Introduction
This article is a written form of a spoken message delivered on March 28, 2004 to the Phoenix Valley Church of Christ. As with the previous sermon, “What Do We Now Believe?,” I wanted our members to be able to study out this material in more depth, and the written format will again allow that possibility. As mentioned in that previous article, I am taking the liberty to edit my own material by adding some things that were not included in the oral presentation of the lesson, and perhaps leave out a few other items. The question reflected in the title comes from Jesus’ question of the invalid recorded in John 5:1-9. Often this man is seen as not wanting to get well badly enough to put forth his best effort, and hence Jesus’ question of him. Perhaps that is true, but the point that stands out to me is that no matter what our condition, Jesus wants to help and stands ready to help. He did heal the man after all, didn’t he?
However, the question Jesus asked nearly two thousand years ago resounds in our age as well. Especially is it appropriate when we may not be doing great spiritually. Note that the question is not “Do you want to be well,” but “Do you want to get well.” One thing that can be said for the guy mentioned in John 5: he gets a “P” for perseverance—he didn’t give up, and ended up with the blessing. Although my points will not revolve around that idea, it is a classic principle that those who hang in long enough usually find the higher ground spiritually that they are looking for. But let’s talk about the need and the path of getting well (which includes persevering).
What Is It To Be Well?
Physically, after an illness, it is great when we wake up one morning and feel so differently! Even after a good night’s sleep, it is wonderful to awake rested and then enjoy a brisk prayer walk (especially on the cool mornings we have been having recently). It just feels good – really good. Spiritually, feeling well is directly connected with being full of the Holy Spirit. A good indicator of our wellness quotient is Galatians 5:22-23, which reads: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” For me, the first three of these are the best indicators – love, joy, peace. In fact, just the definition of love found in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 pretty well does it in my case. Do these words describe your present spiritual attitudes and actions?
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
Peter’s comments in 1 Peter 4:8 may be the acid test of our spiritual wellness, as he states: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” Grace and forgiveness of our fellow humans, and fellow Christians, are inseparably connected to our spiritual health. When I’m well, I just feel God’s love and in turn, I feel love for about everyone. And when I’m not well, critical, unloving thoughts lie near the surface of my heart. How about you?
What Is It To Not Be Well?
To begin with, lots of gradations are possible—both physically and spiritually. For example, we can be physically under the weather only slightly, being tired, listless, or having a headache. Obviously, these are not good ways to feel, but the problem is not serious enough to put us in bed. Moving into the more serious physical maladies, we can be debilitated with a virus or similar illness to the point that we simply cannot even get out of bed. At the end of that spectrum, our physical condition may be terminal. However, at the outset of a terminal illness, we may not even know that we have the disease.
Spiritual illnesses can be found in much the same gradations. On the milder end of the possibilities, we can be having a down day, a poor week, or a bad month. (Actually, I’ve had some bad years!) Although we are not at our best, we are not in terrible shape and are still relatively functional. However, if we remain in this state too long and don’t seriously attempt to change it, being listless and unmotivated can lead to being seen by God as “lukewarm” or “having lost one’s first love” (Revelation 2 & 3). We may keep going through the motions outwardly, but inwardly the situation is more serious than we may imagine. We can move across the line and become terminal, unless urgent intervention ensues. We can only wonder how many times God has found a way to intervene, and to nurse us back to spiritual health.
How do you know if you are really not well? If being well means that we are characterized by the fruit of the Spirit, being unwell would be the opposite – being characterized by the acts of the sinful nature. Listen carefully to Paul’s words in Galatians 5:19-21:
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Relational challenges that are not being resolved, sinful behavior, being negative about ourselves, others and life in general are a dead giveaway that we are unhealthy spiritually.
What Will It Take To Get Well?
If our problem is fairly minor, it may be simply a matter of conditioning – getting back into condition. If we make sure that we are praying consistently, reading our Bibles and spiritual books regularly, we will improve our condition, perhaps quickly. Additionally, getting time with other Christians to bare our hearts is another essential part of getting back into a healthy spiritual state. I have heard so many comments from disciples about how they did so much better with a regularly scheduled discipling partner and discipling time. During the last year as our ministry structure was being re-evaluated, many stopped having discipling times. We must remember that we are the one whom made that choice. It is unreasonable to criticize the structural control being exerted in our lives and then decry the lack of structure being provided. What this boils down to is simply this: take responsibility for yourself and get the help you need from others. “One another” responsibilities come from God anyway, not from leaders. I recall at times being absolutely shocked at the difference in myself after one time of unloading my heart and burdens with someone else. Let’s not allow Satan to keep us from availing ourselves of all the resources that God provides for our healthiness.
If our spiritual malady is more serious, more serious measures will be needed to offset it. Perhaps a time of fasting and prayer, a spiritual getaway; obtaining some in-depth counseling, or working out relational challenges are other ingredients in our prescription for getting well. But what if our condition is potentially terminal? We must pull out all of the stops and get help—fast! The longer you wait to get treatment, the more the disease progresses, just like cancer.
I know that the events of last year took a toll on just about all of us, and it has taken some time to get healthy again. Some of us are still not healthy. It’s like having an accident or surgery – time to recover is needed, but also needed is the right treatment to heal and to heal correctly. As a leader, I have tried to be wise about this process (compared to the way I think some other leaders may have approached it). Some have tried to short-circuit the healing process and said, in effect, “We’ve all been hurt and will all be hurt again. Just get over it.” (Try that approach on your wife after hurting her!) Of course we all have to get over it, but ascertaining the process of proper healing is the issue at hand. When told to move on before they are healed, some in response have said, “Wait, I can’t walk yet, much less run!” I understand that response, for time is needed to heal from big emotional hits, as well as taking the proper approach for, well, healthy healing.
