Church Plant--Day 7 (335 Days to Launch)

God is going on before.

Today James and I met with the Senior Pastor of our church. What we encountered was more than we expected. We asked God for the unreasonable--because when God grants unreasonable requests we all know who gets the glory--it is unmistakably not us. Steven Furtick, pastor of Elevation Church, said to pray specific, measurable and unreasonable prayers. When we pray "sun stand still" prayers like Joshua there is no one to blame but God for the results. So we prayed for four things . . .

1. Leadership buy-in for the vision of reaching this community by multiplying the number of churches here
2. Agreement to meet in the next two weeks and nail down specifics of how FBC will support the church plant.
3. Resurrection of the DNA of FBC as an outward focused, kingdom-minded, church planting church.
4. An elder approved support package that only God could get the credit for.

We are pursuing those things in faith that God is going to go before us. Today we saw steps being taken on each of those four areas. Thanks for watching with us as God goes on ahead surprising us every step of the way.

Micah 2:13: One who breaks open the way will go up before them; they will break through the gate and go out. Their king will pass through before them, the Lord at their head.

Pray unreasonable prayers for us.

Church Plant Day 2 (340 Days to Launch)

For two years I have been wrestling with a personal reality. Like a conflicted Flannery O'Connor character I was running from the call on my life--I was running from my own blood. I am called to be a change-agent--a catalyst. In every organization or relationship that I touch I have been a catalyst for change. It is the trajectory of my life--it is a thread that links together all of my experience. In high school I naively asked God to make me a fork in the road and not a sign along the way. I wasn't satisfied with just pointing people in the right direction. I wanted my life to represent a choice; my life would demand a choice by everyone I encountered. And God granted it. Ever since, I haven't been able to avoid it; I can't wrestle it down; I can't suppress it. Believe me, I have tried. I have tried to suppress the impulse to innovate, change, risk, cast vision. Change is painful. Three years ago, I took a position where I made a conscious choice to suppress vision, innovation, and change. I chose stasis. I chose not to lead--leading had gotten me in trouble and I decided I had had enough. I figured as a middle manager I would let others lead and I would avoid the pain of change. I would do my job. Certainly I would be able to stay out of trouble by simply doing what my supervisor told me to do. Deep down I had surrendered to non-progress--but most of all I doubted my ability to effectively pioneer progress and lead people to a better future. Certainly, good leaders move people to a better destination and they don't lose people along the way. I had convinced myself that I had proven something--my history had proven I wasn't a good leader. And it seemed that everyone around me was willing to confirm that.

If you are a leader and you love progress you have heard things like: you're passionate because you are young, when you are older you will have the maturity to reign in the unbridled passion. I was like you once--but one day you will grow up and you will see things the way I see them. Change is like turning the Titanic, we need to turn the ship slowly--turning too sharply will throw people off the deck-- and it's implied that good leaders can effect change in an organization without people knowing it--like the frog in the pot. And for awhile I bought it. I bought into the idea that positive change was always incremental--it took long extended periods of time and it must be virtually imperceptible so as not to upset people. At the very least the best leaders make change comfortable. Ultimately this was proof of our love for people--after all we are a Christian organization and we are called to take care of the sheep and not lose any.

At the very best, I was dead wrong. First of all you cannot suppress who you are: in biblical language a leopard cannot change its spots. Second of all when Jesus said things like "if your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to go into eternity without an eye than to be damned in hell with 20/20 vision. " I imagine the Pharisees were looking at this 30 year-old Nazarene thinking, "Now hold it just a minute, I was once as passionate as you. Change is a process; it takes time. When you grow up you will understand." Jesus called them white washed tombs. Last time I checked that won't get you a raise.

Here is a reality for all leaders to embrace. Catalysts are forever changed by the changes they implement--often at their own personal cost. That is how God shapes us. According to Robert Quinn author of Deep Change, "Change is hell, but not to change is also hell. The difference is that change is the hero's path." Not to change is to choose slow death. Jesus said "I came to give life and to give life in the full." Recently, I have chosen life over slow death. I don't want life to come incrementally. I want life in the full. So . . . I am going to begin by embracing my call, my blood, His Blood and be a catalyst. I have chosen to "walk naked in the land of uncertainty." To be the point leader of a church plant.

This means . . . In calling, in planting a church--I am a wounded leader. I hope that in my weakness I will be a leader of leaders. But I stand indomitably on this one idea that I will be a fork in the road, that our church will be a fork in the road. That we will teach as Jesus taught--not nice ideas for use at some future date, when its convenient, or when the fancy strikes us--but life change right now. Life change today. Life change that addresses real life problems. Deep down, people don't want incremental change--they want deliverance. Jesus Christ is the only deliverance. That is what my life is about. It is what our church is about.

Church Plant--Day 1 (341 Days to launch)

We are squarely in what I would call the listening/networking phase of our church plant. It's about listening to God and listening to people. We are listening to stories of successful and not-so-successful church plants, about their call, their philosophy of ministry, annual budgets, full time staff. (Some of the planting successes we are looking at: Discovery Church, Simi Valley, California; Elevation Church, Charlotte, North Carolina; Redrock Church, Colorado Springs, Colorado; Gold Coast Church, Camarillo, California; Northbridge Community Church, Pennsylvania, Carson Valley Christian Center, Minden, Nevada.) Its about God's story and their little part in His Kingdom work. It's about listening to ministry successes and failures and learning from both. It's about networking with people we don't yet know and reconnecting with those that we do. At the end of this phase I hope to have

1. a filter to refine our ministry model
2. leads on where funding is going to come from.
3. an estimated cost of staffing for launch
4. an estimated cost of producing the environments God is calling us to create
5. a clearly defined relationship with our church planting associations
6. a list of potential individual supporters
7. a list of potential church partners
8. facility leads
9. core team leads

By January we hope to be well into Phase II:planning (Vision & business plan) and building the core team. Then, Phase III: Fundraising; Phase IV: Building a launch team and preview services.

Education that is Christian

Education that is Christian

Lois E. LeBar

How do our young people leave their Sunday school classrooms on Sunday morning? With eyes sparkling with new vision and insight? With serious determination to practice the will of God? With chin up ready to face an unbelieving world in the power of the Spirit? With deep questions about God Himself? Too often they are glad for release from a dull, boring session. (15)

It is not mere words that nourish the soul, but God Himself, and unless and until the hearers find God in personal experience they are not the better for having heard the truth. The Bible is not an end in itself, but a means to bring men to an intimate and satisfying knowledge of God, that they may enter into Him, that they may delight in His Presence, may taste and know the inner sweetness of the very God Himself in the core and center of their hearts. (17)

Nothing will take the place of sound doctrine and the facts of the Word of God. But it is possible to starve people with Biblical facts, to make doctrine a substitute for spiritual reality, to fail our people by denying them the intimate personal experience with the Lord Himself who alone will satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. (18)

We train our church people to be professional listeners rather than leaders. The Scriptures declare that teaching is more than talking, though it sometimes is talking. (22)

If the potentialities of all Christians were being developed from the earliest years, the adults in our churches would be producing—producing Christian life, witness, literature, art, music, and skill in all the vocations that are worthy of a follower of the Son of God. (22)

From the inception of the Sunday School in the latter part of the eighteenth century, the aim of Christian education has usually been stated as knowledge of the Bible and conversion. Conversion has been conceived as a natural by product of knowledge of the Bible, the Holy Spirit would do the inner work of regenerating the pupil. They didn’t consider it necessary for them to study human nature or to know the developmental stages through which the pupil passed. (29)

. . . throughout the ages teachers have most often considered their task to be that of exposing pupils to factual content and of getting them to give back in words this outer knowledge. They have relied almost wholly upon verbal communication of facts. (29)

Knowing is neither the beginning nor the end of the transformation of character. Knowledge is not virtue, but rather the wise use of knowledge is virtue. (33)

Scripture often compares spiritual growth with natural growth (psalms 1:3 psalms 92:12,14, Matthew 15:13, Mark 4:4-4-8,28, John 15:2) and [Comenius] saw many valid comparisons. Chief among these is the fact that one grows by his own activity. Teachers and books may help or hinder growth, but the learner must do his own growing. Genuine inward changes are essential for any type of progress for the pupils. “Outward ceremonies without inward truth are an abomination to God,” said Comenius. (42)

