Philosophies of Ministry
Leading a church is a sacred stewardship of both its message and its mission. It is a stewardship that demands fidelity and strives for effectiveness. The church is called to proclaim the Gospel—that Christ was crucified for man’s sin, buried, and resurrected. Entrusted with the inspired and inerrant Word of God and the tradition of the faith, the church calls man to repent and trains him to walk in newness of life. As the body of Christ, the church is His agent of grace and righteousness in the world. The church is a living testimony as well as a glimpse and foretaste of the kingdom to come. As a pastor, an overseer, and an under-shepherd, I must pursue these ends with humility and utter dependence upon God. Furthermore, I desire to achieve these ends in partnership with fellow leaders, valuing diligence, creativity, and relationships along the way.
My style of preaching is largely expository. A preacher’s authority is the Word of God, and he does an injustice to that authority when he steps away from that source. So I think expository preaching is important, especially in our increasingly biblically illiterate context. That said, the challenge for any expositor is not to just tell people what Bible says, but to rightly and relevantly connect what the Bible says to where people are. As such, my goal is to relationally, authentically, and relevantly present a passage of scripture in such a way that it connects with the life and world of my audience, to their hopes and fears, to their struggles and desires.
Yet while I think there’s an important place for exposition, I also think there’s a place for topical preaching and theological preaching because some topics and doctrine are not well handled by preaching out of just one passage. In addition, some texts in Scripture were not written for verse-by-verse exposition (e.g. Proverbs). So if we are to preach the full counsel of God, we need more approaches than just exposition.
Yes, I believe that the whole revelation of God should be taught. So I would not rule out any book automatically, but I will say that some portions of scripture are easier to preach from than others (cf. Ephesians versus Numbers). And some, because of their graphic nature, will warrant advanced warning to the congregation (e.g. Judges, Song of Solomon, Ezekiel).
As for biblical teaching, I recognize that wisdom and insight can come from a variety of sources—God has made himself known through creation for all man to see. And I recognize that the Bible is not an exhaustive encyclopedia--which is why I wouldn’t go to a dentist who said he got all his training just from the Bible. However, I place a premium on biblical teaching because that’s special revelation from God. We are not going to learn about Jesus or the Kingdom or so great a Salvation or the mission of God from just observing creation. We get that level of insight from the Bible and the Bible alone. So while the wisdom of self-helps and how-tos and ten-steps-to-a… can be helpful, the Gospel is what separates Christian teaching from Oprah and Dr. Phil.
Take a listen to some of my talks in my message archive.
Yet while I think there’s an important place for exposition, I also think there’s a place for topical preaching and theological preaching because some topics and doctrine are not well handled by preaching out of just one passage. In addition, some texts in Scripture were not written for verse-by-verse exposition (e.g. Proverbs). So if we are to preach the full counsel of God, we need more approaches than just exposition.
Yes, I believe that the whole revelation of God should be taught. So I would not rule out any book automatically, but I will say that some portions of scripture are easier to preach from than others (cf. Ephesians versus Numbers). And some, because of their graphic nature, will warrant advanced warning to the congregation (e.g. Judges, Song of Solomon, Ezekiel).
As for biblical teaching, I recognize that wisdom and insight can come from a variety of sources—God has made himself known through creation for all man to see. And I recognize that the Bible is not an exhaustive encyclopedia--which is why I wouldn’t go to a dentist who said he got all his training just from the Bible. However, I place a premium on biblical teaching because that’s special revelation from God. We are not going to learn about Jesus or the Kingdom or so great a Salvation or the mission of God from just observing creation. We get that level of insight from the Bible and the Bible alone. So while the wisdom of self-helps and how-tos and ten-steps-to-a… can be helpful, the Gospel is what separates Christian teaching from Oprah and Dr. Phil.
Take a listen to some of my talks in my message archive.
I prefer contemporary music, but I don't think my preference should drive music selection. Rather, mission should. The mission of the church is to make disciples. Disciples are made by helping people connect with God and with God’s mission. The function of music in a service is then twofold: a) to lead a person into an encounter with God, and b) to lead them in their processing and responding to said encounter. So if we brought a neighbor to church, what style of music is most likely to help that person connect with God in the service? Music that is stylistically similar to what they listen to on the radio, right? I call this "culturally authentic" music. It's music that matches the mission field both stylistically and chronologically.
Of course, the argument is put forth, “What about the people who are already here? What about connecting their hearts?” Fair question. It’s natural for a person to become attached to a style that was in vogue at key times in that person’s life. For some, that’s the music style of the church they grew up in. For others, it’s an attachment to the music that was popular when they came back to church. I happen to have a love for 80s music—it’s the music I grew up with. But would my guest be drawn in if he encountered a big-hair band on his first time to check out God? Most likely, he would experience the time warp to a bygone era as a sign that he didn’t belong there. He would think: these people were weird [or cheesy or hokey or inauthentic or…], and if that’s what following their God requires, then their God is probably not one I want to know. In short, my music preference would create a barrier for him to connect with God. Seeing as the Cross is already a pretty big pill to swallow—and a necessary one at that—I don’t want to make connecting any harder, especially with something so superficial as music style.
