Bandits No More

A Christian group on a campus in England has been suspended for acting in accord with its principles. The Birmingham Christian Union has this strange idea that membership should be limited to Christians.

The North Alabama Conference has now voted to decrease the number of districts from 12 to 8, following the same pattern as the Texas Conference, though taking it just a step further. Their Bishop, William Willimon, comments on their changes here.

Here’s an announcement from the Texas Annual Conference. Note: I am NOT inside the loop on this hiring process, just a concerned by-stander.

January 27, 2006

The Texas Annual Conference is seeking a Director of New Church Development to
work in the new Office of Congregational Excellence.

A complete job description follows.
Resumes and salary expectations should be sent by February 21, 2006, to Dr.
Karen S. Dorris, 3900 Lexington Blvd., Missouri City, Texas, 77459, or
kdorris@hswdistrict.org.

Director of New Church Development
Texas Annual Conference

Primary focus of the position: Director of New Church Development will work with
the Director of the Center for Congregational Excellence to resource local
churches and districts for the purpose of implementing the conference priority
of starting new churches.

Primary task: Resource districts and local churches in the task of starting new
congregations which are vibrant, growing. And reflect the population of the
Texas Annual Confrence

Results of Director’s work:

+ Create a culture of new church development across the annual conference

+ In partnership with the Director of Congregational Excellence and district
superintendents develop, implement, resource and coordinate a process/system for
New Church Development.

Identify and prioritize sites for 10-15 new church/satellites each year.
Develop criteria for churches that should be encouraged to do a new church start
or satellite.
Align and coordinate resources for new church starts and satellites.
In consultation with the bishop, cabinet, director of congregational excellence,
and director of clergy excellence, identify, recruit and equip clergy to do a
new church start or satellite.
Establish the criteria and policies used in assessment to determine continuing
support and termination of a new church start or satellite.

System Results: To work with Bishop, Director Congregational Excellence, staff,
Coference Council (by whatever name it shall be called) and district
superintendents to align the system to achieve the following Conference
outcomes.
+ Increased number of trained clergy prepared to provide spiritual leadership
for a new church start or satellite.
+ Increased number of churches starting a new church or satellite.
+ Increased number of healthy, growing new churches and satellites.
+ Lowering of average age of congregation.
+ Congregational demographics better aligned with neighborhoods.

Supervision and Accountability
The Director of New Church Development will be directly responsible to
the Director of the Center for Congregational Excellence.

Leadership Qualities and Characteristics
+ A healthy relationship with God: understands, knows and celebrates the power
of the gospel of Jesus Christ to bring healing and wholeness, forgiveness and
reconciliation plus justice and peace to the lives of individuals,
congregations,and their respective communities.
+ A maturing spirituality: maintains a disciplined spiritual life, desires to
be a lifelong learner, maintains healthy boundaries and is accountable for one’s
work and actions.
+ Integrity: external behavior is aligned with internal Christian beliefs and
healthy relationship with God.
+ A caring heart: a servant leader who cultivates the gifts of the spirit and
empowers others to claim their call.
+ Flexible: implements changes in personal job description and work patterns,
the work of staff or in staff personnel as the needs of the local
churches, districts and/or conference change.
+ Developed evidences and/or history of relating positively to diverse persons,
cultures, languages and economic groups.

Skills and Competencies
+ Visioning and implementation skills: the ability to identify and articulate
the vision plus the assessment and administrative skills to make the vision
become reality.
+ Procamation skills: possesses and articulates a working knowledge of
biblical faith; demonstrates the ability to communicate and apply the gospel of
Jesus Christ in culturally relevant ways to the diverse population groups of the
Texas Annual Conference
+ Relational Skills: ability to listen, develop working teams, equip persons
for ministry and manage conflict in ways that lead to healthy resolution.
+ Self Care Skills: possesses the time management skills that lead to a healthy
balance between work, relationship, and self-care responsibilities.
+ Demonstrated administrative, management, and supervisory skills.
+ Demonstrated knowledge of new church start models and necessary demographic
information, and demonstrated skills in the training and supervision of new
church start pastors and congregations.