Learning is by practice as well as by precept. We learn to write by writing, to talk by talking, to sing by singing, to reason by reasoning. In other words, we learn to do by doing. (43)

Because we learn more than one thing at a time, the various senses and faculties should continually be exercised together. (44)

Only a realistic application of that faith to present day life can make it effective (A.W. Tozer—47)

We have often been afraid to accept what is solid common sense merely because it has come from godless sources. We have often been afraid to enter into our educational heritage because worldlings have “beat us to it.” (49)

How often we human teachers speak the precious truths of God’s Word into the air because we teach a lesson that is wholly unrelated to what the pupils are doing and thinking! Generalities, even generalities from the Word of God, mean little to most people. If we do not select the part of the Word that meets the personal need, our pupils develop the habit of not listening, or devise their own activities. (56)

The result of the lesson was immediate action. Christ taught the woman [at the well] not in order that she might know something for future use or do something in the future, but in order that she might be changed that day, in order that she might make a definite response in the present. Trying to teach for an unknown tomorrow is usually vague and general and ineffective. If a person finds his deepest needs met today by the Living and written Word, he will be ready to go to the same source tomorrow. (57)

People understand best not bare statements, not abstract generalizations, but concrete ideas put into experience and illustration. (67)

Jesus didn’t ask people to repeat His answers back to Him. He was looking for spiritual insight and action on the basis of His teaching. (82)

Christ did not expect that knowing mentally would automatically result in doing. If this had been His philosophy of education the Pharisees would have been His best pupils. (82)

What kind of results are we working for in our teaching? What kind of results are we getting? If we ask pupils merely to repeat words back to us, we aren’t likely to get more than words. We’ll stress memorization of Scripture, surely, but for the purpose of changing life. If we’re looking for transformation of life, we’ll teach for transformation, we’ll pray for transformation, and we’ll not cease our efforts until we see transformation. (83)

The Creator, who made man—body, soul and spirit—seeks to meet his needs at the level of the LIFE that He created. Therefore our aims will be in terms of feeling and doing as well as knowing. (85)

Too many Christian young people feel like this. They attend church, hear the Word of God, and go out to do nothing about it. The teacher doesn’t really expect anything to happen, and the pupils don’t expect anything to happen. On the contrary, we should be arranging spiritual experiences for each age group on its own level, and taking advantage of arising needs that are followed by new spiritual decisions and practices. (87)

If we want Jesus to teach in His own way through us, what will our general pattern look like? We’ll start where our pupils are, with their current needs, help them find God’s answer in Scripture, and begin to practice that truth this week. (87)

Having assured to Moses in infancy the best in secular education, God insured that Moses’ most pliable years when permanent habits and attitudes are formed should be spent at his mother’s side in a home that, though impoverished, had the riches of spiritual heritage to pass on to its children. (92)

In order to raise all of life to the spiritual plane, God’s method is ever the spontaneous vitality of actual life. There is no need of artificial stimulation of interest when inner urges are being utilized, when the sources of material are direct and primary. It is true that experience is the best teacher provided it is the right kind of experience, provided it is skillfully guided. (93)

The Bible always connects doctrine to practice (124)

Our main problems in the use of Scripture are to get through the written Word to the Living Word, and to translate doctrine into life. (124)

It takes more than God’s Word in the mouth to insure God’s power in the life. (131)

When the Word of God is brought to bear upon current needs, it produces action as it is meant to do, not always positive, but it changes things. People ought not to be able to listen to the Word of God without being changed. They are forming disastrous habits if they’re ever allowed to do so. (132)

The Bible knows no such thing as truth that is merely theoretical; in the Bible the truth is linked to the deed. (133) Frank E. Gaebelein The Pattern of God’s Truth.

[the whole of scripture truth] must be related to life to be known for what it really is. (134)

Spiritual knowledge is not deep thought, but living contact, entering into and being united to the truth as it is in Jesus, a spiritual reality, a substantial substance. (134) Andrew Murray The Spirit of Christ

. . . in the Garden of Eden two ways were set before Adam and Eve for attaining the likeness of God, two ways typified by the two trees, the tree of life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God’s way was that through life would come the knowledge and likeness of God. But Satan assured Adam that it was through knowledge that man may be like the Most High. Ever since then it has been difficult for men to put knowledge in its rightful place. (135)

A pupil’s growth is determined not by what he hears, but by what he does about what he hears. (143)

Our big job as teachers is to set up a situation that is propitious for learning, in which Jerry and Alice and Nancy and Alden will want to find God’s higher ways. We can make everything in the classroom situation favorable to learning rather than militating against it, as is often the case. In the first place we’ll project ourselves into the place of our pupils, and try to feel as they feel, think as they think, walk in their shoes. We’ll put aside the fact that we know the lesson of the day, but remember only that they don’t. We won’t stay in our own world and try to call across a great gulf into theirs. We’ll try to tap their world. We’ll transfer the learning process from the teacher to the pupil. Then teaching becomes a great adventure with the Master Teacher Himself. (145)

No matter what person’s training or mental understanding may be, we won’t assume that he is a Christian until we observe unmistakable evidence of his being born from above. However, just as there is a period of prenatal development before physical birth, there is a period of prenatal development before spiritual birth, sometimes longer, sometimes shorter. Before regeneration, the young child’s parents try to help him to say no to his own selfish ways and yes to the Lord’s higher ways; yet strictly speaking, only after spiritual birth can the new creation in Christ be said to grow. Our concern is to see the individual making steady spiritual progress from physical birth to death. (146)

We train our pupils to repeat verses that are only words to them or to say pretty little poems in special-day programs. These words may perhaps entertain adults, but what is happening inside the pupils as a result? Is the Word of God merely “hung on” the pupil for decoration, or is it being assimilated into his inner being? (147)

Whichever need is most basic and most pressing will claim our attention, our interest, our effort. Our whole being is consciously and unconsciously searching for the means of meeting these needs. If we see no relation between an event and our own needs, we pay no attention to it. (152)

Every problem in life ought to drive us to Him for its solution. Most of the lessons Christ taught in gospels started with personal needs. We as teachers help our pupils to see and appropriate the Lord as the answer to the personal needs that He has ordained. (152)

When a man feels the pul of the spiritual world, he will submit to any amount of external routine rather than take himself apart within. It is much easier to fall into the habit of quoting words and assuming that they are meeting God’s requirements. If we teachers demand nothing more than words, the pupils will try to quiet their consciences with them. (154)

If pupils’ inner needs and ideas and suggestions are woven into the lesson, it will penetrate to the mainspring of action. (155)

Through sermon after sermon, Bible lecture after Bible lecture, are the churches training “professional listeners” who become expert at tuning out what isn’t vital to them personally? It is estimated that only about one-fourth of a congregation is really listening to the preacher at any one time. When people are also “talked at” in the so-called teaching sessions, it is no wonder that spiritual results are not more in evidence. Pupils are actually being trained not to listen. (156)

The peculiar genius of teaching is the small intimate group in which overt interaction is possible. (156)

When teachers do most of the learning, pupils get only the ‘dehydrated product, which is tasteless and dull” (157) Ruth Bailey

We should seek a maximum of self-propulsion, a minimum of absorption of the teacher’s words. (157)

Experience is the best teacher in the sense that her lessons are always learned. Whether or not they are the right lessons is something else again. Experience is a hard teacher, for she gives the test first, the lesson afterward. (158)

Too long have teachers been the active participants in the game of learning, with the pupils merely spectators. (158)

It is questionable how long our society can support institutions where “students” sit and watch teachers learn. (159)

In presession they may examine objects related to the Bible lesson, in worship they actively sing and pray and use familiar Scripture, in expressional work after the story they do something that helps to bridge the gap between knowing and doing God’s will. (161)

Unless we teachers involve the whole persons in our classes, they may give assent to our teaching but remain unchanged in conduct. (177)

Pre-Christians

It became popular a while ago to begin referring to people outside the church as pre-Christians. I have to say that the term, “pre-Christian” always made my toes curl. It seemed to assume too much. I happen to believe like a good Calvinist that there are people who will not follow Christ and that we don’t know who they are. So, to refer to everyone as pre-Christian lacked some form of honesty about the state of things.