What causes us to remain stuck and unable to move forward? Bottom line, a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged – and relational blows are the most damaging of all. When all of the “systemic sins” of our movement were forced out into the light almost overnight, some were appalled that their own idealistic views were not really accurate. Others, already quite in touch with our movement sins, said “I told you so,” and their frustrations, anger and bitterness leapt out of their hearts and mouths. It was a trying time to all of us, and a time from which some have yet to recover.
Could the Damage Have Been Lessened?
Looking back on what happened in the past year brings much to my mind—what did happen, what could have happened and what I think should have happened. However, I understand that hindsight is always much closer to 20/20, which hopefully keeps me from being overly critical. With that in mind, I do have some observations about what might have been done to reduce the amount of collateral damage in the upheaval of 2003. We have to try and learn all that we can from past mistakes, for history has a way of repeating itself. Let me begin by saying that I don’t think an upheaval could have been avoided. I believe it was needed and brought about by God – a case of divine discipline right in our face (and hopefully it made it down to our hearts!).
I have heard some leaders say that our movement was already making changes (that part’s true), and would have gone on to make all other needed changes. Personally, I don’t come even close to buying into that brand of thinking, which to me seems unrealistically optimistic. The biggest changes needed were and are in the realm of how we view, treat and motivate people, and we still have much to unlearn and learn in this area. Our sins were serious and deep-rooted, and it took a direct hit from God to force the depth and breadth of changes needed. We haven’t yet implemented all of them, but on the other hand, we have made tremendous progress in a short time. In fact, I am aware of only one other movement in recent history that has made the amount of changes that we have in such a short period of time. To those who remain impatient (and critical) with the changes that have been made, I would simply encourage them to make a list of what has already changed. That should give you hope for the future, and increase your patience!
But if we had it all to do over again, what could have been done differently to reduce the collateral damage (in war terminology, the “friendly fire”)? Since the Kriete letter pretty much lit the fuse, let’s start there. To begin with, I think the letter could have (should have) been written in a less incendiary manner. I think that God stirred Henry up to write it, but I wish it had been written in a way that forced us to face the issues and deal with them, howbeit in a more discerning manner. In the minds of many, all leaders were judged guilty of all that any leader did anywhere, and all churches or ministry groups were judged guilty of all that any group had done. Good intentions, benefit of the doubt, innocent until proven guilty, grace and forgiveness were forgotten principles in far too many cases. The letter started both a holy revolution and an unholy revolution at the same time.
But rest assured that I think something drastic had to be done to force change. One mature leader in Boston put it something like this: “God used the approach of kindness in trying to get leaders to repent through the writing of the book, Golden Rule Leadership.” When leaders in high places were resistant to that approach, God sent Henry.” (As one of the co-authors of the book, with my accompanying biases, I agree with his analysis!) As I have often said in the past year, in our movement we have done many right things in many wrong ways. I think Henry’s letter falls in that category—a right thing done in a wrong way. Once Henry’s letter was made public, I wished that a second letter would have followed pretty quickly, urging people to continue to push (even demand) change, but in ways that were more godly. We can’t run the clock back now, but we all have to learn from our hindsight experiences, for “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9).
Another thing that could have reduced collateral damage in 2003 was the right kind of apologies from leaders. What is the right kind of apology? One, it is specific. By the way, much of what I say about apologies are lessons I have learned (often the hard way!) in my marriage and family. Saying to my wife, “I’m sorry I messed up yesterday” just doesn’t get it done! She wants to know the specifics of what I am apologizing for—at least all of them that I see. The clamor last year about whether a given leader “got it” or not is reflective of this point. Some leaders apparently were afraid if they said too much, people would become even more critical. Humility is the only judge needed of that concept! When other leaders were painfully specific, people’s minds were relieved that leaders did in fact “get it” and thus were less likely to repeat the same sins. I understand the lack of trust when leaders were unwilling to apologize specifically. Frankly, I share it.
Two, apologies should have been humble and heartfelt. Again, when I say “I’m sorry” to Theresa in a terse, begrudging manner, even after being specific, it doesn’t free her up. She wants me to feel the right kind of pain at having caused her pain by my sin. Bottom line, she expects true humility from me, and since God settles for no less, her expectations are totally reasonable and righteous. Our people expected humble responses from us, and so did God. Leaders who were specific and humble fared much, much better than those who were not.
Three (and this is often overlooked), appropriate apologies should have been made by the appropriate people. In the Boston church leaders’ apology letter, a very important sentence read thus: “The higher the level of leadership, the greater the responsibility.” Higher-level leaders were the ones who made policies and were most influential in determining what we would do and how we would do it. To me, one of the saddest parts of the collateral damage during our upheaval was in how younger leaders were viewed and treated. Little discernment was practiced on this point, and those least responsible were judged to be about as guilty as those who were in reality most responsible. The end result was that many highly promising young leaders resigned and will likely never return to ministry staff leadership again. They did not deserve the harsh judgment and treatment they received.
