Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Making your teaching effective...

I'm preparing for a seminar I'm leading soon and thought I would share some of the points here:


  • Make an Impression:  What is the one thing you want the students to get?  Do everything, from illustrations, object lessons, and visual aids, to reinforce the main thing.  If they leave with one "take away" you have succeeded.  
  • Make it Applicable:  How will this change their lives?  What should the student DO with this information?  Help them apply the truth into their everyday lives.  Let them see it modeled in your own life.  If they do one thing as a result of this lesson, you have succeeded.
  • Make it Stick: If the first two steps don't seem to be working keep repeating them until you see change. Repetition is often necessary to get a truth to sink in and affect change.  Use new methods, illustrations and techniques as needed but stick to the same key point until it sticks.
  • Make it Theirs: Make it their message.  Give them opportunity to teach it, live it and experience it.  Be creative.                                                (adapted in part from "Think Orange" by Joiner pg. 150)

Monday, April 15, 2013

Church Conflict


Below is a paper from a seminar I took a couple of years ago regarding church conflict.  This was a part of my DMin degree but also served to prepare me for the intentional interim pastoral positions.  I'm posting it here so that it may serve to help others: 

DEFINING CHURCH CONFLICT

Churches represent the bride of Christ, thus some might assume that any form of conflict within a church is completely antithetical to her function and purpose. However, that all depends upon how one views the nature of conflict. Church conflict, as taught by some experts, can be seen as a necessary component of any congregation and even healthy to promote growth and spiritual development. Others view conflict through the biblical lens as a result of sin, thus the solution can only be rightly modeled by God’s approach in reconciliation with man. The concept of reconciliation is at the heart of Christianity, thus methods of conflict resolution are foundational in scripture and thus a necessary function of the church. As such, church leaders must equip themselves to deal biblically with this necessary aspect of church growth.

Conflicts are stressful circumstances which arise in human relationships within any given congregation. This is inevitable in any endeavor where humans interact with each other.  Conflict is particularly unavoidable when antagonists are present and must be dealt with quickly and firmly before greater conflict arises. However, the methods and practices of dealing with conflict and those who cause them can be counterproductive if not handled rightly. Any church leader would be well advised to study and prepare on how to deal with such circumstances as they most certainly will arise.

As seen thus far, there are many components of conflict which must be addressed and defined. Dr. Lloyd Elder, professor and director of the Moench Center for Church Leadership at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee defines conflict as “a situation in which two or more members or factions struggle aggressively over what is, or appears to be, mutually exclusive beliefs, values, assumed powers or goals." Most often the cause of conflict can be linked to miscommunication, misunderstandings, personality differences, doctrines, values, or finances. Understanding these root causes and all that defines the circumstance surrounding church conflict is invaluable for leaders given the charge to guide a congregation through these difficult and inevitable paths.

PERSONAL EVALUATION AND REFLECTIONS OF GROWTH

Prior to taking this course I mistakenly thought of conflict as being unbecoming and unnecessary for true believers. I certainly would not have ever labeled any kind of church conflict as “healthy.” My tendency was to ignore and avoid conflict at all costs. If pressed, I would stand up to an antagonist, but I would do so as a last resort and with great reluctance. Most would consider me to be very diplomatic in my handling of disagreements among church members, because I do strive to focus the attention on the issues rather than making it personal. However, my reluctance to address conflict early has most likely lead to larger unnecessary issues that eventually come to need my diplomacy.

I have learned that conflict is necessary and can be very healthy. In fact, conflict can be a sign of growth and vibrancy of a congregation. Recognizing the signs for when church conflict begins to become unhealthy is invaluable. Understanding that my goal as a leader must be “to mediate the situation to achieve a reasonably positive outcome and impact” helps as I attempt to avoid a potential harm when the inevitable conflict arises.  Before, my focus was on avoiding the conflict by focusing on more spiritual matters in hope that it would simply go away if the people were just more “Christ-like.” Now, I understand that while conflict may be a result of sin, that does not make it “unchristian” or unworthy of being addressed or even used to bring about a positive and productive end.

This seminar has helped me view conflict more as an opportunity for growth, but it has also given me a reminder of the seriousness of addressing potential hazards earlier in the process. The class discussions and book reviews helped me to categorize disagreements, define problems, and anticipate conflict. I’ve learned that focusing on the “yes” that unites the congregation is far more effective than attempting to criticize or demean the complainers. I admit, in the past I have been guilty of throwing the whiners under the bus rather than keeping the focus on finding the common ground. Reaching resolution early in the process is much more effective as a long-term solution.

Works Cited:

1 George W. Bullard, Jr., Every Congregation Needs a Little Conflict (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2008), 64.
! 2 Kenneth C. Newberger, Hope in the Face of Conflict: Making Peace with Others the Way God Makes Peace with Us (Three Sons Publishing, SDM, 2009), 18.
! 3 Peter L. Steinke, Congregational Leadership in Anxious Times: Being Calm and Courageous No Matter What (Herndon, VA: The Alban Institute, 2006), 22.
! 4 Kenneth G. Haugk, Antagonists in the Church – How to Identify and Deal with Destructive Conflict (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1988), 21-22.

5 Loyd Elder, “Managing Ministry Stress: Study Resources,” adapted from SkillTrack Vol. 11 [Accessed on October 26, 2011, from http://www.servantleaderstoday.com/_97.htm]. 