Moreover, I believe that there is an inverse correlation between spiritual maturity and a person’s demand for his or her preferred music style. The more mature a person is, the more committed they are to the mission of God. The more committed they are to that mission, the more they care about reaching the unconvinced, reconnecting with the prodigals, and fostering an environment welcoming to the next generation. The more they care about the spiritually lost, the outsider, the more they will worship and celebrate when the lost join the family of God and the less they will care what style of music helped connect their neighbor, their friend, their son or daughter, or their grandson or granddaughter to the God who loves them and offers them eternal life.
For a while, contemporary Christian music seemed lost in the shallow end of the pool, both musically and theologically. But thanks be to God that more writers and musicians are rediscovering the deep end and are finding beautiful, meaningful, rich, and creative ways to express our hearts to God. I’m also grateful for those artists who strive to reclaim the great hymns of the past in the styles and instrumentation of today.
In addition, I think there is another word of caution in choosing music styles. I think there’s a line between leading worship and entertaining. The challenge is discerning context-by-context, culture-by-culture where that line is. In Las Vegas, that line may be different than in the rural midwest. So while disciple-making can leverage aspects of entertainment for its effectiveness, the goal is always authentic worshippers, genuine Christ-followers, not entertained masses.
Let me summarize with what I wrote for a Creative Arts Pastor’s job description at my last church: The Creative Arts Pastor will strive to advance a worship culture … that is Christ-centered, biblically accurate, and culturally resonant. That’s what I want to see, and to that end, I prioritize the preferences of the outsiders and the next generation.
Of course, the argument is put forth, “What about the people who are already here? What about connecting their hearts?” Fair question. It’s natural for a person to become attached to a style that was in vogue at key times in that person’s life. For some, that’s the music style of the church they grew up in. For others, it’s an attachment to the music that was popular when they came back to church. I happen to have a love for 80s music—it’s the music I grew up with. But would my guest be drawn in if he encountered a big-hair band on his first time to check out God? Most likely, he would experience the time warp to a bygone era as a sign that he didn’t belong there. He would think: these people were weird [or cheesy or hokey or inauthentic or…], and if that’s what following their God requires, then their God is probably not one I want to know. In short, my music preference would create a barrier for him to connect with God. Seeing as the Cross is already a pretty big pill to swallow—and a necessary one at that—I don’t want to make connecting any harder, especially with something so superficial as music style.
Moreover, I believe that there is an inverse correlation between spiritual maturity and a person’s demand for his or her preferred music style. The more mature a person is, the more committed they are to the mission of God. The more committed they are to that mission, the more they care about reaching the unconvinced, reconnecting with the prodigals, and fostering an environment welcoming to the next generation. The more they care about the spiritually lost, the outsider, the more they will worship and celebrate when the lost join the family of God and the less they will care what style of music helped connect their neighbor, their friend, their son or daughter, or their grandson or granddaughter to the God who loves them and offers them eternal life.
For a while, contemporary Christian music seemed lost in the shallow end of the pool, both musically and theologically. But thanks be to God that more writers and musicians are rediscovering the deep end and are finding beautiful, meaningful, rich, and creative ways to express our hearts to God. I’m also grateful for those artists who strive to reclaim the great hymns of the past in the styles and instrumentation of today.
In addition, I think there is another word of caution in choosing music styles. I think there’s a line between leading worship and entertaining. The challenge is discerning context-by-context, culture-by-culture where that line is. In Las Vegas, that line may be different than in the rural midwest. So while disciple-making can leverage aspects of entertainment for its effectiveness, the goal is always authentic worshippers, genuine Christ-followers, not entertained masses.
Let me summarize with what I wrote for a Creative Arts Pastor’s job description at my last church: The Creative Arts Pastor will strive to advance a worship culture … that is Christ-centered, biblically accurate, and culturally resonant. That’s what I want to see, and to that end, I prioritize the preferences of the outsiders and the next generation.
The purpose of any type of spiritual formation, small groups, Christian education, or general adult ministry is to help people find and follow Jesus. Following Jesus is my way of talking about making disciples. Now the end goal of a disciple was to become like the master teacher that he followed. So the end goal of following Jesus is to look, sound, act, think, and feel like Jesus. Looking at Jesus, I see three primary activities of a disciple:
The values that I see guiding and governing how we go about making disciples are:
With regards to specific ministries for use in disciple-making, I don’t know that there is just one effective form of discipleship for all people for all situations. Sunday School, life groups, one-on-ones, etc., all have their strengths and weaknesses. As a result, I envision a portfolio of disciple-making environments strategically implemented to help people move in their spiritual journey from outsider to devoted follower and missionary.
