My newest book, The Cause Within You, releases this week. I wrote it with and about Matthew Barnett and his leadership of the Dream Center in Los Angeles. What a tremendous experience it was for me. Spending time with Matthew and his team, both at and away from the Dream Center, brought several things about leadership into focus. Among the things I learned by observing and studying his efforts were the following:
1. Cast the vision, model the behavior, and give people complete permission to follow that lead. Like every Directing leader, Matthew generally doesn’t get bogged down in details.* He strives to motivate people to grasp the heart of the ministry (i.e., the central vision), the challenges facing the church, and to encourage people to do whatever God has placed within them to build value into that vision and activity. I have never seen a leader who is as willing to give people leeway to literally create the ministry as God leads them. It’s a very exciting process to behold because people feel completely empowered to fulfill the calling God gave them – and to experience the joy of adding value to the kingdom of God. That becomes addictive, in the most positive sense.
2. Planning can take you only so far; great leaders must be willing to flex. Church leaders typically say that God is in charge, but when God intervenes in unforeseen ways through people or circumstances, a common tendency is to resist alterations in favor of the plans we had created and prayed about. Control and trust emerge as big issues: we neither trust God nor ourselves to get it right, so our fallback position is to remain with the original plan. Matthew’s approach is different. He embraces his own limitations, the fluidity of the world (and the battle taking place within it), and the sovereignty of God. Consequently, he is willing to allow his expectations to morph as God sees fit. The final outcome does not always look like he had planned or expected, but it sure advances the kingdom – and makes him look pretty smart in the process.
3. The most important tool of a great leader is his/her ears. After watching what happens at DC-LA, and recalling something that various leaders revealed when I was writing Master Leaders, it has become obvious than an irreplaceable key to leadership success is the ability to listen. As a leader, your ears must be fine-tuned to God’s voice as well as that of the people you serve with, the people you serve, and the culture in which you serve. Listening is a developed skill. Having the heart to then apply what you’ve heard takes discernment, courage and wisdom. Matthew takes the time and makes the effort to listen. He may not always interpret what he hears correctly, but he is always willing to hear what his four constituencies have to say and does his best to follow through on what he has heard.
I’ll continue this discussion next time. What do you make of these ideas? I think you’ll see how they facilitate effective leading as you follow Matthew’s learning curve in The Cause Within You. Working with Matthew and his team has impacted me deeply. The stories told in the book – and Cause is a book of stories about how God has changed numerous lives through the permission-based leadership that Matthew provides – should motivate everyone to get in the game for Christ.
* This concept is drawn from my earlier research indicating that there are four dominant leadership aptitudes: Directing, Strategic, Team Building, and Operational leaders.
January 31, 2011
George, I will be getting your book as soon as it is available. I am convinced that lack of effective “leadership” is the single largest issue harming the church today. As a group, Christians have worn out the brakes a thousand times over by being controlling and fearful. The price for so doing has been enormous in terms of those we lose and those we are not able to touch for Christ.
Jesus told us to “fear not,” yet it is our fall-back/ default position in too many things. We have become almost a non-factor in impacting the culture. We are being destroyed by our own timidity and lack of confidence in what we believe.
Thank you for giving us something more (a positive example-Matthew) to see and hear of in our quest to serve our Lord.
Keep it coming, we thirst!
February 1, 2011
George, having read Pagan Christianity I’m left wondering how you blend the tenants of your work with Frank and your encounter with Matthew. Matthew is a pastor of a large thriving church who also heads up the DC. While I’m certain that these are very separate entities legally they both flow from and are very much a part of the same vision Matthew persues…big outreach to “the least of these” and a big outreach to the rest of LA via a top down, Senior Pastor model of doing church. I’m not being critical. Just wondering how that all fits together in his/your head
February 1, 2011
Thanks for your thoughts, John. I can uderstand some of the curiosity given the range of books I’ve written. Here’s an attempt to help make sense of it.
1. As someone whose primary interest is being true to God’s calling and seeking to advance His kingdom, I am pragmatic enough to realize that whether I like it or not, and whether I believe it is biblical or not, the conventional church dominates the religious landscape today. So at the same time that I want to encourage people to consider the pros and cons of that model from different vantage points and to also consider the value of alternative models, it would be unfortunate to ignore good things that are happening due to the love and commitment of people working through a model that might be one I would not promote.
2. DC-LA is not a conventional church; Angelus Temple is the conventional church associated with DC. As such, I am particularly happy to bring attention to the great work that DC is doing for the kingdom.
3. Matthew Barnett is not a typical leader, as I began explaining in the post above. He is certainly not a “top down,” control-oriented leader. I really appreciate that. When I find a servant leader who is doing great work, my inclination is to call attention to it, support it, and learn from it. And, if possible, emulate it.
4. As a researcher and author, my responsibility is to explore and explicate. I try to gather information, analyze it, and help others learn from that journey by raising questions. Ultimately, people choose their own path in their efforts to serve God. It’s not about following me or imitating my journey; it’s about following Jesus and imitating Him. As I discover leaders or processes that facilitate that, I love to pass them along to people for their reflection and, perhaps, adoption.
Does that make sense?
February 2, 2011
George, Thanks for your insightful response. It helped a lot. I’m out of the same tradition as MB and have and have an understand the polity of that tradition. AT is required by constitution and bylaws is of to be run in a top down model. Hense my interest. Wolfgang Simson, Neil Cole and Frank Viola, while respecting the legacy churches, essentially say that the better (only) path is the Simple/Organic model. Hense my question as to how you and Mathew handle it. I would love to have Mathew respond. I believe there needs to be a conversation about that. How does one navigate the waters between pure top down and pure organic church? Not sure there is a good answer but I feel that there may be many faithful pastors who are in those waters. Just say’n
February 3, 2011
John and George,
This is a great conversation. I had to step back and think a bit.
John that truly is a great question you have posed:
” George having read Pagan Christianity I’m left wondering how you blend the tenants of your work with Frank and your encounter with Matthew.”
George I am mostly satisfied with your answer.
I myself enjoy looking at the fruit of Matthew in the Dream Center model taking everything into consideration. But Matthew as a singular pastor in the very historical Angelus Temple. That aspect does seem to go off the rail of the apostolic first century model. Considering in the NT a plurality of elder/shepherds in co-equal functional non-hierarchical relation bottom up with every member participation and every member functioning.
I am intrigued by the seeming differences in leadership between the two entities of DC vs Angelus Temple.
George I hear what you are saying. I think I hear you emphasizing and supporting the Dream Center dichotomy. I have been a fan of the DC. More so than the Angelus Temple as they are seperate entities as you said.
It would be interesting hearing Brother Matthew’s take on the revelation of first century apostolic ekklesia leadership that is coming to the forefront so powerfully now from every direction.
In this tension between the first century organic leadership vs the man made traditional status quo leadership.
Do we seek the radical middle?
I think not.
We seek the real leader.
This is a great topic.
February 1, 2011
Ooops…my smiley face posted in the wring spot ;-/
February 1, 2011
John,
George, Frank, and Matthew are all saying the same thing essentially. Matthew as I see it is not a status quo pastor of the Roman Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Pentacostal/Charismatic man made institutional model.
His leadership is not hierarchical in nature.
But is in the model of servant leadership.
The disciples are pointed in a direction and the Holy Spirit is allowed to truly lead them.
As a matter of practicality when I ran my construction company I had crews in several states at one time. I would tell the crews to do or start some aspect of work. Never did they do it exactly as I would have, or in the sequence, or time frame that I would have. The work would get done but the way it was done reflected how those individuals saw the work and interpreted the practical accomplishment through their individual personalities. It drove me nuts until I realized there was nothing I could do about unless I could be in three places at one time with my hands on it personally. Of course it is understood that ultimately this is all in accordance with standard industry practices and according to the owners wishes on the quality and actual drawings and contract documents.
I have found that most pastor singular, hierarchical leadership model are unable to allow that process to happen. The process of hierachical micro managing within a traditional style writ in stone in the institutional manuel is the common model right now. As opposed to the apostolical first century foundational traditions handed down through the New Testament. Which is all members function all members participate all members go do. Worked out by truly free individuals in conjunction with the Holy Spirit committed to one another in love and submission within a community who have been equipped and sent out to do the work.
For modern pastors that model is foreign in every sense.
February 3, 2011
Michael,
you’re right to say that the first century model might be foreign; but the joy that comes from encouraging people to live in their God given freedom is great.
It’s so powerful to let ministry bubble up from the people of God. I’d argue it’s worth the risk for pastors today to encourage every believer to follow their dreams and lead the church into future ministry.
thanks for the comments
peace to you, John
February 7, 2011
John, an unlikely pastor,
I agree. It is a good thing to tell believers they are a holy priesthood a holy nation and we are all truly co-equals in this kingdom. I love to watch it in their eyes when the truth of the first century church dawns upon them and they realize the truth of their freedom in Christ. It is powerful and fun to watch ministry bubble up from the common believer and watch Jesus Christ touch others through them. Thanks for your comments and peace to you my brother in Christ.
February 7, 2011
I am drawn to this statement George made:
” … is not a typical leader… He is certainly not a ‘top down,’ control-oriented leader. I really appreciate that. When I find a servant leader… my inclination is to call attention, support it, emulate it…”
This my Brethern goes to the heart of the matter in christianity today. Currently we have an entrenched, overwhelming top down, control-oriented leadership in the church.
Jesus forbid it.
Jesus drew a very sharp distinction between the leadership in the world, and the leadership that distinguishes Jesus kingdom. (Matthew 20: 25-28), (Luke 22: 25-26), (Matthew 23: 8-12).
Contrasted with a “Permission-Based Leadership”.
Paul very practically worked this out in community in the New Testament. (Ephesians 4: 16)
A plurality of co-equals based leadership.
Where believers are encouraged, equipped, and given the freedom in Christ to do the work of the ministry.
It was more a bottom up, permission-based, freedom-oriented, co-equal, plurality leadership.
It encouraged, edified, built-up, empowered, trained, freed, the believer, with Christ as central.
This entails a complete paradigm shift from current christianity.
This shift is happening.
George have you done more current testing in this ongoing mega-shift?
February 7, 2011
Michael, I agree that this is a hugely important component of Matthew’s leadership and a significant reason as to why he is effective. Unfortunately, I would NOT agree that it is a “megashift,” at least numerically. At this point it is a case study.
There are, of course, other great leaders who have the same servant leader approach – I interviewed a bunch of them and described their efforts in the book Master Leaders – and there are several ministries that seek to affirm and reproduce that form of leadership (e.g., Ken Blanchard’s Lead Like Jesus ministry). Hopefully we will experience much more of this model in the years to come.
February 8, 2011
George,
I find it intriguing in the seeming difference or disconnect if you prefer. Of the DC model and the AT model, with the same individual heading up both. Mind you I am not judging or saying anything negative. It is merely observation for the purpose of discussion, learning, and more revelation. I have admired the DC aspect for years, because I have been involved in similar activity myself. I am familiar with the historical signifigance of the AT building being a student of the early 1900′s revival and that buildings role, and the unigue role of a woman there in ministry.
It seems as though we are more likely to adopt NT first century principles of community in extra-church activities or ministry such as DC.
But when it comes to “real church” activities the overwhelming status-quo man made institutional model is such a huge iconoclastic monolith to overcome and break free from. That we can’t seem to do it.
I am speaking of that top down, control-oriented, singular, central, hierarchical figure, standing in pulpit, dominating the corporate believers. I am not saying Matt is that persona, because I believe from what I know, Matt is not a controler. But the two models of operation seem to be there.
This dynamic fascinates me.
With the DC model being so successful in bearing fruit, why wouldn’t one incorporate the same model in doing church assemblies?
I had the distinct advantage of NOT being raised in a christian family and taken to “church”. From the standpoint of not being raised as a youngster in the institutional model. And having to deal in later life with the shortcomings of “christian parents” as role models of christianity and God.
I debate scores of atheists that were raised in christian homes, went to church two times a week and memorized vast portions of the bible.