Saturday, March 02, 2013

Great Leaders Listen

I stumbled across a leadership article by Mike Myatt, a contributor to Forbes magazine, with the blunt title, "Why Most Leaders Need to Shut Up and Listen." He begins the article with a great point:
"While some may be impressed with how well you speak, the right people will be impressed with how well you listen. Great leaders are great listeners, and therefore my message today is a simple one – talk less and listen more. The best leaders are proactive, strategic, and intuitive listeners. They recognize knowledge and wisdom are not gained by talking, but by listening. Take a moment and reflect back on any great leader who comes to mind…you’ll find they are very adept at reading between the lines. The best leaders possess the uncanny ability to understand what is not said, witnessed, or heard."
I agree whole heartedly and I'd add that it's not just about 'reading between the lines,' but asking the right questions to better understand the intent of the one communicating. Leaders who know how to listen to others are far more influential and impacting than leaders choosing only to draw upon their own ideas, knowledge and understanding. A leader who listens broadens his scope of ideas, his range of knowledge and the vastness of his understanding exponentially.

 So, why don't more leaders listen? I suspect that pride keeps many from wanting to hear and possibly adopt the ideas of others... (We have all seen the movies and sit-coms where the subordinate patronizingly makes the "leader" feel that he came up with the idea so as to get him to adopt it. Such parities are comical because sadly and all too often they are true.) Too many leaders are more concerned with getting the credit than they are in seeing the organization succeed. As many great leaders have said throughout history, "There is no limit to the amount of good that people can accomplish, if they don't care who gets the credit." (Truman, Reagan, and others)

 We can talk all day about the need for a leader to enable his team to contribute to the overall vision and direction of the organization, but unless we discuss how that is done practically it is likely to become one of those 'good principles' that is never actually implemented. Listening is the most PRACTICAL step any leader can take to empower, equip and mobilize their team!

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Words of Wisdom from A.W. Tozer


I love AW Tozer's writings.  I believe his views (like mine) changed over his ministry, but one thing I really respect about him his is clear love for God.  It is infectious.  He is one of the few 'non-Calvinistic' writers who put as much emphasis on God's attributes as Calvinists do (as did many of the non-calvinistic scholars of old).

He may have issues with the soteriological conclusions of Calvinism, but he doesn't fall into the soft peddling, people pleasing, feel good, ear tickling non-sense either.    Tozer is a good example of a balanced, scholarly, pastor who clearly loved God and had a gift to communicate it.

Here is a quote from a biography of Tozer that still brings conviction and challenge:

I was preparing to go to Nyack College. Before I left there was one burning question I had in mind, and I went to Dr. Tozer and said, "Could you give me some advice concerning the problem of Calvinism versus Arminianism?" 
And I'll never forget the advice he gave me. At the time I thought it was rather inconclusive and not too helpful. But I listened carefully. He said, "My son, when you get to college you're going to find that all of the boys will be gathered in a room discussing and arguing over Arminianism and Calvinism night after night after night. I'll tell you what to do, Cliff. Go to your room and meet God. At the end of four years you'll be way down the line and they'll still be where they started, because greater minds than yours have wrestled with this problem and have not come up with satisfactory conclusions. Instead, learn to know God."   - Cliff Westergren

Now, I'm going to pray...

Friday, December 21, 2012

Defining Sovereignty

"God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, 'What doest thou?' Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so." - A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
Some seem to believe that for God to be considered "Sovereign" then men cannot have a free or autonomous will.  But this view presumes that God, the infinite and omnipotent one, is somehow incapable of maintaining control over free creatures; thus this view, while attempting to defend those very attributes of God, seem to actually undermine them.

Should sovereignty be interpreted and understood as the necessity of God to 'play both sides of the chess board' in order to ensure His victory?  Or should it be understood as God's infinite and mysterious ways of accomplishing His purposes and ensuring His victory in, through and despite the free and evil choices of creation?  Must God be in equal control over the choices of those who oppose Him in order to accomplish victory?  Or is God so powerful, wise, intelligent, all-knowing and infinite that He is able to overcome, work through, and in despite of free evil choices to accomplish the ultimate good?

I'm not pretending that we can really understand His infinite ways or the means by which He accomplishes all things in conjunction with man's will.  We cannot really even understand our own ways.  But, I'm saying that the revelation of God's holiness, His unwillingness to even tempt men to sin, His absolute perfect nature and separateness from sin, certainly appears to suggest that our finite, linear, logical constructs should not be used to contain or define him.

For example, some argue such things as, "If God knew what would happen in this world prior creating the world, but chose to create it anyway, then God must have determined everything to be as it is."  While the logic of this sounds plausible, we must recognize the limitations inherent within such finite observations.  The argument imposes a linear way of thinking, and a cause/effect construct upon an infinite Being, who is not bound by time, space, cause and effects.  His ways are higher than our ways and so we cannot presume that his knowledge of future events is somehow equal to what our knowledge of future events might be if we had a crystal ball and could somehow look through the linear corridors of time.  But He is not stuck on a linear timeline, looking into the past or the future.   He is the infinite great "I AM," which suggest that His knowledge is less like our set knowledge of past events (or future ones if we had a crystal ball) and more like our knowledge of present reality.  We know what is happening right NOW because we exist in the NOW.  God eternally exists in the eternal NOW, which is beyond our comprehension for sure, but should we (indeed CAN WE) draw hard and fast conclusions about such infinite realities?   Should we conclude that God determines the evils of this world with the same "sovereignty" that determined the redemption by which those evils are reconciled?  Is God determining to merely correct his own determinations?

Much more could be said, but in short we must refrain from bringing unbiblical conclusions based upon our finite perceptions to our understanding of God's nature.  We must accept the revelation of scripture. He is Holy.  He does not take pleasure in sin.  He genuinely desires all men, every individual, to come to Him and be saved.  No man will stand before the father and be able to give the excuse, "I was born unloved by my creator.  I was born unchosen and without the hope of salvation.  I was born unable to see, hear or understand God's revelation of Himself."  No, they will stand without excuse, because God loved them, called them to salvation, revealed himself to them and provided the means by which their sins would be atoned.  No man has any excuse.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

What to address when your church becomes STAGNANT?