I commend Steve Johnson, former World Sector Leader, for understanding this principle and taking responsibility for what went on under his direction. He also recognized that his apology had to be made on as broad a scale as his realm of influence had been felt. Apologies in more private settings are great, but if not as broadly directed as the influence wielded, those hurt are left unsatisfied and perhaps unhealed. Regarding young leaders in the NYC church, he wrote the following in his public apology letter:
They were trying to do as they were taught and still often would be conflicted between what I said and what they saw going on in the church. It was my mistake to put so many of you under such young leadership. Blame me, not them. They did work hard for you. I don’t know how to deal with the pain I feel for having hurt such young hearts or for having placed all of you in a position where you felt so disregarded and disrespected. It was all my fault. I am so sorry.
If leaders with greater influence had taken this approach early on, much of the negative impact on young leaders might have been avoided and we as a movement would have been better off for it. If all leaders had quickly followed all three of these principles of righteous apologies, the damage would have been reduced significantly.
What Will It Take To Get Unstuck?
Well, enough of looking at what might have been. Let’s learn the lessons from what could or should have been, and then get on with being healed. While I understand why some people are still stuck, my concern is that at some point if we don’t begin walking, we may never walk again – we may lose the ability to bounce back. When we experience major emotional hits, such as the death of a loved one or a divorce, it takes time to heal. It often takes a year to start coming out of the fog. I have been patient with those who were still in the fog after the events of 2003, but now I am becoming more and more alarmed when their healing process is making no progress. Perhaps the most apt analogy I can use to describe the condition of those who can’t seem to get past the past is that they have spiritual hypothermia. A person with physical hypothermia has experienced a shock to his system to the point that his system starts shutting down. His shock is exposure to cold that is beyond his body’s ability to cope. For example, think of someone who fell through the ice of a frozen lake in the wilderness. Assume that he crawled out of the lake and started walking toward his car two miles away. After the icy shock subsides, his body begins to shut down and he starts to feel warm, and then he feels very sleepy. Thinking that the walking has warmed up his body, he has a strong desire to sit down and rest or even take a quick nap. If he gives in to that desire, he will be found as a frozen clump sometime later. What he has mistaken as warmth is his physical system shutting down. He must force himself to keep going until he is able to find real warmth in a protected environment.
We can reach a similar point spiritually, in that we can be stuck to the point that we all but lose our ability to bounce back. Unless we keep moving, we will die, and our moving has to be in harmony with God’s directions. If I could choose only one passage to describe this direction, it would unquestionably be 1 Peter 2:18-3:9. Earlier in this lesson I said that our being stuck spiritually results from experiencing a situation that violates our sense of fairness, justice and righteousness to the point that our foundation of faith is seriously damaged. This passage in 1 Peter is shocking to our sensibilities in several respects, but it describes how Jesus dealt with such situations. Read these words carefully:
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. [19] For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. [20] But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. [21] To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. [22] “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.” [23] When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly (1 Peter 2:18-23).
My sensibilities are shocked immediately by reading the word “slaves.” The very idea that one human would own another human is repugnant. Yet, it was reality in the first century, and God insisted on his people responding righteously in what would appear to be ungodly situations. Slaves were to be submissive and respectful—always, and to every slave master, whether gentle and kind, or harsh and overbearing. Why? Not because of who the master was but because of who they were. Better yet, because of whose they were! They were children of the King, and the King had already shown the way of the cross to them. Just what is the way of the cross? Doing what is right and righteous no matter how badly and unfairly you are being treated. Isn’t that part and parcel of what following Jesus is all about in the first place? The first decision to make in becoming a true Christian is the hardest one of all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). This step is not optional. We cannot be saved without taking it and then continuing to take it all of our lives.
Note the wording in 1 Peter 3, as the “way of the cross” principle is applied in other situations. “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives” (verse 1). What is “the same way” but the way of the cross just described? Read verses 1-6 to see what the response of the wife to her husband is to be, regardless of his treatment of her. My sensibilities are in shock once more! “Husbands, in the same way…” (verse 7). Again, the way of the cross is applied to the husband’s treatment of his wife – regardless of what her treatment of him might be. Peter just won’t let up in applying this principle! But the most challenging application of all is yet to come. Our sensibilities are going to be hit, and hit hard, one last time.
In verses 8-9, we read: “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. [9] Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” The word “finally” shows that Peter is making his final application of the principle, and this time it is to the church as a whole. Verse 8 describes life in the kingdom the way it should be. But verse 9 describes life in the kingdom the way it shouldn’t be and yet sometimes is. The way of the cross is most difficult when those we love most and think should love us most do not treat us lovingly. Yet, God calls us to imitate Jesus and refuse to repay evil with evil and insult with insult. Our love must respond to a lack of love in the same way that Jesus responded to ill treatment, even when from the hands of brothers and sisters in Christ.
One of the most challenging books I have read in the past year is all about this subject. It is entitled Exquisite Agony and is written by Gene Edwards (author also of The Tale of Three Kings). I cannot take the space to quote the excerpts I read in the oral presentation of this lesson, but you would do well to read it, for it helps the principles of 1 Peter 2 & 3 come alive. The book is brief and can be quickly read, but it will convict you mightily if you read it with an open heart. Essentially, the writer avows that all crucifixions are from God, and unless we accept our ill treatment at the hands of men as being ultimately from God, we will not get well. Without that acceptance, we will have suffered only mistreatment and not crucifixion, and will be damaged as a result. Many are stuck right here. They blame men for their suffering and do not surrender to God as the author of their suffering. Jesus deserved nothing of his crucifixion, for it was ill intentioned treatment at the hands of his own people. They hated him and they killed him, and that was the cause of his death – or so it would seem. What does God say about all of that? Just this: “Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer” (Isaiah 53:10).
