Fanny Pack's and Sweater Vests

So I’m super stoked because I got to wear a new pair of shoes that I got for Christmas today. I know it’s not Christmas yet, but me and my wife exchange gifts early. They’re Steve Madden’s, which I highly endorse and wear. And I am a little bias, but they’re sweet, cool, and any other adjective you’d like to throw out there. But as I stare down at them I begin to wonder why do I really care about what kind of shoe’s I wear? I mean I do love shoes, but there has got to be a deeper reason. And there is—I want to dress in a way that doesn’t look outdated, disconnected, dorky, and irrelevant. I work with teenagers and the last thing I need working against me is irrelevance, right? I want to be relevant. And for whatever reason I believe that my shoes might help me in that pursuit. But as I think about relevance and the importance or unimportance of it I automatically think about the local church. I’ve seen many things done in the name of relevance that make sense and that cause cultural laughter. I’ve also seen many ministries sacrifice many essentials and sound truth in pursuit of being “cool” or progressive. Don’t get me wrong I’m the one buying Steve Madden’s to appear to be relevant to teenagers, so I don’t necessarily disagree with engaging culture in a relevant way, but at what cost? What I’ve seen in leadership and I strongly believe is that we in the church are pretty good at preoccupying ourselves with things that tend to drift us away from the “main thing”. I guess for me it is trying to live in the tension of when it matters to be relevant and when it doesn’t. And I’m pretty sure Jesus has some very glaring examples and ways of life that would be “relevant” to this discussion.

Does the local church need to buy sweet Steve Madden’s to help their image to the culture and society around them? Does relevance matter? And can there be a marriage between cultural relevance and biblical faithfulness? Can the church be irrelevant to culture and be highly effective in reaching cities, communities, and families for Christ? What could relevance look like beyond expensive sound equipment, cool architectural design, and highly produced services?

Dictionary.com / Relevance: applicability and pertinence.

Let’s Discuss.

Jeff

The Evolution of Angst

As a young Christian leader I've felt that I've been around many of my beloved peers who have an unbelievable amount of angst towards the Church. I have to admit there are many reasons why one would find themselves a little frustrated about certain realities of the condition of the Church. But what has become increasingly worrisome for myself is that those who live with such angst usually resort to one of two options to resolve it: leave the church (the institution) or go plant a church. It's almost like when you went to a friend's house and you brought the cool toy and whenever you weren't able to play with it as much as you wanted--you'd rip the toy out of your friend's hands and you'd take your toy and go home. It's almost as if the angst has taken many of my dear friends to a place of "I'm taking my toy and going home" and I may never come back. Or they resort to planting a church. Out of the many conversations I've had with friends who want to plant a church--there is only one individual who actually desired to plant a church due to the leading of God to do so. All of the others flowed out of their frustration with their local church and their great desire to find a good reason to leave. Scary you ask--very much so.

So what's up with the angst? When is it healthy? When is it lethal? Where is the line when it gets very close to resulting in bitterness?

Let's talk about the evolution of angst amonst young leaders.

Jeff

Eat & Drink--For Tomorrow We Die

It's been a too long since my last post. I have a good reason though. It's been 70 days since my son Carter was born and he's finally home with us. Thank you God and thank all of you who have lifted him up in your prayers. It's been a blur, but a good one. So I've been thinking...

There is a statement that I’ve heard over a thousand times in which I fully agree with: “you have to learn how to lead and love of out of the overflow of your life”. And I feel with some exceptions that most ministry leaders not only understand the importance of this principle, but also shift their life accordingly to uphold it.

There is another statement that I’ve heard hundreds of times that I fully agree with as well. But this principle I haven’t heard in staff meetings or ministry conferences as of late—I hear this every time I board an airplane. “In case of a sudden decrease in cabin pressure an oxygen mask will drop for you to place on your nose—if traveling with children please make sure to place your mask on first then place their mask on them.”

This statement covers the first ministry principle that we led off with, but speaks to one that I’m not sure we’re fully executing and talking about anymore. We’re very good at putting our own oxygen mask on while those around us are gasping for air.