I wrote this article for a church growth course a while back and thought it may be helpful for some:

What happens when a church stagnates?  The same thing that happens to water; it becomes polluted.  When thirsting for a drink while hiking in the woods anyone would rather come across a fresh moving stream that is teeming with life than a stagnate putrid pond that smells of death.  The same is true of those seeking a place of worship.  People are looking for vibrancy, freshness, and life.

So what should we do if we find ourselves in a church that is beginning to stagnate?  Here are 8 considerations for any church to address to avoid becoming a S-T-A-G-N-A-N-T church:  

S – STAFF:  The personal spiritual development of every leader is an absolute necessity. We all know that leaders cannot take a congregation to a place where they themselves have not been.  A congregation cannot over emphasize the need for the continued health and development of their ministerial staff.  If the leaders are going to be expected to pour themselves out each week into the lives of others they MUST be getting refilled regularly.  

T – TRADITION:  “We’ve always done it this way,” is not a good reason to keep doing something.  As the saying goes, “If the horse is dead, dismount.”  Likewise, the phrase, “We’ve never done it that way before,” is not a good reason to reject a new idea. Every church program, event or activity must go through an annual evaluation to be reaffirmed, refined, replaced or retired.

A – ATTITUDE:  Judgmental attitudes must be dealt with immediately.  It should surprise no one that the lost will act lost even when they visit your church.  Visitors shouldn’t feel they need to ‘clean themselves up’ before they are accepted and loved.  Teach the people to love the sinner and hate the sin, but never confuse the two.

Likewise, conflict among believers must be addressed.  “The Christ in you is never at conflict with the Christ in me,” thus if there is conflict between us then flesh is in the mix and the two must seek Christ’s direction.

G – GROUPS:  Relationships thrive in smaller numbers, so in order to grow numerically a church must put an emphasis on moving people to engage within smaller groups.  Small group leaders must be trained and equipped to recruit and send out new leaders to keep groups at an intimate and manageable size. 

The size of the facilities are important as well.  Studies show that once a room reaches about 70% capacity, something must change to accommodate growth.  Some suggest to get a bigger room, others say to start a new group.  Each congregation must decide what is best for their specific circumstance, but one thing is certain; if you do nothing the the group will stagnate over time.

N – NEGOTIABLES:  Practice Romans 14:1: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.” There is nothing that will flat-line a church faster than inner turmoil and squabbles over frivolous matters.  Do not allow molehills to become mountains.  Know what is worth fighting for and what is better left alone. 

Carpet colors, music styles, room temperatures and other such surface level issues have done more to squelch kingdom growth than all the major in-depth theological disagreements combined.  It seems that many of these conflicts arise when such decisions are brought to the congregation, as if it is ever a good idea to allow large groups to make decisions regarding stylistic details and preferences?  Does anyone actually expect to get a church wide consensus regarding such matters?   I'd be worried if you did, because its probably an indication that either everyone in your church is just alike, or (more likely) that many are scared to say anything because of a dominate and opinionated individual exerting their will on the others...neither of which is healthy.

Save your church a lot of trouble and get qualified professionals to work with one or two appointed members to make those types of decisions and then stand behind those decisions as "completed and not up for dispute." Give an outlet for suggestions and feedback, but do not allow debates over such matters distract the congregation from what is most important.


A – APPEAL:  A church I worked with recently decided to paint the stark white walls a more warm and inviting color.  One of the men in the church protested, “A coat of paint ain’t gonna grow this church.”  He is right, it ain’t; but, it may help those who visit not feel like they just walked into a morgue. 

Men especially have a tendency to overlook the power of appeal.  We are typically more practical creatures who couldn’t care less about how nicely a place is decorated, but let’s just be honest, who is usually the one making the decision about where to attend church?  Right or wrong, the women have the greatest influence on where a family chooses to worship.  How does your church look through a woman’s eyes?  Can she tell your fellowship cares about the place of worship?

The consideration of the church’s appeal is much more than paint colors and decoration.  It is everything from the time a guest arrives in your parking lot to the time they drive away.  Was it difficult to park?  Were they greeted when they arrived?  Did they know where to go?  Were the bathrooms clean?  How do the childcare facilities look?  What about the worship service as a whole?  Was it applicable and relevant?  The worship service is typically the first and most important influence on visitors.  Therefore, the praise and worship should be appealing and the service should flow smoothly with seamless transitions.  The preaching should be engaging, applicable, and relevant.

N - NON-NEGOTIABLES:  Never sacrifice sound biblical doctrine for the sake of growing numerically.  Leaving out the ‘difficult’ doctrines concerning sin, judgment, and hell so as to appeal to the masses may be effective, but you risk making them “twice as much a son of hell as you are” (Matt. 23:15).  The church is not called to tickle their ears (2 Tim. 4:3), but to speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15).  There is more than one way to pollute the church, so take care not to make a bigger mess while attempting to clean up another.

T – TARGETING:  Accept and love everyone, but understand no single local congregation can please all the people all the time.  Your church will appeal to some demographics and cultural groups more than another.  That is okay.  The message never changes but sometimes the methods do.  Choose whatever style best represents who you are as a congregation and do that with excellence.   Starting a new group or even a new church which is able to better relate and connect with different preferences is more effective than trying to please everyone.  Pray and ask the Father to provide your church creative ways to reach your community and be prepared to do some things outside the box. 


1

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Total Depravity and the Doctrine of Judicial Hardening


How does the Biblical doctrine of Hardening relate to the Calvinistic teachings of Total Depravity?

According to scripture only those in a hardened state are unable to see, hear, understand and believe (Acts 28:26-28: John 12:39-40). And this is not a condition from birth, but a condition one grows into after much rebellion.  However, it appears that Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity teaches that everyone is essentially born in this condition due to the Fall of Man.  John Piper, a highly regarded Calvinistic pastor, explains it this way:

"...we were incapable of any life with God. Our hearts were like a stone toward God. Our hearts were blind and incapable of seeing the glory of God in Christ. We were totally unable to reform ourselves."  -John Piper
So, this begs the question: Is all mankind born unable to see (blind/hardened) or do we 'become hardened,' as the Jews did after a time of rebelling against God's revelation?