Think through the principle suggested in the following verses carefully.
We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. [11] For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may be revealed in our mortal body (2 Corinthians 4:10-11).
Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24).
If Jesus drew the world to himself through suffering unjustly in a godly, almost “other worldly” manner, can we do it in a different way? Any of us can respond reasonably well to just treatment—there is no test involved in that. But who of us can respond righteously to unrighteous treatment (even from our brothers)? The simple answer: only those of us determined to go the way of the cross. The challenging answer: only those of us determined to be Christians (which demands that we go the way of the cross)!
Edwards dedicates a later chapter in this book to Jesus’ reactions after his resurrection. With tongue in cheek, he describes the bitter responses that might have been forthcoming from Jesus, but shows that a true resurrection following a true crucifixion (one accepted as from God) leaves no bitterness at all. Resurrections make everything new, especially the past. The author goes on to mention that so many of us in the aftermath of our crucifixion cannot leave the past behind, and insist on recounting the details of our ill treatment. When we won’t let it go, the reason is clear. We have not accepted our crucifixion as from God. Period. Therefore, we have been damaged and not healed; hurt and not helped; crippled and not strengthened. Listen to God’s words on this matter: “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. Make level paths for your feet, so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed” (Hebrews 12:11-13).
In preaching about the resurrection recently in the NE Region, I recalled these words of an old hymn: “Must Jesus bear the cross alone and all the world go free? No, there’s a cross for everyone, and there’s a cross for me.” Do you believe this, and will you embrace yours? Peter rebuked Jesus for saying that he was going to take the way of the cross (Mark 8:31-38). Jesus then rebuked Peter, calling him “Satan” and saying in Mark 8:33 that Peter did “not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men.” What were the “things of men?” Answer: a cross-less Christianity. Is that what you are after? If you refuse to endure your crosses as being from the hand of God, you are in essence requesting a cross-less Christianity. The sad ending to that request is that Christianity without crosses – Jesus and ours – is no Christianity at all.
Conclusion
Spiritually, how healthy are you right now? If unhealthy, do you want to get well? As with the invalid of John 5, Jesus stands ready to help. But he will not help us in a way contrary to the cross – in fact, he simply cannot. The spiritual laws of the universe do not allow other solutions than those from God. Please, let’s all get well, and let’s surrender to the cure that Jesus provides! If I had the past year to do over, I would have responded more wisely and more righteously in a number of situations. However, I don’t have the opportunity to relive last year. I do have the opportunity to repent, learn from my mistakes and begin anew by the grace of God – and so do you. Let’s do it now and let’s do it together. Our future individually and as a church is as bright as the promises of God. May he heal us all, and may we bring him more glory in the future than we ever did or even dreamed of doing in the past!
—Gordon Ferguson (May 2004)
NOTE: This article was written back in 2002, prior to the startling changes in what we have called in ICOC. In some ways, therefore, it is somewhat dated. However, the biblical and practical lessons found in it are worth sharing in our present day. In some ways, they may be even more significant. See what you think!
As members of the International Churches of Christ, we are well aware of our emphasis on the brief development of our history as a movement. We remember all about the Gempel’s living room on that fateful night in June of 1979. The details of those first church plantings in Chicago and New York City, followed by the first foreign planting in London, and then the first planting in a foreign language in Paris are all a part of our memory treasures. We could go on and on, recalling the glories of such historic plantings as those in Johannesburg, Cairo, and Moscow. We do glory in our history, because we are convinced that God was the one writing history by using our feeble but heroic human efforts to accomplish his divine purposes. Who could ever forget the Jubilee celebration at the completion of the six year plan as those 170 flags were proudly borne high, each representing a nation in which a church was now established!
In our emphasis on our history, we are imitating our Jewish forefathers. Anyone even vaguely acquainted with the Bible is aware of their appreciation of God’s hand in their lives as a movement. The sermons recorded in Acts are clear examples of this consistent historical emphasis. Stephen’s audience in Acts 7 may have hated the latter part of his sermon, but they were all ears during the earlier part as he traced their history through renown leaders such as Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, and Solomon. The Jews loved recounting their past, for it demonstrated their tie with God above all other nations of the earth. Our love for the history of God’s modern day movement is but an extension of what his people have always reveled in. Indeed, God has done great things among us!
It is important to note that every part of sacred history has been glorious, but the glory of each has not been the same. Certainly in the Old Testament both high points and low points were all included, and to some extent, all appreciated. The low points taught lessons, which led to higher ground as God blessed repentance. 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 says that the old covenant was glorious, but not nearly as glorious as the new covenant of Jesus Christ. The fact that the later was more glorious should not be used to dismiss the glory and appreciation of the former. Whenever God uses his people to accomplish his purposes, it is cause for rejoicing. The accomplishments of our children when they are in elementary school may not compare to their accomplishments in college, but they are precious memories to us nonetheless.
The Israelite movement of God was absolutely essential as a foundation for the new Israel, the church of God. Praise God for the faithful who awaited the coming of the Messiah and his greater kingdom. We thrill as we read of Zechariah and Elizabeth, the parents of John the Baptist, Mary and Joseph, who were graced with seeing God enter the world wrapped in the human flesh of a crying child, Simeon and Anna, whose presence graced the temple and whose prayers of thanksgiving were laced with prophecies about this child who would rule the nations. While it is quite true that most of Israel did not later accept the crucified Christ, they had been pursuing a law of righteousness which should have led them to him (Romans 9:31-32). A significant minority did follow the OT prophesies right into the church, beginning with the 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, and continuing with daily conversions in those first days in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41-47).