My early christian experience was one of first century community that a group of us walked into quite naturally. I watched it dissolve when man inspired hierarchy was put into place instead of allowing God to raise it up functionally and organically. I then went to various types of fellowships.
In all instances control was the issue. Man in control. Instead of creating the atmosphere where Jesus Christ is in control of the fellowship or ministry, with a plurality of co-equal servant leadership.
I am fascinated by the term “Permission-Based Leadership”.
George I am hearing numbers being given in various places such as a million christians a year leaving institutional church for alternative expressions and 1700 pastors a year leaving institutional model of pastoring. Also most young people when leaving home are avoiding continuing in traditional forms of expression of church such as which they were raised in. Are these numbers accurate do you think. I understand the case study aspect of your figures but that still indicates a mega shift doesn’t it?
In your earlier statement of Feb.1st that caught my eye ” ‘top down’, control-oriented leadership.”
Since our current church seems to be dominated by this practice do you think Paul’s instruction in the following applies as equally to the church as it does to the world?
10 “Finally be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might.
11 “Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.
12 “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” (Ephesians 6: 10-12)
I am not saying the Church is bad full well knowing that it is the Bride of Christ of which He is the Head, His Body.
But I am specifically talking about this insipid, evil, base, restrictive, hindering spirit within the church which is “top down”, control-oriented leadership.
I believe this spirit within christianity is addressed by Paul in addition to the world, in the Ephesians 6: 10-12.
It is that serious of a matter in my thinking, it hinders that permission based leadership that you speak of.
February 9, 2011
Much of this discussion makes me weary, although some great points have been raised, but enough.
George, in his blog, points to 3 things he has learned from his time spent with the folks at DC. These three things are very important to any leader seeking to move an organization forward to greater achievement. If we don’t have a desire to emulate the level of results DC achieves, or if we do not believe DC’s efforts to be valuable, that seems to be a whole different discussion. To “get back on track,” I suggest we focus on those three things George believes he has learned.
Personally, I believe these three things represent some of the essence of what is missing in leadership today, namely; vision, personal exampling, and freeing people to act on what they have seen in the example.
I agree that some level of planning is necessary and even wise, however a true leader MUST be ready and able to be flexible. If not, it becomes a dictatorial mess and only the “good little soldiers” will stay in the battle. One will not get the creative, outside the box thinkers and doers for long in that environment.
And finally, the ability and willingness to listen is critical for a high level of achievement in any group. Listening, has both qualitative and quantitave elements, and is a SKILL, that in too many leaders today is significantly underdeveloped. It is art and science, but it can be developed to a very high level, and it should be much more highly valued by leaders who want to achieve significant results.
February 9, 2011
Jim Cooper,
Sorry to make you weary, my Brother in Christ
You wrote: “…3 things…are very important to any leader seeking to move an organization forward to greater acheivment.”
I say: Is that the emphasis we are to have? Scripturally is that what leaders are to do?
I said earlier that there seems to be a disconnect between what a leader does with extra church (DC) and church (AT). This question or observation includes all 3 of your concerns.
You wrote: “…these three things rep some of the essence of what is missing in leadership today…vision, personal exampling, freeing peope to action on the example.”
I say: I agree, partially. As an old hand at starting new churches and being a part of established churches too. I see some other factors as important to be established in leaders lives and character to enable one to even be able to have a) vision b) personal exampling c) free people to act on the exampling.
My experience is this need for control needs to be dealt with in the leaders life by the Holy Spirit over time prior to being that leader. Or the vision, etc., will be the leaders and not Jesus Christ’s through the operaton of the Holy Spirit.
We do not need any more leaders working their vision, exampling their visions example, freeing people to work their personal vision. We have a whole country full of that already, and a 1700 year history of it.
Luther saw many things he didn’t like and could no longer do and nailed his long thesis on the front door of the Roman Catholic church. But he essentially started another Catholic church. He just moved the furniture around a bit and established another clergy system, equipped with architecture, liturgy, and the whole reconstituted Roman Catholic ball of wax, minus a few concerns he had.
Calvin essentially did the same.
The 1900 Holy Spirit revival and Pentacostalism starting in on the west coast essentially the same.
The Charismatic movement did the same.
Wagners apostolic movement is doing the same.
Do we want to continue this top down, control oriented leadership model again in another look?
I am in total agreement with you and George on this topic emphasis. I really am in a spirit of harmony with you.
But permission based leadership won’t happen if leadership has not been sufficiently dealt with in their personal life by the Holy Spirit. To the extant they are truly a servant who has died to self and his life is hidden in Christ. His vision is Jesus vision, his example is Jesus example, his personality is infused with Jesus Christ. He is a part of a co-equal plurality of servant based, functional leadership casting Jesus vision and consistantly examples Jesus example of though He is God He humbled Himself even to death on a cross for his friends.
I have had enough of christian religion as usual. Been there and done that. Don’t want to anymore.
I am an admirer of DC for years. But how can the same guy do the AT thing knowing what he knows and does with the DC thing? I am merely drawing a distinction, not judging, not condemning. Is that being double minded?
I am weary too. I am weary of pouring my heart and soul and mind and alleigence into ministry, only to be battling top down control oriented hierarchical leadership working their vision and not Jesus Christ vision and kingdom.
My Brother in Christ Jim, your next, and I am listening to you and love your posts and wisdom.
February 9, 2011
MichaelO,
I too do not fit the”mold” required by the top-down model of leadership. I too am seasoned (age 66), and I too have had my fill of the regimentation of leaders needing to control every aspect of church life, BUT discussions of this Catholic group or that one and things of that nature do weary me as I think about our need to “be about our Father’s business.”
Leadership that does not have as its foremost vision the Great Commission, is simply wrongheaded. We study, we debate, we argue, we fight, and we split, because we WILL NOT focus on this simple formula. God loved, so He SENT. Jesus loved, so He DIED. Our task (IF we love) is to TELL. SENT, DIED, TELL. Who is not doing their part? We have the easiest and simplest part of the formula. We don’t have to SEND our children, we don’t have to DIE, we only have to TELL what the Father and the Son have already done. How hard can that be?
We need, in our “leadership” models, to look first to our “Commission.” Is going, making disciples, baptizing, and teaching our major focus, and is that what we as leaders example? If not, why not? To me, leadership that does not get the task that Jesus set before us done far better than it is being done today, cannot and should not be leading.
I believe that when He returns He will not find us to be good and faithful servants if we fill our time debating nonsense. When all is said and done today, the lost are still lost, and I doubt God SENT or Jesus DIED so we could debate issues.
Leadership that does not directly result in us being about the Father’s business is extremely risky business. Let’s try figure out why we as leaders continue to avoid our (Great Commission) task.
February 13, 2011
Jim Cooper
Just thinking about your comment ”things… do weary me as I think about our need to ‘be about our Father’s business.’” The essence of our my question is not “what” we are to be doing. I think we all get that. It’s the “how” that has been the game changer for me.
I have taken a look at the significant and convincing work Frank V, George and Lenard have put forth regarding the “how” issue.
I’ve been schooled in and have ministered within the context of the “what” that has been contextualized into a top down model that has accomplished much even though (according to Frank, George etc.) it is not an accurate biblical model.
In reading your posts I do not get the impression that you have given their work on the scriptural basis for “how” to do Church. Most of what I hear you articulating is framed in “top down” lingo which while very popular is an incomplete understanding. The growing organic expression that George’s research has brought to our attention is a much different species than you and I have been exposed to. In a true organic expression Christ leads by the Holy Spirit through each individual.
My further question (dilemma) after having studied these works has to do with how to navigate the waters the Church finds itself in. If you press Frank V., Lenard Sweet and Neil Cole’s writings to their logical conclusion, to be compliant with what the bible teaches, one have to abandon the current top-down, fading model (CAWKI – Church As We Know It) and embrace a biblical organic model (Church As God Wants It – CAGWI)…which they contend is the true DNA given to the Church at Pentecost and hens should be our model we seek to implement today.
Jim you wrote, “Jesus told us to ‘fear not,’ yet it is our fall-back/ default position in too many things. We have become almost a non-factor in impacting the culture.” I think your assessment is accurate for many if not most traditional congregational churches. I think that the “why” of the very legitimate “non-factor” concern you so passionately express above is answered very effectively by Frank Viola et al. Their writings would support the notion that “how” we have done and are presently doing church (CAWKI) has precipitated the issue of the increasing “non-factor” issue you refer to. Hence, the increasing numbers finding their way out of CAWKI (Per George’s work) seeking an experience of CAGWI.
On a personal level my wife and I are still a loosely connected to the traditional church model but are focusing on building relationship with as many unsaved people as God brings into our life. Our prayer is to introduce them to Christ and then nurture them within an organic church model. Very frankly this is new territory for us. To have this focus on building relationship with the lost could never have happened in the traditional church setting of which we were a part. The machine had to be kept running. We were “being paid” to keep our part running. Anyone in “full-time ministry” has felt that tension.
February 15, 2011
Bro John,
I had missed this wonderful post.
I gave the info on one book below.
There are more such as you suggest.
But anyone interested could start with Violas “Finding Organic Church” to start with.
February 16, 2011
John, as I read this blog and the comments of others, I am struck with one thought; I now know why I was called in to meet with the “top down” leaders in my congregation and given an ultimatum of sitting down and shutting up, or leaving. I left, not because it was not worth fighting for, but because there had already been enough fighting there. There is no discussing with deaf leaders.
So where to from here? Thank all of you for recommending FV’s book, I will get it today.
I have decided that (at age 66) my wife and I will need to start or find that “organic church” I keep hearing about.
Thanks to all.
February 17, 2011
Jim,
Wow! First of all I am wounding if you are the Jim Cooper I know? If so I would really love to spend some time talking with you;) Are you from Northern Ohio?
Further I came across an article which really comes right at my initial questionings. I found it very helpful. Check it out.
http://www.cmaresources.org/article/detox_wolfgang-simson
February 9, 2011
Guys,
I’m wondering “which” Catholic church you are referring to (for church models see Thomas Dubay’s models of church in ‘Authenticity’—–there are no fewer than six).
The most common refrain one hears from converts such as myself is “I can’t believe the freedom and liberty I now have !!” Chesterton, Newman, and Co. all said the same thing. Are you referring to some repressive system of hierarchy (as compared to the Roman Catholic Church)?
In terms of the Early Church, which church fathers are you referring to? Clement, Irenaeus? Justin? Others? In replicating what they said and did could only be very liberating.
For an astounding example of leadership see/listen to the most recent sermon (Jan 30, 2011) by the Anglican Ed Meeks:
http://www.christthekingtowson.org/content.php?action=about
Christ’s peace,
Greg
February 10, 2011
Greg,
I went to your link and browsed around.
I have posted numerous posts that will clarify what I am talking about in another topic at this site.
Find and click on the topic “The Crisis of Confidence in the Church.” In it are 195 posts currently, I have written a few posts which goes into detail of what I am talking about.
I might recommend a fine book to read, it goes into detail. It is “Pagan Christianity” by Frank Viola and George Barna, it can be purchased at this site. It is a real eye opener and answers your questions about the early church. It is a popular work but has so many references that it borders on a scholarly work.
You asked: ” Are you referring to some repressive system of hierarchy (as compared to the Roman Catholic Church?)”
I am referring to any repressive system of hierarchy within Jesus Christs Church, anywhere it manifests itself, anyhow it manifests itself.
You asked: ” In terms of the early church, which church fathers are you referring to?”
I am not so much referring to “church fathers” persay.
I am more concerned with the first century apostolic founded model as revealed in the New Testament. As opposed to the man made model which started rearing it’s head especially after 300AD or there abouts. Which has come down to us through the centuries. It is a systemic problem, if you will.
My interest is in our replicating Jesus and the first century apostles words and methods.
My interest lies in the obtaining revelation of Scripture, more so than “church fathers” traditions.
Peace to you my Brother in Christ.