Now, I believe the doctrine of Original Sin can clearly be seen in the scripture, but the Calvinistic teaching of Total Depravity appears to take this foundational truth one step further by suggesting that God decreed that all mankind (as a result of the Fall) would be born unable to see, hear, understand and thus willingly respond to the gospel appeal.  In essence, Calvinism's view of Total Depravity suggests that all mankind is born Judicially Hardened...unable to willingly respond.  Yet God, according to Calvinism, still holds men responsible for that response.  How can it be?  The Calvinist isn't saying that mankind is merely held responsible for sin (or the Fall), but responsible for his RESPONSE to the gospel appeal.  How does this view measure up to the biblical view of justice as it relates to judicial hardening?


The Biblical doctrines of Judicial Hardening, which is not to be confused with "self-hardening," are both explained in detail below:


1. Self-Hardening of the heart goes beyond the tragic obtuseness of our inherited condition in the Fall of man. Working on the fertile soul of our innately immoral hearts, the act of sinning hardens the heart into a stubborn rebellion against all that is good. So, people may harden their own hearts, in sinful rebellion, in bitterness, or in sheer self-will. (Ex. 9:34-35; 2 Chron. 36:13; Zech. 7:12; Dan. 5:20; Eph. 4:18; Heb. 3:12-15)


This type of self-hardening is most clearly seen in Zech. 7:11-13: 

"Your ancestors would not listen to this message. They turned stubbornly away and put their fingers in their ears to keep from hearing. They made their hearts as hard as stone, so they could not hear the law or the messages that the LORD Almighty had sent them by his Spirit through the earlier prophets. That is why the LORD Almighty was so angry with them. ‘Since they refused to listen when I called to them, I would not listen when they called to me,’ says the LORD Almighty.”
2. Judicial Hardening -- In a few instances such as Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex. 7:3; 9:12), Sihon, king of Heshbon (Deut. 2:30), and the Hivites living in Gibeon (John 11:19-20), it is said that God hardened their hearts. Apparently these people were so irremediable in their rebellion against God that God entered into the hardening process so that he could accomplish his purposes in spite of, and yet in and through, that hardenness. It is God's prerogative, as God, to do this (Rom. 9:18-21). That they are morally responsible for their condition is a theological given, and we are warned not to harden our hearts as they did, a command that would make no sense if hardening were simply God's act (1 Sam. 6:6).

Israel's hardening as a nation was an act of self-hardening followed by God’s act of judicial hardening as clearly portrayed in the scripture (Matt. 23:37; Rom. 10-11). 


God tells Isaiah that Israel, with its calloused heart, will reject him as God's messenger when he goes to them (Isa. 6:9-10). The event was taken as prophetic by Jesus (Matt. 13:14-15) and Paul (Acts 28:25-27) as referring to Israel's rejection of Jesus as God's Messiah. For Paul, Israel's hardening paved the way to a ministry of ingrafting the Gentiles (Rom. 10-11; Acts 28:28) and was not intended by God to be final, but only until the fullness of the Gentile’s ingrafting was accomplished.


Only the Word of God has the power to pierce a hardened heart (Heb. 4:12) and he has given that word through his Son, the Apostles, the scriptures and by his Spirit; all of which can be resisted and ignored (as seen throughout the Bible) and the hardenness and callousness of the heart only grows thicker with each act of rebellion.


More later....

What is Divine Sovereignty?


Some seem to think they are defending the Lord's sovereignty by insisting that men don't have a "free will." But really, when you think about it, which is more impressive with regard to how we understand divine sovereignty:

God decreeing/ordaining all things, including the sinful choices of man, before they occur so as to accomplish His purpose.

OR

God accomplishing his ultimate purposes in, through and despite all men's sinful choices.

I think the latter is much more impressive and a much greater display of His Sovereign abilities. Plus, you don't have to deal with the whole culpability of God issues and the tedious explanations of 2nd causes...  

What is a "Sovereign God" waiting on?


Why does the Bible talk about God's patience and long-suffering in regard to salvation?  If indeed, God is the one who "effectually calls" his elect to be saved, isn't He just waiting on Himself to do the work?

How do you reconcile that with His being patient and longsuffering with mankind? If salvation is truly "all of God" what exactly is he waiting on?


Patience, in our language as well as in the original, denotes a willingness on God's part to withhold his wrath in order to wait on something. What is that something?

Let's look at some scripture related to this question:

2Pe 3:9 -The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. 
Rom. 10:21 -But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people." 
Mt 23:37 - "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, yet you were not willing! 

Each of these verse express God patience and desire for men to do something. What is that?  To repent, right?

Now, if God is the sole cause of repentance in men through the effectual work of regeneration, then He is not waiting on anything outside of Himself, is He?  If not, why does he express Himself as being patient with man?  Any thoughts?


NOTE: I put the term "Sovereign God" in quotes because scholars from the various views might define the term "sovereign"differently, but here I'm asking about how the more Calvinistic approach to Sovereignty aligns with God's expressions of patience and long-suffering.

Philosophical Ponderings about Calvinism, Compatibilism and Free Will

There is no shortage of speculation as to the nature of man in relation to the sovereignty of God, so I figure it won't hurt to throw out my two cents worth.  

For the sake of brevity, I want to focus this post specifically on my ever growing doubts about the philosophical speculation call "Compatibilism" (a view most often held to by Calvinistic believers).  This view claims that one can affirm free will (as they define it) and divine determinism.  