We often see that early beginning in Jerusalem as one of the most glorious pieces in the history of the first century church, but in some ways it had its limitations. For one thing, the church was filled with racial bigots for a number of years. It took God using a pretty nominal Jew, Peter, who could only be convinced that Gentiles were worthy of salvation through the rebuke of a series of visions. Even then, he later struggled with the application of those divinely revealed truths (Galatians 2:11-21). Toward the end of the New Testament revelation, the Jewish disciples in Jerusalem were amazingly still attached to their Judaic history (Acts 21). Until the destruction of the outward aspects of Judaism in 70 AD at the hands of the Roman army, the intermingling of the less glorious with the more glorious was still a reality. As the writer of Hebrews stated, the old glory that was “obsolete and aging” was soon to disappear (Hebrews 8:13), which it did at the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
What are we saying in all of this? Simply that in spite of the weaknesses in that early church, we still rejoice in all of its glorious history, for it all was the work of Almighty God, from start to finish. What needs to be said further is that we have a very similar lesson to learn regarding our modern day movement. At best, we are failing to recognize and appreciate some of our own history, and at worst, we are guilty of the sins of ingratitude and arrogance. Let’s begin this line of thought by looking at a very relevant but often overlooked passage in Romans 11:11-20.
11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.
By the time Paul wrote Romans, the church was becoming more and more Gentile in composition. The Gentiles were failing to see either themselves or the Jews in a realistic light, out of their own pride. Paul shows them that their inclusion in the kingdom was designed to provoke the Jews to jealousy in hopes of causing them to reconsider their own decisions about Jesus as Messiah. He further tells the Gentiles that they actually stood on the foundation of the Jewish religion, and that they stood on the basis of faith, not on their own merits. Instead of being arrogant and critical, they should have been appreciative of their Jewish heritage.
What is the application to us? Actually, there are several. Our movement has a history that goes far back before 1979 in Boston. We are built upon the foundation of what we now call the mainline Church of Christ, or by the more descriptive term, the Restoration Movement. The early days of this group were actually pretty glorious. Ministers from many different denominations banded together with the lofty intent of rejecting creeds in favor of following the Bible only. Surely we would all agree that this was, and remains, a noble goal. Many stories could be recounted from the 1800’s that are impressive and thrilling. Thousands of people were baptized at the preaching of men who were sold out for their cause, to the point that some of them actually gave their lives for it as martyrs. One of the best known leaders, Alexander Campbell, developed the convictions that led to his leaving both the Presbyterian church and later the Baptist church, and through this process, he became the leading religious debater of his age, widely known and respected in and out of his movement.
Whatever else may be said about this period, it clearly had its glory and formed the foundation for what we enjoy today. Even in the mid-20th century, the churches of Christ were said to be the fastest growing indigenous religious group in America. Although legalism eventually choked out the growth of many congregations, and thus led many of them to a position of being fairly non-evangelistic, lukewarm, and doctrinally compromised, we grew up as a movement out of that root system. Virtually every doctrinal argument I used in my book, Prepared to Answer, I learned in that particular group. I appreciate all that I learned, although I did struggle with the persecution I received at the hands of some in that group. However, Paul had received more persecution from the Jews in his day than any of us in our day have received from our persecutors, and we have to keep that in mind. We must be diligent about keeping our hearts humble and appreciative.
Actually, the reason for writing this article is not primarily to help us be less critical and more grateful toward the mainline Church of Christ (although I hope it accomplishes that too). We have another part of our historical root system that is in many ways more important to us as a movement than the mainline background. Of course, I refer to the Campus Ministry segment of our history, which we often call the Crossroads movement. I think that this era was glorious in many, many ways, and yet the comments I sometimes hear regarding it vary from dismissive to derogatory. The claim that we have had a revisionist history regarding the Crossroads days is unquestionably true. The contribution of that era is larger than many among us admit, and the overall lack of gratitude toward it, combined with what seems to be purposeful avoidance of even discussing that period (by some), is very hurtful to those who came from that background. We simply must address this issue in an upfront manner and rectify our shortcomings regarding it.
Sadly, the end of that period was brought about by the sin of the Crossroads pulpit minister, which led to his dismissal by the elders. (Let me add the note that he and his family have done well in the years that followed, and I still consider them to be special friends to whom I owe much.) This unfortunate turn of events led to the demise of the influence of the Crossroads church, and subsequently, of those most closely associated with it. At the same time, the Boston church was growing in influence, and in a good way, Kip and the elders exerted a noble effort to unify the then current movement by bringing key leaders into Boston for more training and to unify the key leaders into one movement from their various sources. Certainly the movement tracing back to Boston days is the more glorious, but the campus ministry movement blazed some trails without which none of us would be what we now are. Period. Anything bordering on disdain toward that era on the part of any of us who sit upon that foundation is nothing short of sinful, and I strongly encourage repentance on the parts of those who need it.
I have plenty of sins of which to repent, but being critical of the Crossroads days is not one of them. I first visited the Crossroads church in 1981, and my life was radically changed as a result of that one week visit and the later trips to speak on the Florida Evangelism Seminar. How that group was spawned out of the tradition-bound mainline Church of Christ of that day still amazes and thrills me. We may have taken things further in many ways (and we have, by God’s grace), but their coming out of their labyrinth is, in my considered opinion, about as remarkable as what we have done since. My purpose is not to create some kind of prideful competitive comparison, but only to cause us to look back at all segments of our history in a way that is both realistic and spiritual.