February 12, 2011
Jim Cooper,
I am in agreement with you my brother in Christ.
But we must remember what this exercise is.
We are on a blog and I need not remind you that a blog is to dialogue on topics and actaully debate pros and cons of a topic. We seem to forget that this is not a private conversation between you and I who know and agree on most things. Those who from across the world may not even know about the things that weary you or I. An honest civil discussion between a wide array of christians from a wide swath of christianity may introduce our fellow believers to new revelations or further their revelation as it pertains to this worldwide 2000 year old phenomona called the Church. The Lord has given us in the Church this worldwide tool to further His kingdom and help one another. You and I old ones have been given the privalage to be able to speak across many borders geographically and theologically and philosophically.
Therefore; In my above brief run down of reformation attempts of the last 500 to 600 years of a Roman Catholic system of 1700 years is for a specific reason. History tends to repeat itself.
The reformation attempts that divorced from that RC system did not correct the perpetual ongoing constants of that system but in fact adopted them.
Many of the current reformation attempts have also kept the very systemic issues that continues to plague the Church from accomplishing what Jesus commissioned through His words and the Holy Spirit and the first century apostles.
The systemic problem as you and I well know is the constant top down control oriented hierarchical model dominate in the Church today AND IT IS BEING DRAGGED INTO THE NEW ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSIONS OF OUR FAITH, AGAIN.
We are repeating historical mistakes.
Why?
Before we can do all of those things you enumerate above in your February 9th posts. Which I agree with primarily. We have to address some fundamental things so we have disciples that can actually do those thing you want to do. Paul called it equipping.
George is bringing up a permission based leadership modeled by the DC model, but interestingly not the AT model.
It begs the question, can we actually get equipped disciples or is it even possible to get equipped disciples from our current model of what is commonly referred to as church?
Why not?
My only disagreement with you on what is necessary to accomplish this is the following.
In any model it is necessary to do: The complete emphasis is the centrality of the person of Jesus Christ of Nazerath, born from a virgin, who was hung on the cross, buried, raised from the dead, and is now the Head of the Church, His Body.
He is not head in most if not all current manifestations of church and also the new alternative manifestations that are not institutional modeled.
It is all about Jesus it is His Church and He is quite able to run it through and by His Holy Spirit.
We still are not allowing it by our various methodologies. We don’t know how. My beautiful Brother in Christ, Frank Viola recently wrote a topic in his blog called: “The Homeless God.” We are to provide that home where God is made to feel welcome, is cordially invited, and is allowed to actually lead the fellowship by His Spirit.
Leadership: leaders are to grow organically from a group of christians. The beleiving group is lead by a plurality of co-equal elders/teachers, elders are older one older guys who have had that need for control and rule eliminated from their character and personality and humbled due to circumstance of life experiences, they are ruled by love in humility. They are recognized by all that they are constant, mature, wise, steady, trustworthy, humble, approachable and their lead is by example, an example that is safe to copy
. They teach with Godly wisdom in a dialogue, and encourage the full participation and functioning of every believer so they are able to go do the work of the ministry, when they (the equipped disciple) are sent because they are recognized by the whole community of believers they are ready.
I believe this is what George is getting at with Permission Based Leadership.
It is messy, it goes into root causes of sins, woundings, trauma, improper parenting, trauma caused by past religious leaders, wrong teaching, and a healing process is accomplished prior to one even being able to do the great commission or even be able to love someone.
Instead of dressing up in our Sunday best for a couple hours and putting on our happy face and be in chaos inside ourself after we listened to a droning sermon that has nothing at all to do with the crisis in our life that nobody knows about because we are supposed to be victorious in Jesus and have that Cadillac faith.
February 14, 2011
MichaelO
Absolutely on target, but we’ve got to “get it done,” this equipping.
February 14, 2011
Jim C,
February 15, 2011
Brother JimC,
Have you read the book “Finding Organic Church”, By Frank Viola, David C Cook publishing, Colorado Springs,CO, 2009. ISBN 978-1-4347-6866-7
In it is the formula, for starting and maintaining the atmosphere to accomplsh the task of a first century modeled community of beleivers eqipping saints to do the work.
You are going to have to move to an already established ekklesia, or start one yourself with the Lords help.
February 13, 2011
To all…
BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am THIRSTY for the manifold wisdom of God.
Thank you for the drink!
And as the eye is never full, so shall I return for more refreshments.
February 19, 2011
Don,
Please join in, we don’t bite
Love to hear what you have to contribute.
February 15, 2011
I am looking forward to reading:
“The Cause Within You” by Matt and George.
This Dream Center in the inner city LA has been a light in a dark place for years. I can’t wait to read about the inner workings. I hope it has a lot of how to.
February 19, 2011
JimC,
I can sympathize with you and I understand fully what you have gone through. You mentioned your meeting with the top down control oriented hierarchical leadership at your church. You were told to sit down and shut up or leave. Otherwise known as the “left foot” of fellowship. I am very familiar with that meeting having had it myself in the past more than once. I have the bruises on my behind to prove it.
I would like to say that the issue is traumatic and most don’t realize that it causes serious repercussions to the one who has been kicked out of a fellowship. It is a traumatic thing for a believer. Don’t ignore it but pray and let Jesus heal you. I have been through it and ignored can cause long term wounding. It is actually akin to a divorce or best friend dying. You were trying to serve the Lord there and they told you you can’t anymore. You lost close brethern relationships with people you loved etc. It takes serious forgiveness empowered by the Holy Spirit. I want to encourage you knowing that what was meant for your harm, is actually propelling you on a journey moving forward in more intimate and powerful relation and ministry to the Lord.
The Lord is removing you from improper clergy control. To christian community that Jesus and the original apostles operated in. Co-equal plurality of leadership in love and humilty as servants leading by example, not by office, where everybody gets to play. Not just a special ruling class of professional religious operators.
Not where you are told to sit down and shut up. But where you are asked to follow by example and stand up and be vocal and go and do and be in freedom of the HS.
February 21, 2011
MichaelO-You are correct, the journey has bumped and bruised me spiritually, but His Holy Spirit has been with me all the way, and the healing and strenghtening is well under way and I’m headed for even greater service for Him.
Thank you for your understanding and encouragement.
February 19, 2011
John,
I went to your cma resources link. I copied the stuff and am going to Wolfgangs deal.
Thanks for the link it is great.
February 19, 2011
Michael O
He has a uTube series of 12 (10 min) videos. There is also a 500pg PDF book (free download) at starfish foundation. Just Google it;)
February 24, 2011
Someone alerted me to this thread so I thought I’d throw in for a second. Nice blog you have here, George! And great thread.
Appreciate everyone’s thoughts. Very helpful.
Just a quick addition: One thing we point out in our discussion in “Pagan Christianity” is that God certainly uses institutional forms. Even forms that may be contrary to Scripture. (He’s quite skilled at drawing straight with crooked lines. I, for one, am thankful for that.)
A lot of this comes down to what exactly is the “ekklesia” as envisioned in the New Testament, and what does that word mean when the writers of the NT used it? And what sort of experience was it exactly? I explore this question in detail in “Reimagining Church.”
In short, what some would call a “church” some NT scholars (and myself) would call a “ministry.” And that the latter shouldn’t replace the former.
I saw Matthew B. on an interview and was impressed with his ministry over at the DC. And I’m glad George has released this book and that it’s doing so very well.
blessings,
Christ is ALL,
fv
Psalm 115:1
February 26, 2011
Frank Viola,
We love it when you “throw in”.
Which begs the question:
When throwing in fastballs for nine innings against a tough opponent. Do you go with the ice on the shoulder first, or heat in the whirlpool and then alternate
As always your expertise is greatly welcome
March 3, 2011
Frank V said:
” One thing we point out in our discussion in “Pagan Christianity” is that God certainly uses institutional forms. Even forms that may be contrary to Scripture. (He’s quite skilled at drawing straight with crooked lines.)
I would agree with Frank’s statement.
But did God give us “permission” to make it (The Church) a man made institution or even contrary to Scripture? Is it permissable with God to do that with the Church. Is God pleased with that?
I think it arrogant on mans part to deviate from the apostolic foundation for the church as set out in the NT. Of course in the genuis of God he is able to make straight the crooked, and despite mans feeble attempts to help God out by tinkering with the apostolic tradition. The kingdom of God still comes despite it all.
Man seems to derive satisfaction from deviating from Gods intent. We as christians in the family of God The Church should stop it. Two thousand years into it we should know better, humble ourselves and return.
Frank V said:
” In short, what some would call a ‘church’ some NT scholars (and myself) would call a ‘ministry.’
And that the latter shouldn’t replace the former.”
Most so-called “churchs” that I have been to were a guys ministry, run as a “church”, called a “church”.
Just get out of step with that guy once, and you will find out that it is his ministry, and not The Church.
One of the biggest “churchs” in America is in a former professional ball teams stadium. I drive by it from time to time. In letters 5 foot tall all around the building is the guys name. The building holds around 30,000 people and is called a “church”. Yet on the building is the guys name ministries.
Am I confused or is he?
Frank V said: ” A lot of this comes down to what exactly is the ‘ekklesia’ as envisioned in the NT, and what does that word mean when the writers of the NT used it?”
Well I am pretty sure that a guy’s ministry isn’t it.
I am pretty sure that a special professional full time clergyman class doesn’t rule it and run it.
Stadiums aren’t needed to be it.
I am certain that the whole assembly does not sit mute, listening to one guy in monologue dominating the whole time watching him be it.
Professional musicians and singers aren’t needed to be it.
I suppose that 80% of every dollar collected does not go to professional clergy salary and owned realestate and upkeep in an ‘ekklesia”.
I am very sure that a modern model singular “pastor” is not needed in the ekklesia since I have looked for 35 years in the NT and haven’t found a trace of one pastor there.
In the NT “ekklesia” I can’t find a thimble of grape juice and a cookie as the Lords Supper, but I do find a shared meal and fellowship amongst the believing community.
Now all of those things in and of themselves are not to be gotten dogmatic over. But shouldn’t we be searching the Scriptures and our hearts and drawing close to God and doing it at least somewhat as it is shown in the NT?
If Paul the apostle came to America and came to church on Sunday he would ask where did you guys come up with all of this nonsense?
He got mad at Peter for sitting with the Jews from Jerusalem seperating himself from the Gentiles. He got mad at the boys at Corinth for saying some were of Apollos, some of Paul and on and on.
What would he say about Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/Evangelical/Pentacostal/Charismatic/etc/etc/etc.
March 16, 2011
The way I see it…
If you are a leader called by God to move His Church forward, His vision is the cornerstone of your leadership. Communicate it clearly and persuasively to everyone who will listen, as often as you have the opportunity. Convey it in a compelling manner, pray for opportunities to share it… for the resources to make it happen and for teh ability to direct people’s efforts efficiently and effectively.
If you are a follower of Christ but not called to such a leadership position, then listen carefully to the vision that is being cast by His chosen leaders and embrace the vision as if it were your own. Commit to it. Use your gifts and resources to fulfill it. Pray about the vision, about your role in bringing it to pass and about God’s willingness to use you in significant ways to reach the world for His glory. Listen and watch for His response to your prayers.
-Eric
March 19, 2011
Eric H,
Hi Bro. Love your post.
What if as is the norm the “vision” is a guy’s vision, his ministry vision?
My experience is that so often a guy’s vision is just that, his vision.
And he is calling his ministry’s vision, “a church.”
A guy’s ministry is not, the Church.
In every instance I went “to church.”
It always ended up actually being a guy’s ministry, and a guy’s vision.
To the extent I helped advance that ministry’s vision, or to be more succient, that guy’s ministry vision I was included and embraced.
But to the extent I Scripturally even lead by the Holy Spirit deviated from that guy’s ministry, that guy’s vision, I was resisted, even asked to leave.
If one is called to someones ministry and vision, that is one thing.
But for one to masquarade a ministry as “a church” is a whole different bowl of granola.
Which begs the question: what determines a ministry, and what determines the Church?