What I like about a classroom setting is its ability to convey advanced-level content to a wide number of people in a potentially non-threatening environment. You can place one person with specialized knowledge in front of a large group of people and rapidly disseminate that knowledge. But I think the greatest weaknesses of Sunday School is the distraction they can create on Sunday mornings. They can reinforce a consumer mentality for the believers instead of a mission mentality. I have also watched classes become exclusive and often toxic cliques that are uninviting at best for new people. Sunday mornings are the most likely first point of contact a church will have with outsiders curious about God. So we’ve got be smart about what we do with their experience. Ideally I would have Christ-followers focused just on worshipping together and serving the newcomers and the body on Sunday mornings. If we do classes on a Sunday morning, I would want just one or two focused on the needs and connections of non-believers and newcomers that run for 4-8 weeks. The rest of the classes I’d want to move to another day and time. I believe that people who have crossed the line of faith and want to grow spiritually will be more open to coming back to the church at some other time to feed that hunger, especially if we have some high value-add classes or if we brought multiple small groups in for a class.
I think living in community is vital for a person’s spiritual health. It’s my opinion that sustained spiritual growth occurs mostly in the context of healthy spiritual community. My journey is littered with small group experiences that have stretched my faith, cared for my soul, and shaped me for ministry. So I love small groups. I consider small groups the first line of pastoral care, especially in a growing church environment. Now, small groups are not immune to dysfunction and toxicity—which often results when a group closes itself off and becomes inward focused. This has led me to my working definition for a small group ministry’s mission: to create authentic spiritual community around studying the Bible, living life together, and serving together for those who have not found such community.
In addition, I think we could do more with small groups. Lots of groups are formed out of geographic proximity of the individuals. Others are formed out of a shared stage of life. I think two types of groups that would be awesome to have in the mix are a) missional groups formed out of shared involvement in and ministry to a particular industry or occupation (e.g. a teacher’s group, a medical-field group, and b) groups investigating God, groups for non-believers to come and explore what Christ-followers really believe.
Now one of the developments that I think the church could leverage better in its discipleship ministry portfolio is mentoring—one-on-one or -two relationships between someone who is a couples steps further down the road than the other(s). For example, I have a small collection of pastors and professors that I go to for coaching, discernment, and encouragement. They have breathed new life into me, pointed me toward helpful tools, and prayed with me, and I am incredibly grateful for them. Research suggests that these kinds of relationships are increasingly attractive to the Millennial generation, and I think we could do more of this in the church. I think our people are facing challenges that frankly they may not be ready to share with a group. They need personalized attention and wisdom from someone who has walked in a similar path. I am particularly fond of having older married couples mentor young couples, and I’m sure we could come up with other contexts where people are hungry for a mentor.
With regards to the oversight of disciple-making ministries, ideally every frontline leader (e.g., a small group leader) would be a part of a leadership community. This community would consist of five to eight fellow ministry leaders involved with the same ministry and one coach. The coach would specialize in developing and shepherding leaders for that particular ministry. Then each coach would be a part of a coaching community that was made up of five to eight other coaches and led by a senior coach or a director. In my model, every leader has five to ten people that they pour into, five to eight peers in ministry for community and support, and one person investing in him or her. Obviously this design could be scaled up or down and tweaked to fit ministry models.
- Abiding with God – nurturing a relationship with God preeminently through prayer and the Scriptures,
- Belonging to a community – being in authentic spiritual friendships and being a part of a corporate worshipping body, and
- Participating in God’s mission – serving others and befriending people far from God.
The values that I see guiding and governing how we go about making disciples are:
- Grace – Jesus was gentle and winsome with those far from God. To those with a soft heart towards Him—even those who abandoned Him—He was patient and persevering. He gave attention to people who didn’t earn it and didn’t merit it. So as we help people find and follow Jesus, we need to be sensitive to where they are at and certainly not expecting them to be perfect before they come to Jesus and not breaking them when they’re already bruised.
- Truth – Jesus didn’t walk away from the truth of Scripture. Just look at how many times the Pharisee’s challenged Him on a hard doctrine. Jesus didn’t flinch. (He may have groaned at their hard-heartedness, but that’s just my speculation.) He stuck to the truth, even when the truth was hard. For example, notice the disciple’s response to one of Jesus’s statement on divorce: “The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (ESV). So the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures should held in high esteem in how we develop people.