Salary Negotiable

I’ve had a bit of a hiatus from this series, but here we go again.

The second of the “Seven Practices for Effective Ministry” is Think Steps, Not Programs. More than any of the other practices they mention, this one highlights the teleological focus of their ministry model. Not only are they as a church going somewhere, but they also believe their ministry exists to help people “go” somewhere, or better, a related set of “somewheres.” As they aim to help people enter into and grow in an intimate relationship with God, grow into their fellowship with the body, or enter into ministry, they always want to make it easy for people to identify and take whatever might be the “next step” to get them where they’re going.

We could understand this using a cartographic metaphor. Let’s suppose you’re in Mt. Pleasant and you want to get to Dallas. If you’re a corporate magnate you can take the simple step of hopping on your corporate jet and flying to Dallas. For most of us, it’s a little more complicated. We have a journey to take. To get to Dallas, we’ll first have to pass through Winfield, Mount Vernon, Sulphur Springs, Greenville, and Rockwall (and quite a few other points in between). Saying we want to go to Dallas is an illustration of the first practice: Clarify the Win. We’re saying Dallas is the place we want to end up. If we can get there – or help our people get there – we will have “won” or accomplished that which we were trying to accomplish. If we want to get people to Dallas, we first have to get them to Winfield, then to Mount Vernon, etc.

Let’s try an example of a destination: Let’s imagine a youth pastor saying she’d like to get more parental involvement in youth ministry. In this case, picking up the cartographic imagery, she’s “gotten a parent to Dallas” when that parent has become active in youth ministry. If she is “thinking steps, not programs,” what she’ll do is first identify where the parents are now, and figure out what a logical next step is, if she wants them to end up in “Dallas” – to gain a vision for involvement in youth ministry. There are some cases where simply telling people that “Dallas” is a good place to go is sufficient. My guess, however, based on years of trying to get people involved in ministry, is that that method doesn’t work with most people. Instead, we have to get them to Winfield first. Our “thinking steps” then, will lead us to identify what counts as “Winfield” in relation to where they now stand and the objective of involvement in ministry.

But how are we traveling? Are we walking? Driving? Catching the bus? Or will Scotty just beam us up?

It’s possible that some might contest the whole teleological view of ministry. We’ve done away with teleology in so many areas of our lives; another won’t be a big deal. I’m convinced, however, that we are attempting to accomplish something in the lives of people through our ministry. Paul spoke about “presenting everyone perfect in Christ.” Obviously Paul didn’t think this was a solo project on his part, or a result of the merely human effort he and his colleagues exerted. But he did sense a responsibility to obey God to make a difference in the lives of people. He also sensed that his goal was not some telos (end) in the people themselves, but an end of conformity to Christ.

The advantage of the teleological approach, is you have somewhere to go and (perhaps) can know when you get there.

The disadvantage of the teleological approach is that you have somewhere to go, can fail to get there, and know that you’ve failed to get there. That can be mighty depressing. If we’re operating on the basis of program – mere activity – we can feel pretty good about ourselves even if we never get anywhere.

For myself, I prefer going somewhere.

Days after registering her mind-boggling 900th win as a college coach, Pat Summitt faced not just defeat, but a crushing defeat. The #1 ranked Lady Vols fell to the #2 Duke Blue Devils 75-53. To hear Summitt talk, it wasn’t that close.

But I think the United Methodist Church could stand to learn something from this woman and the program she has built. Reacting to the loss, Summitt said, “Losing’s one thing, losing the way we lost is something quite different. It’s unacceptable in this program. So we will learn from it.”

The Conference of which I am a clergy member, the Central Texas Conference, boasts some thirty-plus years of consecutive numerical membership growth. However, we have, for at least that long, been decreasing as a percentage of the population within our bounds.

Put the latter way, we should find this unacceptable and learn from it. Generally, however, we have patted ourselves on the back that we “aren’t like all those Conferences that have been losing membership.” (notice the siimlarity to that story in Luke where someone thanks God that he isn’t like someone else?)

Or is numerical gain and societal loss acceptable.

Pat Summitt for Bishop in the SouthCentral Jurisdiction in ’08!