This all hit me when I was reading this short book in the Bible without any chapters named Jude. It’s nestled in between III John and Revelation, a very precarious spot for this little book. In this book Jude is warning followers of Christ against godless men who are perverting, twisting, and manipulating the Gospel message for their own gain. They were taking the truth and coercing it into a compliant, self-preserving faith. (another post for another day)

But the verse that really struck me and convicted me was found in verse 12, “These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves.” They are airline passengers who only give oxygen to themselves.

This wouldn’t be a big deal for me if it didn’t seem to be within my selfish and impure reach. It’s so easy to pursue personal growth, spiritual development, and a myriad of ministry visions and convictions. And what’s even more difficult about these endeavors is that we get applause, affirmation, and ministry credibility for almost all of these pursuits. And to be clear—these are God-honoring pursuits when the motives are pure and the impact gives glory to God. But unfortunately, I find within myself an ever constant battle brewing between pure and impure motives—between impacting God’s Kingdom and building my own—between investing and feeding those around me or hoarding the grain for myself.

And the scary landing point is that we become shepherds who only feed ourselves. We become consumed with our own stomachs being filled beyond what’s normal and healthy. We begin to see people as objects instead of people. We begin look for ladders to climb and agendas to fulfill. We belly up to the spiritual and ministry buffet and eat all we can. Simultaneously, those who are in our leadership wake are weak and malnourished. They keep following, wandering, and hoping for food and feasting from the ones who were called to be suppliers, developers, and shepherds.

And the end of the day there is a fine line for all of us leadership between being the one that is warned and being the one that is warned about.

Questions To Discuss:

What are the ripples of those in leadership who are only concerned about feeding themselves?

What are some personal and ministry indicators that we’re not feeding those that we’re leading?

What are some practical and realistic ways that we, as leaders, can pour into those that we’re leading?

Justice For The Sake Of...In The Name Of...not sure.

Joseph Bottum has written a recent article in First Things (its a journal you can’t find at the Christian bookstore) about the death of protestant America, underscoring the overwhelming decline of the mainline church in the last 50 years. One thing he does is relate the mainline’s exchange of theological conviction for the sake of social/political action as a source for the decline. It is without debate that the mainline church’s welcome embrace of liberal theology contributed to its demise, but Bottum goes a step further and says when they gave more attention to social action than they did theological conviction they not only loss numbers they became less and less relevant.

The quotation from Joseph Bottum that I’d like for us to chew on is this one:

“The churches’ desperate hunger to mean more in politics and economics had the perverse effect of making them less effective opponents of the political and economic pressures on the nation. They mattered more when they wanted to matter less.”

I bring this up for a couple of reasons. One of them was because of my experience with the Leadership Summit. I loved the Leadership Summit, but I am developing an hypothesis about something I observed there. Almost all the speakers at the Summit championed some form of social justice cause, and from my understanding Willow has really tuned in to the social justice and human rights need’s around the world. This is a good thing, maybe the best thing the influential mega-church has contributed up to this point. Justice is important to God, and to seek his heart through prioritizing these causes is crucial. BUT, when theological convictions are lacking it is quite natural to rally around social agendas. Further, this is often done at expense of strong, stated theological convictions. Everyone would get on board with feeding the hungry, basic human rights, AIDS in Africa, etc... You could even get a seeker to do that.

Now, at a place like Willow, which has a wonderful heart for Evangelism, but wouldn’t be known for its deep theological conviction or strong gospel proclamation you have to wonder if they will naturally gravitate toward social justice issues. I am not calling Willow Creek liberal, I just think the slope is slippery. When you begin championing causes in Christ’s name without boldly exalting and proclaiming Christ’s gospel you can look up in 15 years and be running purely social ministries with no great sense of what you actually believe and proclaim about Christ and his finished work on the cross.

It goes back to how I introduced my talk at ignite. “An assumed gospel is a non-transforming gospel.” Without a robust, full, stated, continually proclaimed gospel in your ministry (whether social or not) real change simply will not happen. Because ONLY the gospel can change a man’s heart. It only has the power and sufficiency to set captives free.