- Gospel – The central message that Jesus proclaimed, and had others proclaim, was the gospel, the good news about the kingdom of God. In short, the gospel is the good news that the God who created a good and right universe has set in motion His plan for restoring it to its rightful order and rightful ruler. The centerpiece of His plan is the rescue and redemption of man, that all who put their faith and trust in the substitutionary death and bodily resurrection of Jesus are made right with God and will have eternal life with Him. The hope of the Gospel is that one day soon Jesus will return and claim His rightful throne with the resurrected redeemed and then when evil and Satan are finally vanquished, sin and death will be no more and God will make all things new. The reality and ramifications of the Gospel should fuel our disciple-making.
- Application – John says that our obedience, our application of the Word, is a defining mark of those who love God (1 John 5:2). Hence spiritual growth is not simply the accumulation of knowledge or spiritual experiences (e.g. hours spent in church pews). While learning is a part of growth, the fullness of spiritual growth happens when truth and knowledge is applied, put in motion and mission.
- Authenticity – Jesus saw through fakes and façades. He chastised the Pharisees for being whitewashed tombs. The world has no shortage phonies, and the church has not helped her cause by hiding or cutting off her brokenness. We have a nasty habit of shooting our wounded. No more. People are broken. Anyone who says otherwise deceives himself (1 John 1:8). So we need develop people in light of that reality. We need to walk in the light even when we are not perfect. We need admit our faults, our weaknesses, and our sin. And we better not to tear another down who chooses walking in the light over the darkness.
- Journey – When people followed Jesus, He never seemed to expect them to get everything right from the get-go. Sometimes they failed. Sometimes they flat out abandoned Him. Still, he persevered with them. He walked with them. He seemed to know that some days would be better than others, and He restored them when came to their senses. So when we're making disciples, we should expect and do the same. We should have our eyes on the long game of what God is doing in a person's life, their journey.
- Multiplication – Jesus spoke to crowds of thousands, but He placed a special emphasis on developing, equipping, and releasing into ministry a much smaller group. Hence as we do Adult Ministries, we need to do them in such a way that people are not just being served, but that some are being developed to go out and serve others. I don’t know that there is just one effective form of discipleship for all people for all situations. Sunday School, life groups, one-on-ones, etc., all have their strengths and weaknesses. As a result, I envision a portfolio of disciple-making environments strategically implemented to help people move in their spiritual journey from outsider to devoted follower and missionary.
With regards to specific ministries for use in disciple-making, I don’t know that there is just one effective form of discipleship for all people for all situations. Sunday School, life groups, one-on-ones, etc., all have their strengths and weaknesses. As a result, I envision a portfolio of disciple-making environments strategically implemented to help people move in their spiritual journey from outsider to devoted follower and missionary.
What I like about a classroom setting is its ability to convey advanced-level content to a wide number of people in a potentially non-threatening environment. You can place one person with specialized knowledge in front of a large group of people and rapidly disseminate that knowledge. But I think the greatest weaknesses of Sunday School is the distraction they can create on Sunday mornings. They can reinforce a consumer mentality for the believers instead of a mission mentality. I have also watched classes become exclusive and often toxic cliques that are uninviting at best for new people. Sunday mornings are the most likely first point of contact a church will have with outsiders curious about God. So we’ve got be smart about what we do with their experience. Ideally I would have Christ-followers focused just on worshipping together and serving the newcomers and the body on Sunday mornings. If we do classes on a Sunday morning, I would want just one or two focused on the needs and connections of non-believers and newcomers that run for 4-8 weeks. The rest of the classes I’d want to move to another day and time. I believe that people who have crossed the line of faith and want to grow spiritually will be more open to coming back to the church at some other time to feed that hunger, especially if we have some high value-add classes or if we brought multiple small groups in for a class.
I think living in community is vital for a person’s spiritual health. It’s my opinion that sustained spiritual growth occurs mostly in the context of healthy spiritual community. My journey is littered with small group experiences that have stretched my faith, cared for my soul, and shaped me for ministry. So I love small groups. I consider small groups the first line of pastoral care, especially in a growing church environment. Now, small groups are not immune to dysfunction and toxicity—which often results when a group closes itself off and becomes inward focused. This has led me to my working definition for a small group ministry’s mission: to create authentic spiritual community around studying the Bible, living life together, and serving together for those who have not found such community.
In addition, I think we could do more with small groups. Lots of groups are formed out of geographic proximity of the individuals. Others are formed out of a shared stage of life. I think two types of groups that would be awesome to have in the mix are a) missional groups formed out of shared involvement in and ministry to a particular industry or occupation (e.g. a teacher’s group, a medical-field group, and b) groups investigating God, groups for non-believers to come and explore what Christ-followers really believe.