However, I think I know in part where they were heading. There is another another theme among Christians that is possibly more dangerous than calling outsiders pre-Christians. It is assuming that the first step in a person’s spiritual journey is when they set foot on a church’s campus and attend a program. Another assumption closely related to this is assuming that the first step in a person’s spiritual journey is when they make a profession of faith. While I don’t often hear this articulated . . . no one says, “You don’t matter until you come visit us.” Churches program for this all of the time. Our programming and its emphasis on insiders, often states very clearly, you don’t matter until you participate in one of our programs. Then, inside those programs, the message is that you don’t really matter until you make a profession of faith.

I think the term, “pre-Christian,” attempted to convert those two themes. We need to realize that when a person steps on our campus it may not be the first step in their spiritual journey, but the first step in their spiritual journey with us. It may be the 5^th or 100^th step in the journey that God has been leading them on. The choice a person makes to set foot on a church campus is representative of a level of trust that God may be building into that person’s life. That step says “I think the church might have an answer to the problems of my life.” I fear too many churches then break that level of trust by programming in ways that either makes the next step a huge leap or by assuming that nothing spiritual can have been built into their lives except by the church. I can’t help but think that when that happens consistently in a church--when churches make the next step a huge leap, or ignore the work that God is doing in the lives of people outside the church’s walls and outside the church’s direct influence--that God loses interest in such churches. God stops bringing people to those kinds of churches. God is looking for churches that will partner with him. To put it in theological terms, God is looking for churches that can see his work of prevenient grace in the lives of people before they ever attend our church—then create environments that welcome them and help them take the next step.

The Mighty Mouse Trap II:Core Values

Core values: We all have them. If I were "freudian," I would say the part of the iceberg that is above the water line--the smallest part, the part that we can see--represents our actions. The bigger part--the part below the surface, the part we can't see, the part capable of sinking the Titanic--represents our core ideology. According to Collins & Porras core ideology consists of an organizations core purpose and core values.

One of the biggest contributions of the purpose-driven movement has been the emphasis on articulating purpose statements for church organizations. As a result we have taken our staffs on 3 day retreats devoted to hammering out purpose statements. And like many other churches we have come up with purpose statements that look very similar. They are similar because the Bible is pretty clear on the purpose of the church. The Biblical church has a dual purpose: evangelize the lost and disciple the saints. Many churches have articulated this in different ways, but the purpose of the church is unchanging in whatever way it is worded. Whether we say the purpose of the church is “to lead people in a growing relationship with Christ,” or to “turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Christ” , or “reaching seekers; building believers” or “To bring people to Jesus and membership in his family, develop them to Christ-like maturity, and equip them for their ministry in the church and life mission in the world, in order to magnify God’s name” or “the purpose of the church is to glorify God (Ephesians 3;21) by building itself up in the faith (Ephesians 4:13-16), by instruction of the Word (2 Timothy 2:2, 15; 3:16-17), by fellowship (Acts 2;47; 1 John 1:3), by keeping the ordinances (Luke 22:19; Acts 2:38-42) and by advancing and communicating the gospel to the entire world (Matthew 28:19; Acts 1:8; 2:42)” or “Spreading a passion for the supremacy of GOD in all things, for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ” the Biblical church has a dual purpose: evangelize the lost & disciple the saints.

Church purpose statements are not that interesting. In fact, I am not convinced that purpose statements have been really effective in guiding what a church does and doesn't do. You may have recognized some of the statements above. In order, they are the purpose statements of Northpoint Community Church; Willow Creek; Willow Creek Association Brand Logo; Saddleback Community Church Purpose; Grace Community Church, Sun Valley California—Pastor John MacArthur; Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minesota—Pastor John Piper. If you are somewhat familiar with what is happening on the church scene you are probably familiar enough with the above churches to know that while the purpose statements have all of the key ingredients the churches they represent have widely differing views on doing church If you look closely at the statements you will be able read between the lines enough to see that there are philosophy of ministry tidbits expressed in their word choice. However, the average person would be hard pressed to recreate Northpoint, or Grace Community Church with their purpose statements alone. The reason why is because the brevity of a purpose statement prevents the articulation of the core values of a church. And it is the core values that guide how the purpose of the church is carried out.

On a side note. It has become very popular to talk about Biblical worldview. I think that core values can be understood in a similar way. We all have a worldview, whether we think we have one or not. We don't have a choice in not having one, only whether our worldview will be well thought out or not. Core values are the same way. We all have them as individuals. Core values shape the way we view the world and how we react to particular situations. Core values help us prioritize what we do. They also draw us to others and to other organizations that share our core values. I also believe that an individual's core values don't really change--they are discovered. An organization's values, while more malleable than an individual's, are also strongly resistant to change. They are only malleable in organizations because an organization's values are lived out by the individuals that comprise it. Individuals can be replaced. However, for those who have tried, changing the core values of an organization is like rearranging a cemetery.

We have all seen dozens of value statements for businesses. What retail business, for example, doesn't value customer service? We all know that businesses value customer service because they value making a profit. But when was the last time you saw a value statement that reads: we value integrity, raking in the dough and customer service? You probably won't ever see one like that. Also, when did a value statement at MacDonald's ever guarantee an experience marked by great customer service? Value statements are ineffective if the individuals that make up the organization value other things more. In such cases the value statements on the wall are only aspirational--they are dreams--that may often by trumped by the true core values of the individuals running the organization.

In church world we have also seen many value statements. Many of them look remarkably the same, and yet the churches look remarkably different. This happens when the individuals that comprise the church value other things more. Often what is written on the wall is not happening down the hall. In such cases there are obviously some values that are more core and assumably not expressed in the value statement. These values are guiding what the church does and doesn't do. For example, what church doesn't say they value evangelism? Yet, church attendance, conversions and baptisms have been declining nationally for the past 50 years. Last year the Southern Baptist Convention reported that 7000 churches in its own denomination didn't baptize a single person. 3000 churches baptized only one person. What is happening in a denomination that has historically placed such a high value on evangelization? Because what is on the wall is not happening down the hall in this denomination, such realities beg the question. What do the people of the church value more? What are we going to do about it?

While the answer to that question is beyond the scope of this post, let me turn this back toward the direction of the discussion started in The Mighty Mouse Trap. I am not going to go into a lot of detail about what is really at the core of the "outreach" church's values in this post. I want to dig into what the "teaching" church values. As we said before, both church models say they value discipleship and evangelism. Yet, they have very different ways of doing it. So what values are really shaping the way the "teaching " church does church?

A friend of mine, John Turner, who has some great thoughts on church, posted something I believe is apropos in this discussion. You can visit his site at www.faith20.org. He writes:

Are you a minister (focused on “insiders”) or an evangelist (focused on “outsiders”)?

Every church has to make a decision about this. You can do a lot of work with both insiders and outsiders in mind, but eventually those two core values will come into conflict and one will have to win out. Which will it be?

In other words, you can have one of the following two goals:

• We will reach as many new people as we can while our energy is primarily focused on keeping as many of the people we already have

or

• We will keep as many of the people we already have while our energy is primarily focused on reaching as many new people as we can
  

One of these sees ministry (keeping insiders) as the end and mission (reaching outsiders) as the means. The other sees mission as the end and ministry as the means.

I think John is on the right track. I believe that the "teaching" church model largely sees the mission as a means to doing ministry (i.e. the teaching church expends most of its energy trying to keep as many people as it can while reaching as many people as it can.) The "outreach" church sees mission as the end and ministry as the means. (i.e. keeping as many people as they already have while focusing on reaching as many new people as they can.) To take this a step further, I believe that there are some other core values that create this sort of prioritization. Both of these--ministry & mission or discipleship & evangelism--are core--but what is it that prioritizes these for the respective models?

Let me end with a few quotes that I think summarize the value that makes mission serve ministry in the teaching church. In the introduction to the book Future Grace, John Piper writes: ". . . this book is driven by the conviction that right thinking shapes right living" (Piper 12). I might add that most teaching pastors believe teaching the right information is what shapes right thinking, that shapes right living. Another pastor has put it like this "Our capacity to praise and trust God is dependent upon our understanding of His essential nature. . . . the more you know about God, the more you understand his nature, the more you understand what He is trying to do in your life and mine, then the more we can praise Him and serve Him." I.e. what you know shapes how you live. And what you know is shaped by what is taught.

The full implications of this value will require greater discussion, but I want to end with one thought. C.S. Lewis once said that he would rather play cards with a gentleman than with a philosopher. For, the gentleman would be bound by his honor not to cheat while the philosopher would only be bound by his knowledge.