Therefore, what the quotation from Joseph Bottum is really saying is...if churches try to incite change through the political process, social agendas, human rights initiatives (all good things to do) without a sense of strong theological conviction—conviction oriented toward the sufficient power of Christ crucified, buried, and resurrected (the ultimate thing), then 1), you are not ultimately solving problems because the gospel is holistic and without a proclaimed gospel you are simply doing charity and 2), in the long run unregenerate people cannot sustain such activity, thus the death of the mainline church. Therefore churches are actually serving the culture better by changing people’s hearts rather than raising the banner for social/political causes.

Now, I agree with a both/and approach. There is no reason to give in to the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Tim Keller summarizes it well: “A church must be more deeply and practically committed to deeds of compassion and social justice than traditional liberal churches and more deeply and practically committed to evangelism and conversion than traditional fundamentalist churches. This kind of church is profoundly counter-intuitive to American observers. It breaks their ability to categorize (and dismiss) it as liberal or conservative. Only this kind of church has any chance in the non-Christian west.” - Tim Keller

I think it’s crucial to maintain such balance. I just hope others do as well.

Jay Risner

The Grass Is Greener In Ethiopia

Just recently I read an article in Time magazine that was speaking about the current situation in Ethiopia. The article was talking about how green and lush the plants and vegetation are as you stroll into the country. And it would seem plausible because of all the money and aid that has been poured into Ethiopia. But there’s more than meets the eyes as one foreign worker said, “It’s very bizarre—it’s so green. But you have all these people dying from hunger.” A country that has been receiving over a billion dollars years internationally for years, yet people are still constantly dying of starvation. What appears to be so healthy and right, isn’t?

In 2008—the U.S. will give more than $800 million dollars to Ethiopia—breakdown:

460 million—food
350 million—HIV / Aids Treatment
7 million—Agricultural Development & Creating Infrastructure

What’s so alarming about this breakdown is that there is a lot of money being thrown at the problems at hands, which I understand are huge issues, but the money being given to actually allow the Ethiopian people to develop themselves and their country is way out of proportion to what’s given to the two other areas. Development was at the bottom of the rung when it came to where the money was being directed. When in actuality, its development that will help their country stabilize, grow, and be self-feeding.

What hit me about this article is the close parallel it runs with the American Church.

Have we spent more money, time, and effort meeting short term needs or desired wants that in the process we’ve neglected the underlying issues of spiritual growth and development? Are we spending more on giving away fish and not teaching others how to fish?

Are our budgets and resources in the local church aligned and proportionate with the spiritual development that is needed? Are they aligned and proportionate to what the Scriptures would deem valuable and worthy of our investment?

Has the competition mentality within the Church led to quick-fix’s and band aids that bring people in the door and meet desired needs, but we've neglected to create and fund a sustaining and developing environment that grows, nurtures, and empowers followers of Christ?

Now I know things aren’t as simple as they sound. Almost everything is more complicated underneath the surface. But are we really directing our resources to the places that we would say promote and produce the most life transformation?

How would injustices be impacted for the Kingdom? What kind of followers of Christ would come forth? What kind of community involvement and partnerships would take place?

If we looked at how churches are staffed and how budgets are separated—I don’t think it would take very long to see most of our resources are geared towards the Sunday morning service. I was asked yesterday what would you do with more resources for development if they were there. I can’t say that I’ve got that figured out, but I would love to start a conversation thread about it. Let’s talk

If the resources were redirected proportionally to spiritual development and discipleship what specifically would the money be spent on?

I know there are so many other angles that one could take in regards to why we resource like we do, but let’s spend this conversation on working thru the question above.

Jeff Henson

The Pope or The Band of Brothers

I had the privilege of growing up with a very tight knit group of friends who were all followers of Christ and who strangely enough all went into full time ministry. A centerpiece of conversation would always be around the idea of all of us coming together and doing ministry together at the same place. It could have been a church plant, an existing church, or any other place that would allow us to work and serve side by side. This is a dream I know is shared by many other individuals who long to do ministry with those in their close inner circle.