Now one of the developments that I think the church could leverage better in its discipleship ministry portfolio is mentoring—one-on-one or -two relationships between someone who is a couples steps further down the road than the other(s). For example, I have a small collection of pastors and professors that I go to for coaching, discernment, and encouragement. They have breathed new life into me, pointed me toward helpful tools, and prayed with me, and I am incredibly grateful for them. Research suggests that these kinds of relationships are increasingly attractive to the Millennial generation, and I think we could do more of this in the church. I think our people are facing challenges that frankly they may not be ready to share with a group. They need personalized attention and wisdom from someone who has walked in a similar path. I am particularly fond of having older married couples mentor young couples, and I’m sure we could come up with other contexts where people are hungry for a mentor.
With regards to the oversight of disciple-making ministries, ideally every frontline leader (e.g., a small group leader) would be a part of a leadership community. This community would consist of five to eight fellow ministry leaders involved with the same ministry and one coach. The coach would specialize in developing and shepherding leaders for that particular ministry. Then each coach would be a part of a coaching community that was made up of five to eight other coaches and led by a senior coach or a director. In my model, every leader has five to ten people that they pour into, five to eight peers in ministry for community and support, and one person investing in him or her. Obviously this design could be scaled up or down and tweaked to fit ministry models.
Several years back, I asked an executive pastor what percentage of our church’s annual budget went towards “missions.” He was a friend of mine, so he got real honest with me. He said he hated that question. He said everything the church did was missions. Labeling some aspect of ministry “missions” created a false dichotomy from the rest of what the church did.
As I reflect on my friend’s frustration, I get it. All of what the church is doing and spending money on should serve missions, that is, God’s mission. Even the bookkeeping and facilities upkeep should be considered a part of the mission and be done by missionaries. If a church is funding something not part of the mission of God, well then, that warrants some serious conversation.
That said, a church should normally practice supporting the work of God that is not directly in their control. Times may change how much and how often, but such acts exhibit a partnership in the Gospel and the work of God (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-4). They also serve as recognition of God’s blessing (cf. Rom 15:25-27). In addition, such acts help fight the temptation for corporate greed. A cool thing I saw a church do once in a building campaign was to commit 10% of the capital raised to ministry partners, specific plans both domestic and abroad. Another cool thing was to see a church give its surplus in giving to other churches and church plants in the same city. So I don’t have a fixed percentage in mind, but I think a group of spiritually mature leaders could discern that from year to year.
As for evangelism versus acts of service and charity, I say that there are some good deeds that should be done in the name of Christ but not in the name of proselytizing. We should indeed find and fund creative and effective ways to share the Gospel. But we should also care about the orphan, the widow, and the alien without strings attached or ulterior motive. Why? Because it’s right and good to do so, because our God loves and cares about them deeply, and because every believer has been adopted, become someone’s bride, and given a new citizenship. And when people ask why, then we tell them about Jesus and the good news. We tell them that we stand with the helpless and hopeless not because we are striving to fix the world or bring about some utopia. But we stand there because we love them. And we stand there to let our actions say to the watching world that the world we live in is tragically and utterly broken, that it desperately needs to be fixed, and that the day is coming when it will be fixed once and for all. The day is coming when the marginalized will no longer be abused and neglected. The day is coming when justice will no longer be set aside by greed and indifference. The day is coming when righteousness will no longer be a byword or the butt of a joke. The day is coming when all that is broken will be set right and made new, when love will reign, and when suffering and pain will be no more. And between that day and this one, we will stand in the gap. We will love sacrificially. We will give generously. We will mend the wounds of the hurting and feed the hungry and advocate for those without a voice. We will be the hands and feet of our King.
As I reflect on my friend’s frustration, I get it. All of what the church is doing and spending money on should serve missions, that is, God’s mission. Even the bookkeeping and facilities upkeep should be considered a part of the mission and be done by missionaries. If a church is funding something not part of the mission of God, well then, that warrants some serious conversation.
That said, a church should normally practice supporting the work of God that is not directly in their control. Times may change how much and how often, but such acts exhibit a partnership in the Gospel and the work of God (cf. 1 Cor 16:1-4). They also serve as recognition of God’s blessing (cf. Rom 15:25-27). In addition, such acts help fight the temptation for corporate greed. A cool thing I saw a church do once in a building campaign was to commit 10% of the capital raised to ministry partners, specific plans both domestic and abroad. Another cool thing was to see a church give its surplus in giving to other churches and church plants in the same city. So I don’t have a fixed percentage in mind, but I think a group of spiritually mature leaders could discern that from year to year.