Compatibilists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire."  However, this appears to be an insufficient explaination to maintain any sense of true freedom considering that compatibilists also affirm that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.


This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given the long held Calvinistic belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. 


Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.


This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When you define freedom in terms of 'doing what one wants to do', it initially appears plausible only because it subtly evokes a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices.  

But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. 

For this reason, I feel human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the autonomy of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).

Saturday, October 20, 2012



It is amazing how a few family pictures put with just the right song can challenge a man to grow!

BOOK REVIEW: The Wisdom of Teams; Creating the High-Performance Organization


Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith.  The Wisdom of Teams,     Creating the High-Performance Organization.  New York, NY:   HarperBusiness Essentials, 1994.


Summary and Discussion

This clearly reworked and marketed Harvard research project begins by defining real teams and expounding upon how they are most effectively developed.  In later chapters, the authors discuss the importance of teams, the effectiveness of teams, and practical ways executives can best utilize a team’s strength to become a better organization.  The more than thorough analysis done on close to fifty different businesses is documented to present the lessons learned from actual success and failures with regard to team building and effectiveness.
     Utilizing twelve chapters organized into three distinct parts, these researchers use the first section of this book to make sure their audience has a full understanding of the various types of teams.  There are teams that make recommendations, teams that create or produce, and teams that manage or oversee.  Each kind of team, with its unique characteristics, can contribute to a high-performance organization, whether it is through the shareholders who provide opportunities, workers who produce a good, or customers who generate revenue.  As defined on page 45, a real team is “a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable."
Using this definition, the authors expound on each characteristic to give the reader a full understanding of what real teams look like.  Among other things they point out that the size of the team should not exceed twenty or twenty-five, because larger numbers of people are less likely to be able to develop common goals, purpose, and mutual accountability essential to becoming a real team. 
Further, technical and functional expertise, problem solving and decision-making ability, and interpersonal relationships are expounded upon at length as a mix of skills needed to effectively do the team’s job.  Additionally, the team must develop a common purpose and performance goals, creatively noted by the acronym SMART (specific, measurable, acceptable, realistic and timed).  Then, the team is able to work together to accomplish those common goals, something the authors refer to as the common approach.  This, in turn, leads to a foundation for which a team can have mutual accountability for the fulfillment of those common purposes, goals, and the agreed upon approach.
The second part of this book focuses upon the process by which a team is developed, if indeed a team is what is called for.  The team approach, which is a collective contribution, shared leadership, with a specific end product, is contrasted with a work group approach.  The later approach utilizes a centralized leader, individual contributions and no real work or product being produced.  This approach may produce decisions, make delegations, and have influence, but will not produce high-performance organizations, according to these authors.
This “high-performance” goal requires the potential teams to take certain risks and operate under some since of urgency.  Though expectations may be defined, supervisors should allow the team to develop their own common purpose, goals, and the overall approach.  A Team Performance Curve is introduced in chapter five as a chart that measures a team’s effectiveness against its performance impact.  This showed a teams development from a working group, to a pseudo-team, to a potential team, to a real team, and finally to the ultimate goal of the high-performance team.
Next, the authors give insight on the appropriate role of a good team leader.  While giving the team room to work, the team leader should strive to develop the confidence and commitment of each team member.  The leader acts as an ambassador for the team, running interference, and removing obstacles.  The team leader’s job is to listen carefully to the needs of the group and do whatever is necessary to allow them to do their jobs effectively.  Like a referee at a ball game, the team leader’s goal is provide needed boundaries and oversight, but to go unnoticed as much as possible so that the game can go on. 
Instead of approaching obstacles as a negative aspect for teams, Smith and Katzenbach teach that difficulties can make a team stronger by encouraging team spirit, confidence, and unity.  Indeed, it is the readiness of the team, not the size of obstacle that will determine the outcome of such adversities.  If the team becomes demoralized, forgetting its identity and original purpose, it is time for the leader (or in some cases a new facilitator) to refocus on the basics of what makes a real team.  It is time to readdress the purpose, remind the members of the working approach and the specific goals.  Look for the small wins and highlight any achievements of the team in reaching specific goals.  In more sever cases the team members or even the leader may need to be reassigned.
In part three, the potential of an effective team is fully developed.  For example, when an organization faces a major change the team approach can be very effective even at the top of the organization.  This can only work, according to the authors, if executives find a way to work together to tackle specific issues.  To develop teams in this environment they must be willing to determine team membership based on an individual’s skills, not position.  They must be willing to break down the hierarchical approach and require all members to contribute as equals.  If they set rules of behavior similar to teams in the workplace they have a chance to develop an effective team to guide their organization to greater success.  Because teams can be more effective than individuals, executives should consider a team based approach as a risk worth taking.

Critique
This book did make a good case for a team based organization.  The principles presented can easily be applied in a ministry setting, though the stated ultimate goal being “high-performance” would need to be reworked to match a more biblical approach.  Also, the practical questionnaires are useful, if appropriately adapted, to analyze a ministry organizations readiness for a team environment. 
On the more critical side, this book did seem cumbersome at times due to its redundancy and length.  Though some of the case studies were interesting to read, the numerous examples seemed to be an over-kill.  Where one short sample would sufficiently illustrate the point, the authors too often cluttered the flow of the book with unneeded tedious case studies.
Overall, however, the book brought many sound principles for team development and effectiveness to the forefront.  For instance, it reminded us to encourage individual responsibility and mutual accountability for the work that is produced.  If someone is given the responsibility to accomplish a task, they must be given the ability and authority from the top.  The authors instructed us to make the purpose of the team crystal clear and the role of each member in accomplishing that purpose well defined and agreed upon by everyone involved.  Leaders were taught to seek consensus, instead of collusion, to encourage discourse, instead of dictation, and to share the role of leadership, instead of leading alone.
Utilizing this book in our ministry will push us to advance beyond simply calling a group of people a “team,” then waiting to see if that will inspire them toward success.   More specifically, this helped me, as team leader, to work through my understanding of team dynamics as it relates to moving beyond a “work group” approach.  This challenged me to strive for a “real team” model, rather than settle at some lesser stage in the development process. 
For example, in my current ministry team, we have not focused on our purpose, goals, and approach, as we should.  Our purpose is often swamped in the details of event planning.  Our approach has been so developed over the years that we may have lost some connection to the reason why we do what we do.  This could cause disunity and discouragement among the team members when difficulty arises. 
We are now taking deliberate steps to keep our purpose and specific goals in the forefront.  We discussed this at our meeting three weeks ago and I followed up this past week with personal note of encouragement reminding each team member of their value in achieving our goals and fulfilling our God-given purpose.  Though this is just the beginning, I am very encouraged by the team’s initial response. 