Earlier in the month Hugh Hewitt interviewed Father Joseph Fessio on the topic of what Pope Benedict XVI has said about Islam. Here’s what Fessio said:

Well, the thesis that was proposed by this scholar was that Islam can enter into the modern world if the Koran is reinterpreted by taking the specific legislation, and going back to the principles, and then adapting it to our times, especially with the dignity that we ascribe to women, which has come through Christianity, of course. And immediately, the Holy Father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said well, there’s a fundamental problem with that, because he said in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it’s an eternal word. It’s not Mohammed’s word. It’s there for eternity the way it is. There’s no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism’s completely different, that God has worked through His creatures. And so, it is not just the word of God, it’s the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark. He’s used His human creatures, and inspired them to speak His word to the world, and therefore by establishing a Church in which he gives authority to His followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there’s an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. I was…I mean, Hugh, I wish I could say it as clearly and as beautifully as he did, but that’s why he’s Pope and I’m not, okay? That’s one of the reasons. One of others, but his seeing that distinction when the Koran, which is seen as something dropped out of Heaven, which cannot be adapted or applied, even, and the Bible, which is a word of God that comes through a human community, it was stunning.

Spengler, at Asia Times notes that the Pope’s position “refute[s] the fundamental premise of US policy” [i.e., that Islam is capable of reform and need not be violent toward outsiders]. Today at Townhall, Diana West comments on how little anyone has taken up what the pope said.

My take on the reformability of Islam vis-a-vis Fessio’s report of the pope’s comments, is that while Islam may not have reforming logic built into its tradition – and may have non-reforming logic at its core, change in tradition is driven by more than internal logic. As a tradition interacts with other traditions (something Islam has been doing from Day 1 – Mohammed was not well-received in Mecca when he began), opportunities for change come about.

Alasdair MacIntyre’s three works After Virtue, Whose Justice? Which Rationality and Three Rival Verions of Moral Enquiry have developed the notion of a tradition as

[A]n argument extended through time in which certain fundamental agreements are defined and redefined in terms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics and enemies external to the tradition who reject all or at least key parts of those fundamental agreements, and those internal, interpretative debates through which the meaning and rationale of the fundamental agreements come to be expressed and by whose progress a tradition is constituted.

A wide variety of scholars (including myself) have used this concept of a “tradition” in our effort to defend Christianity against the acids of modernity. Interestingly, Muslim scholars interested in reform are also turning to MacIntyre. One example is an extended review of Whose Justice? Which Rationality? at the al-Islam website. A different kind of use is found in Samira Haj’s essay on Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab [sign-in codes required] (we Westerners know him as the founder of the strict sect of Islam defended by Osama bin Laden and the traditionalists in Saudi Arabia). Clearly there are – and have been at least since the death of Mohammed – “interpretive debates” going on within Islam. There have also always been external conflicts – and not merely the warlike version of jihad we hear so much about. Therefore the conditions certainly exist for change to happen within Islam – even, I would suggest, change that can be seen by outsiders as “reform.”

Do we now see any signs of reform? As a non-Muslim, the best I can go on is my reading and my interaction with individual Muslims. A few years ago when I was living in Houston, I had a time of dialogue with some Muslims. They came to my Sunday School class and spoke about Islam and I visited their Mosque and talked about Christianity. They are participants in the Islamic sub-tradition led by Fethullah Gulen. If we in the West are looking for a “reformed” version of Islam, Gulen’s certainly fits the bill.

Is Gulen faithful to the internal logic of Islam? He and his followers certainly think he is. I’d guess that folks like Presdident Ahmadinejad, OBL, & Moqtada Al Sadr might not think so, but as the pope notes – Islam has no central authority. With no central authority – and a widely divergent history of interpretation – a deductive approach to the “internal logic of Islam” seems to be a capitulation to the loudest speakers. Instead, the variety we see – the interpretive debates internal to the Muslim community – suggests that an inductive approach – attentive to what we actually see in variants of Islam – is the best approach for identifying the “internal logic of Islam.” If we use the inductive approach, the opportunity for reform is as large as Muslims want it to be.