As for evangelism versus acts of service and charity, I say that there are some good deeds that should be done in the name of Christ but not in the name of proselytizing. We should indeed find and fund creative and effective ways to share the Gospel. But we should also care about the orphan, the widow, and the alien without strings attached or ulterior motive. Why? Because it’s right and good to do so, because our God loves and cares about them deeply, and because every believer has been adopted, become someone’s bride, and given a new citizenship. And when people ask why, then we tell them about Jesus and the good news. We tell them that we stand with the helpless and hopeless not because we are striving to fix the world or bring about some utopia. But we stand there because we love them. And we stand there to let our actions say to the watching world that the world we live in is tragically and utterly broken, that it desperately needs to be fixed, and that the day is coming when it will be fixed once and for all. The day is coming when the marginalized will no longer be abused and neglected. The day is coming when justice will no longer be set aside by greed and indifference. The day is coming when righteousness will no longer be a byword or the butt of a joke. The day is coming when all that is broken will be set right and made new, when love will reign, and when suffering and pain will be no more. And between that day and this one, we will stand in the gap. We will love sacrificially. We will give generously. We will mend the wounds of the hurting and feed the hungry and advocate for those without a voice. We will be the hands and feet of our King.
The role of the children’s ministry is to champion disciple-making with kids. That starts with connecting with children (and their families) who don’t have a relationship with Jesus. Then for the kids that do come to faith, it involves training, equipping, and calling those kids into the way and the mission of Jesus. Children’s ministry creatively and relationally introduces kids not simply to biblical ethics and a list of dos and don’ts, but to the God who loves them and sent His son to die in their place, to grace and the whole Gospel. The ministry partners with parents to encourage spiritual formation in the home and celebrates as children grow in their faith.
A good children’s ministry is a real win for a church. First, it develops disciples in the next generation. Second, it gives adults an easily accessible way to participate in the mission of the church. While the kids learn about Jesus, the adults learn what it means to be the people of God, the sent people of God. They become missionaries to the next generation. Third, it’s a powerful tool for enfolding families and keeping non-believers around—it follows just after the effect of quality preaching and worship in some research. Why? Because when kids are bored to death or a parent doesn’t feel safe about leaving a child, that family will stop coming to the church. After a poor experience with a children’s ministry, believers may just find a different church, but the great tragedy is that non-believers are likely to dismiss Jesus altogether.
Children’s ministry is so important to thriving ministry that on separate occasions, I’ve recently heard from the owners of two of the top pastor headhunting firms on the subject. They hate doing searches for a children’s pastor right now. They said they lose money they doing those searches—the demand is so high and the supply so low. And they have to coach up their clients to be prepare to pay a pretty nickel for a quality children’s pastor.
A good children’s ministry is a real win for a church. First, it develops disciples in the next generation. Second, it gives adults an easily accessible way to participate in the mission of the church. While the kids learn about Jesus, the adults learn what it means to be the people of God, the sent people of God. They become missionaries to the next generation. Third, it’s a powerful tool for enfolding families and keeping non-believers around—it follows just after the effect of quality preaching and worship in some research. Why? Because when kids are bored to death or a parent doesn’t feel safe about leaving a child, that family will stop coming to the church. After a poor experience with a children’s ministry, believers may just find a different church, but the great tragedy is that non-believers are likely to dismiss Jesus altogether.
Children’s ministry is so important to thriving ministry that on separate occasions, I’ve recently heard from the owners of two of the top pastor headhunting firms on the subject. They hate doing searches for a children’s pastor right now. They said they lose money they doing those searches—the demand is so high and the supply so low. And they have to coach up their clients to be prepare to pay a pretty nickel for a quality children’s pastor.
I believe that the church should be governed, and governed well at that. I also believe that the western evangelical church is in need of critical biblical, theological, historical, sociological, and missiological reflection on how churches are led. Let me restate that: I feel churches need to carefully evaluate (and continually evaluate) their government model as well as other designs through the lenses of:
Some churches have made their form of government as sacrosanct as the doctrines of the Trinity, the Inspiration of Scripture, and Salvation by Faith, when in reality their form church government is a just hodgepodge of biblical and pseudo-biblical concepts, Reformation fears of Catholicism, and western democratic values. In addition, we have organizational needs that vary by culture and change as the church changes sizes. Then we have federal, state, and local government’s with expectations to accommodate in order to enjoy the benefits of being a non-profit, religious institution. On top of that, we all carry the baggage of our own past experiences with different expressions of church government. So the challenge with church governance, as I see it, is to first recognize what the Bible says and then carefully apply that understanding in our culture and context in such a way that both honors His revelation and serves His mission in our city in our day.
I believe that the Bible depicts four offices of leadership in the early church: apostles, prophets, elders/overseers/pastors (EOPs), and deacons/deaconesses. Of those four, the offices of apostle and prophet ceased to exist when those original officeholders ceased to exist—a view shared by the church leaders that actually sat under the original apostles and prophets and their disciples. That left EOPs and the diaconate to lead the church (cf. the recipients of the Paul’s letter to the Philippians in Phil 1:1).