I have also encountered a grouping of hand picked elders as having a vision and a ministry that was just that, their group vision, their group ministry, but it actually was not the Church.
I was reading John Wimbers biography written by his widow. In it was related a story of an encounter John had that forever changed his ministry. John was struggling after a church split and he was inquiring of the Lord about it.
Jesus said to John: “I have seen your ministry. Now let Me show you Mine!”
It is not so much IMO that we have “a vision”.
It is that His (Jesus) vision has us.
And to the extent we submit and do His vision as documented in the NT we will meet with blessing and success.
March 21, 2011
Thanks, Michael.
Interestingly, what I have posted above I transcribed word for word from George Barna’s 2002 book entitled “Grow Your Church from the Outside In” – from chapter 11 entitled “Making a Commitment
to a Vision of the Church.” pp. 158-159.
March 21, 2011
I ALWAYS like chapter & verse, even IF it is from GB’s work. It seems to take all the “conjecture” out of the process.
March 21, 2011
Michael O asked: “What determines the church?”
Well, one way of putting it goes like this:
Let’s think of a church not as a religious meeting place, but as a service agency – an entity that exists to satisfy people’s needs.
As this relates to the value and process of marketing planning – it entails the development of a vision, goals, and objectives, and identifying a viable strategy and set of tactics for reaching those goals. Jesus Himself taught the importance of planning, criticizing the foolishness of those who failed to plan (Luke 14:28-30). Several of His parables underscore the centrality of strategy and tactics.
Jesus was well aware of the need to ensure that the faith was accessible to those who sought it. He labored long and hard to turn a motley bunch of working-class men into an informed, capable distribution system. As time passed, His men opened “franchises” (local churches) to further spread the product.
If the marketing plan is to have a chance for successful implementation, it is best to have a single individual take control of it and have the authority to do whatever needs to be done (within reason) to make things happen according to schedule. When committees and boards become involved in implementation, momentum is frequently lost by the deliberate speed with which the ship pitches forth (if any momentum can be established in the first place). The best scenario is to have the appropriate groups give their blessing to both the plan and the specific infividual who will be held accountable for the marketing process. Recognize that this is how successful corporations operate their businesses. They are run by a board of directors who give their approval to a plan, and then expect an executive to turn the plan into an operational system. The church, as a business, should emulate that procedure.
April 3, 2011
EricH,
This sounds like the status-quo to me.
This is basically what we do now.
Can you provide Scripture to support?
April 6, 2011
lol
I missed this response : )
Michael O says…
This sounds like the status-quo to me.
This is basically what we do now.
Can you provide Scripture to support?
I take that to mean that you see this practice/approach in many of the average churches, and that you find “what we do now” as being “unscriptural”(?) (I’m just trying to gain clarity – if you’d prefer not to respond to that – that’s fine).
: )
March 22, 2011
I wasn’t sure if anyone wanted to dialogue some more about this and what I wrote yesterday? (above)
March 22, 2011
Your comments on 3-21-11, if anyone is still out there (George seems to have disappeared), will bring a firestorm of discussion.
Vision is so rare today, and the desire for control is so common, as to render us impotent in delivering the Great News or genuine service to those in need.
I do not know the answer, clearly not. The last place I attended, Elders told me to sit down and shut up OR leave. Not given to fighting with brothers, I left. Now I’m on the outside looking in, and as I am prone to say, And, as we fight on and discuss on, the lost are still lost.
March 26, 2011
Thanks for your response, Jim. Also, I’m genuinely sorry to hear about the hurt you experienced in connection to some elders at a church.
I appreciate your bite about the “lost” and your heart for that. I had the privilege over the last 10 days to personally lead several people to Christ, and there is virtually no greater blessing than being a part of that.
Since you seem to be one of the only people on here right now, I wanted to ask what you thought about something. I noticed your usage of the term “lost” for someone who isn’t a Christian.
What if I said… …for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of a person who is not connected to Jesus. Assume that you are somewhat interested in discovering more about the possibilities of developing a deeper relationship with Him and that you might even be willing to associate with a church that could facilitate your spiritual growth. After checking around, you identify a congregation that might be a good place to start your explorations. To your satisfaction, you hear them describe your situation. To you horror, you hear them label you as “lost.” In your mind, that is a demeaning, arrogant, and inaccurate term. It is also a word that reveals the heart of the people who use it: They cannot be loving or understanding if they elevate themselves to a place of knowing what is right while anyone who believed differently is inferior or lost.
Does that sound far-fetched? It is not. In fact, it describes a fairly common scenario in which the unchurched misinterpret what we mean and depart from the church with emotional bruises. In surveys, it’s been found that 56 percent of the unchurched say that they find the term offensive; only 6 percent say they would look favorably upon a church that describes them as lost.
If not “lost,” then what do the unchurched want to be called? Seven terms have been tested. The two most acceptable are “inquirer” and “explorer,” each of which is embraced by about half of the unchurched. Even the widely used term “seeker” is not as popular; only 4 out of 10 say they prefer it. Expressions that fall into the offensive territory include “non-Christian,” “prodigal,” “lost” and “nonbeliever.” The terms “non-Christian” and “non-believer” are rejected because most of these people deem themselves to be Christian; their rejection of the Church and their not having a real or growing relationship with Jesus Christ are seen as irrelevant to the issue.
March 28, 2011
Eric–Wow, so much to communicate.
First, Jesus used the term “lost,” therefore it is proper. He understood the seriousness of being “lost,” and He knew the eternal ramifications of being so.
Second, I would say that anyone, without a relationship with God through Jesus Christ the Redeemer, is indeed, by Christ’s own definition, “lost.” Seeing God’s plan correctly is so very important. In a capsule; God loved so much He SENT, Jesus loved so much He DIED, and we must love so much that we TELL.
Additionally, (and, certainly in love) I reject the “churched/unchurched” position as if somehow being “churched” is of significant value. One either HAS a relationship with the ONLY God, through His redemptive Son, or NOT. Being “churched” is not the issue. The problem is, I believe, one of not understanding what Jesus meant when He said that He must be about His Father’s business, meaning the saving of the eternal souls of man.
I believe it is important for us to use the template found in the New Testament (primarily in Acts) in our evangelistic efforts. Peter,Paul, Philip, and others did not use the vehicle of “church” to convert the lost. There was no “relationship evangelism” program. Peter told “the Gospel” and thousands were baptized on a single day, and those were “added” to the church. They did not hang around the church until they somehow absorbed anything. The Philipian jailer and his entire family were not part of “relationship evangelism” or a 13 week Bible study. The Ethiopian eunich did not find salvation in a church. And, it goes on and on.
The idea that we can be so nice that they will want to join us, after a long period of being accepted, loved, “churched,” and somehow “taught,” is less than scriptural, meaning there is not any evidence that “relationship evangelism” was a method used by those seeking to save the lost in the 1st century. Fact is, “church” is the exclusive domain of the redeemed. Christ “adds” to His church those who surrender to Him, those who renounce self, repent of sin against God, are obedient in baptism, and claim Him as redeemer. Then, and ONLY then, are people “churched.” “No man comes to the Father except through me.” No one is saved through church. We are never instructed to pray to Jesus. We are instructed by Jesus to pray to the Father, and told to pray (ask) in His (Jesus’) name. Too much confusion on our part often in these matters, creates questions that we must not allow in dealing with the “lost.” We must have clarity and conviction, and see the critical nature of our dealings with them.
So many times I hear people say we need to make people comfortable in the church,we must use the right words with them, be gentle, be loving, be compassionate, and, in essence, “WOO” them to Christ. Elders have often said we want members to feel comfortable, to feel served, to not be pressured, or in any way feel any obligation to do anything they do not feel comfortable doing. The last time I checked, the redeemed were called to a cross (take up your cross daily), not called to a “Lazy Boy.”
Yet today, we have made church about comfort and entertainment, and any level of partipation one desires, sort of like joining the local country club. We offer people “opportunities” to participate. Church must somehow fit in their very busy lifestyle. We don’t use foul words like obedience, compelled, obligation, serve, sacrifice, and others found in the New Testament. Using them would put people off, sort of what happened between Jesus and the “rich young ruler.”
We have been sold a “bill of goods” regarding the “lost.” I agree, we should never use terms around them or towards them, that demeen them or show any level of disrespect. However, our knowledge of their condition (lost) should motivate us to TELL them the truth in love, motivated by love, and we would indeed tell them that way, IF we loved them as much as the Father who SENT, and the Savior who DIED.
The New Testament “approach” to evangelism is far different from the methods we use today. We are “uncomfortable” with it, even though that approach is Biblical and far superior in effectiveness. Peter, Paul, Philip, and others were not in the WOOING business, they were in the soul-saving business (the Father’s business). They demonstrated the effectiveness of loving enough to TELL, not WOO.
Jesus was not a “WOOER.” The rich yound ruler left even though his desire was for eternal life. Jesus demanded discomfort and a life of obedience and sacrifice. The rich young ruler wanted “to have it all” on his terms, not Christ’s. By the way, our Lord did not compromise, did not lessen His price, and did not bargain with him.
You asked.
March 29, 2011
Thanks for your response, Jim. Yes, I did ask. Know that you’re not “offending” me – or whatever.
But what if I were to also add that… there has been increasing talk in pastoral circles about the danger of “pandering to people’s felt needs.” The fear is that by paying attention to what people feel they need, we will remove our focus from the essence of the gospel and begin to compromise the message of Christ. Healthy and growing churches have proved this need not be the case. They do not view a needs-oriented ministry as a marketing gimmick, but as a method of ensuring effective ministry. Several of these pastors have learned from prior experience that without a felt-needs approach, creating spiritual growth in the membership is often extremely slow, if not impossible. Instead, they saw a needs-based outreach as a way of plowing the fertile fields. Knowing what is on people’s minds, and applying the truth of Scripture, guaranteed that they would have an attentive audience.
Pastors of these user friendly churches tend to draw examples from the Bible of how Jesus utilized this approach in His ministry. The common approach was for Him to begin to build a relationship by focusing on the needs of the other person, addresing those needs with tangible assistance, then sharing them with the larger, more enduring principles that would be of the greatest help in the long run. The significance of Christ’s strategy is underscored by the fact that disciples such as Peter and Paul relied on the very same approach.
People want meaningful solutions to their deepest struggles. The church, if it is prepared, may have the opportunity to address those needs by applying the practicality and the truth of the gospel to those needs. By allowing the people themselves to dictate the path along which they will grow spiritually, and entrusting the means and integrity of that growth to the church leaders, everyone emerges a winner.
March 30, 2011
Eric–You’re killing me. I wonder, do you have children? My point being,God seems to be determined to give us (His Children) what He KNOWS we need, not what we believe we need. My experience is simply this; spiritual growth comes, in large enough quantities as to transform our lives in Christ, from 5 major sources.
The first source is worship. Worship, for believers is non-optional. It should be extremely participation oriented (no observers). Because ONLY believers can worship (through their relationship with Christ enabled by God’s Holy Spirit), non-believers should not be included. Combining other things activities (evangelism, fellowship, teaching, & etc.) dilutes worship. Worship is about God, His Son, and His Holy Spirit. Worship is not “multitaskable.”
Second, is personal Bible reading, a concentrated effort to hide His Word in out hearts so we do not sin against Him is critical. The effort today should be first centered in a full and personal understanding of the heart and mind of Christ that is best found in the 4 Gospels. When the heart and mind of Christ is understood, the Spirit can easily install it in us. Following the Gospels, one should read The Acts to see how Christ’s life effected the lives of those who understood Him best. The rest of the NT is simply more nutrition for sipritual growth. The OT (for us) is an excellent exposiotion of the Nature of God and the history of His dealings with man and His “chosen people,” over time.