A Little Detour

I am convinced that every path has a destination. I also believe that organizations, just like individuals can place themselves on a path that leads to a particular destination. This happens despite good intentions, despite how smart our leadership is, despite how relevant our programming is. Organizationally, the modern church has arrived at a destination. What it is facing is not a discipleship problem or an evangelism problem. It is not something we can fix by adding a program or ministry or hiring another ministry leader. The church has just arrived at a destination. It has simply arrived at the end of a path that it has been unknowingly walking for nearly 100-150 years. The church has arrived at a destination where church systems are in direct competition with God’s design for the family. One of the most troubling ramifications of this destination is that it has produced systems that short circuit our most powerful evangelism strategies and our most powerful form of discipleship. We have arrived at a destination where our church systems are not aligned with a fundamental principle of relationships—particularly family relationships.

I know that this is an audacious statement. What church doesn’t describe itself as “family-friendly”? We run children’s programs. Alongside every adult program we offer something for the kids. We preach 12 week series on family relationships. We have parenting classes, discipline classes, age-appropriate Sunday Schools. We have replaced education directors with family pastors and started family ministries. We invest lots of money and volunteers in VBS programs, summer camps, family camps, midweek discipleship programs, age graded Sunday school curriculum and colorful take-homes. We have experimented with intergenerational environments from small groups to large groups. Certainly by the shear number of resources and programs we offer we are living in an age when the church is the most “family friendly” it has ever been.

And yet . . . as I talk with children’s and family pastors there is a growing unease—a sense that things are just not right. We know that nearly 50% of those who say they are Christians tell us that they made the decision to follow Christ during their school years. We know this is true because we see kids coming to Christ in our programs; we have led some of them to Christ ourselves. But we also see 60-80% of them walking away from their faith in their first year of college. Some say they need a curriculum that has a more comprehensive Biblical Worldview. We know that they are right. Our children need a worldview that is based on the Bible. Some say they need the Bible to be taught in relevant and compelling ways. We know that they are right. Our children need to see that what the Bible has to say is relevant and compelling. Some say we need to make church irresistible. We know that they are right. Our children need to see church as the best hour of their week. And yet . . . when we arrive at the place where our curriculum teaches a comprehensive Biblical world view in compelling and relevant ways and church is irresistible will our children have arrived? Will we still feel uneasy? Do you notice the subtlety? What if the perfect curriculum, Sunday school class or church program is not enough? I think that the answer is that it is not enough.

C.S. Lewis said that once we discover that we have taken a wrong turn in our spiritual lives that we often assume we can just jump back on the right road where we left off. He insists that instead we must retrace our steps, go all of the way back to where we made the wrong turn, before we can begin moving in the right direction. I think that is exactly where the church is as it relates to the family. The problem is, that none of us were around when the church began taking this path. We don’t know what the detour looked like. Where is that fork in the road that led to the destination we are at? Worse, however, is many of our churches have traveled the path so long and are so far down the path that they don’t even realize that our churches are not family friendly. Jesus said “when the light that is in you is darkness, how great is that darkness.”

What happened 100-150 years ago that placed the church on this path? What is God’s design on the family? In what ways do church systems militate against the family? What do we need to do to fix it? What do we need to do to restore the family?

Model for the Mighty Mousetrap

I promised someone quite a while ago that I would write something about church models. So I am going to deliver on my promise—even if it is slightly belated.

Generally when we think of church models we think of systems. When we think of Saddleback Community Church we think of seeker services and concentric circles, we think of the bases (101, 201, 301, 401) and moving around the baseball diamond. Spiritual growth is seen as moving through the bases. At Grace Community Church of which John MacArthur is the senior pastor we think of “unleashing God’s Truth one verse at a time.” While a slogan, it summarizes the model—large and small teaching environments. Preaching on Sunday Morning and Sunday Night, teaching in Sunday School classes for all ages. Spiritual growth is seen as right living stemming from comprehending right doctrine.

For many, these churches represent (but did not originate) opposing models. They have been commonly named the “outreach” church model and the “teaching” church model. If you stand in the “outreach church model” you may view the teaching church model as simply a different methodology. You see a difference between “the message” and the method. In fact the common view is that the message should never change, but the methods should always change so as to be relevant to the culture trying to be reached. If you stand in the “teaching church model” you see the preaching of God’s Word as the method and the message. Thus any tampering with the method is a tampering with the message. As Mark Dever has written in the Deliberate Church, he would rather see every other area of his personal ministry fail, than to see his ministry of the preaching of the Word to fail. In the teaching church the preaching of the Word is the primary ministry of the church and there is no close second.

I want to say that the discussion deteriorates from here to a lot of name calling. So, I am going to lay all my cards on the table and use a secular tool to guide what I think is the real issue underlying church models, why the debate is so fierce, why outreach vs. teaching church is a false dichotomy, why “balance” is a “sucky” term and should not be part of any well meaning Christian’s vocabulary and ultimately what I think is the real solution to the church model problem.

The secular tool I am referring to is what has been developed by Jim Collins & Jerry Porras in several articles on vision & leadership, among them the books Built to Last and Good to Great. So throughout the rest of this blog I will be referring to the way they have defined the terms: core ideology, core purpose and core values, envisioned future, tangible image and mission.

(For those who think that the secular market place (if you haven’t stopped reading already) has nothing to say to the church organization, I ask that you bear with me a little longer. I am not asking us to judge the church by worldly standards. I am just trying to establish a common vocabulary and define the terms in the clearest possible fashion. Collins and Porras have been the only ones who distinguish between all of the terms we commonly use in the church interchangeably.)

Collins and Porras see vision as an envisioned future that stems from core ideology. Core ideology consists of an organization’s core purpose (why it exists) and core values/philosophy (what it believes). These two things are so part of the culture of the organization they are virtually impossible to change. Out of the core ideology is birthed the envisioned future which consists of a tangible image (what do we want to become) and a mission (a time sensitive plan on how to get there.) The mission may be constantly changing as it is achieved or needs to be revised, but it should never be incompatible with the core ideology. (For further study see “Building the Vision” in Built to Last).

Most discussions on church models jump to systems and ignore the core ideology. We assume that the core values of Bible believing evangelical churches are the same. Sure we differ on some minor issues, like worship styles, baptism, communion etc . . . But we all acknowledge that many of the issues that divide are secondary. This we know is true because the statements of faith from the two example churches are virtually identical. Equally true however is the fact that churches can have the same beliefs and yet have very different core values and ministry philosophy. That would be the case for Saddleback and Grace Community Church. We can’t assume that agreement theologically means agreement philosophically. We muddy the issue because we like to point out how philosophical differences in others are mis-readings of the text or theological inconsistencies. I think that this confuses the issue. Well meaning traditional Calvinists are always trying to make Arminians of the Rick Warrens of the world. In the end, I think we are sidestepping the real debate; theological name calling is as old as time.

The best place to start is an understanding of core values and ministry philosophy in these two church models. In my next blog that is where we will begin. To be continued . . . .

Talking is not Teaching

I have learned over the years that teachers, especially the good ones, have several enigmatic sayings like, “There is no such thing as teaching, only learning.”
As a first year teacher, I asked a good friend of mine and master teacher to observe my junior literature class. After the observation her advice came in this form. “My mother, who taught for 40 years, said to me, ‘Talking is not teaching.’”

Every teacher who is honest recognizes that grades don’t only reflect a student’s ability to learn; they also reflect a teacher’s ability to teach. As a teacher I had the accountability of frequent tests. Students demonstrated, at times weekly and daily, whether my talking was actually teaching. I saw it in their grades—whether they learned the lessons or not. A teacher has two options when it comes to teaching. They can learn the material and communicate it through talking. Or they can guide students through systems whereby the student arrives at the same destination as the teacher. I began to see teaching not as acquiring certain information, but arriving at a particular destination. In Communicating for a Change, Andy Stanley writes of the need for pastors to take people on a journey toward a particular destination rather than merely communicating information.

It is easy to stand on one side of the Grand Canyon and beckon to our students across the chasm, “Come on! You can do it!” Shouting out directions, “turn left there, go around that tree, no not that one.” It is another thing to walk back across the chasm and lead each student by the path we have come. Good teachers guide students down the path they have taken. The best teachers find short cuts and new paths based upon the student's abilities—all the while with the goal at arriving on the other side. Some of our students may have a limp and have to take an alternate path. But it is our job to help them arrive at the same destination.

