is dishonest to say you agree with an Arminian fellowship simply to keep your position and promote teachings that are contrary to the fellowships teachings.

I know that some Calvinists will say that Calvinism is the pure gospel and that Arminianism is man-centered theology that needs to be corrected. But honestly, do you believe that a person should lie to a board of elders to keep a position with which they are secretly disagreeing? Do you believe that the Spirit of God would lead a person to openly bring division to a church that knowingly disagrees with that said position?

1 Corinthians 1:10 says that we should all speak the same thing. This doesn’t mean that we all agree on all issues but rather that we agree on the essentials of the gospel. Arminians and Calvinists do agree on the essentials. Should we divide a fellowship which disagrees with our own views while at the same time appearing to agree with that fellowship outwardly? I believe honesty requires that we should confess our views if they are opposed to the fellowship that we are apart of, especially if we are involved in teaching the Word of God. I believe that no Arminian should seek to divide a Calvinist church nor vise versa. If we disagree with the fellowship, resign and attend a fellowship that agrees with your biblical views.

For the original post, go to: http://arminiantoday.com/2012/10/14/should-a-pastor-be-fired-for-teachin…

Love America – But Don’t Worship It – Speak the Truth of Jesus to It

Shel Boese / Shelby Boese – I have spoken often saying: “I love America (The U.S.) – but I love Jesus more” at Mercy Church.  I am always concerned with the Civil Religion version of Jesus in America.  This article helps make that point clearer.  I fear the Ds and Rs often worship their parties and their own version of Americanism.

 

Is Americanism the Fourth Biblical World Religion? (Partial Review of Peter Leithart’s Between Babel and the Beast)

August 30, 2012 By 

Is Americanism the Fourth Biblical World Religion? (Partial Review of Peter Leithart’s Between Babel and the Beast)

Some time ago I posted two reviews of Peter Leithart’s Defending Constantine. At the end of the second one I suggested that he publish a sequel explaining his view of empire and especially Christianity and empire.

Well, perhaps that book has been published. This year (2012) Cascade Books (imprint of Wipf & Stock) has published Leithart’s contribution to its Theopolitical Visions series. Its title is Between Babel and the Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective.

I’m not sure yet (I’ve read all but the last part of the book) whether this book answers the questions I raised about Leithart’s vision of Christianity and empire in relation to Defending Constantine, but right now that’s not my interest.

I cannot recommend highly enough especially Part II of Between Babel and the Beast (henceforth BBB): “Americanism.” It’s an incisive critique of what David Gelernter has identified as the “fourth biblical world religion.” Leithart agrees with Gelernter and goes so far as to label America “a heretic nation.” (71)

Before saying more about BBB (and here I’m going to restrict myself to Part II), let me give a little background. A few months ago a local newspaper published a column by business guru and writer Mark Stevens. Here’s its original publication (on line edition):http://www.msco.com/blog/i-spell-god-with-stars-and-stripes/. (I’m typing this in Word and it’s hyperlinked; if that doesn’t show up when I copy and paste this into my blog, please hyperlink it yourself or cut and paste it into the address box of a web browser.)

Stevens’ theme was that his religion is America. If you peruse the web using key words like “Americanism” you’ll see that he’s not alone.

But Leithart’s message is not about people who explicitly affirm that their religion is America; it’s about how America has come to regard itself as “God’s New Israel.” But it’s even worse than just that. Here is one quote that will give you a sense of what Leithart is saying about America and Americanism: “America became an agent not of God’s kingdom but an instrument for the spread of American institutions and American culture, and there was a tendency to see America ‘basking in [God’s] permanent favor.’ … Throughout American history, orthodoxy has been strong enough to check the danger of deifying America itself—check, but not eliminate. But the intellectual structure is in place for Americanists to think those who worship America are offering service to God.” (72)

In a relatively short space and with comparatively few words, Leithart goes through American history, quoting American leaders and retelling the stories of America’s treatment of people considered a threat to its prosperity, with the result that one cannot deny the reality, throughout its history, of American exceptionalism. Leithart affirms that America is exceptional, but it has inflated its self-image and pride to monstrous proportions so that today, as at some times in the past, “American exceptionalism” means whatever America does is automatically right.

Now, lest anyone think Leithart (or I) is anti-American; he’s not and he makes that clear. He is decidedly for America and the best think a person can do for someone or something he/she is for is point out their flaws. (Remember the line of the patriotic song America the Beautiful that says “God mend thy every flaw?”) Leithart talks also about the great and wonderful American ideals and services to humanity. But those do not justify ignoring the heresy of Americanism.