Next, in the list of spiritual-growth “biggies” is Prayer. Prayer must be a constant if one desires to turbocharge spiritual growth. One of the lessons I have learned is that an immediate trip to the throne of God (immediate) will provide a long term solution to repetitive sin, meaning, do it, repent immediately, beg His forgiveness while the sin is still warm. The process of sweeping sins into a convenient pile each night and calling on Him to forgive them in “bulk” form, will insure a continuation of any sin that is handled in that process. You will continue in it until you begin to go to the throne immediately and face Him. In prayer, hold nothing back from Him, not you job, your hobbies, your health, your finances, your sex life, nothing.
Next, and probably the biggest single power in spiritual growth, sharing the Gospel with others. Until you have been intentionally and personally involved in another’s salvation, you cannot understand the impact on your own personal spiritual growth. Ask those (few) who are “addicted” to sharing Christ, they know and understand.
And finally, on the list of large spiritual growth factors is discipiling. It is helping others learn the value and processes of the other 4 spiritual-growth elements.
I understand spiritual growth only because I have experieced it, walked the ground, been, as a believer, as shallow as spit, a spiritual pigmy. Today, all I want is more spiritual growth. I am addicted to spiritual growth. It is my ONLY addiction. It is NOT harmful, only beneficial.
Probably not totally coherent, probably too much, probably over-the-top.
I miss George! Where is that man?
March 30, 2011
Yes, I do have kids : ). I’m not certain how I’m “killing” you, but know I have no intention to “kill” you in any way : )
So… that said, I take it you’d essentially disagree with what I have written above? Partly disagree? Mostly disagree? Radically disagree? Just seeking clarity.
You mentioned worship and people who aren’t believers. What if I countered by saying that… one creed of the unchurched must be the well-worn Clint Eastwood line: “Make my day.” If that day is to be Sunday, you make it worthwhile for these outsiders by providing perceived and delivered value. What you provide may well have to be a multifacted value product: part spiritual, part relational, part practical and part entertainment. Because so many of the unchurched are not born again, and therefore have no real relationship with Jesus, attracting and retaining these people will take more than a good worship service, since the very practice of worship is outside of their frame of comprehension and experience. They need a solid worship experience.
In fact, let me put it this way – Are you familiar with Willow Creek Community Church near Chicago? What if I said that… if I had my way, there would be 100,000 Willow Creek churches in this country, and with God’s blessing, perhaps we can make some headway toward that Goal (?)
I was curious what you’d think about that (and… certainly anyone else on here can comment in whatever way they see fit?). I’m not certain where the others are, either. I guess it’s just us for now, but thanks for the input : )
April 1, 2011
Eric–Radically disagree, but that doesn’t mean I don’t love you, or appreciate opposing views, nothing of that sort, but we are not even in the same book, let alone on the same page.
I have several issues (all major) with your position relating to the scenarios you have laid out. First, where in Scripture would we find anything even vaguely resembling the concept of “multifaceted value product?” And to somehow elevate WCCC to a position to be enulated, indicates an infatuation with quantity, not quality, and perhaps some lack of info on their findings regarding their crowd. By their own admission, having done research on their crowd, they were able to determine that the spiritual level of the crowd was low, very low. It has been described a a lake 100 miles wide, 100 miles long, and having an average depth of 2 inches, proof-positive that entertainment, and meeting felt-needs may not be the proper approach ASSUMING that spiritual depth is an objective.
Additionally,those who “have no real relationship with Jesus,” as you describe, cannot, by definition worship because “no man comes to the Father except through me.” No Jesus, no access to the Father. I would challenge vigorously your words, “They need a solid worship experience,” by pointing out that they cannot worshi what they do not have access to. Worship, therefore is to be done by the redeemed, and is ONLY about the Father, the Son, and God’s Holy Spirit. It should NEVER be part this, part that, or part the other. Worship should NEVER multitasked, for that matter, evangelism probably should be focused and not multitasked either. Certainly, the NT examples of evangelizing are in large outdoor meetings, in prisons, on the road traveling, and in homes. We should think about that.
I believe the results found in the WCCC research dictate an approach far different than what we have followed for well over 30 years. Far too many “churches” today are gone, dead, or dying for a lack of spiritual growth, and it is not His Holy Spirit’s fault, the failure is ours and it is rooted in our believing that modern ways are superior to NT ways. I see the value of technology, but I believe we are fooling ourselves when we say a group is successful because the crowd is large, because they utilize cutting-edge technology, and they have large buildings, huge budgets, and more “programs” than anyone else. All this, DOES NOT define success. Success is defined, according to Scripture, as growing spiritually. The WCCC experience, in my view, is indesputable evidence that the old acceptage adages of “look at the numbers, they must be doing something right,” and “you can’t argue with the numbers,” may not be God speaking to us. So much of our logic runs counter to the logic of God, that it always gives me pause when we find our logic in conflict with His.
Make it a great day, and find George.
April 1, 2011
Hmm. Well, thanks for your reply, Jim. Know that I respect you willingness to share your insight. I think it’s clear what you’d say to this, but what if I said Willow Creek Community Church is…
…partially responsible for a new way of thinking about what the local church can and should be. Having attended Willow Creek during my years in Illinois, I can say without any doubt that this is a real church: it has spiritual depth, biblical integrity and solid ministry priorities. Unfortunately… purists-leaders who have tried to implement the entire Willow Creek ministry in their area, lock, stock and barrel – have failed. A church in New Mexico spent nearly a year preparing its Willow Creek impersonation. Today that church is struggling to keep a single part-time pastor on retainer and to pay the rent to meet in the school gymnasium. Fewer than 50 people consistently attend.
(Related to this… there is something I posted earlier. I wasn’t certain what you thought about this…)
…As this relates to the value and process of marketing planning – it entails the development of a vision, goals, and objectives, and identifying a viable strategy and set of tactics for reaching those goals. Jesus Himself taught the importance of planning, criticizing the foolishness of those who failed to plan (Luke 14:28-30). Several of His parables underscore the centrality of strategy and tactics.
Jesus was well aware of the need to ensure that the faith was accessible to those who sought it. He labored long and hard to turn a motley bunch of working-class men into an informed, capable distribution system. As time passed, His men opened “franchises” (local churches) to further spread the product.
If the marketing plan is to have a chance for successful implementation, it is best to have a single individual take control of it and have the authority to do whatever needs to be done (within reason) to make things happen according to schedule. When committees and boards become involved in implementation, momentum is frequently lost by the deliberate speed with which the ship pitches forth (if any momentum can be established in the first place). The best scenario is to have the appropriate groups give their blessing to both the plan and the specific individual who will be held accountable for the marketing process. Recognize that this is how successful corporations operate their businesses. They are run by a board of directors who give their approval to a plan, and then expect an executive to turn the plan into an operational system. The church, as a business, should emulate that procedure.
April 1, 2011
Um… Anyone? … Anyone? : )
April 2, 2011
Oh, I also wanted to add this as food for thought:
A church without a detailed plan for ministry is in the same quandery as the foolish builder. The chances of a church stumbling into a successful ministry are not good. Indeed, a study of the churches that are making a real impact on the world shows that they have carefuly examined the conditions, intensely studied the options that they have for activity, and developed a plan for action based upon their deliberations. This is the same process followed by all of the highly profitable companies that are leaders in their fields of business.
April 3, 2011
EricH,
I am not aware of the concept of “a church” in the New Testament documents? Could you show me this concept in the NT?
You wrote: “a study of the churches that are making a real impact…”
EricH can you link me to the above study?
EricH you wrote: “This is the same process followed by all of the highly profitable companies that are leaders in their fields of business.”
Are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ is to emulate or copy worldly business corporation models involved in world commerce? Can you show Scriptural precedence for this?
When Jesus Christ started His earthly ministry the first words out of His mouth were: “Repent!”
“For the kingdom of God is at hand!”
Are business corporations repentant?
Are business corporations promoting and furthering the kingdom of God?
Or are they promoting their products, goods, and services?
Are so-called successful churches doing likewise by promoting their products, goods, and services?
We have been instructed to:
a) disciple the nations
b) preach the Gospel to the poor
c) heal the sick
d) raise the dead
e) freely give because freely we have received
I am under the impression by the New Testament that we are to be about the kingdom of God, and that it (kingdom of God) is going to take over and rule everything.
The studies I am aware of indicates churches are miserably failing in every regard of kingdom business. Even Willow Creek types.
Millions of Christian believers are leaving said business modeled churches yearly, not because they have lost their faith, but to preserve and increase their faith.
Are you aware that the Church in Africa now refers to America as the “Dark Continent” in matters of christian theism?
Are you aware that many missionaries from across the world are being called by God to America to disciple this nation and preach the true Gospel of Jesus Christ here?
Can you show me the present dominant modern model of “a pastor” in the New Testament?
Can you show me the present dominant modern clergy~laity distinction in the New Testament?
Can you show me the present dominant modern top down control oriented hierarchy model, in the New Testament?
April 4, 2011
Thanks, Michael, for being back with some input. It was starting to seem a little lonely on here : ).
I’ll do some resource referencing of some of these above items I’ve posted in the future when I have the time to be as precise as possible. Also, those are a lot of questions! Thanks for those. For right now, let me add on to the below statement I posted – and you can respond as you so desire:
(previous bite) Jesus was well aware of the need to ensure that the faith was accessible to those who sought it. He labored long and hard to turn a motley bunch of working-class men into an informed, capable distribution system. As time passed, His men opened “franchises” (local churches) to further spread the product.
…(adding on to that)…
Marketing planning… entails the development of a vision, goals, and objectives, and identifying a viable strategy and set of tactics for reaching those goals.
(Michael, you mentioned Jesus – and business models – good point to bring up – what if I were to say…)
…Jesus Himself taught the importance of planning, criticizing the foolishness of those who failed to plan (Luke 14:28-30). Several of His parables underscore the centrality of strategy and tactics. The parable of the foolish maidens (Matthew 25) teaches us that successful marketing requires anticipating needs and being prepared to satisfy those needs. The parable of the sown seeds (Matthew 13) portrays marketing the faith as a process in which there are hot prospects and not-so-hot prospects and shows how we should gear our efforts toward the greatest productivity. This is the essence of target marketing – recognizing the various segments of the audience, and treating marketing as an ongoing process. Some people are ready for conversion, others are not. Paul was one of the all time great tacticians. He perpetually studied strategies and tactics to identify those that would enable him to attract the most “prospects” and realize the greatest number of conversions.
Marketing cannot occur without clear and meaningful communication. Modern marketing incorporates various forms of mass communication and interpersonal communication. Companies that have not developed means of conveying their message with clarity are rarely successful. Jesus Christ was a communications specialist. He communicated His message in diverse ways, and with results, that would be a credit to modern advertising and marketing agencies. Notice the Lord’s approach: He identified His target audience, determined their need, and delivered His message directly to them. By addressing the crowds on the mountainsides, or the Jews in the Temple, He promoted His product in the most efficient way possible: by communicating with the “hot prospects.”
We could spend more time dissecting the Bible to see exactly how the Lord Jesus, the apostles, the prophets, and others in leadership positions utilized basic marketing techniques to further God’s Kingdom. However, the point is indisputable: the Bible does not warn against the evils of marketing. In fact, the Scriptures provide clear examples of God’s chosen men using those principles. So it behooves us to not waste time bickering about techniques and processes, but to study methods by which we can glorify our King and comply with the Great Commission.
April 5, 2011
EricH,
IMHO we (there is only one) the Ekklesia have been given a specific charge by Jesus Christ.
18 “And Jesus came up and spoke to them,saying,
‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth.
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,
20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ ” Matt 28:18-20)
The status-quo churches have devised all manner of man inspired things to do such as employ business model marketing techniques, etc.
It hasn’t worked, nor will it.
Were not trying to make converts giving lip service to a religion, going twice a week for a couple hours to consume a product, mute, sitting observing the goings on, in our Sunday best, bolstering “a church” attendance number, and living our selfish life the rest of the week.
We are instructed to make disciples and then disciple the nations.
Disciple is a learner acquiring knowledge by seeing and doing, he is an adherent, a follower.