I glory in the many positive qualities and achievements of the mainline Church of Christ, although my frustration with its shortcomings led to my leaving it, burning bridges in a way that necessarily left scars in my soul. I cannot defend everything I did in that process, by the way. I am grateful to be where I am, and during those many years since I came into our present movement, I have never wished to be back in that old root system. But I appreciate my history as I searched for that more excellent way. Similarly, I glory in the many positive contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, for without it, we would certainly not be where we are today. Yes, they did some things wrong, but they did far more right than wrong, and my prediction is that we will actually reinstate some of their practices that we have typically deemed wrong in the past. I am grateful that we have all been delivered from that “church within a church” setting that was the case with many former campus ministry congregations, but I do not make light of all that we learned from it, especially the campus ministry part of it, which was not significantly different from what we do today – unless it be noted that their growth in campus baptisms often eclipsed our present growth on most campuses.
As to the specific contributions of the Campus Ministry Movement, many could be noted with but little thought, even by an “outsider” such as me. The insistence of total commitment as an essential component of repentance preceding baptism was a novel idea and sorely needed. The viewing the Bible as a standard for the attitudes and behavior of Christians, instead of simply being an idealistic standard, was likewise so needed. This mindset led to the kind of straightforward authoritative preaching that was all but absent from the pulpits of traditional churches. Discipleship in both its vertical aspect (commitment to Christ) and horizontal aspect (close, open spiritual relationships) was admirably stressed. The later focus on “discipleship partners” at all levels rather than the “prayer partner” arrangement of those days initially looked far better in theory than the practice has ended up, because of the tendency of over/under relationships to be mishandled. The emphasis on relational evangelism, with ample practical teaching about how to develop such relationships, stood out like a beacon for those not thus trained in other settings. Last, but certainly not least, an impressively large percentage of elders and evangelists in the most influential leadership roles in the movement today trace their roots back to Crossroads or to campus ministries led by those who were trained at Crossroads.
One mistake I often make in generalizing about the Campus Ministry Movement is failing to distinguish between the different commitment levels of churches who had campus ministries. The “church within a church” weakness often noted was generally true, in that the demands of discipleship were not equally applied to members of all ages. However, some churches were much more even handed in calling for and expecting such commitment from its membership, with congregations like Crossroads and San Diego (Poway) being among this number. The amount of persecution each received is a pretty good testimony to that fact. The handling of said persecution by such churches paved the way for responding to later persecution after 1979, for many lessons were learned (positively and negatively). I do not believe that the commitment levels in congregations like these was where it should have been overall, but it should be noted that they were light years ahead of others within the more traditional Churches of Christ. I appreciate their determination and advances as they strove to emerge out of the denominational darkness from whence they came. They came further in many ways from their root system than we have since, for philosophically and practically, they had further to go. I would not want to return to where the better Campus Ministry churches were, to be sure, but I am both amazed and grateful for the progress that has enabled us to build upon their earlier foundation.
I pray that those who read these thoughts are both challenged and helped by them. I am concerned that our present slowdown of growth in the movement is directly related to the sins that are in our camp, one of which is described herein. God blesses righteousness and blocks unrighteousness; he exalts the humble and resists the proud; he rewards the spiritual and confuses the worldly. Let’s be willing to examine our hearts individually and collectively as we seek to become more like the God who loves us. Let’s absolutely and unequivocally appreciate our history, but let’s not leave out any of it. The presence of the more glorious cannot be allowed to invalidate the less glorious, for both are glorious before God, and the greater would not be present without the lesser.
—Gordon Ferguson (2002)
In this present age, any well-meaning parent is more than a little concerned about how their children are going to turn out as adults. Parenting has not been easy in any age, but in our current setting, the challenge can seem insurmountable. Thank God for the principles outlined in his Word! No matter how formidable the task may appear, God’s ways still work. Rest assured that the message of Proverbs 22:6 remains true: “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.” Many helpful principles could be shared, but to keep the article both brief and practical, let’s look at four key “beatitudes” of parenting.
Be Spiritual
Children know their parents, and know them well. They are quite aware of just how spiritually motivated you really are. Our children were in their teens when we were first seriously discipled in our marriage and family. Theresa and I made it a practice of sharing very openly with our children about what we were learning and changing about ourselves as individuals and as mates and parents. Even though our children have been away from home now for years, and have families of their own, we still share our struggles and desires to grow with them by phone. Our consistent emphasis on growing spiritually has done much to encourage the same in them. As has been said, attitudes are more caught than taught.
Be spiritual in what you talk about in the home. An old joke in my former church stated that most members had “fried preacher” and “roasted elder” for Sunday lunch! Sadly, that was often true, and more sadly, it is too often true even in our churches. After our daughter, Renee, was grown, she made an amazing statement in a marriage workshop class our whole family was doing together. She stated that she never remembered Theresa and me being negative about our schedules and schedule changes. Her memory may have been too kind, but I’m thankful that she remembers her time with us in that way. How about you? How positive are you in talking about the church and its leaders?
Also, be spiritual in your marriage. When Sam and Geri Laing once spoke in Boston to parents of teens, I was surprised at how much they emphasized this point. A poor marriage example damages children in many ways, including their view of whether God’s principles bring happiness or not. Please take this one seriously. Once our daughter as a teen was considering seriously whether she wanted to remain a disciple, and the telling point in that decision was our marriage. She told her mom that she wanted a marriage like we had and knew that she would never have one like ours outside the kingdom. Praise God that Theresa and I have worked so hard to keep our marriage exciting and growing over the years since we became disciples! Now Bryan and Renee have their own marriages, and our example of striving to keep growing has been a very important part of their view of marriages generally.