As pastors we are in the business of teaching. We want people to arrive at a particular destination. Let’s face it; we are sometimes called preachers, because we are seen primarily as talkers. With all of the talking, preachers are in the most danger of losing sight of what actually helps people get to the other side of the grand canyon. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that our processes/systems by and large trump what we say. Our processes and systems are our most powerful tools in helping people become spiritually mature.

At the 2006 Drive Conference the components of a system are defined as:
1. Expectations/rules

Example: Northpoint Community Church has a rule for its family production called “No Dropoffs” They expect for parents and children to attend Kidstuf together. They reinforce this expectation by not offering anything during the Kidstuf timeslot that would compete for a parent’s attention. There are no adult Sunday school classes on Sunday morning, no adult worship service occupying the same timeslot. Andy Stanley is rigorous about ending the service on time so that parents can pick up their children to attend together. There is a very important lesson here: Our stated expectations are meaningless if our systems reinforce different expectations.

Key Questions: What expectations do our systems reinforce? How can we align our systems with our expectations?

2. Rewards (or lack of) What is rewarded is repeated.

Example: We began a family production (a shared experience for children and parents) in our church in November of 2005. To see what we did, go to www.kidstufventura.com . Within a month we went from 15 children to 150 parents and children in the same room. Huge win if numbers was our win. It was extraordinarily tempting to advertise the success of our numbers. But a large crowd was not my goal—transformed lives was. I felt that I needed to make a conscious effort to redefine the win: from numbers to transformed lives. Shortly thereafter my team began to work on ways to gather stories of how the family production was impacting family’s lives. I intentionally began telling these stories rather than numbers to our production staff, small group leaders and church staff. I would retell the stories during the family production, while the team found creative ways to reward parents who were winning. I.e. teaching their children about faith and character during the week. We set up a discussion board on our website where parents and children could write about how they were interacting with the virtue of the month. The curriculum provided by www.ReThink.org was also very creative. We gave away a foot of duct tape for every story of resourcefulness written by the children. At the end of the month we taped our co-host to the wall. We had over 170 stories.

Key Questions: What do we reward? Do we reward the behaviors we want to see repeated? Are we currently rewarding things that we don’t want repeated?

3. Consequences (or lack of)

Example: over the summer we began enforcing small group leader/student ratios in our children’s small group program. This communicated several things. It communicated to our small group leaders that we did care about their sanity; it meant that we were serious about not slamming a single small group leader with a large group of 25 four year olds. It communicated to our parents that we cared about the safety of their children. There was an unforeseen positive consequence. In our laid back So. Cal beach climate we now have parents arriving early to ensure their child gets a spot in their small group. I think Jim Collins calls these policies with teeth.

Key Questions: Have you changed anything recently that resulted in inadvertent results? What were they? What about your system created them?

4. Communication (content and style)

According to David F. Wells, at the 2006 Desiring God Conference:
it becomes more and more imperative for preachers to make sure that the truth that they are preaching intersects with what is going on inside people’s minds so that the line is drawn so clearly, that people in their own lives know whether they are being obedient or not and what they should do with that truth when they have heard it. Now that is contextualization. And so it goes all the way through from people sitting in pews in American and missionaries preaching in Hindu contexts in India.

Our communication, its content must align with what we are trying to produce in our systems, and its style must intersect with what is going on inside people’s minds so they know what we are asking them to do.

Key Question: Am I spending time on Sunday communicating strategy to the church members? Does the content of my communication align with or contradict the created/established system?

5. Behavior (of those in charge)
Example: I think we can all come up with some examples of this one. The most compelling reason to change is seeing such change lived out in our own lives as leaders.

Key Question: Where does my own behavior not align with my expectations of those who follow me? What must I do to change that? (By the way, when you do change misaligned behavior in your own life you have great power in helping others make the same change. Plus your living illustration is preachable.)

Body of Christ

The church as the body of Christ: I am just now getting a better grasp of those passages that talk about the body of Christ. I confess I have overlooked the primary point of those passages. Because I had thought that the body imagery was primarily about unity, I had missed what was most germane. We are all to play our part, work within our strengths, using the talents God has given us, doing and being that which God has called us to do and be because “corporately” we are the only representation of Christ to the world; we are the body of Christ. (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). The body of Christ is not merely and illustration it is the point. This has profound implications; if we are the body of Christ it means that the mission of the church is the same as the mission of Jesus Christ. It begs the question, ”What was Christ’s mission?”

Maybe this is a no-brainer for the rest of us, but I have always thought Jesus accomplished His mission and now the church has a different mission. Now, before you call me naïve, think about it for a moment. Don’t we commonly think that Jesus came to die on the cross? Didn’t he accomplish that mission? Certainly. Now what remains, but for the church to proclaim what Jesus did? There are two missions here: Jesus made the way, the church is to proclaim the way. What if dying on the cross wasn’t Christ’s mission? What if it was only part of the mission?

I thought I would start with the most simple way of discovering what Christ’s mission was and the church’s mission is: I decided I would start with what Jesus said His mission was. Not what He did—because I know how theological types like myself can wax eloquently on what Jesus did and what that means for how we do church. Not what Jesus did, but simply, what mission did Jesus say he was on. I am reading through the gospels first, then the epistles with one question in mind, “What was the mission Christ said He was on?”

Drive Conference 2006

I like the term "resonance."

Tesla claimed to have created a simple mechanical machine that leveraged resonance to create earthquake like effects on large structures. Over time imperceptible tremors would result in catastrophic vibrations that had the potentional to not only shake a skyscraper to the ground, but (according to Tesla) if used properly could even split the core of the earth. While no one has been able to achieve such an effect--theoretically it is possible.

I find myself resonating with the principles that I learned at this year's Drive Conference at Northpoint Community Church. It is my hope and prayer that the resonance of these eternal principles will ripple into the churches of the world and break down the structures that are obstacles for unchurched people to get to God. That means, I believe that the systems in most of our churches are putting barriers in front of people who want to get to God. That means that the church, created to be the body of Christ, created to build a bridge to God and turn on lights, created to do what Jesus did in the world, the pillar of truth is currently failing.

I am convinced that the systems of the North American church are preventing us from fulfilling the Great Commission. Our systems are the reason why 10,000 Southern Baptist Churches--a denomination that has historically focused on evangelism--baptized fewer than 7000 people last year. That is less than 1 person per church. It is why 100's of churches close their doors every year despite locations in growing communities. It is why, every Sunday, 1000s of people pass by our church on their way to the beach or the mall and never think about going to church. Systems are the reason why the church has diminishing impact despite great visions, great teaching, dedicated prayer and large faith. Our teaching, vision, prayer and faith fail because our systems betray our cause.

In Psalm 106:4-5 David desires to be present when God's salvation comes. He looks forward to the coming of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of God. He says, "God, when you do it, when you save your people, when your Kingdom comes, I want to be there." Like David, I want to be there. Here's the difference. David could only hope for the future coming of the Kingdom; he could only hope for what was to come. For us, the Kingdom has come. Jesus embodied the Kingdom and he opened it up to the spiritually impoverished, the meek, the opppressed. The Kingdom has come, but it has not come into many of our churches. The church is not the Kingdom. There are people in the church that are in the Kingdom. . . . but by and large our churches do not reflect the kingdom. Kingdom churches cannot be ignored, because Jesus Christ could not be ignored in His own time. I want to be there when it comes. I want to be part of a ministry that is dedicated to being part of the Kingdom's coming in the lives of the people of our community. Lord, I want to be there. I want to be there when your salvation comes to your people. I want to be with people whose hearts beat in rhythm with Kingdom growth, Kingdom impact, Kingdom living and transformed lives.

Drive Conference 2006

Session 1: Replacing the Filters

Bottomline: If you make it difficult for unchurched people to get to God, you are testing God. Acts 15:20

Session 2: Repairing the Transmission--Liberating Your Organization

Bottomline: Systems creat behaviors.

Components of a system: Expectations/rules, Rewards or lack thereof, Consequences or lack thereof, Communication (content and style), Behavior of those in charge.

The systems of a church will always trump teaching, communication, vision & mission. A mission is meaningless unless you change the system.