But one of the interesting snags that we would always ponder or chew on was who would be the “lead guy”? Who would be the one with the “Senior Pastor” name placard? When the buck needed to stop, who would stop it? When the red button needed to be pushed, who would push it? I know, you get the point. So we would always go round and round on who that might be or who it would probably be.

All of this leads me to what I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Why is it needed in a community of faith to have that guy? Does the local church need the hierarchal leader or does the leader need the hierarchal structure? Is it possible for called individuals to share the burden of strategy, teaching, and vision and then be specialists in different areas?

I think it is. You can put four (for the sake of understanding & visualizing) individuals on a flattened plane of leadership. They come together to discuss strategy and the future direction of the church. They share the teaching load. I’ve always believed a fresh voice that has ample time to prepare is always better than the primary teacher model doing 80% of the teaching. Each time I teach for our main service, I’m reminded of the unbelievable amount of time needed to accurately handle the truth of God. Its takes so much time during that week that any other areas of giftedness barely see the light of day. My leadership gift is minimally used and my shepherding gift stays in the gift wrap. This concept would allow all gifts to be exercised and fully used. Shared leadership also decentralizes leadership from being on any one person. Whether its vision, innovation, or pastoral care—these don’t have to come from the same person. So if someone is stuck in a rut for a season, it’s ok. It’s a team effort. This team approach also minimizes any transitions in leadership. If someone goes off to another ministry or church—it can be celebrated and the proper sending off can be given, because the local church will move forward because it’s not grounded upon one individual, but on a team. This destroys the personality driven churches and ministries that happen intentionally or by accident. The accountability bar would be raised significantly as four would converge in sharing life and ministry together. All significant decisions would be shared by all on the leadership team. Each person on the team would be a specialist in an area or focus. For instance you may have one whose focus is student ministries, one whose focus is spiritual formation, one whose focus is creative arts, and one whose focus is children’s. The church’s strategy would dictate what those areas would be, but that gives you an idea of what I’m speaking of. So, each person apart of the team has a ministry focus to lead and an area to devote a majority of their gifts to. This leadership structure would have to be based upon trust, honesty, and true calling. And I believe those involved would have to have a strong leadership gift and ideally a majority of those on the team should have a teaching gift as well.

I have to admit that I’m at a church in which the leadership is healthy, grounded, humble, and of strong integrity. So I’m not writing this in response to a bad situation that I’m experiencing. Even though I know many who will read this are in very difficult situations caused by egotistical and unhealthy leadership. And I’m not even trying to presume that this way of structuring things is the only way, but an avenue to be contemplated. This has really been provoked by thinking of what could be and possibly what should be. And just maybe this is a glimpse into the future of the local church.

Where did the existing structure of what most local churches have in place begin?

I’ve always wrestled with this question and really never thought it mattered to answer it. I’ve come to the conclusion I’d rather figure it out than blindly moving forward accepting ecclesiastical norms. It’s very apparent in the Old Testament we had the “lead guy”: Moses, Abraham, David, and the list could go on and on…But when we look to the New Testament it’s not that clear. Sure there are leaders present and there should be—it’s a spiritual gift given by God. But can we really come to a genuine confidence in seeing the hierarchal structure in place through the New Testament Scriptures? What we do see is a community of faith that is constantly leveraging each other’s gifts, resources, and meeting the needs of those who had need. It’s interesting in the epistles of Paul that he wrote them to the Church at Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosse. They were known by their location and their church community more than by the individual who was their leader. If there was such an individual.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the modern day model of the hierarchy of the local church began and became normal due to insecurities and sinful reasoning, not pure and holy motives. A leader's fear of being imperfect or held accountable. A leader's desire to control and manipulate. A leader's desire to be the man and to have all things fall and rise upon them. A leader's lust to build their own kingdom and promote their own agenda, not God’s. And even possibly a community of faith's artificial need to want a king and a kingdom to build eventhough the King and the Kingdom is already present.

A couple push back’s that I’ve received in regards to New Testament biblical examples of a hierarchal way of doing things.

The Trinity.