Transitioning to Team Based Ministry


     Churches employ many services based upon their unique mission and vision. Services vary but most often include helping people in need. Yet, many congregations fail to deliver effective, adequate services to reach their community.  So, how can church leaders go about transitioning to a more effective model of ministry?                               
Churches employ various leadership styles that can drastically affect the quantity and quality of the services provided. Numerous negative factors may hinder the effectiveness of any church ministry. Among these factors include disorganization and lack of participation, often the effect of high rates of ministerial burnout and turnover.[1] Often traditional attitudes limit viable options within the congregation to address such trends. The more traditional approach often relegates specific roles to one individual or small group of people. This approach fails to unite the congregation based upon common goals and depends too heavily on the gifts and abilities of a few.      
 The transition of a local church to a team-based leadership model has numerous benefits. Among these benefits include the expansion of leadership, building stronger fellowship, and the accomplishment of common goals. A team environment involving multiple members allows for the unification of the entire body based upon similar beliefs, values, and goals. As Stanley Ott states, “When a staff itself makes the shift to the ministry-team model, it improves not only its own quality of life but also its effectiveness in ministry.”[2] The unification of a congregation allows for it to deliver the maximum services intended to the community at large. The development of a team model has demonstrated successes in countless ways, but the primary benefit is seen in the focus on ministry to the individuals rather than merely the on the task at hand.

TRADITIONAL VALUES AND THE TEAM MODEL

     Currently the team model is used in 35% of congregations, yet only “13 percent of members identify this model in practice.”[3] Other common models fail to instill hope in many church members. These models do not allow for individuals within the church to develop a connection. Despite that lack of connection many congregations neglect converting to a team-based leadership style. Various reasons and conflicting opinions maybe attributed to the lack of conversion to this model. For instance, some church members feel that moving to a team-based model rejects traditional values. The violation of these traditions may produce strong opposition and tension, thus care must be taken when walking through this type of transition.                                              Parishioners must come to understand that pastors or other church leaders who work independently often experience burnout. Many pastors and staff find themselves being responsible for numerous roles. These roles span from traditional roles associated with pastoral care to unwritten expectations within the church. Such expectations generally vary with each generation making transition difficult and sometimes painful in multigenerational congregations.  Therefore, it is essential for those leading in this type of transition to be aware of the generational perspectives.[4]                 
    The organization within the church can be viewed from either a business/economic standpoint or from a ministry standpoint. In the business world workers are often hired based upon how much work they can accomplish in a given period of time. In the ministry world, however, a pastor should be regarded as a teacher and equipper of the saints for the work of service.[5] If a church approaches hiring a pastor from the business perspective then burnout is likely.             
      Failing to utilize a team model places more responsibilities and expectations on the pastor. In conjunction with the levels of responsibilities and demands, many pastors exhibit high levels of stress and fatigue. Further these responsibilities often have a negative reaction on the pastor’s family life.[6] Despite the traditional religious values associated with marriage, research has demonstrated that 33% of pastors that were surveyed found that being a pastor has a negative influence on their own marriage and family.[7] These attitudes and stresses associated with pastoral burnout cause many throughout America to leave the ministry. Currently “fifty percent (of pastors report) having mild to moderate levels of burnout or stress and there are twenty percent remaining who are described as well on their way to burnout.”[8] Of course, the effects associated with pastoral burnout hurt the congregation as a whole and must be addressed.                                                        

Small church congregations look to the pastor as the sole leader of the church. Some churches utilize other personnel, such as deacons, to help the pastor and the congregation. These models fail to emphasis the team approach to leading and successfully supporting a congregation. They fail to allow the division of responsibilities based upon similar goals. Moreover, these models fail to address the support for pastors and staff. The congregation as a whole suffers the losses associated with the lack of unity among the church staff and key leaders.                                                       Losses are often seen throughout the congregation as lack of organization or services provided. These losses are especially noticeable when leadership leaves the church. In these situations, members feel abandoned and the congregation becomes inward focused as it attempts to heal.  Thus, the church neglects the needs of the community and fails to fulfill the very purpose for which it exists.             
     Situations like this are especially true for congregations in small towns. Within these congregations, members often look to their ministers to guide them. Yet, constant transitions of leadership only hinder the relationship with community and the churches fulfillment of its divine purpose.
[9]
BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING A TEAM MODEL

