status

Groups Leader Video

Since we’re always looking for new opportunities to introduce better ways to communicate and leverage platforms to connect with our folks who are scattered and disbursed, we’ve been trying out a new way to provide training to our group leaders who cannot make our regular meetings.

One of the best tools that I’ve encountered for doing this, as well as doing video conferencing for one-on-one, small, medium, and large sized groups, is the Zoom platform. Here’s a sample video that I’ve sent out to our group leaders at University Baptist updating them on some basic information, providing some calendar updates, and then talking about a few more detailed matters.

 

09
Jun 2017
POSTED BY Garet
DISCUSSION No Comments
status

Fish for Groups

IMG_0004This past Sunday, we held a meeting of the Young Adults Leadership teams that are part of the ministry at Sugar Creek Baptist Church. This is an annual pre-fall meeting where we discuss what’s been going on in our ministry area, what is coming, and then take some time to refine some aspect of our overall groups processes. We are incredibly blessed with strong lay leaders at Sugar Creek and, even with a few leaders missing, still have 52 in attendance for our luncheon.
One of the key parts of any healthy and growing ministry is the continued investment in leadership development through times of intentional training and a willingness to talk through basic ministry structures. As I’ve learned (often the hard way) those in ministry must remember two key principles:

1. We can never tell our people how much we love them.

2. We can never show our people how much they mean to us.

At Sugar Creek, we’ve found that many of our best leadership development times come on Sundays, often during or directly following our regular programming. So, this past Sunday, we held a lunch, catered by a wonderful vendor, that allowed our leadership to enjoy a great meal and then participate in some leadership discussions.

To facilitate the second part of this day, we used the powerful training resource called Fish! Philosophy and applied it to our groups ministry. I discovered the Fish! Philosophy while serving at a previous ministry venue and have seen the impact the four key principles can have in creating discussions to aid ministry development. The Fish! Philosophy uses a well produced video to discuss four principles that make any experience wonderful:Front Slide

1. Play

2. Make their Day

3. Be There

4. Choose Your Attitude

After showing the video, we had our groups, sitting together as a leadership team, to talk about how they could apply each in their groups. Perhaps most significant in any training time, especially with Millennials, is being sure to allow for mutual collaboration through conversation with their peers. To often we end up talking at people and not with them and this defeats the purpose of leadership training.

For any groups ministry, a consistent pattern of leadership development enables trust and provides a platform for continued health in these groups. If you are looking to start new groups, you can often find your leaders from times like these.

How we foster a culture of continued ministry leadership development is key to seeing health raised up in our churches and growth, not necessarily numerical, occur among our people. This is one example of how leadership development works well in an established church culture.

03
Sep 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Leadership

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

Millennials and Marriage: pt 3, some hope

In the continuing conversation about Millennials and Marriage, too often the soundtrack is one of negativity and diminishing expectations. This leads older generations to think poorly of the succeeding generations. Of course this seems to always be the case.

However, with Millennials there is some hope in how they are approaching the topic of marriage. Though the data is thin on some of these points there are some positive takeaways for churches and ministry leaders that will hopefully be of encouragement.

As we’ve previously discussed, finding the data behind on Millennials is a difficult task. We also must acknowledge that there is a changing cultural landscape taking place underneath Millennials Marriage Hopeour feet. For Millennials, marriage will be approached differently, but that doesn’t mean they devalue marriage or will never be married. It simply means it will look different.

In fact, and this is the most important statistic available, 70% of Millennials want to get married.

Though that might be lower historically than other generations it is still an important statistic. For a generation that is the largest, most diverse, and most affected by divorce rates, Millennials are still, largely, optimistic about some key life issues.

Maybe they don’t care much for compartmentalization of politics, or for justifying class warfare, or even seeking out “traditional” forms of anything. Millennials do still care for some basic life issues. Notice that poll from Pew, Millennials still desire, by and large, to get married and, even more, to have children (74%.) Perhaps this is a good starting point.

Also, the delay of marriage signals that Millennials are careful about their commitment to another person for marriage.

marriage educationIt is often seen, by older generations, that delaying marriage is a bad thing, however for many Millennials it is due, in part, to a desire to find a suitable mate. Coupling this will continuing education, indebtedness, unemployment or underemployment, and the desire to fulfill some life goals (hiking Europe, digging water wells in Africa, seeing the world) before marriage add to this delay. Cohabitation is also part of this, though I would still argue the negatives outweigh the benefits long term. Yet all these factors

Millennials desire a truly egalitarian relationship between spouses.