Session 3: Changing the Plugs--Recruiting and Retaining Great Volunteers

1. Connect the dots: make volunteers feel that they fulfill a vital role that is connected to the overall mission and strategy of the organization.

2. Start and Stop: Clearly define the beginning and of a volunteers role.

3. Eliminate the Competition: Eliminate competing systems within your organization.

4. Bring them along: apprentice volunteers; don't parachute them into a role.

5. Recognize and reward: Positively reinforce actions that reflect the core values---celebrate the win

6. Make them proud: Create an environment that volunteers would be proud to be a part of. Captivate their imaginations.

7. Staff for stars: Leadership attracts leadership. Hold out for the best leaders.

Session 4: Recharging the Battery--

Bottomline: In conflict, obey God and trust Him with the consequences.

Session 5: Cleaning the Fuel Injectors--Building High Performance Teams

Bottomline: A high performance team is a small group of competent (interdependent) individuals passionately engaged in the execution of a plan designed to solve a specific problem.

Relational Evangelism

There are three prevalent forms of evangelism in the church today: crusade, telemarketing, bait and switch.

Crusade: asking a person to stand up in front of 100’s of people they don’t know, and take the hand of someone they have never met in order to believe in a God they cannot see.

Telemarketing: Christian telemarketers, without telephones, peddling the 4 spiritual laws to complete strangers. Who likes a telemarketer? We hang up on these people all the time.

Bait & Switch: Or let’s ask our members to invite their friends to an outreach event. We’ll bait them with entertainment—who doesn’t like a good comedian?—then we’ll switch it on them, tell them they are all sinners and they need to repent. Will we ever be able to look those friends in the face again?

These methods have their place, but we all know that the most effective form of evangelism happens in the context of relationships. What if the entire church strategy was organized around the principle of relational evangelism? What if we partnered with the members of our church to save their coworkers, friends and family?

This is what I think that kind of partnership would look like:

An Outreach/Discipleship Strategy

INVEST—people in the church (insiders) investing in relationships with people they are already connected with outside the church (outsiders) in order to . . .

INVITE them to a weekly environment designed to help outsiders begin to see the message of Christ as relevant to their lives in order to . . .

CONNECT them with God’s family in close personal relationships so they can learn to connect with God, His Word, and His people in order to . . .

BE the church—the Body of Christ; His hands and feet—SERVE in the community. People doing what Jesus did: building a bridge to God and turning on lights.

I am convinced that the Bible has the answer to every relational problem, societal problem and political problem. It speaks to the issues of single mothers, problem kids, lost jobs, broken marriages. Christianity is the answer to world hunger, pandemic disease and poverty. I believe Christianity can teach me how to raise my kids and be a great dad. I believe it has the answers to every question our culture is currently asking. Because of this I believe that the church ought to be the most compelling group of people on the earth. I believe that we should be as compelling as Jesus was when he walked the earth. You either loved Him or hated Him, but you couldn’t ignore Him. Likewise if we began to speak to these issues we would be as compelling as Jesus. Then we would be the body of Christ, doing what He did in His culture in ours.

Croup-like Faith

My middle child suffers from asthma. I don’t think there are many things more frightening than to wake up in the middle of the night to see your child gasping for breath. Simply put, asthma is a condition of the lungs that makes it difficult to inhale. Croup is the exact opposite—croup makes it difficult to exhale. If you have ever watched someone suffering from croup or asthma, you understand on a visceral level that breathing requires the ability to inhale and exhale—you have not breathed if you have only inhaled.

In June, I delivered a message called “Seeing is Believing: spiritual maturity is not about what you know, but what you do.” I was challenged by the fact that people can do things without knowledge. Can such things be considered faith? I offer Romans 2:14-16 “For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.”

Faith is like breathing. One cannot only inhale certain beliefs to be considered faithful, but must also exhale certain actions. Intellectual assent has never been good enough. The devil can sign off on our church doctrinal statements. In fact, the devil could correct many of them, simply by having been an eye-witness of Christ’s work on the cross.

James makes it clear that belief must result in certain actions in order to be faith. But, can it be said that certain actions, point to latent beliefs--also an indication of faith? To use the illustration—when someone exhales, they must have inhaled. When Gentiles instinctively do the things of the Law they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts. What they exhale, shows what they inhale. “. . . he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.”

In scripture, action is often traced to its source. “Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.” “The heart is the wellspring of life.” “You will know a tree by its fruit.” “I am the Vine you are the branches; he who abides in Me and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing.” “Does a fountain send out from the same opening both fresh and bitter water? Can a fig tree, my brethren, produce olives, or a vine produce figs? Nor can salt water produce fresh.” The disposition of the heart, the taproot of our lives, determines our actions. The north American church culture has a croup-like faith. We have trouble exhaling. In a church culture that is more comfortable with knowing than with loving others, the message must be: spiritual maturity is not about what you know, but what you do. We must exhale to consummate a breath. We must do in order to consummate belief. Consummation precedes conception. Belief in action births faith.

GrowUp Session IV: Go Tandem--Reggie Joiner

1. Most families believe in the potential of the church to impact their kids.

2. Most churches believe in the potential of the family to impact their kids.

3. But most kids are growing up in Christian homes and churches and abandoning their faith. 60-80% of kids abandon the church between high school and college.

4. What if the solution for this generation of kids and students is neither the church nor the family? What if it is both/and?

5. What if both started believing in the potential of combining their influence as a force?—not the Emergent Church but the Convergent Church—the convergence of church and family.

6. They would both have to buy into the idea that . . . Two combined influences can make a greater impact than just two influences---Think Orange

7. Statistics indicate that the majority of parents recognize they need the church for help with the spiritual and moral development of their kids.

There are at least three things that most parents want to say to the church: Give us a better plan; Tell us what to say; Show us what to do.

8. But the majority of churches seem to fail in recognizing the need to establish an effective family ministry mindset.

They keep doing business as usual for a number of reasons:

Their key leaders don’t know what a family ministry looks like;

Their current programs require all of their resources and calendar;

Their existing structure will not support a different approach to ministry.

Suggestion: put a yellow dot on the church calendar for everything your church does for kids. Put a red dot on all of the things your church does for families. Put an orange dot on all of the things it does for families together.

9. If any church hopes to genuinely partner with parents it will have to radically shift in its thinking about how it interacts with parents.

THERE ARE FIVE PRIMARY CHARACTERISTICS of a CHURCH that effectively partners with parents.—They have a strategy: a plan with an end in mind.

Churches that think orange . . .
1. Integrate strategies.
If you think YELLOW you create relevant environments to connect different age groups.

If you think ORANGE you connect leaders and parents to create life-changing experiences through every age group.

4 Words
Preschool---EMBRACE---give preschoolers a first look at who God is.

Children---TRUST---most people receive Christ as a child; teach what it means to trust Christ

Middle School---PERSONALIZE---M.S. is a critical time for a person to own their own faith

High School---EXPERIENCE---H.S. kids want to know what God want to do in them and through them; involve students doing ministry.

Churches that think orange . . .
2. Elevate Community-- Create a church culture that says: I cannot survive outside the context of community.

If you think YELLOW, you challenge small group leaders to assume total responsibility to influence a child’s relationship with Christ.

If you think ORANGE, you challenge small group leaders to partner with parents to influence a child’s relationship with Christ.

Churches that think orange . . .
3. Synchronize Content

If you think YELLOW you are consumed with asking the question, “What are we going to teach kids?”

If you think ORANGE you’re asking, “How can we get parents to teach the same things that we are teaching kids?”

Churches that think orange . . .
4. Create family experiences—something for the family to experience together.

If you think YELLOW you do more programs for kids.

If you think ORANGE you do less programs for kids so you can do more for the family.

Learn to speak “family”

Churches that think orange . . .
5. Reactivate the home—the best you can hope for is temporary influence as a church; parents have lifetime influence by default.

If you think YELLOW you act like what happens at church is more important than what happens at home.

If you think ORANGE you act like what happens at home is more important than what happens at church.

GrowUp Session I: Jump or Die--Reggie Joiner

1. We are not called to simply exist, but we are wired to experience what God has designed us to be; we feel like we were designed to accomplish or create something of eternal value—something God designed us to accomplish. As leaders we want to be part of something that is bigger than anything we can do individually.