I identify EOPs as one group because the scriptures use the Greek noun and verb forms of elder, overseer, and pastor/shepherd interchangeably. For example, consider 1 Peter 5:1-2, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight [Greek verb: to oversee], not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you” (ESV, emphasis added). It wasn’t until the Reformation that the role of “lay elder” was delineated from pastor, and the roles were split as an appeasement to civic leaders who feared the reemergence of a powerful religious establishment as they had seen under the rule of Catholicism.
The scriptures talk to some aspects of roles of elders and deacons. For example, elders pray for people (James 5:14). They manage/care for the church (1 Tim 3:5; 1 Pet 5:2). They equip the saints to walk in the good works God has prepared for them (Eph 4:11-14, 2:8-10). They discern theological and missiological direction (Acts 15), and some preach and teach (1 Tim 5:17). They appear to be appointed by others who are recognized as spiritually mature or who carry spiritual authority (cf. Tit 1:5). But the scriptures seem to speak more to the expected character and attributes of people in these two roles than to the specifics of their job descriptions—humble, sound in doctrine, of good repute in the community, sober-minded, self-controlled, tested and found faithful, etc. (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-3).
Now we are left with numerous questions. How did the elders relate with and work with one another? How were they trained and equipped? How long did a person serve as an elder? How did paid elders relate to unpaid elders? How did elders relate to deacons? How did elders make decisions—did they vote or seek a unanimous decision or follow the influence of a person? How did they organize ministry? How did their organization and interaction change as their churches grew from just a couple people to a small group, to a house church, to a collection of house churches, to all the house churches in a city? What of their structure was born out of the lethal persecution of Christians? On and on I could go with questions that don’t have many answers even in the records of church history. And our day is further complicated by the use of church buildings, different technology, and the use of very specialized skill sets, by people called staff, and by the IRS.
So how do we organize for leading a church well in 2015? I believe we start with a group of spiritually-mature, biblically- and theologically-grounded, mission-driven leaders (in other words, EOP-qualified leaders) who are set on developing leaders for God’s mission as well as equipping and releasing the body of Christ for that mission. Then I think that organizational designs need to be adaptable to the gifts that God brings to each local body, to the size of the body, and to the strategy that is discerned for that body to fulfill its mission.
All that said, let me put my cards on the table:
- what scripture says and what it doesn’t say (biblical);
- what we believe about God and His designs (theological);
- what we can learn from the past, especially the church’s past (historical);
- what we have learned about groups dynamics and human relationships (sociological);
- what we know about God’s working out of His purposes and goals (missiological).
Some churches have made their form of government as sacrosanct as the doctrines of the Trinity, the Inspiration of Scripture, and Salvation by Faith, when in reality their form church government is a just hodgepodge of biblical and pseudo-biblical concepts, Reformation fears of Catholicism, and western democratic values. In addition, we have organizational needs that vary by culture and change as the church changes sizes. Then we have federal, state, and local government’s with expectations to accommodate in order to enjoy the benefits of being a non-profit, religious institution. On top of that, we all carry the baggage of our own past experiences with different expressions of church government. So the challenge with church governance, as I see it, is to first recognize what the Bible says and then carefully apply that understanding in our culture and context in such a way that both honors His revelation and serves His mission in our city in our day.
I believe that the Bible depicts four offices of leadership in the early church: apostles, prophets, elders/overseers/pastors (EOPs), and deacons/deaconesses. Of those four, the offices of apostle and prophet ceased to exist when those original officeholders ceased to exist—a view shared by the church leaders that actually sat under the original apostles and prophets and their disciples. That left EOPs and the diaconate to lead the church (cf. the recipients of the Paul’s letter to the Philippians in Phil 1:1).
I identify EOPs as one group because the scriptures use the Greek noun and verb forms of elder, overseer, and pastor/shepherd interchangeably. For example, consider 1 Peter 5:1-2, “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight [Greek verb: to oversee], not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you” (ESV, emphasis added). It wasn’t until the Reformation that the role of “lay elder” was delineated from pastor, and the roles were split as an appeasement to civic leaders who feared the reemergence of a powerful religious establishment as they had seen under the rule of Catholicism.
The scriptures talk to some aspects of roles of elders and deacons. For example, elders pray for people (James 5:14). They manage/care for the church (1 Tim 3:5; 1 Pet 5:2). They equip the saints to walk in the good works God has prepared for them (Eph 4:11-14, 2:8-10). They discern theological and missiological direction (Acts 15), and some preach and teach (1 Tim 5:17). They appear to be appointed by others who are recognized as spiritually mature or who carry spiritual authority (cf. Tit 1:5). But the scriptures seem to speak more to the expected character and attributes of people in these two roles than to the specifics of their job descriptions—humble, sound in doctrine, of good repute in the community, sober-minded, self-controlled, tested and found faithful, etc. (cf. 1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1:5-9; 1 Pet 5:1-3).