In observing the Master (in the Gospels) in His marketing plan he made it diffucult for the observer, the curious, the onlooker. He taught the great throngs and crowds in parables. Later in privacy with His disciples He would explain the parables to His disciples. He asked His disciples to leave all and follow Him without hesitation. He made it hard, diffucult, to follow Him. He demanded all, we must put aside our selfish ambition, that we pick up our cross, and follow Him wherever that may lead. We are told by Jesus Christ that if we try to keep our life we will lose it, but if we give up our life for Jesus and the sake of His Gospel we will find true life. (Mark 8: 34-38)
Jesus Christ marketing plan is very simple.
You become discipled in a close community of believers and you go sent out by the community and do what Jesus and the apostles did.
1 Preach the Gospel to the poor
2 Lay hands and pray on the sick and they recover
3 Raise the dead
4 Freely you have received, freely give
People being healed by prayer and the laying on of hands is the marketing plan. It draws attention, fast.
Preaching the Word and genuine repentence and Gods Spirit entering a person is the marketing plan. It draws attention, fast. People can see those realities of the living Jesus Christ when His name is lifted up.
When someone is raised from the dead, that is a marketing plan.
When the Ekklesia gives and helps those in need spiritually/mentally/emotionally/relationally/time/money, that is a marketing plan.
Check out Jesus marketing plan here:
Acts 8:6
1) Luke 5:4-11
2) John 2:11;22;23
3) John 4:48-53
4) John 7:31
5) John 11:43-45
6) John 12:10-11
7) John 20:30-31
9) Acts 9:32-42
10) Acts 13:8-12
11) Acts 19:13-18
12) Romans 15:18-19
This is where the effort is to be expended within the Ekklesia to raise up an army of believers walking in the power of the Holy Spirit.
That is the plan.
April 5, 2011
On no, it’s getting lonely again : ). People are probably busy, and I respect that. I thought we could at least dialogue on this subject first, and then go from there?
Michael O wrote:
Are you saying the Church of Jesus Christ is to emulate or copy worldly business corporation models involved in world commerce? Can you show Scriptural precedence for this?
April 6, 2011
Hm. I tried to respond to Michael O on this.
I tried to say…
I take that to mean that thisis what we do now (as churches in general) and that it’s unscriptural?
-Eric
April 5, 2011
Oh – lol.
We must have both posted at roughly the same time. Must be lunch : ). Thanks for posting, I’ll read this.
April 5, 2011
Thanks for your reponse, Michael. You seem like a sharp guy with clarity of thought. Like I said to Jim, for my own clarity, would you say you… differ with what I wrote? somewhat differ? radically differ?
Also (and I see this as relating to the subject) – I want to paste what I wrote above in dialogue with Jim. I know your view of the “church” would be much different than the way this is termed, but for now, if you would consider the other aspects of the content:
What if I said… …for a moment, put yourself in the shoes of a person who is not connected to Jesus. Assume that you are somewhat interested in discovering more about the possibilities of developing a deeper relationship with Him and that you might even be willing to associate with a church that could facilitate your spiritual growth. After checking around, you identify a congregation that might be a good place to start your explorations. To your satisfaction, you hear them describe your situation. To you horror, you hear them label you as “lost.” In your mind, that is a demeaning, arrogant, and inaccurate term. It is also a word that reveals the heart of the people who use it: They cannot be loving or understanding if they elevate themselves to a place of knowing what is right while anyone who believed differently is inferior or lost.
Does that sound far-fetched? It is not. In fact, it describes a fairly common scenario in which the unchurched misinterpret what we mean and depart from the church with emotional bruises. In surveys, it’s been found that 56 percent of the unchurched say that they find the term offensive; only 6 percent say they would look favorably upon a church that describes them as lost.
If not “lost,” then what do the unchurched want to be called? Seven terms have been tested. The two most acceptable are “inquirer” and “explorer,” each of which is embraced by about half of the unchurched. Even the widely used term “seeker” is not as popular; only 4 out of 10 say they prefer it. Expressions that fall into the offensive territory include “non-Christian,” “prodigal,” “lost” and “nonbeliever.” The terms “non-Christian” and “non-believer” are rejected because most of these people deem themselves to be Christian; their rejection of the Church and their not having a real or growing relationship with Jesus Christ are seen as irrelevant to the issue.
April 5, 2011
EricH,
I don’t call people lost or try to make spiritual determinations about them. I listen to the Holy Spirits voice and share what I am prompted.
It is the Holy Spirits job to convict people of sin and draw them to Christ. God strives with all mankind saved or not to bring them closer to Himself by His patient love.
In the case of an unbeliever one plows, another discs, another plants, another waters, another weeds, another harvests.
It depends where in the cycle God runs me by the individual. Sometimes I shut up and just listen.
April 5, 2011
EricH,
We should really stick to the topic of this specific post by George Barna, which is “Permission-Based Leadership”
April 5, 2011
Micahel O said…
We should really stick to the topic of this specific post by George Barna, which is “Permission-Based Leadership”
Hmmm. We… “should?”
I’m a little confused by that. It sounds a little “hierarchical” to me. I would think our dialogue is part of our “free, mutually participatory” functioning as the body (PC p.137).
Maybe you or someone could explain that to me?
April 5, 2011
EricH,
I ask that you not be condescending towards me, I have not been so with you.
I have read your posts and thought about them and I asked questions of you to further understand your views.
You have not responded in kind?
In order to have an open dialogue with you it must be a two sided conversation. I have asked some questions, you have answered none so far?
I have attempted to answer yours and given Scriptural support for my answers.
When will the dialogue start?
It has not so far? You are talking at me, not to me.
A further question, Why does “Permission-Based Leadership” sound “hierarchical” to you?
You said: “I would think our dialogue is part of our ‘free, mutually participatory’ functioning as the body (PC p. 137).”
It (our so-called dialogue) is in so far as a blog could be a “body”? Which a blog isn’t (a body).
I would remind that this forum is simply a blog on the internet for the free exchange of thoughts by christians regarding christianity.
You have pulled a portion of a sentence out of the book Pagan Christianity, by Frank Viola, and George Barna, from chapter 5, The Pastor: Obstacle To Every-Member Functioning, paragraph: How The Pastoral Role Damages Body Life, on page 137.
Do you agree with the statement within the context of that chapter? If not why not?
I will ask the question I posed to you earlier: Can you show me the present, dominant, model, of “a pastor” within the New Testament documents?
April 6, 2011
Fellas–Slow down, take a deep breath, exhale slowly, pray for wisdom and love, regain clarity and focus, and remember, we are all on the same team.
April 6, 2011
Jim,
That is what I am doing.
From my end I am relaxed and loving.
You have merely misinterpreted my posts reading something that is simply not there.
I am merely attempting having dialogue with a brother in the faith and that is all it is.
I hold no ill will or judgement whatsoever.
I have no agenda.
I am merely waiting for an actual dialogue to begin?
April 6, 2011
lol : )
I’m certainly fine on my end. Also, I’m not trying to be condescending. I think I tried to say this to Jim, and I’ll say this to whomever – you haven’t offended me, and you’re not going to offend me. I’m not trying to offend you – or someone else. I’m just trying to “pick brains.” If you, or others, would prefer to not have you “brains picked” (: )) that’s ok. That’s just what I’m looking for. I’ll try and explain more on that.
I’m trying to figure out right now what a “Barna Revolutionary” is (at least, in general). I recognize that you (Michael – or even Jim), by no means, would, or should be considered a “spokesperson” for this. I have been trying to prompt more responses from others as well. Also, my terminology (“Barna Revolutionary”) might not even be deemed acceptable – it’s just what I’m going with for now. Also, everyone on here might have completely different ideologies from each other regarding this subject (and even in juxtaposition to Mr. Barna himself). I don’t really know. That’s what I’m trying to find out. I’ll try to explain more on that later.
Michael, I want to talk about these things (all these things), but, I’d prefer to take it one subject at a time. You asked about the business model and I was trying to post what I thought would be a response that would prompt further discussion and ideas. I wanted to see if we could address that first for a little while – seeing if others would weigh in. If you’d personally prefer not to, that’s ok. My goal, again, is to just hear from “Barna Revolutionaries” (though, again, that might not be the best terminology, and you, again, might not fit in general ways with others – etc.). Like I’ve said several times – I appreciate both you and Jim responding.
About staying “on topic” – I’m willing to stay on-topic if that is deemed necessary by the webmasters or whomever. In fact, I even went out and purchased the Matthew Barnett / George Barna 2011 book “The Cause Within You” yesterday and finished reading it last night. There is much in the content of the book that I would very much like to go over – or find out what people think.
I will say I am genuinely confused about what – or why – rules might exist about us going “off-topic.” I didn’t mean “permission based leadership” sounded hierarchical. Sorry for any misunderstanding there. I meant that the existence of tight rules about “staying on topic” sounds heirarchical. I guess I could see it if we were using profanities or talking about ice cream flavors – or if I (or others) genuinely said something to offend someone. Also… my understanding is that from a “revolutionary” perspective a web-log is definitely what would constitute “church” – where “in the church…” it is “…free, open, and mutually participatory” (PC p. 137). Maybe “church” has a tighter definition? I’m not even sure why this wouldn’t be deemed “the body” according to a revolutionary perspective. My understanding of definitions in both REVOLUTION as well as PC is that, when Christians connect – in some way – in a “proliferation of options” with a “unique tapestry that constitutes the personal ‘church’ of the individual” (REV p. 66) – then that’s “church.” In fact, the page before that mentions “cyber-church formations” (REV. p.65). I’m assuming this blog is considered to be a “cyber-church formation.” If it’s not – I don’t know what a “revolutionary” would say it is missing to be that (?) If it is, I don’t know why it wouldn’t be “free” regarding its mutual participation – or have rules like this, especially if the rules are of the “top-down” variety? That’s what I mean by it seeming “hierarchical.”
I could very well be missing something on this regarding the general perspectives of “revolutionaries” – but this is what I’m trying to find out.
Respectfully,
Eric
April 7, 2011
EricH,
I entered the conversation after you had numerous posts entered while I was preoccupied and not blogging due to my elderly fathers failing health.
I am not aware of “Barna Revolutionaries”?
I am aware of many people that Barna describes in the book that are leaving the status-quo churches by the millions.
I will say I agree with the scientifically collected data in Revolution, plus the interpretation of that data by George Barna. I believe it to be spot on.
Rather than address specific statements of yours I would like to address the overarching premise of what I believe you are saying. You have generally made statements about how church should be run or look giving example of specific church.
You have made statements about how the church should present itself to the world at large by employing business marketing techniques to produce converts and add to the number.
I would first like to make a distinction between a mans ministry. A church. The Church of Jesus Christ. A mans ministry is not a church or The Church. Many men are masquerading their ministry as a church these days. A church, of which there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 39,000 various sects now, is not The Church.
Paul was incensed that The Church in Corinth encompassing many seperate gatherings had split into several factions by who preached the Gospel to them. He spent a lot of time in his letters to The Church at Corinth specifically addressing the issue and it was inconceivable to him that they would do that. There is only one Church, but many local gatherings of The Church. But they all in the first century employed the Paul model of community.
Paul apostle to the Gentiles taught and practiced a specific set of principles of christian community.
I am speaking of “church” in America when I say we have abandoned those apostolic ways of The Church.
I and millions of other christians do not nor will not continue to do church by: a) hiring a guy, pay him a salary, to do the religion,b) in a sacred building, that we go to two times a week,c) that spends 80% of every dollar collected for pastor salary and pretty building expense,d) and sit a mute, being sermonized to,e) consuming the product being marketed,d) to receive our own personal Jesus, Who is largely ignored,e) based on an American capitalist styled business model,f) employing modern corporate business marketing techniques,g) to produce converts, to bolster numbers of attendance, as the mark of success.
That is what is refered to as the status-quo.
Catholic/Luthern/Methodist/Presbyterian/Baptist/Assembly of God/Pentacostal/Charismatic/Evangelical/Independants/Home groups. They all employ the same general model with slight variations but it is really the same thing.