The best thing leaders can do for their church is to get crystal clear about the mission: a church that understands who it is, why it exists & what its role is.

Just because you’re moving doesn’t mean that you’re alive.

2. We are not designed to just do church and to simply get other people to just do church.
We are designed to be the church, and to compel others to be the church!—It’s the difference between religious activity and a relationship with deity.

3. The church’s role is symbolized in Scripture by a lampstand.
It was located in a strategic place—next to the “showbread” to remind people of God’s presence and His provision for the people of Israel—Christ is the ultimate provision of which the showbread was a foreshadowing.

It was designed to fulfill a specific purpose—to be an entity to illuminate—to spotlight Christ, God’s provision.

4. This suggests that the church exists for one primary purpose—to illuminate.

5. More specifically, the church is called to highlight who God is and what He has done.
Not only are your programs not sacred, your church is not sacred—only the mission is.

6. The church’s potential to influence is directly related to how it is positioned and what it illuminates. The church should capture the world’s imagination with God.

The church has a tendency to drift from what it was originally designed to do.

Every leader has to be intentional about realigning the church to its core purpose.

7. Regardless of how you define the church, it is a critical part of God’s divine strategy to demonstrate God’s redemptive story to the world.

8. Every church should be organized around a clear strategy: to reveal Jesus to every generation.

9. Your calling to care for the lampstand (church) has: a strategic implication, a social implication, a personal implication.

Is your church helping to turn on a light in the community?

If your church ceased to exist would anyone in your community know or miss it?

On a more personal note . . .

I love ideas. I could spend the rest of my life wrestling with ideas. There is a Hasidic Jewish view of heaven held by some rabbis that heaven will be a place to ponder God for all eternity. There is no end to the person of God, so it is not impossible. In any case I am sure I will have time to get back to some of these ideas in the future, but for now I wanted to share some of my experience of the last few weeks.

As a church leader I find one of the hardest things to do is being undistracted in worship on Sunday morning. The chance to be away, if only for a weekend, where I was not responsible was immeasurable. The worship leaders at GrowUp and Northpoint did a spectacular job. In the final session of the GrowUp conference the well-planned agenda was set aside and in worship we revelled at a future when all people will glorify God.

Throughout the conference we saw glimpes of family ministry in other countries overcoming incredible cultural obstacles to reach families in Brazil, Bosnia and South Africa. One day "the dancers will dance upon injustice" in those countries. My heart is broken by the obstacles churches throughout the world face and the luxury we have in North America to be self-focused.

God is moving. It is great to be part of His Big Story.

Is God a Jumper?

When thinking about whether God was a jumper, I thought first of God’s methods of rescuing his people in the Old Testament. However, we don’t need to turn to the Old Testament in order to illustrate this. Instead we can turn to Hebrews 11 for a fine summary.

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family . . . .

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going . . . .

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice . . . .

By faith Moses’ parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict . . . .

By faith Moses when, he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharoah’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.

By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king’s anger; he persevered because he saw him who was invisible . . . .

By faith, the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword, whose weakness was turned to strength, and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

The history of the people of God is recorded from jump to jump. These jumps were huge. There was no incremental change for Abraham leaving for a country he didn’t know how to find or for Moses walking into the presence of the Pharoah and leading the people of God into the wilderness. Lest we think that these huge jumps are for only the big names of the Bible the writer of Hebrews gives us verses 35-38.

Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated—the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

Here is the list of all the nameless jumpers who carried the cause of the church forward. This is the epitaph on the tomb of the unknown Christian soldiers who jumped and it cost their lives.

These all were commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. (39)

There is something common to all of these jumps. Each one was a jump for an eternal cause. “they were longing for a better country, a heavenly one.” (They were obviously idealists) Each jump was a jump into the darkness; they didn’t know where they were going or what end. That’s what makes it a leap of faith. That is what each of these leaders was commended for. “Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Isn’t this the essence of leadership? They look forward (not behind vs 15); they jump and they lead people to jump with them.

The unfolding of God’s story has been incremental and mysterious. And yet its unfolding, while incremental for God, has been huge jumps for the people of God. What was one step for God was a great leap for mankind. Maybe this, in part, is what is meant by II Peter 3:8b, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day.”

Each one of these jumps was placed upon the heart of a human leader. They were not extraordinary men and women. The New Testament calls them earthen vessels (II Cor. 4:7) and in one place the Greek means the scum on the bottom of the pan that you can’t scrape off. They were the lowest class and the spiritually impoverished before Christ (Matt. 5:3). God has chosen these type of people “. . . to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us.” (II Cor. 4:7). There is a principle here: God chooses to use unlikely leaders to make huge jumps so that no one mistakes who gets the glory. This principle is true of the church; there is nothing miraculous about incremental change in the church. However, when churches make huge leaps and see exponential life change even the world wonders at the results. God gets the glory.

One further thought: every time we share the gospel we expect people to make huge jumps. We expect people to make a jump from believing their life is all about them to believing that life is about God. We expect them to make a jump from believing that they are basically good, to believing that they are sinners in need of a Savior. We expect them to take a jump by releasing the steering wheel and letting God direct their lives.

There is no doubt that God is patient with our ignorance, but when knowledge comes God expects radical jumping: Matt. 3:10; 5:29; 7:24-25; 18:7-9

God commands jumps: Matt. 8:21-22; 16:24-28; 19:16-26

God rebukes incremental jumps: Matt. 10:37-39

God also rewards huge jumps: Matt. 8:5-13; 10:39; 15:21-28; 25:14-30

This is just a survey of Matthew. Christ expected radical life transformation, commands radical jumps and rewards radical jumps.

Look to the warning of II Peter 3: It doesn’t begin with verse 8: God is patient, wanting none to perish (vs 8).

Instead in context it reads: The end is near. God by a word instantaneously created the entire world; in a word he will instantaneously destroy it (vs 1-7). God is not slow, just patient not wanting any to perish (vs 8). Judgment is coming in stealth. (vs 10) Don’t wait. Jump now!” (Vs.11-14)

It is the purpose of the church to help people jump into the saving arms of Christ. We ask them to make radical jumps, but the church, by and large, is unwilling to make radical jumps to ensure that it is spotlighting Jesus Christ in a culturally relevant way. There may have been a time in the United States when the church had the luxury of making incremental changes. However, since the sixties culture has been changing by huge leaps. The church needs to jump!

Session II--GrowUp06

Session II: Just Jump--Carey Nieuwhof

I. Critical Question: Am I afraid to jump? And if so, what am I afraid of?

II. Why Jump?
1. There is no such thing as incremental jumping. Incremental change only gets incremental results.
2. God, himself, is a jumper---Exodus
Heb. 11:3 God creates ex nihilo—out of nothing
3. Because everything is at stake—a radical problem requires a radical change.

55% of Americans will not attend church on Sunday. 80% of Canadians will not attend church on Sunday—sounds like a mission field to me.
85% of American churches are plateaued or declining.

II Cor. 5:18-20---The church is the hope of the world. No one else is going to do it: our education system is not going to do it; our social programs are not going to do it; our government programs are not going to do it. The church is the hope of the world no other institution is or can be because only the church spotlights the provision of God—Jesus Christ.

III. Three Jumps Every Leader Needs to Take
Without these three jumps all other jumps will only be incremental. These are critical and foundational jumps.

1. Jump One: From “it’s about us to it’s about others.” The North American church is one of the most self-focused institutions in the world.

A. Two factors that keep people from making the jump:

a. Loss of mission—the why question: Why do you do what you do?
b. Fear—fear of criticism, fear of losing members

2. Jump Two: From leading people to leading leaders. Exodus 18 should be the leadership model of churches. The One-leader model will wear your church out.

A. Leadership is far more influential than likeability—Moses is not remembered because he was well-liked.
B. Leading kids and students severely limits the scope and influence of your ministry.
C. Leadership, not passion, ensures alignment and momentum.

3. Jump Three: From talking about it to doing it.
Leaders are learners.

A. God rewards transformation, not information.
B. There is no success without sacrifice.
C. You will be most tempted to stop seconds before the critical breakthrough.
D. Focus not on what the jump might cost you, but on what you might miss.
The jumping never ends. Numbers 11


Some thoughts: Kudos to Carey Nieuwhof for the incredible feats of leadership he has accomplished in his church!!! It is stories like Carey’s that remind us that big jumps are not just for mega churches but what make plateaued and declining churches mega churches.