Now we are left with numerous questions. How did the elders relate with and work with one another? How were they trained and equipped? How long did a person serve as an elder? How did paid elders relate to unpaid elders? How did elders relate to deacons? How did elders make decisions—did they vote or seek a unanimous decision or follow the influence of a person? How did they organize ministry? How did their organization and interaction change as their churches grew from just a couple people to a small group, to a house church, to a collection of house churches, to all the house churches in a city? What of their structure was born out of the lethal persecution of Christians? On and on I could go with questions that don’t have many answers even in the records of church history. And our day is further complicated by the use of church buildings, different technology, and the use of very specialized skill sets, by people called staff, and by the IRS.
So how do we organize for leading a church well in 2015? I believe we start with a group of spiritually-mature, biblically- and theologically-grounded, mission-driven leaders (in other words, EOP-qualified leaders) who are set on developing leaders for God’s mission as well as equipping and releasing the body of Christ for that mission. Then I think that organizational designs need to be adaptable to the gifts that God brings to each local body, to the size of the body, and to the strategy that is discerned for that body to fulfill its mission.
All that said, let me put my cards on the table:
- While the early church may have begun with a two-tier leadership structure, it’s clear from early church history that they added tiers as the complexity of leading larger and larger groups grew. So I don’t think we are bound to just a two types of leaders (the EOPs and the Diaconate). I think we have some freedom to establish additional tiers as the need arises. For Moses, the counsel he received from Jethro was a 5-tier structure (cf. Ex 18:13-26). At the same time, I think we are bound to choosing leaders with the same concern and discernment for spiritual maturity, character, and competency as shown in the Epistles.
- I’m not a fan of term limits. Terms limits in civic government are there to prevent the unbridled accumulation of power by a group or an individual. In our day, people can vote with their feet by just going to the church down the street if they don’t buy in to where the leadership is heading. Furthermore in churches, I think that term limits create an arbitrary and unnecessary turnover and subsequently hinder the mission effectiveness of the team. Hence I think we do a disservice to the church by forcing out leaders who are passionately committed to the mission, vision, values, and doctrine of the church.
- I think the length of someone’s service should be discerned in community with the person. Much like I would expect to be evaluated annually by the elders, they should examine themselves periodically. They should be asked about: a) their commitment to the mission, vision, and values, and theology; b) the state of their soul; c) the state of their marriage and their relationship with their kids; and d) whether or not they are in a stage of life to continue to fill the demands of leadership.
- I’m not a fan of the church at large voting for things. I see little evidence of general democracy in the early church, especially when it comes to mission and theology. Moreover, any church’s membership consists of a spectrum of spiritual maturity, from the wise, godly, and theologically sound to the new-believer and even the pseudo-believer. I advocate for decision-making to be kept in the hands of the spiritually mature as much as possible. As historical examples, Acts 15 and the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, etc., were gatherings of the spiritual leaders from around Mediterranean region to discern mission and theology.
- I think in an ideal world, we would do away with the false dichotomy of elder versus pastor. That said, I don’t think that all EOPs (paid or unpaid) need to be on a management team (my ideal team size is 6 to 8), but they all need to be spiritually, biblically, relationally, and theologically vetted. In other words, the level of scrutiny given to hiring a paid pastor should be the same given to the selection of an unpaid elder.
- I believe that high performance teams have a leader. In fact, I believe a team without a leader will eventually devolve into a committee and then dysfunction. Now that leader is not God. His words are not divinely authoritative as Scripture. He is not infallible. Rather his leadership gift is a gift to the team, not a gift that makes him better or superior to his teammate, not a gift that makes him less accountable or less humble, but a gift that serves them and empowers them in their own giftedness and contribution to the body and mission.
- I struggle with the high value I see being placed today on a church’s independence from other churches. I think such isolationism is both dangerous for a church, her theology and her mission, and incongruent with the call to be one in scripture. Now I’m not a big fan of the West’s history of denominationalism, but there is clear biblical and historical evidence of leaders in one church being partnered with and concerned for the spiritual health and mission of other churches, from the church down the road and to the church across the sea. So I have an unresolved question: how can a local church establish healthy independence from and interdependence with other churches and other church leaders?
- Lastly, I don’t feel beholden to the labels/titles of Elder or Deacon. Those titles communicated one thing to a 1st century audience accustomed to them, but today I think they’ve amassed enough baggage, especially denominational baggage, that they the are not terribly helpful in our increasingly post-denominational environment. I think we can apply the character criteria of those offices to appropriate roles in the church, but give those roles labels that make sense today without the baggage.