We who have left that culture desire to put Jesus Christ first and central in our gatherings being very careful to allow Jesus Christ to be the Head of the gathering and run the thing as He sees fit under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. We desire to be full participants fully functioning in the proceedings and daily life of The Church.
We believe in a flat co-equal plurality of leadership based upon a plurality of apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, with a plurality of local elders/shepherds, and not a singular pastor, which equips the saints to do the work of the ministry making disciples who give their life wholely over to Jesus Christ and follow Him wherever that leads, discipling the nations, preaching the Gospel to the poor, healing the sick, raising the dead, expelling demons, etc.
It is a daily endeaver of community because we realize that going to church is impossible because we are the Church. How can The Church go to a church? The Church makes disciples, who in turn disciple the nations. We use or money differently to help people, not employ a guy and buy pretty buildings to attract and keep converts. But the emphasis is on a loving relationship with Jesus who is the head and with each other who is His Body.
Jesus healed the sick, He taught His disciples to do so, they healed the sick. I gave 12 Scriptures above for the official Jesus Christ marketing system of the kingdom. Notice what happened in each specific instance after Jesus and then later His disciples performed healing.
In Barnas book Revolution he details what the status-quo is doing and the results of their man inspired efforts are. It pales in comparison To what Jesus did and then what His disciples did after He left and went to the right hand of the Father.
The reason it is not happening now is because we came up with man inspired ideas instead of simply following the Masters plan.
But many are returning to Jesus and the original apostles ways and gathering like they did and big things are on the horizon.
Many will continue with the status-quo and that is their choice I wish them all the luck they can work up.
I’m going with the old apostolic model.
April 7, 2011
Thanks, Michael. I appreciate your response. I’m very saddened to hear about your father and will pray for him regarding this.
Again, I appreciate your responses and for presenting your honest viewpoints – including this most recent one.
You mentioned this above:
“You have made statements about how the church should present itself to the world at large by employing business marketing techniques to produce converts and add to the number.”
My “dialogue” above might have seemed a little “canned” or rote because I was trying to get an “angle” on where “revolutionaries” are these days. There have been several points of interests regarding this in connection with me in recent weeks – which is what prompted me to find and visit this site. I decided I would first try to see what “revolutionaries” (whether they would prefer to be called “Barna” revolutionaries or not – based on REVLUTION and Mr. Barna’s co-authored book “Pagan Christianity”) – anyway, … what revolutionaries thought about Mr. Barna’s older books – including specifically the business-model paradigm for church leaders. Hence, all of the above “bites” I posted are from older George Barna books that I have in my library. The titles are “Marketing the Church,” “User Friendly Churches,” “The Frog in the Kettle,” “How to Find Your Church,” and “Grow Your Church from the Outside In.” I can post the specific page numbers if need be. I tried to keep the posts fairly long so as not to quote them out of context. I’m not trying to “trap” anybody, I just want to see where “revolutionaries” honestly are on this. I think you and Jim, anyway, have answered sufficiently at least what vantage point you’re coming from. Perhaps you two don’t represent others as a whole – I don’t know.
I’ve served in local churches since the 80′s – and, yes, as I think you’ve figured out, with the dreaded title “Pastor” since 1994 : ). I’ve seen your extended post dialogue with someone else on this site, so I know at least what your particular views are on this. I’m not completely certain what the views would be for revolutionaries “at large,” however, or even the views of Mr. Barna himself.
As an “institutional,” “pagan” based, “pastor,” who is the philosophical descendant of Constantine (or even Pope Leo X : ) ), etc… I recently received an invite to an event in my state. It was an exclusive invite – to “pastors” only (from everything I could tell, the aforementioned type of pastors). The event featured Mr. George Barna as one of the speakers who would challenge the pastors in an area of their leadership etc. In fact, the video-taping of the event (webcast) is now being promoted as well. This is part of the itinerary that is being sent out as an advert:
* A Simple Government – Mike Huckabee
*The Leadership of Pastors in the Founding of America – David Barton
*Transformation, World View and Politics — George Barna
Maybe it’s just me, but it seems… interesting. In light of the co-authored book Pagan Christianity and its description of the role of “pastor” – noting the 2nd and 3rd speakers and their topics above – I’m not certain how to reconcile the ambiguity in my own mind. Admittedly, I can be “slow” : ).
Even now, more recently than that, I’ve read the book co-written(?) (“w/ George Barna”) by Matthew Barnett, the subject of the above article, and I find it also to be “interesting.” It’s definitely an inspirational book, and I genuinely think I’ve gleaned a lot from it… but Matthew Barnett is a… “pastor.” He has not only the title pastor, but also “Senior” pastor. In fact, in the midst of my reading I counted roughly 50x the word “pastor” or a derivative of it being used. Along with this, are many of the familiar trappings which have been forthrightly… denounced… in PC such as “sermonizing,” paid staff, buildings – etc. I did notice above something I hadn’t previously, that someone already asked about this and Mr. Barna answered in a way he felt led. Ok. I guess I’m just personally still trying to “wrap” my own mind around this. As a summary… I’m trying to:
See where revolutionaries (2005 / REVOLUTION and 2008 Pagan Christianity) are in relation to the ’80s ’90s Barna books about the business model approach to church life.
Then, I’m hoping to see where (2005 / 2008) revolutionaries are in relation to 2011 “pastor’s” events and 2011 books about “pastors.”
I hope this makes sense. Thanks for any help.
Respectfully,
-Eric
April 8, 2011
Brother EricH,
George/Jim etc are much more diplomatic than I
I am an ambassador for Christ, but to war torn regions.
I speak for myself and don’t even try to speak for the house/simple/organic/missional/emergent/emerging/post/alternative/new/etc. I have a diffucult enough time trying to read my Bible
April 11, 2011
I wasn’t sure if anyone else has finished reading Mr. Barna’s recent (2011) book “The Cause Within You” and the moving story of Pastor Matthew Barnett. It is an inspiring story, and I was touched to read about the vision and dedication of this young man.
One interesting section of the book is found right at the beginning – which is an introduction by Matthew’s father (a long-time pastor of a large church in Phoenix). It reads like this:
“When the leaders of my denomination first approached me about pioneering a ministry in Los Angeles, they said there was nothing there yet but a dream. They were hoping I could shepherd Bethel Temple, a small, historic church in the denomination, back to health. When they asked me to pray about the opportunity, I couldn’t exactly say no! And secretly, my heart leaped within me. I hadn’t told them this, but when I was twenty years old and on my way to Bethel Temple to hold a revival, I drove past the Angelus Temple. I had a strong feeling – I believe it was prompted by the Holy Spirit – that one day I would pastor a church in this area. I had hidden that feeling in my heart all those years.”
“When I decided to accept the opportunity, I knew I needed somebody to work with. I began talking to potential candidates – they’d get very excited on the phone, but when they’d go to LA and see the run-down area where they’d be ministering, suddenly they’d change their minds.”
“Now, one of my more well-known sermons at the time was called ‘The Miracle in the House.’ It’s based on the idea that everything you need to build a great church is in your house. And one day, a man in my church who knew I’d been searching for a ministry partner said, ‘Pastor, you’re foolish! You’re searching and searching for the right person to help you when the miracle is right in your house!’”
“‘Matthew is just a twenty-year-old boy,’ I retorted. ‘Yeah, but I’ve heard you preach, ‘Don’t despise a person’s youth.’ I just hate it when they use my own preaching against me.”
“After several others came to me with the same counsel, and after much thought, I asked Matthew to join me in LA as co-pastor. He accepted, and Bethel Temple later merged with Angelus Temple. But what Matthew didn’t tell me -what I didn’t learn until years later – was this:”
“‘When I was sixteen,’ he ultimately told me, ‘I was standing outside, looking up at the stars one Sunday night after church. As I was praying, the Lord impressed upon my heart that by the age of twenty I’d be pastoring a church in LA’”
…
…
-Pastor Tommy Barnett
First Assembly of God in Phoenix
I find Matthew Barnett’s response to God commendable, but I also find the sensitivity of his father to the Holy Spirit’s prompting inspiring as well. Being a ( : ) *gasp*) “pastor” myself, and being that I also have a father who was a long-time pastor – I’m well aware that one of the long-standing charges against pastors pertains to anything that even resembles “simony.” I’m glad both Matthew’s father, and Matthew himself – were able to overcome whatever charges pertaining to this might have ben directed their way in order to be surrendered and obedient to God – and be used to birth this fruitful ministry.
-Eric
April 11, 2011
Brother EricH,
Still waiting for you to show me the present, dominant, modern, model, of a “pastor” in the NT?
Is an individual mans ministry, “a church”?
Conversly, is “a church”, an individual mans ministry?
Is there such a thing as “a church”?
What specifically is The Church to be doing, in addition to loving one another?
Everyone receives grace and mercy from a good God.
Does everyone equally receive blessing from a good God.
God is blessing what He is doing.
Vision is a moving target and is quite progressive and not stationary except when it comes to the word of God.
When we were little, unlearned, and immature, we received grace, mercy, and blessings from our parents when we went in our diapers.
But when we reached 21 years of age and went in our clothes, then perhaps we might still receive grace and mercy, but the blessing of dad cleaning up the deal became highly unlikely. We were instructed to use the facilities next time.
Presently we are being called to the foundation of the apostles and prophets of the first century, and stop messing around, we should know better.
God will remain gracious and merciful to all who profess Jesus as Lord.
But we are called to disciple the nations, to usher in the kingdom of God.
That is a whole other thing.
Requiring the whole old thing.
April 12, 2011
Thanks, Michael. I know your views on these things. All I’m doing is quoting from one of Mr. Barna’s latest books – even based on the “on-topic” article above.
What position do you suppose Mr. Barna is talking about in this 2011 book when he references “pastor” or some derivative roughly 50x? Have you ever thought of asking… him… about that? I didn’t write/co-write this book, I’m basically just posting quotes : )
April 12, 2011
Brother EricH,
I am not asking George.
I am asking you.
Barna, I think, understands the difference between an extra-church ministry usually run by an individual not calling itself church.
Or
One that masquarades as a church usually run (controled) by an individual with a clergy~laity distinction, it actually is a guys ministry.
Or
One that says that it is a church and exhibits the modern status-quo top down control oriented hierarchical model in conjunction with a centralized structure (pyramid) exercising extra-local control, with a clergy~laity distinction, and has specific set of doctrine from men which are usually in addition to Scripture but demands adherence to be a member.
Or
One that actually qualifies as The Church Scripturally and in truth by being a flat, co-equal, plurality of leadership, under the Head Jesus Christ, based wholly in Scripture, taking advantage of itinerant apostles/prophets/evangelists/teachers, and local elders/shepherds, leading by example, not control, allowing the free participation and free function of every believer, equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry, which is making disciples, which are sent out mature, and disciple the nations, ushering in the kingdom of God.
Does the singular “pastor”, fit into the latter?
I know he runs the former.
April 12, 2011
Thanks, Michael.
By the way, how is your dad doing? I hope he’s doing better. I’ve prayed about that. May God bless him – and you : ).
Um… : ) You stated above…
“Barna, I think, understands the difference…”
and then you presented some church leadership models (I mentioned the first part down below). At least one church leadership model you presented seems to be a match with the numerous quotes I’ve presented from from Mr. Barna’s older books describing the business model approach to church leadership – which, I think (?) stands in clear contradiction the “flat, co-equal” variety (?) Would you say, from your perspective, that Mr. Barna is opposed to the leadership models of his own ’80′s and ’90′s books?
Another model you presented – with the “singular” type of leadership – seems clearly to be presented
in Mr. Barna’s most recent 2011 book about “Pastor” Matthew Barnett, who is not only “a” Pastor, but his distinct title is “Senior” Pastor, and his church was birthed partly by the vision of his father “Tommy” Barnett – who also utilizes the title… “Senior” Pastor.
Um… : ). Maybe it’s just me. I’ve said before, I can be a bit slow, but this is… genuinely… confusing… to me.