I think there is one take-away from Carey’s message that no church can afford to miss: Churches need to take the jump from “It’s about us” to “it’s about others.” Andy Stanley has put it another way: Churches need to make their decisions based upon who they are going to reach, not who they are going to keep.

The biggest obstacle to change in the church (and other private non-profits for that matter) is the fear of who will leave. The history of many of our churches, particularly their beginnings are stories of huge jumps, huge risks, taken with great faith. In my own church there is an aerial shot of the piece of property that was bought in 1954. In the early fifties FBC was rapidly growing out of a downtown church building. In 1954 the church purchased a piece of land to the east of downtown Ventura. The picture shows walnut orchards and fields; there is not a house, not a business, not a freeway or main street shown in the picture. The property was so far removed from Ventura downtown and residential areas, it was a crazy decision. FBC made that jump in 1954. 52 year’s later the church sits right across from the Pacific View Mall, centrally located in the City of Ventura. Thanks to the leadership of 1954, there is not a church better poised geographically to reach the city of Ventura than FBC.

Every leader knows where change needs to occur in order to make progress. Generally, however, we chose incremental change for fear of disrupting the system too greatly and upsetting or, worse, losing people. The idea is that we can still move toward where we need to be by taking steps imperceptible to everyone except ourselves. Like the frog in the pot we hope that the temperature changes so gradually the frog won’t know it’s boiling. We hope to arrive at the change without anyone noticing they’ve changed. I wonder about this---do we think we will arrive at a place where change isn’t.

In my experience there is no such thing as imperceptible change. People know they are changing, even incrementally. Because the benefits of incremental change are not easily seen, people generally only experience the pain of change. This is a principle: In incremental change only the pain of change is experienced not its benefits. We might be able to learn something from drug-rehabs here.

GrowUp Session III

I just came back from a week at Northpoint Community Church. We attended the GrowUp Conference during the week, the Alpharetta Campus on Sunday morning and the Buckhead Campus on Sunday evening. For those not familiar with Northpoint Community Church---Andy Stanley is the Senior Pastor, Reggie Joiner is the Director of Family Ministry. Northpoint meets at two campuses (Alpharetta & Buckhead) and is currently building a third (Browns Bridge). All three campuses are located within a 20 mile radius of Atlanta, Georgia. Between the two campuses the church sees an average attendance of over 15,000 people. On Sunday morning at the second and third services they were turning people away. Hosts stood outside of the two auditoriums at the Alpharetta Campus letting people know that the auditorium was full. People stood in the hallways and watched the services on monitors. And for those of us from Southern California, this all happened on a rainy day. Apparently the rain doesn’t deter Georgians.

At the Drive Conference in a message called “Communicating for Change” Andy Stanley emphasized the need to preach one-point sermons. This message is outstanding and can be heard at www.driveconference.com. Of the three messages we heard by Andy Stanley this last week he remained true to the one point sermon.

Sunday morning: Jealously is not a problem we have with other people, it is a problem we have with God.

Sunday evening at Buckhead: Confession breaks the power of guilt.

GrowUp Conference: “There is no progress without change; there is no change without challenge and if God has gifted you to lead, He’s gifted you to challenge the things that need to be changed.”---Defy Gravity, General Session III

Below is a brief summary of my notes from the message by Andy Stanley: Defy Gravity, Session III

1. Leaders love progress because the role of a leader is to take us on journeys.
2. Leaders hate the status quo---preach it!
3. Nothing strikes terror in our hearts more than the prospect of being stuck.
4. Progress is always preceded by change.
5. Change is always preceded by challenge.
6. Change is always preceded by challenge.
7. Change is always preceded by challenge.
8. Change is always preceded by challenge.

Andy camped on this point for a while. Among my notes: There is no change without a challenge. Friction is not a sign of ungodliness. When keeping the peace becomes the ultimate value then leaders will leave.

I. Challenging the status quo is where leadership begins.
Every organization conspires to stagnate, to progress toward stability; this is why leadership is so important in creating progress in an organization.

A. Leaders instinctively evaluate and critique everything.
B. It is in you to challenge the process.
C. Deep in your heart you feel that if you were in charge things would not only be different, they would be better.
D. This propensity explains why . . .
…you ask “Why?” about everything.
…you have an opinion about everything.
…you are always offering unsolicited suggestions  (Janna and I caught ourselves here the rest of the day)
…you are constantly pointing to other models.

Andy challenged people who may be giving push back to these characteristics that they may not possess the gift of leadership. Their gifts are certainly valuable to the organization, but not as leaders. They are moving at 20 miles per hour, while the leaders in the organization are trying to move at 80 miles per hour. If you are moving at 20 you need to step out of the way and follow the “rabble rousers.”

But this propensity is generally problematic . . .

II Challenging the process is often interpreted as a challenge to someone’s leadership and authority.

A. Your supervisor may confuse this tendency as arrogance or a lack of respect.

B. Keep in mind . . .

1. Everything that is in place was originally considered a good idea.
…like those thrones on the platform in Baptist churches, large one for the pastor and music person, the small ones for mamma and baby bear.
2. Everything that is in place was originally somebody’s good idea.
3. Everything that is in place was once viewed as revolutionary.
4. Everything that is in place began as a challenge to the status quo.

III. Application
A. Develop the art of challenging the process without challenging the authority of your leader.---cf. the section on “Leading Up” in John Maxwell’s, 360 Degree Leader.

1. When an instruction is given—follow through. Debrief later.
2. Never verbalize your frustration with the process in front of other team members
Principle: Loyalty publicly results in leverage privately.
3. Don’t confuse your insights with moral imperatives
4. When you can’t follow, get off the team.

B. Create a culture where it is safe for leaders to challenge the process.
You don’t recruit leaders by making an announcement; you recruit leaders by creating a culture that is safe for leaders to challenge the process.

1. You don’t gain anything by not knowing what they are already thinking.—gain their insight. Leaders are already thinking that they can do your job better than you, so gain their insight.
2. Don’t confuse an expression of leadership with rebellion.
3. If our leaders have permission to challenge the process:

Everybody wins
The organization remains relevant
We create an environment that attracts leaders.
Nothing goes underground.

Suggestions for creating a culture where it is safe for leaders to challenge the process:

1. Have new leaders evaluate the organization after 3 months & after 1 year.
Ask questions like: What surprised you about this job? Does anything seem off purpose? What improvements in staff & department need to be made? How are your opinions received?

2. Have leaders brainstorm the following scenario: Something tragic has happened to the Senior Pastor. The whole organization has been turned over to you. What changes would you make? There are no sacred cows.

Some thoughts: I might add that everything that is in place now and everything that will be in place in the future began as a challenge. There is no way out of the challenge factor. A good place for self evaluation for many churches would be to ask the question: “Who in our organization is allowed to make a challenge?” This sort of question may get to what is impeding a culture where it is safe for leaders to challenge the status quo. I suspect that for many churches that there is a bottleneck on change and progress because of one or more of the following factors:

The “they” factor: leaders, including the senior leader, are afraid to make challenges because of what “they” might think. “They” could be people who hold political power, but may not hold actual leadership positions in the organization. In this case only “they” are able to make challenges and since no body knows who “they” are, no challenges are made because “they” might get upset.

Unclear governance structure: This would be the organization where power and the ability to make decisions is constantly shifting. Decision making power is typically “shared” between several leadership bodies. I.e. board of directors, senior leader, staff, committees etc. . . In the climate of unclear governing structures it may be safe to challenge the status quo, but change dies on the operating table as it is passed from governing body to governing body. One doesn’t know who to address a challenge to. Each governing body acts in fear of getting their fingers caught in an area that they may have no authority.

One leader only factor: only one person is allowed to challenge. In this environment you can expect stagnation in two forms: If the leadership structure of a church only allows challenges from one person and that person is not a leader you can expect stagnation because few or no challenges will be made. Secondly, no problem can be solved by the same consciousness that created it. When there is only one person allowed to challenge the status quo that person can’t know what they don’t know. This structure needs to empower a team of leaders that is allowed to make challenges.

The key to preventing stagnation in an organization is to expect your gifted leaders to challenge the status quo and have a plan to garner those challenges, have clear governance structures and have a team of leaders who are allowed to challenge and act upon challenges to the status quo.