The other is the biblical text concerning husband and wife. There is obviously a hierarchy spoken of with the man being over the wife and Christ is over the Church. But can we really transfer what should be in the marriage relationship to the local church?

I’d love to hear your opinion on this subject and any insight or scriptural direction to the leadership structure of the church.

Jeff Henson

Check it Out

“Well intentioned Christians, armed with the latest insights in organizational theory, let their pragmatic and utilitarian hearts delude themselves into thinking they could organize, measure, and control the mystical working of the Holy Spirit in community in order to consistently reproduce disciples in other contexts.”
“Then these people starting writing books and hosting seminars. And then church leaders like you and me bought into what they were saying because we didn’t recognize that the same faulty worldview that produced a mechanized approach to Christian community fostered a ready-made market in our hearts to consume their quick-fix solutions.”

*Brian Jones

To Read the rest of his article go here


The blog by Brian Jones is an interesting perspective that I believe will definitely provoke good discussion. But I do believe that saying we should euthanize the role of small groups in our churches is sensationalism at its finest. The structure of small groups within the context of the local church have impacted many lives, provided much needed Christ-like care and encouragement, and in many cases became an entry point for Christians to be transformed into passionate and obedient followers of Christ. So for me the idea to throw out the baby with the bath water is a stretch. Now I do agree with Mr. Jones in the sense that Evangelicals have jumped on this structure to be the cure all for spiritual health, spiritual growth, and community. Like all things—something good led out by those who have ulterior, selfish, and lazy motives will lead to an impotent and lifeless end. And I think much of the frustration that we feel towards any structure that “ensures” spiritual growth is that we’ve seen Christian leaders who manipulate and use it for their own name and church not for Christ’s name and His Church. But we can’t allow those observations to skew the reality of life-change and transformation that is happening within many small groups across the country.

Personally, I do think we’d like to think that spiritual transformation could optimally happen within one structure and context. But I believe that someone becoming like Christ is going to be transformed into His likeness through many avenues, structures, and experiences. Small groups may be one of them—a Sunday morning Bible study may be one of them—a men’s retreat may be one of them—becoming like Christ is a very blurry and unpredictable thing to pin point. And because of that it does make us as leaders; vulnerable, fearful, powerless, and God-reliant. And for whatever reason, that’s a place most of us don’t like being in, but it’s the very place where God wants us---humble and reliant.

There is nothing that we do that can replace the powerful, life-giving Spirit of God. And it is very easy to rely on the structures that we construct to produce results that may be shallow and unstable. But I do think a selected structure can coexist with the mighty Spirit of God at the core and freely moving. In Acts 6 we see the disciples who had to resort to creating a structure to meet the needs of the widows and to execute the daily distribution of food. With their leadership they developed a plan with the agreement of the Holy Spirit and reflect the heart of God to those in need.

Those of us who are pursuing Jesus need to be in community, we need to be growing in our understanding, knowledge, and application of the Word of God. Wherever and however this happens doesn’t really matter as long as these things are being weaved into a believer’s life. But as a leader this doesn’t give me the freedom to neglect my gift of leadership, become passive, and to not create environments where individuals can encounter Christ—that’s negligence.

*Jeff Henson

Session 4

Shield:
Protecting Yourself As A Leader
Casey Cariker
Rejoice Church
Owasso, OK

Session 3

Spread:
Multiplying Your Leadership
Jeff Henson
The Crossing Christian Church
Las Vegas, NV

Leadership Roundtable

Leadership Roundtable
Mike Hickerson
Heartland Community Church
Rockford, IL

Session 2

Stoke:
Developing Yourself As A Leader
Jay Risner
Faith Bible Church
Edmond, OK

Session 1

Spark:
Identifying Your Leadership Potential
Scott Cornelius
Willow Creek Community Church
South Barrington, IL

Topics for This Year's Conference

Hello everyone,

Thursday thru Saturday–April 17th - 19th at Jacob’s Ladder Retreat Center

Spark:
Identifying Your Leadership Potential

Stoke:
Developing Yourself As A Leader

Spread:
Multiplying Your Leadership

Shield:
Protecting Yourself As A Leader