While older generations still idealize June and Ward Cleaver, even though they didn’t exist for the vast majority of Americans, Millennials desire equality between the spouses. This means that decision making is not autocratic but communal. Both spouses are valued in the marriage and have a voice. Now, how Millennials work out spiritual leadership or even final decisions is not data that is available. The initial indications are that while both spouses are fairly independent, they do have more desire to come together and collaborate in decision making for many family issues.

With a growing egalitarianism, regardless of your view, there is something which needs to be egalitarian marriagepointed out about education. Right now female Millennials are 33% more likely to graduate college than their male peers. We are seeing a social shift where women are more finishing school on time and entering the workforce at a higher rate than men. Soon enough “Fair Pay” issues won’t be discussed because the women with the degrees and credential will be running the place more than men. (Surely there are other factors here but allow me this point.) It also means that women are now “marrying down” and having trouble finding suitable men. This is a significant moment of opportunity for churches and ministries with the guts, and credibility, to do something about it.

The Pew poll which is adding much of these conclusions does provide a helpful comparisons to Gen Xers. Between these two groups there are some noticeable trends that should be carefully weighed. If we were to compare these trends to Boomers and Busters, then we would certainly see wider gaps.

Our hope in working with Millennials and Marriage still should be something that sparks us towards innovation and re-engagement rather than distance. For our next, and final discussion, we’ll take a look at some ways we can do both of these in light of the data, the changing landscape, and the hope that exists. 

03
Apr 2014
POSTED BY Garet
POSTED IN

Church

DISCUSSION No Comments
status

Thoughts on Church Based Ministry Schools

Over the past several years there have been several mega-churches (and giga-churches) that have started ministry schools out of their campus(es) which are seeking to train young adults in their specific ministry model while also providing them with a college level education.

Of course, this movement isn’t anything new. In fact, it is quite old-school. 

Earlier today I saw a leader in evangelicalism send out a tweet promoting the new ministry school his church was starting. As I ruminated over this, it got me thinking about some of the old fundamentalist Bible institutes and colleges which emerged out of the cultural isolation resulting from the Scopes Monkey Trial. In the period from the 1930s to the 1950s (and a bit beyond) many disenfranchised fundamentalists withdrew from the larger cultural conversation and began to promote and support their own ministry programs and educational systems.

George Marsden has noted about this period in his marvelous Fundamentalism and American Culture (Revised Edition):

Since dispensationalists lacked and clear view of the organized church above the local level, the Bible institutes played a major role in giving them some unity. They arose in response to the demands of urban ministries and the desire to train lay leader for evangelism. They also served as centers for training for foreign missions – always a prominent concern. A wide variety of local evangelistic agencies, local congregations, Bible conferences, publications, and independent national agencies for missions and other types of evangelism was informally united by common ties to various Bible institutes…Of these, Moody Bible Institute was preeminent, not only because of its connection with the late evangelist, but also because of the leadership of two of the outstanding spokesmen for the movement, Reuben A Torrey, first superintendent (from 1889 to 1908) and James M Gray, who served from 1904 to 1934, first as dean and later as president. (128-9)

Now, though the old fashioned institutes were crafted with the idea of training young men for ministry (and women for support roles) and focused primarily on evangelism and missions. These new Church Based Ministry Schools continue an evangelistic purpose, but have, as their primary focus training in ministry leadership and church growth models. 

It is a palatable difference.

torrey09However, the aim seems to be the same. In the early part of last century as these institutes arose there was a general mistrust for seminaries and universities with the influx of German Liberalism and modernist professors. Now, it seems, the mistrust continues to a degree, but it is not about the failure of theology, but the failure of adequate ministry preparation.

It is hard to find a seminary graduate, even from our best evangelical seminaries, who is “ministry ready” upon graduation. For many of these mega and giga-churches, training young leaders in their models is a better investment (for so many reasons) than prioritizing seminary graduates as staffing options.

What is striking isn’t this last paragraph, but that history is, once again, repeating itself. The next several decades will be fascinating to watch. The way that evangelicalism is poised in America the wings of fundamentalism, progressivism, Calvinism, and church growth model are re-creating the grounds that led to the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of this same era one hundred years ago.