Leithart says “We [America] are not the new Israel, nor the last best hope of mankind, nor the novus ordo saeclorum. Insofar as Americans have believed and acted on those convictions, we have been quite literally a heretic nation.” (82)

Sometimes Leithart’s rhetoric can be off putting even when his intention is exhilarating. Here’s a typical example: “Americanism is the monstrous Nephilim that people the earth when the sons of God intermarry the daughters of men. Americanist Christians are Joktanites who uncritically join Nimrod in building Babel. Americanism is ideology with the mythical power to bewitch a Babel into thinking it is Persia, a distorting mirror that might fool a predator into believing he sees the reflection of a cherub.” (82-83) Huh?

Now, I’m sure you have questions about Leithart’s message. I can do no better than strongly recommend that you get the book and read it—especially Part II. It’s prophetic, convicting, challenging, worth considering even if you don’t agree with everything the author says.

One thing I want to clarify for Leithart, lest anyone misunderstand, is that his main target of criticism is not America per se but American Christians, American churches, that have not only allowed this situation to develop but have actually contributed to it. He gives many examples. He doesn’t mention this, but one cannot help but think of the absolutely over-the-top church services of worship of America that take place all across the country on the Sunday before July 4.

I think I have met many Christians over the years whose real religion is America, not Jesus Christ. And that is the case not because they replace Jesus with America but because they insert America into Jesus. That is, they confuse the two so that Jesus becomes for them the American Lord—not Lord over America, but Lord who especially favors and sanctions America in everything it is and does.

Whenever the cross and the flag are merged, the heresy of Americanism is symbolized.

Some time ago I went to the web site of a major evangelical drug treatment program. The first thing I saw at their welcome page was just that—the cross and the American flag merged. That’s a symbol of the heresy Leithart is condemning.

So far Leithart hasn’t really talked about the solution, but the first step is obvious—Christians and churches must step away from American exceptionalism and even speak out against it insofar as it implies that America is always right and stands above basic principles of ethics such as just war and humane treatment of captives.

Next I will talk about Leithart’s own view of Christian empire, insofar as I am able to discern what that may be.

Perry Noble: NINE THINGS THAT EVERY LEADER STRUGGLES WITH & HOW TO OVERCOME THEM (PART TWO)

Perry Noble: NINE THINGS THAT EVERY LEADER STRUGGLES WITH & HOW TO OVERCOME THEM (PART TWO)

  • Thursday, August 16, 2012
Yesterday we began talking about the top nine things that leaders struggle with (we compiled this list as a result of an informal survey I did via twitter last week.)  We covered the first five already…today we will dive into the last four…

BUT…before we go there we must be reminded that…

GOD’S WORD > HOW I FEEL

#6 – Confronting People When Necessary – If you LOVE confrontation then most likely you are a rear end that nobody likes!!!  Confrontation is not fun…but is completely necessary if a church is going to maximize it’s potential and reach as many people as possible.  Reality is that if you are at a leadership table and you disagree with something mentally then you have an obligation to disagree verbally–PERIOD!  Not in a mean spirited or unkind way…but, with a humble and sincere approach.

The Apostle Paul had a pretty tough confrontation at one point…but we see in Galatians 2:11-14 that he did it.  If you see something wrong with the church or with someone else and you do not confront them then you do not love them.

#7 – Insecurity – Every leader I know has dealt with insecurity at some point.  One of the key verses that I’ve had to rely on during my most insecure moments is Philippians 1:6, that IF HE BROUGHT ME TO IT THEN HE WILL LEAD ME THROUGH IT!!!  Insecure moments should not cause us to feel less secure about who we are but rather more secure in who God is!!!  If He is with us (Isaiah 41:10) then we should lead and live like it.

#8 – Failure – There isn’t a leader on the planet that rolled out of bed this morning and said, “Dear Lord, I would love to just blow it today, would you please allow me to make a mistake SO HUGE that I never want to show my face again, amen!”  No one wants to make a mistake, but, we do…two things to keep in mind regarding this…

  • If you are going to fail, fail forward (John Maxwell wrote an EXCELLENT book on this, if you have not read it I highly recommend it!)  Proverbs 24:16 says that one of the distinguishing marks of a righteous person is that when they fall they get back up!!!  In leadership it’s not whether or not we are going to fail…but whether or not we are going to fail forward!
  • ALSO…fear of failure is what holds most people back from taking a step of faith!!!  But…Hebrews 11:6 says that without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God!!  I believe what holds most churches back is a leaders lack of faith, we fear looking back more than we desire for the church to move forward…and so we hold back.  Most of the time the failure comes NOT as a result of trying and not succeeding…but rather not trying at all!