     The main goal of the team model is to share the burden of ministry leadership. This goal may take various forms dependent upon the size of the congregation and the population served by the congregation. Despite the variables presented in individual congregations, the team model has numerous benefits that extend past the leadership into the community as a whole.     
The team approach allows for members to form a connection with each other, the leadership, the ministry, and specific tasks associated with running a church. A common frustration for the typical volunteer in a church is that little is accomplished and there is little connection to fellow members.[10] The team model addresses this frustration by emphasizing team unity and effectiveness in accomplishing their given task. This two-fold emphasis of a team is essential to encourage maximum congregational involvement.   
    To the relief of the overworked pastor, congregational involvement itself becomes the responsibility of the team.  Most experienced pastors already know that “people are much more likely to participate in any kind of activity if they are personally invited by someone they know.”[11] This ideology allows new members to form a connection with others throughout the congregation as they take ownership in the growth and development of their own teams.  
    One of the main goals of a church is to help individuals develop their relationship with God. New members of the congregation typically look to the pastor to help them in understanding God and what it means to have a relationship to Him. The pastor is unable to effectively connect to and disciple many people in a community thus even this role must be shared. Congregations that are not united through a team model may struggle to provide discipleship to new members. Further, the burnout experienced by pastors who attempt to carry this burden alone may deter new believers from being discipled, or worse deter seekers from Christ altogether. Enacting a team model allows more believers to dedicate their time and efforts in strengthening other’s relationship with God.                                                            
    A team-based approach not only helps meet the need of new members but it will serve the entire congregation. Common goals of church members include: “living my faith, continue learning, fostering church growth and deepen my prayer life.”[12] The enactment of a team model allows for the congregation to fulfill goals in helping all individuals understand their role in the body.          
    Individuals from various cultures come to church to be united through common beliefs and worship the One God. The employment of a team model allows for the influence of these multicultural perspectives upon the entire congregation making the church more relevant and effective in its context. Individuals differ on their interests, needs, and cultures. In comparison to other models the team model allows for more attention to be allotted on fulfilling the hopes and goals of all people.                                               

Approximately 40 percent of pastor’s report having at least one serious conflict with a parishioner each month.[13]  Utilizing a team model helps to reduce conflicts due to these differing values, goals, and cultures. Additionally, multicultural individuals may feel a deeper connection with the congregation and members.                    
    Most congregations rely heavily upon the tithes and offerings from members in order to provide services and ministry to the community. Congregations located in small towns typically have fewer resources available, however, additional funding through the creative efforts of a team provides endless potential. Team members will give more to see a project they are planning come to fruition. What sheer giving cannot accomplish often fundraising efforts can when backed by a team. The team model allows for individuals to use their own personal strengthens and resources in helping the congregation grow and accomplish its goals.                   Many pastors are expected to have business savvy. However, research has demonstrated that most pastors admittedly lack “reengineering, strategizing, visionary and managing” skills that are often assumed to be relevant within the congregation.[14] In response to these limitations congregations could form team models of leadership that allow other skilled believers to assist the pastor in his or her responsibilities in regard to finance and business. This further frees the pastor to focus on the gifts God has given him in the equipping and teaching roles.                          

EFFECTIVELY DEVELOPING A TEAM MODEL

     Before a team-based model of ministry can be adopted the congregation must “buy in” to the concept. When confronted with objections to the team model, leaders must continually emphasize the benefits. Concerns from church members about these changes must be addressed biblically and with care. 
     Throughout the bible many courageous individuals endured changes. Utilizing bible stories that demonstrate the struggles and the benefits produced by change will help prepare the congregation. Relating such stories to current changes in the congregation can help parishioners to build hope and faith in the upcoming transition.  Being honest about fears and anxieties regarding the team model helps to open communication channels and address legitimate concerns. Openly expressing doubts and fears allows for church members to further connect with each other and find strengthen within each other and the Lord. This process will go a long way in providing a foundation for team unity as the model is implemented.                                                   Helping church members fully understand the new model of leadership will help to ease the anxieties during the transitional period. Knowing that the team model of leadership allows for the congregation to unite with the pastor in the fulfillment of the church’s goal is paramount. The congregation will more readily adopt a ministry they fully understand. If correctly communicated this model will be seen as an opportunity for church members to get involved in the ministry of the church. Actively involving church members helps to develop unity and commitment to the common goal throughout the body. There is no better way to involve the congregation than through a team model of ministry.                           
      Many small churches rely on the leadership of one person. In this approach, leaders “tend to interact with other leaders only as necessary.”[15] In contrast, a team-based model spreads the burden of leadership and decision making to many groups thus increasing this interaction. Teams must work together with ministerial leaders to fulfill the goals of the congregation and the team-based approach necessitates this interaction.                                                  Openly communicating the goals of the team is an important aspect of team leadership. Regardless of the individual’s strengths all parishioners should be encouraged to participate in team-sponsored events.  The unification of the congregation should remain a priority. Teams must be aware of the needs of the parishioners. These needs provide a strong framework for the goals to be adopted by the teams as they develop and grow.                                       Congregations utilizing team models vary in determining the roles of their ministerial staff. Some congregations focus on employing the staff in meeting the team’s goals. Other congregations allow the staff to form their own ministerial team for the purpose of accomplishing their given duties. In developing a team leadership model within the congregation the needs and goals must be assessed to determine the best form of team leadership style to enact. Regardless of what team model the congregation chooses to utilize, teams need to share responsibility and authority over goals and projects. Authority vested to a team does should not undermine the pastor or the ministerial staff.  Instead, the team is created to work along side and with the staff in accomplishing a common goal.[16]                                                     Beyond connection with the ministerial staff, a successful team needs to understand the congregation they serve and the needs presented. Moreover, successful teams need to encompass the biblical needs of leadership presented in the bible. “Working together is not the latest management fad, but springs from the heart of the biblical concept of leadership within the church”[17] Congregations vary upon sizes and interpretations of the bible. Knowing the needs of parishioners is an important process in enacting new goals.    In contrast to larger congregations, small churches must more regularly evaluate programs, effectiveness, and budget in order to fulfill their goals. Ineffectiveness and budget shortfalls have a greater impact on the small congregation because it cannot be absorbed as easily.  Thus, smaller congregations must be diligent in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of individual team members. Assigning tasks and dividing duties is only possible after such assessments are complete. The only thing worse than have a vacancy in a given position is having an unqualified individual undermining the work of the church.                                                   Although the team-based approach is more effective in accomplishing its goals, there is always more room for disagreement when people work together. For this reason, leaders should always have a plan to deal with conflict and train the team prior to the occurrence of a problem. Knowing how to handle the disagreement once the team is in place will make the process easier. When there is disagreement, team members should be given a platform to express their position. Members of the team need to be encouraged to evaluate each idea that is presented. Refining ideas until the team reaches a decision helps to ensure that the needs of the congregation are being fulfilled.[18]                                            To ensure the success of the team all members should be actively involved in the decision making process. In order to effectively complete goals teams should set deadlines for the programs. During team meetings a member serving as the secretary should detail notes on when projects and goals should be completed based upon the discussion of team members. This helps to ensure that teams will remain on task and provides a record for when a dispute may arise.                      
     Training seminars or workshops will be a great benefit to any new team.  Learning to work together, establish expectations, and develop a plan is essential for the foundation of building a team-based ministry.  A weekend trip or retreat is an ideal setting to help establish this foundation on which to grow a ministry team.