May we find a better way than division and isolation. The true challenge is that while 100 years ago Christianity remained the dominant cultural spiritual expression in America, we have many other growing voices today.

status

Leading from the Bench

One of the best awards the NBA gives out every year is the “Sixth Man of the Year” award. The purpose of the award is to recognize an outstanding contributor who isn’t a regular starter in the front five of an NBA team. Last year, JR Smith won for his contributions with the New York Knickerbockers. The year before, James Harden (and his beard) won for Oklahoma City. For any player to win the award they are seen as a substitute player who can come into a game and both maintain the level of excellence the starters have been displaying and, even, raise the level of performance on the floor.

sixthmanFor a league where egos and dynamic talents often are the lead story on Sportscenter, the Sixth Man of the Year is someone who, though they could likely start for any team in the NBA, allows themselves to be that “next guy up” and begins the game on the bench. These individuals have the talent to lead, but do so in a different, but just as meaningful way. In any basketball how a coach substitutes players is almost as important as the plays the team runs. Since no one player can play all the minutes of a game, the bench is an important part of a winning team.

In ministry, just like in other organizations, there are often leaders who are starters and those behind them who might be likened to bench players. A lot of times for those on the bench there is an inexorable tension between wanting to be a starter and recognize one’s role on the team.

Now, starters get their positions for a lot of reasons. On sports teams it may well be that a starter is there because of their past performance and current contract. You can’t have a $10 million dollar a year center on the bench if he can play well enough to contribute. Another reason is because some of the starters are legitimately good enough to have that position.

basketball bench

Perhaps the hardest time for any team (sports, ministry, business, etc) is when a starter has stopped producing and is no longer effective and someone on the bench at their position consistently contributes at a high level whenever called on.

Most of the time replacing a starter is a hard task. It takes time and, if a coach or leader lacks the skill set or honesty to talk with them, the transition can be difficult. Established starters are the hardest to replace, even when their performance and production has fallen off a cliff, often because of loyalty and past victories.

For the bench players, this time between being an effective substitute and being a starter is the hardest. So, how do we handle it?

1. Show up early and leave late – Nothing impresses your leaders’ leader(s) like seeing a bench player who is there when people arrive and stays after they leave to make things better. It might be the most difficult thing to do, but being called on often comes up after consistent contributions when people are in need.

2. Continue to contribute at a high level when called on – One of the temptations is to start mailing in your efforts, or sulking on the bench. Too often bench players stay bench players because they don’t project the competency to lead or have questions about their character.

3. Contribute in ways that make the starter at your position look good – Having the opportunity to build confidence into yourself and the starter above you will always help you. When others see that our “position” (read department, area, team, etc) is being handled well it will be spoken of well.

4. When it is time seek out other opportunities – Leaving one team for another is always hard and shouldn’t be taken lightly. However, sometimes the coach is so dedicated to the starter that even a future Hall of Famer won’t get the opportunity. When it comes time to leave make sure you’ve given it time and you aren’t leaving with spite. Other opportunities will arise, but make sure your next step is for a team that is a good fit for your skills.

5. Above all, stay motivated and stay focused – Your job on the bench is to contribute in a way that continues to put up points, run the plays, and perform in a way that it is like the starters haven’t left the floor. If you do this others will notice and your opportunities to contribute will abound.

6. One more, seek out a confidant or wise mentor – Know this, you are not alone. Though the bench is often overlooked, there are others on the bench with you. Your struggle might be their struggle. Find someone who is trustworthy and you can confide in so that you can blow off some steam and manage your struggle. Handling this tension alone and in private can be self-destructive.

Being part of any team is a struggle that is going to have its challenges and rewards. For Millennials, it is easy for us to get discouraged and defeated. Part of this is because so many of us have grown up in an entitlement age that we are “owed” certain roles. The truth of the matter is that we aren’t owed anything, but we can earn a whole lot.

Leading from the bench, whether in business or ministry, means we are ready, willing, and able to put forward an outstanding effort because we are called to greatness and know that it will, in the end, lead to something more meaningful.

As you look to lead from the bench in your life, I pray you find your meaning, look for learning moments, develop a steadfast character, and pursue excellence in all things.

status

A Few Notes on Charismatic Authority in the Early Church

One of the rising issues in scholarship concerning the character and trajectory of authority in the earliest Christian communities that is central to understanding the relationships between the ecclesial structures of these communities (i.e. churches) comes out of the work of Rudolph Sohm and Max Weber concerning charisma.