#9 – Confidence - All of us, every single one of us struggle with confidence in our leadership.  Two things here…

The same God who was IN THE BIBLE performing miracles and overcoming obstacles IS WITH US TODAY!!!  (Hebrews 13:8!)  So many times we get so focused on who God was and what He will be like in heaven that we lose sight of the fact that HE IS AWESOME RIGHT NOW!!!

When it comes to preaching and leading…when we “do it by the book” then it will ALWAYS bring back a harvest (Isaiah 55:8-13).

If you want to dive into these things a little deeper then you can go to itunes and download the August edition of the Perry Noble leadership podcast for free…we took a look at all nine of these and broke them down in more detail.

This is Good

Shel – I’ve personally practiced stepping out of one of my main roles as lead elder/teaching pastor by not preaching 12-14 times a year on average. I find it’s harder for others to do this in ministry areas – but we aim for team-ministry in our whole church. Here is a great idea!

The value of a Ministry Rotation

One of the best ways to include more people in ministry is to create a rotation for your ministries that alternates weekly.  At present, we have a 6 week ministry rotation at our church.  This was started because as we continued to grow, we began to notice two things.  First,  the people who were involved in ministry were getting burned out from serving every week.   Second,  it was becoming harder to find valuable ministry opportunities for people to become involved in as they began to come to the church.  We started looking for solutions.  We realized our Children’s Ministry Director already had a 6 week rotation in place for her ministry that was working effectively.  It didn’t take us long to see that this was something that needed to be implemented into every ministry.  Instantly we had more opportunities to serve than we had people to fill the opportunities.  But this also gave us room to continue to grow and develop.  We also saw that people were able to serve in 2 and 3 ministries without conflict because of this style of rotation.  This helped them to be able to use a variety of gifts throughout a 6 week period.  Below are a five things I’ve noticed that having a ministry rotation has done at our church:

  1. It creates opportunity.  We don’t want to have people doing something just to fill a spot, but to feel valuable.  There are a lot of things that must be done every week both on site and off site in order to fulfill the mission of each ministry.  By rotating people in each week, we have provided opportunity for more people to become engaged in the ministry. They also become more fulfilled by serving in a way that can have a Kingdom impact.
  2. It creates ownership. It’s amazing to see that as people get plugged in through serving, their perspective changes.  It may seem like a subtle change, but it is very significant.  Often, before they get connected through ministry, they talk about “the church” they attend.  Once they have connected and have a responsibility, they talk about “their church”.  They have ownership and realize they are a part of something bigger than themselves.  They, in fact, are an active part of the body of Christ!
  3. It develops depth.  Let’s say that in order to accomplish the tasks of one ministry each week, we needed five people to serve.  By providing a six week rotation, we now move from five people in this ministry to 30 people overnight.  As we add these people into the ministry, we automatically change our thinking.  Instead of asking the question “How many do we need?”, it becomes “How many can we involve?”  We also have looked at breaking up the responsibilities of the ministry from having a large amount on one person to having it divided between multiple people.  This has helped us create even more depth within our ministries.
  4. It builds leaders.  In this structure, because we’re able to involve more people, we have a need to develop more leaders for each weekly rotation.  This is actually a good thing because as you build leaders in your church, you are creating a stronger foundation for growth.  Instead of needing one leader for a ministry team, we now see the need to have six team leaders, one for each week, who work with the ministry coordinator/leader.  Multiply this across your ministries and you quickly see more leaders rising up within your church.
  5. It builds ministries.  This is one of the best side effects to a ministry rotation we have seen.  As we have involved more and more people in ministry, it has freed our staff from some of the details of the ministry and allowed them to broaden the scope and reach of various ministries.  Because of this, we have been able to build more ministries to reach more people and provide more areas of opportunity to serve.
I think as we examine Scripture, we find that a shared ministry approach is a very Scriptural model for us to implement in our churches.  God moves and works in ways that often we don’t understand.  At times, He will move some of our key people out of our church because of another ministry opportunity, a job or another reason.  By having this ministry rotation in place, along with a way to develop leaders, we have discovered that when this does happen, we’re not left picking up the pieces and scrambling for who can help.  We already have leaders in place to help with the void.  My prayer is this post has been helpful as you develop opportunities for people to be used to impact the world around them.