Big Ben gets it. In an article for espn.com, Michael Smith writes about the relationship that has developed between Jerome Bettis and Ben Roethlisberger.

Bettis, 10 years Ben’s senior, has become a mentor for the young quarterback. Of Bettis Roethlisberger says, There’s many times, and I know this sounds crazy, people wear those bracelets that say, ‘What Would Jesus Do?’ There’s times when I think, ‘How would Jerome handle this?'”

It doesn’t sound crazy at all, Ben; that’s how the world works. We all need to have people after whom we can model our lives. While I don’t know Jerome Bettis well, it seems you’ve chosen well.

This week I will be preaching on Thomas. Yes, for some of you, that is “doubting” Thomas. Jesus word’s to Thomas were “Jesus said, “So, you believe because you’ve seen with your own eyes. Even better blessings are in store for those who believe without seeing.”(John 20:29, The Message)

I contend one of the main things John intends to convey in that passage is that most of us don’t get to see Jesus himself, but will have to rely on what we can gain from other people.

“You may be the only picture of Jesus some ever see,” they say. We all need someone whose example we can follow; someone at least two steps ahead of us who can ehlp us keep going. Ben Roethlisberger gets it.

For the past several years (as far back as I can remember, that is), if you wanted to know which preachers were moving where you either had to get in the gossip line or wait until close to Annual Conference when they were announced.

That’s why I was surprised when I went to the Conference website today. The front page story: “Bishop Announces Key Appointments.” I suppose these appointments are being announced to help build momentum for the big changes coming our way. With the appointments of Karen Dorris and Rich Goodrich to Conference staff positions, it looks like at least 4 of the current 12 District Superintendents are accounted for (if you haven’t been following Texas Conference events, we’re realigning from 12 districts to 9 – and won’t need 12 DSs), since Howdy Dawson (my DS in Texarkana) is retiring, and I believe Keith Whitaker (Lufkin District) has served for the period allowed by the Discipline.

I’m also hoping that this early announcement is a sign of greater transparency in the Annual Conference. While it is good to keep some things secret, we seem to have gone overboard. Keep praying for our progress in becoming the Annual Conference God wants us to be.

UPDATE: Bishop Will Willimon blogs about realigning districts in his North Alabama Conference. Clearly the Texas Conference isn’t the only one making changes to reach more people and build stronger churches.

U.S. News and World Report, quoted at Yahoo, has this to say about entering the clergy as a great job opportunity:

Want the satisfaction of doing good? You’ll routinely play a significant role in major life events such as birth, marriage, crisis, and death. Plus this career offers status, normally modest work hours, and often good salaries. You needn’t necessarily have unquestioned faith in God. I’ve spoken with a number of clergy who have deep questions about the nature and even existence of a Supreme Being.

The best thing about it is you don’t have to believe much of anything and get paid to be nice! I can’t believe they forget to mention pastors only work one day a week!

C.H. Spurgeon said, “If there’s anything else you can do, don’t preach.”

Pastoring is not just another “helping professions.” Though we deal with the intellectual elements of the faith, the thing we need most is a deep trust in God. When churches undermine what you do and work their best to run you off (no – this is not a description of my current church, but I have been there before and seen many other pastors in similar places), or, when you live in a culture that at best privatizes and at worst persecutes your living out your faith, you stop thinking about it as a “good job.”

Though it is a job (I don’t sit around and do nothing), it’s about a call from God, not about looking for good job opportunities.

North Point’s first “Practice for Effective Ministry” is to Clarify the Win. As sports fans, they think of sports metaphors. In this case their primary imagery comes from baseball. In baseball it’s easy to tell if you’re winning: Do you have more runs than the other team? While recognizing that the church is a more complex enterprise than a sport, they remain convinced that being able to discern a win is essential to making progress (to winning, we might say).

If we don’t like the idea of “winning” at church, how can restate the principle? How about this: When we set out to do something, how do we know that we have accomplished the thing we set out to do? Put this way, two questions will constantly come to mind: What are we trying to do? How are we going to do it?