How you handle conflicts with your mate, how free each of you are with each other to freely express your opinions and hurts sets the tone for the openness or lack thereof on the part of your children. If you don’t respect your mate, the kids will not either, and they won’t respect their mates once they marry. Build a spiritual atmosphere in the home by having consistent spiritual talks, quiet times and discipleship times with your children. It will pay huge dividends in time and in eternity.
Be Humble
Humility is one of the qualities that God loves and rewards most, and nowhere is this quality more important than in the family. Read these Scriptures carefully: “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love” (Ephesians 4:2). “All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’ Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time” (1 Peter 5:5-6). God opposes the proud and so do others, especially our own children!
Be humble about your sins. An old adage says that people cannot see your humility until you allow them to see your humanity (though your own vulnerable sharing of same). I remember counseling a couple whose teen said of them: “mother can never be wrong; dad apologizes very quickly but doesn’t change.” Sadly, some parents never say “I’m wrong; I’m sorry; please forgive me.” When we became disciples, we started asking our children consistently what they saw in our lives that needed to change, what we have done to hurt them and what we needed to apologize for. We still do this periodically just to make sure our example is what it should be and to make sure that even something small is unresolved between us.
Be humble in seeking the evaluation and help of other disciples regarding your family dynamics. When we first became a part of a discipling ministry, we were so grateful for the help of the young singles that discipled our children. We made them a part of our family, and often asked them what they were seeing in our family dynamics that needed to change. Of course, we were able to help them in the ways that they needed help on a maturity level.
Ask spiritually mature couples to come in to help evaluate your relationship and family atmosphere. I remember on several occasions having others in to help us work out impasses between us and our children. In order to do this, you will have to be humble enough to avoid becoming uptight about how your children may make you look. We can put undue pressures on them, to make us appear a certain way. We can try to live our lives through them, which is a way of rejecting who they are as persons. Humble out and get help—lots of it. It has been my experience in counseling families that most married couples are more defensive about their parenting roles than about their marriage roles. Please fight that prideful tendency and just be humble. The dividends will be wonderful.
Be Calm
Raising children, especially through the preteen and teen years, is at times like walking through a mine field! Remaining calm is the only way to avoid unexpected explosions! Emotions begat similar emotions—whether calm or the opposite. “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger” (Proverbs 15:1). Read 2 Timothy 2:23-26 carefully and thoughtfully. Thankfully, I came to a conviction about remaining calm at all costs when Renee was still in High School. It was very difficult, since that had not been my pattern in parenting through many years. Yet, it worked wonders in both of us. Renee followed my example and learned to communicate with me with reasoned calmness, in spite of the emotions inside that were trying to come out in worldly ways.
At times when dealing with sensitive subjects, Theresa chose to write the children letters, which helped lower the emotional challenges. We worked as a team by deciding which of us might be the best one for a certain type talk with them. While the one chosen carried the conversation, the other simply prayed. We have learned to keep our emotions in check and to act rather than react. Our children have imitated this and are now doing a much better job of relating to their young children than I did to them when they were young. My regrets are being replaced by the joy of seeing worldly cycles broken by God’s power.
Be a Friend
Being a friend to your children means that you listen much more then you talk, and you especially fight the natural impulse to lecture. “The purposes of a man’s heart are deep waters, but a man of understanding draws them out” (Proverbs 20:5). The most important parenting principle is to disciple the heart, not simply the behavior. Before you can disciple the heart, you must know what is in it. To find that out, you have to establish and maintain an atmosphere of openness in which the child can feel safe enough to express their honest feelings to you without fear of negative reaction from you. Hence, listen not lecture.
Find the right time for each child, the time when they will more naturally be talkative. When Bryan came home from school, he was a typical male in that works were few. However, at night around bedtime, he would talk if we were there to listen. Renee, on the other hand, walked in the door after school talking profusely. So, we had to make time to listen when they were most prone to want to talk. Children need times just to hang out with you—help them with their homework; have special fun times to build memories. Above all, have faith in them. “A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity” (Proverbs 17:17). Don’t give up on them, no matter what difficult stages they may be going through. Once when Theresa was struggling with faith that she could be effective evangelistically, Renee (when still a teen) gave her a mustard seed of faith. Theresa shared the same with her through the years, helping her to stay in the spiritually battle.
Being a friend means that you give “sandwich” type corrections – the challenges are encompassed on either side with compliments and encouragements. Paul followed this pattern repeatedly in his letters. Friendship to children also means that you allow them to have choices that are age appropriate. Failure to do this ultimately results in rebellion. Your job as a parent is to gradually replace your “parent” hat with a “friend” hat. Without question, the most rewarding stage of parenthood is when your children are grown and all of you say (and feel) that you are the best of friends. By God’s grace and forgiveness, our children’s grace and forgiveness, we can all enjoy that if we follow the above “beatitudes” of parenting. The Golden Rule of parenting is to love and train your children as you want God to treat you. Let’s do it, and give God all the credit when he blesses our families!
—Gordon Ferguson (November 2001)
Several years following 2003 ushered in a time of unsettledness, upheaval, re-examination and uncertainty within most churches of the ICOC movement. Some things connected with this time have been good, and some have been bad. Without going into the reasons for the upheaval and the judgments of what has been good or bad, suffice it to say that church leaderships have been faced with a major decision about how their various components are going to interface and work together. These components may be comprised of elders and evangelists, or evangelists and a board of directors, or some other combination of leadership groups.