WeberBefore getting too far into this, we need to make an important distinction that this charismatic authority isn’t the same thing as what happens in Pentecostal and Charismatic churches today. Though there is some relation, there are quite a gulf in understanding.

Sohm, a Protestant German lawyer in the late 1800s, championed the notion in his two-volume Kirchenrecht that the earliest Christian communities centralized authority through the exercise of the charismatic office. For Sohm, the earliest communities operated in a kind of theocratic autonomy based around the charismatic exercise of the Holy Spirit’s influence and the churches grew tremendously. It was not until the integration of a legalist framework, or the law, that began structuring early churches that they began stepping away from the original intent of Spirit-led (not in the contemporary sense) leadership and into a more structured offices which led towards confinement in the earliest churches. When this happened, following the Apostolic era, the churches began moving away from their free nature and into ecclesiastical confinement around structured authority. The bureaucracy that arose was in contradiction to the original intent and approach of the Apostles. (I’ll be dealing with this issue heavily in my dissertation…so look for it…later in 2014.)

Max Weber is, perhaps, one of the most significant sociological figures in the early part of the 20th century. Weber built his concept of charismatic authority largely from Sohm, though with notable differences and other influences. Weber approached charismatic authority in early cultic communities by noting that some kind of supernatural or exceptional quality in an individual would build a group of followers in which that person would carry that message, cultic activity, out and eventually lead to institutionalization. (Yes, there is far more to be said here.)

It seems that in making these points, both Sohm and Weber, have rightly noted that in early communities (we can say cultic and Christian here) charismatic authority is the basis for much of their activities and practices. Since these communities lack the sophistication of hierarchal administration they default to using charisma as their primary collectivizing agent. For Christian communities in the immediate Apostolic era, the Spirit led authorization of leadership was a primary device they noted for how they proceeded to raise up and empower leadership. Since authority was seen to be first invested in Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18-20) and then transferred to the Apostles, it continues to be available to the followers of Jesus by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This means that the Spirit leads in many decisions about the nature and structure of the leadership in the earliest communities…including their relationship between themselves.

Now that we have documents such as the Didache available, which were not in widespread circulation during Sohm’s life, this does seem to reinforce the idea that towards the end of the Apostolic era (depending on your dating of the Didache) the false teachings of destructive prophets and self-appointed apostles necessitated more strict adherence to local community codes and offices. 

As the official office of Apostle ends (I’ll make this case soon) at the end of the first century, the routinization of clerical offices and liturgical observance in the earliest churches begins to shift towards both confinement of authority (for purification) and standardization of practices. As Clement of Rome and Ignatius present in their epistles at the turn of the second century, though autonomy continues (my postulation) between communities, standardization in office follows the form of the late Pauline ecclesiology reflected in the Pastoral epistles over the Jewish-Hellenist movement in the Petrine literature.

This means charismatic authority as a default modus operandi of the earliest communities (which were almost entirely based in house-church models) begins to shift towards ecclesial consolidation.

At the turn of the second century there is a movement away from charismatic authority and towards structured institutionalization. This changed the nature of the ecclesiological foundations for the earliest churches until the early part of the third century.

Of course, the larger challenge in the discussion of how charismatic authority in the earliest Christian communities develops centers around a few points:

– Were the Apostles charismatic agents or empowered followers of the agent, Jesus Christ?apostolic council

– If the intent of the original founders of the Church, developed since Pentecost, was to provide an autonomous confederation of communities, how did the exercise of authority (for instance the Jerusalem Council of Galatians 1-2) play out across the Mediterranean region?

– In terms of NT ecclesiology, (I do buy into pluriformity) why is there little to no references to hierarchal authority in the historical or epistolary literature of the NT?

– If charismatic authority in local communities was the initial basis for the administration of the ordinances, proclamation of the Gospel, and exercising of discipline, what caused the eventual confinement to a structured episcopal system?

– Finally, if the Apostolic era, as relayed in the NT literature, provides a picture, primarily, of autonomous churches being planted by an apostolic missionary force and then left to grow, how does this influence our current models of church planting, growth, and polity?

Of course these questions are serious and could, themselves, provide the basis for much research. Ultimately, my course is simply evaluating the autonomous nature of these confederated communities. A unique, and lengthy, task.

UA-40705812-1