This is what I’ve been trying to understand for at least a couple of weeks, now, since receiving an invitatation to an “exclusive” invite for… “Pastors” … in which Mr. Barna would be speaking – and also, after subsequently reading the 2011 book “The Cause Within You” about a “senior” pastor (and his father – who is a “senior” pastor).
Unless what you’re saying is that… in your understanding of Mr. Barna’s views, a person could still have the title “Pastor” or even “Senior” Pastor – and still fit into the “latter” paradigm you’ve presented?
I really am trying to understand : )
I’ll admit I’m also confused about the very first “model” – you presented, described as “an extra-church ministry” usually run by an individual not calling itself “a church.” Maybe I’m missing something – which could very well be the case, but I thought you had been distinct before that there is… no… “a” church, but only “the” church. Also, my understanding of REVOLUTION is that when Christians connect in any way, anywhere, that’s “church” (even if it is an online “cyberchurch” p. 65 – etc – where there is “a weaving together of a set of favored alternatives into a unique tapestry that constitutes the personal ‘church’ of the individual” p. 66). If that’s not “a church” then what… would it take… to be considered “a church” (?). Are you saying that if a ministry doesn’t “call itself” “church” then it’s not “church” (?). That’s really perplexing to me. I thought REVOLUTION was quite clear that if it involves Christians – then by the choice of the revolutionaries, it’s “all” “church.” In fact, p.67 says “the standard that concerns the Revolutionaries is simple: does this mechanism provide a way of advancing my faith, without compromising Scripture or any of the passions of a true believer?” It seems clear from this that whatever is deemed to fit the category above is definitely being defined as “church” by those described in Mr. Barna’s “REVOLUTION book. I really don’t know how the term “extra-church” can even be placed on the table at this point within the framework of these definitions. You said before you were opposed to the term “un”-churched. How is “unchurched” that different from… “extra-church” (?). If someone is involved in only “extra-church” – which is distinct from “a church” – then wouldn’t the person be deemed… unchurched? I thought that’s… exactly what you… (and Mr. Barna) were opposed to (?).
Again, I’m genuinely confused : )
-Eric
April 12, 2011
Brother EricH,
I’m guessing here, but since you are so confused, and “a pastor”. And other modern “pastor” types seem to be confused also.
Then George should be able to help with your confusion.
He has miles of statistics through polling that should help you.
He is a very helpful guy.
April 13, 2011
lol : )
Thanks, Michael : )
Know that I remain open for any responses on here, whether it’s from you, Mr. Barna, or anyone else. Anyone who would like to weigh in would be more than welcome by me. Like I’ve said before (Michael) I do appreciate your responses. At this point, there doesn’t seem to be any others, so… thanks again : ).
Let me try to be as succinct as I can to post my comprehension of an aspect of what is being said above (and maybe others, in general, would affirm this as well (?)).
Let’s say… I feel called to be a “Revolutionary.”
Revolutionaries are distinctly defined as those who are not called to “go” to “a” church, because they are called to “be” “THE” church (Revolution p.39).
However, there are times when revolutionaries are “being” “the” “church,” when it… isn’t… or doesn’t… involve “church.”
That’s “extra” – church.
Still, the term “un” – churched is insignificant, because such a term isn’t Biblical.
Does this… really make sense to anyone?
-Eric
April 13, 2011
EricH,
You said:
“Does this…really make sense to anyone?”
No.
This exercise of pulling lines out of context from a writers lengthy list of tomes, in this case George Barnas. Then saying this book says this because of a short quotation is called quote mining. By trying to make a work say what it just does not say taking the whole work into consideration.
It is probably why no one is answering you?
I by no means speak for another.
George has said that he looks for commendable things anywhere he can find them within christianity that promotes or furthers the kingdom of God.
When I read a book, I try to grasp the overall message of that book rather than finding things to take issue with which is always possible given that we are all a work in progress and haven’t been given the complete divine revelation from on high.
I am sure people traveling along the road outside Jerusalem 2000 years ago looked up where Jesus Christ was hanging from the wood. And thought you know I don’t quite agree with how He is going about dying up there! He’s not doing that right!
I have casual acquaitance with folks like that, Jesus wouldn’t have hung on the Cross the right way to suit them. They would have found this thing wrong and that thing wrong.
Brother you said: “Know that I remain open for any responses on here, whether its from you,”
Well since you asked.
Since present day christianity is dominated and run by a clergy class, namely a “pastor” or “preist” or “reverend” etc.
How come I can’t find one instance of the present day, dominant, central, singular pastor, in the New Testament? I think this is an important question because a person in this role pretty well runs most all of christianity. You, being one (a pastor) should be able to direct me to the two places where this is established since everything is to be established by two or more witnesses.
In this case the New Testament.
Am I to believe the pastor guy is a rogue? Is he a myth? Is he a fabrication? Is he dreamed up by man?
How did this guy (pastor) come to run christianity?
Was he (pastor) given permission by someone?
Does this… really make sense to anyone?
April 14, 2011
: )
Thanks, Michael. How’s your dad doing? I pray you guys are blessed by God today. Praise God, my mom just got out of surgery, and although a very large cyst had to be removed, it wasn’t cancerous. God is good : ).
Moving on from that : )
It seems to me that “being the church” instead of “going to church” is one of the key premises of the entire 2005 book “Revolution.” It even says that on the heading of the back cover of my copy of the book. It also seems to me that much of the book “revolution” is about defining what is “church” – with the conclusion that “it’s all church” and there really is no “extra” -church. If others want to describe how what the book actualy says “in context” is different than that, I’m certainly open to this. I guess I don’t consider this, essentially thesis statement subject on the back cover of the book, to be “quote-mining.”
Also, since it seems like I might be the only on here right now who has read the entire 2011 book “The Cause Within You.” I guess we’re not going to be able to have to much discussion about whether what I am saying is “in context” (if others haven’t read it). If you would like to pick up a copy of it, I would certainly be willing to discuss it with you : ). I’m certain Mr. Barna would appreciate the support, and part of the proceeds go to a good cause : ). I have tried to note that the usage of the term “pastor” or a derivative of it is found throughout the book – roughly 50x. I guess I don’t see that as refelctive of taking it out of context, but like I said, I’d be willing to talk about it with those who have read the whole book, and want to talk about the… whole book : ).
My note about about there being no “a” church but only “the” church seems to be one of your own reoccuring premises on this board. I didn’t think I was taking you out of context (?). If I am I apologize and would be willing to hear it explained in context. In fairness, and trying to decipher the context, did you mean that there… “is” such a thing (supported Biblically in some contexts) as “a” church, as opposed to there only being “the” church? I genuinely thought you said, and meant, in context, that there… wasn’t : ).
As with the other previous quotes, I have a stack of Mr. Barna’s books – going back years – supporting business model approaches of church leadership. Like I said before, I tried to use longer (paragraph) type quotes in order to present them in context. If others on here have read these books and would like to discuss them “in context,” I would certainly be open to that. With book titles like “Marketing the Church” (etc) I would think it seems pretty obvious what much of the content of the book would entail. There are entire chapters in some of these books addressing business model approaches to church leadership – but others are more than welcome to read them on their own to find out for themselves one way or the other. I would certainly be more than willing to discuss “the whole book” of the above books I’ve referenced : ).
As with the other closing subject above, you keep going there, but it just seems like a “moot” discussion. I/others know where you stand (based on a 190+ post (?) dialogue with pastor who came on here : )). Most here would probably know where I am on it and that we wouldn’t agree – and that’s fine : ). We could pull out stacks of commentaries and Greek Lexicon definitions of words like episkopos, presbuteros, poimen etc, yada yada… ad-infinitum… zzzzz : ). We would likely go 7000 posts and not come to any kind of agreement – lol. Again, that’s fine by me. May God bless you today, richly : ). That discussion just doesn’t interest me. It doesn’t seem like it would be a “profitable” discussion for either of us (2 Timothy 2:14). Ironically, especially involving “authority” – in my own current local church paradigm we have a “plurality” of elders, of which I am… one. I know this is still not deemed acceptable to many and reeks of philosophical Contantinianism and perhaps throws back to Pope Leo X (although, I’m actually not realy certain where Mr. Barna stands on this right now -more on this below). Still, the discussion is not of interest to me. Could we just say, hypothetically that I am, and really “like” being an autocratic, dictatorial church despot (affirming along with this choice special seats, ornate robes, and sometimes cool, crazy hats : )), and that my heart is hardened beyond any possiblity of repentance? Is there any way people could just pray I’ll have a heart of repentance while we dialogue about subjects beyond this? : ) : ). Maybe we can’t. If not, that’s fine.
In the utmost of respect for you and your own time, if what I’m trying to discuss doesn’t interest you – you’re more than welcome to not participate. Still, Michael, like I said, I really, genuinely, have appreciated your responses, since… right now I guess we’re the only ones here (?) lol : ).
As I’ve said at least a couple of time previously, I’m merely trying to find out where the average “revolutionary” is on these subjects, and perhaps even where Mr. Barna stands at the present time. Trying to be as succinct as I can, I would put it this way:
Can a person be a “revolutionary” … and also embrace business model approaches to church leadership as presented in Mr. Barna’s older books? (from the perspective of “revolutionaries” or Mr. Barna himself).
Can someone be a “pastor” (or even “senior” pastor) … and still be considered a “revolutionary” (from the perspective of the average revolutionary or even Mr. Barna himself).
Up until a couple of weeks ago, I would have thought the answer to the second question was a definite “no.”
Now, after receiving an exclusive “pastors” invite to an event where Mr. Barna spoke (and as far as I can gather was involved in encouraging “pastors” in their leadership work), and also reading one of Mr. Barna’s latest 2011 books (with the whole book, I would say… in context : ), being about the inspiring leadership work of a “senior” pastor – using the term “pastor” or its derivative roughly 50x – a pastor distinctly described as being “called” by “God” to the position of “pastor”)… I now genuinely think the answer to this first question might be … “yes” (at least from the perspective of Mr. Barna). Then again, I could be wrong : ).
As far as the first question goes, I remain open to trying to decipher the answer.
I will say one thing about the last part of your post above – what do you (or others) think about the positon of “teaching pastor” in “a” “church.” Would you (or others) deem that to be a valid (edifying, Biblically supportable) position? Just curious : )
Saint Michael (and know that I use that term with my Christian church friends all the time – it’s both fun, but also serious, as a term of endearment). Saint Michael, may God richly bless you with all his blessings. I pray he will heal your dad, and/or provide a sufficient grace for daily strength.
Your friend, and brother
-Eric
April 15, 2011
Brother EricH,
My father is 86, had a stroke, and most organs are wearing out. He is on hospice at home with my 82 year old mother.
Thanks for your concern and prayers.
They are life long resisters to the Gospel.
I wasn’t raised a christian, nor was God mentioned.
I have prayed since 1973 when I became a believer for them to repent and receive the free gift of salvation. I am standing in faith.
April 15, 2011
Thanks for the specific info. I’m saddened to hear this as this must be a huge burden to carry, but I will pray specifically about all of that and for God’s strength in your life : )
Just an update on my end – my mom’s surgery went really well yesterday. No cancer found. We are taking my daughter to see a specialist today for an ongoing medical issue.
Again, I will continue to pray.
-Eric
April 15, 2011
Brother EricH,
I am so happy to hear the good news about your mother. I will pray about your daughter.
Thanks for your kind prayers my brother.
April 16, 2011
St. Michael : )
Thanks, man, and God bless you.
Just an update – the appointment with my daughter (22) went really well yesterday. It was long, taxing day, but God revealed His presence. The physicians at “U” of “Iowa” have been excellent in our past, and it seems like God is using them now. This “TMJ” thing with our daughter has been an ongoing burden, but it looks like, God-willing, a “corner” is turning now. Praise God.
Thanks for the prayers and always feel free to keep me “up” on your dad (and mom) so I can pray.
Your brother and friend.
-Eric