Perhaps we are disinclined to want to apply this much analysis to what we do in church. After all, church is all about faith and love. On the other hand, when Scripture talks about loving God, it includes loving God with “all our mind.” Could it be that part of loving God with our minds includes thinking about what we’re doing & how we do it?

In the typical traditional church, one decides what to do by looking at what one has always done. If we follow that scheme, then a “win” is simply doing what we’ve done in the past. From what I see, especially in the area of Christian education, that method doesn’t work and its not working is having disastrous consequences for the church.

I am intentional in speaking of Christian education, not worship. In worship our aim is to honor God. I suppose that one could have a “win” in worship, but God is the only one in a position to identify the “win.” Of course if instead of worship we mean a “worship service,” in which our object is not the honoring of God but the education of the people, that’s a different matter. Since my preaching is communication directed at people, it is conceivable that one could define a “win”in preaching, though in my experience some of my “non-wins” have been used by God to bless people.

In Christian education, however, our goal is to influence people. We can often identify whether any given attempt at influence has worked. Again, this is difficult since people are complex and the notion of influence itself is complex. [I’m sure the NPCC people would hate me. They like to make everything simple and everywhere I look I see complexity.] People don’t always let on that they’re being influenced, sometimes because they’re hiding it, sometimes because they don’t yet have the self-understanding or vocabulary to discern it.

Do you get the idea why so many preachers and churches settle for measuring numbers? It’s so much simpler that way! Just count the noses – people are either there or they aren’t.

In spite of the complexity, we need to “clarify the win” for two reasons. The first reason is morale. Ministry is hard work. The biggest reward for ministry is seeing lives changed. If what we’re doing is not, as far as we can tell, leading to changed lives, then we might think we need to change course. For example, if my youth ministry is centered on teaching kids to juggle in hopes they might learn more about Jesus, I might be able to figure out whether I’m “winning” or not. If no kids are involved in juggling for Christ, I’m not winning. If the Jugglers for Christ are not coming to faith and growing in it, I’m not winning. If “coming to Christ” and “growing in Him” are too complex and mysterious to discern, and in the majority of cases cannot be humanly discerned at all, then I’ll likely be depressed all the time.

A second reason to “clarify the win” is that the “wins” we’re clarifying are truly good for the people involved and for the church as a whole. If I continually pour my heart into an after-school ministry with an objective of helping children come to Jesus, and all they do is run wild and try to kill each other, I am missing out on the fulfillment of an important objective. Surely I will need to find some other activity to use my resources (time, money, personnel) on to achieve my purposes. Perhaps we can see this as the rough equivalent of what Jesus described as “shaking the dust off our feet.” We each have a finite amount of resources. We cannot do everything. As good stewards it seems wise to identify (1) what we ought to do, and, (2) how we ought to do it, to (3) achieve our mission.

Jesus said, “Make disciples of all nations.” If all around us churches are shrinking – in both membership and attendance – while the surrounding population is growing, then surely our making of disciples is less than optimal. “We’re going for quality, not quantity,” some might say. Demeaning quantity sounds pretty spiritual – and we all want quality. But is a faith that fails to reproduce itself best described as “quality” or “sterility?” The discipleship Jesus instigated was more than an internal change; it impelled people outward in to a dangerous world. Those early disciples seemed rather interested in quantity also. Check out the numbers in Book of Acts sometime. “3000 were added to the church,” “People were added daily.”  These weren’t numbers for numbers sake – they were counting actual people becoming followers of Jesus. As far as I can tell, the growth of the church in those days wasn’t just something the disciples thought up on their own. It was Spirit-inspired from beginning to end

I see here the practice “clarifying the win” – whether we call it that or the more verbose and less picturesque (though perhaps less offensive to our sensibilities), “figuring out whether we have actually done the thing we set out to do” – is a rational process, though not entirely rational. We’ll begin in prayer, end in prayer, and bathe the whole enterprise in prayer. We’ll recognize that in our actions to influence people toward Christ we’ll be partnering with God. His agency is primary, ours secondary. In some places being secondary might not count for much, but because God loves us enough to invite us to join in what He’s doing, our action can make an eternal difference in someone’s life.