CONCLUSION

     Team models of leadership within the church offer numerous benefits to the congregation. Despite these benefits some churches choose not to utilize team leadership models. Traditional values emphasize that the pastor and/or deacon body are sole decision makers within the church. Yet the responsibilities cast upon these individuals are often too much to handle, leading to an increased burnout rate. Team leadership models assist with the needs of the congregation and the fulfillment of goals while avoiding these burnout tendencies. Nevertheless, the transition to team leadership styles within the congregation is often met with skepticism and fear. Many people within the church cling to traditional roles to the neglect of benefits offered by team-based ministry.                                                    In contrast to these oppositions church leaders should outline different biblical stories that encompass change and the positive effects produced. Developing a team-based leadership model will not be easy; however, it can be very effective and worth the effort if handled correctly.

WORKS CITED
Books
O’Dell, Shannon. Transforming Church in Rural America. Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press 2010.
Ott, Stanley E. Transforming Church Ministry. Grand Rapids,   MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
Regele, Mike. Death of the Church. Grand Rapid MI: Zondervan,      1995.

Electronic Documents
First Baptist Church, Tallassee. “How to Collaborate a Team   Ministry,” 27 December 2010, Web page, Available from:      http://www.baptiststart.com/teams/collaboration.pdf;accessed 28
December 2010.

John Mark Ministries. “Developing A Ministry Team In The Small     Church,” 5 January 2003,  Web page, Available from:      http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8382.htm; accessed 22     December 2010.

Roehlkepartain, Eugene C. “Uniting Congregations for Youth    Development: Lessons Learned,” The Search Institute,     2000, web page; available from http://www.search-  institute.org/content/UCYD; accessed 24 December 2010.

Shrier, Paul. “How Churches and Pastors are Working Together to Create Failure,” Azusa Pacific University, 24 April 2009, Web page available from: http://groups.apu.edu-    /practicaltheo/LECTURE%20NOTES/Shrier/F10/Pastoral%20Burn  out.pdf; Accessed 27 December 2010.

The Small Church Organization. “Statistics,” Web Page,   Available from: http://smallchurch.com/resources-     /statistics/; Accessed 26 December 2010.

Periodicals
Barbara Fleischer “The Ministering Community As Context For   Religious Education: A Case Study of ST. Gabriel’s Catholic Parish” Journal of Religious Education 101      (Winter 2006): 114.

Carter, Judith. “Transformational Leadership and Pastoral     Leader Effectiveness,” Pastoral Psychology 58 (June     2009): 268.

LaRue, John C. Jr. “Pastoral Leadership Styles.” Your Church 50  (January 2004): 88.






      [1]Shannon O’Dell, Transforming Church in Rural America (Green Forest, AR: New Leaf Press 2010) 87.
                  [2]Stanley E. Ott, Transforming Church Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004) 45.
      [3]John C. LaRue Jr. “Pastoral Leadership Styles,” Your Church 50  (January 2004): 88.
                  [4] Mike Regele, Death of the Church (Grand Rapid, MI: Zondervan, 1995) 242.
      [5]Eph. 4:12
      [6]Judith Carter, “Transformational Leadership and Pastoral Leader Effectiveness,” Pastoral Psychology 58 (June 2009): 268.
      [7]The Small Church Organization. “Statistics,” Web Page, Available from: http://smallchurch.com/resources/statistics/; Accessed 26 December 2010.
      [8]Paul Shrier “How Churches and Pastors are Working Together to Create Failure” Azusa Pacific University, 24 April 2009, Web page available from; http://groups.apu.edu/practicaltheo/LECTURE%20NOTES/Shrier/F10/Pastoral%20 Burnout.pdf; Accessed 27 December 2010.
      [9] O’Dell, 89.
      [10]Shreir
      [11]Eugene C. Roehlkepartain “Uniting Congregations for Youth Development: Lessons Learned,” The Search Institute, 2000, web page; available from http://www.search-institute.org/content/UCYD; accessed 25 December 2010.
      [12]Barbara Fleischer “The Ministering Community As Context For Religious Education: A Case Study of ST. Gabriel’s Catholic Parish” Journal of Religious Education 101 (Winter 2006): 114.
      [13]The Small Church Organization. Accessed 26 December 2010.
      [14]John C. LaRue Jr. “Pastoral Leadership Styles” Your Church 50  (January 2004): 89.

      [15]Ott, 44.
      [16]John Mark Ministries. “Developing A Ministry Team In The Small Church,” 5 January 2003, Web page, Available from: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/-articles/8382.htm; 27 Dec. 2010.
      [17]Ibid.

                  [18] First Baptist Church, Tallassee. “How to Collaborate a Team Ministry,” Web page, Available from: http://www.baptiststart.com-/teams/collaboration.pdf; 27 December 2010. 

Listen the Podcast HERE