Two mindsets about how these groups interface are reflected in the title, one being a balance of power concept and the other being a team concept. The balance of power concept is well reflected in our government, with its legislative branch, judicial branch and executive branch. Most of our citizens don’t trust any branch in isolation, but have reasonable trust in the three working together, for they form a balance of power—a system of checks and balances that limit any one of these branches from having too much authority and influence.
This concept most closely approximates the mindset that developed among many leadership groups in our movement’s recent history. Elders or boards of directors were urged to stand up more against the evangelists and to limit their power. Certainly, we often had situations in which the evangelists had too much authority, and in which group or team leadership was lacking. This issue was addressed pretty thoroughly in our book, Golden Rule Leadership. Although the evangelist’s one man rule was wrong, other approaches can also be wrong. Since having elders is the biblical ideal, our comments will be addressed to leadership groups involving an eldership, although in churches without elderships, the board of directors may be involved more directly in the “balance of power” approach in their relationship with the ministry staff.
The elder/evangelist relationship is one of the most important aspects affecting the health and effectiveness of a church, and for that reason, Satan has developed a number of plans to hinder it. Providing a historical perspective of elder/evangelist relationships in the Churches of Christ, including the ICOC, might be a good starting place to help understand the challenges. Historically, the ICOC grew out of a campus ministry setting within Mainline Churches of Christ, and ended up with certain baggage from that era. The elders within the Mainline groups were definitely seen as the decision makers for the church, the ones who “hired and fired” the preachers and made just about all of the major decisions for the church – often with little input from the fulltime ministers. Since the elder role was viewed as more positional and authoritative in nature than as functional – with the elders being “over” the ministry people—the relationship between the two types were more often than not adversarial in nature (even if sensed more than spoken).
That is the setting in which I spent most of my early ministry years. In all of my experience in those churches, the elders were by design and function a separate entity from ministers, and did not see themselves as a real team with me or with the ministry leaders generally. That was one of the most de-motivating settings in which I have ever served, and probably the reason that preacher tenure in those churches was decidedly short in the large majority of congregations. The longest I ever survived in one church under that system was four years. Just thinking back to my own experiences in that setting immediately raises my blood pressure and acid production!
Of course, extremes begat extremes, which is exactly what happened in the ICOC in its early days. Evangelists resented the one-sided control exerted by elders, and reacted in the opposite (and equally wrong) direction. The following quote comes from my article “Motivation: Guilt or Grace,” written earlier this year (and now on the phoenixvalleychurch.org web site, as well as other web sites):
Second, leaders of those traditional churches were not to be trusted, for they quite often represented the opposition as persecutors. In those churches, elders were unquestionably the leaders in control, and for this reason they were to be trusted least. The carryover into our movement in terms of mistrusting elders cannot be denied. The highly influential role of elders in the NT church has not yet been duplicated in our movement, although some progress has been made in recent years. The current clamor in the wake of Henry Kriete’s letter has produced more change in the role of the elder than the Bible produced in prior years—to our shame.
Leadership style in our movement is another phenomenon that has been influenced significantly by those campus ministry days. In planting a new church or working in youth groups, including campus ministries, the leader is the “go to” person by design. As disciples age, they must be treated in age-appropriate ways, which should include leaders developing leadership groups instead of remaining one-man, top-down leaders. We have been extremely slow to learn this needed lesson, as the Golden Rule Leadership book emphasizes repeatedly. Without rehashing the point, the campus ministry era influenced our leadership style in ways that simply must be changed if we are to move forward effectively, especially in older, larger churches.
In my Mainline church days, I was an evangelist in an elder-dominated environment, and in my early Boston days, I was an elder in an evangelist- dominated environment. Both are extremes and both are unbiblical, impractical, unproductive and spiritually unhealthy. And both are reactionary in their developmental stages. No sooner than one extreme is thrown out does the other seek to come in. At the present time in our movement, some elderships (or other non-staff leadership groups) are unquestionably following the Mainline extreme, and havoc is being wreaked. We must avoid such extremes, or we will reap the same consequences that some are now reaping.
Being an avid football fan, I can’t help but use a sports illustration of the team concept. My favorite team is the New England Patriots—three time World Champions! (Fans of other teams, please forgive my bias!) The three main roles of this team are reflected in its offense, defense, and special teams. They don’t think in terms of “checks and balances” at all—although they have different roles, and when they are not on the field, they are cheering on the ones who are. The respect they have for one another is obvious, and they are totally supportive of each other. They are willing to play on another part of the team if needed, no matter what their normal role. Their dominant mindset is well reflected in the old saying, “All for one, and one for all!” Shouldn’t those in various leadership roles in the church have this same team mindset?
My first experience in a discipling church was in San Diego back in the mid-1980s. It was certainly the most biblical (and joyous) situation of which I had ever been a part. I came in as lead evangelist when in my early 40s, and soon thereafter was joined by co-evangelist Gregg Marutzky (then in his late 20s). George Havins and Ron Brumley were serving as elders at the time. The four of us formed a leadership team that worked together beautifully. We met weekly, often with our wives, and led the church as a team. Although the elders told me when I agreed to come there that they understood that I would be discipling them, we in fact discipled one another as equals. None of us thought in terms of who was “over” whom. We saw our roles as distinct, but overlapping in many ways. The evangelists focused on leading the charge evangelistically and the elders focused on meeting the needs of the flock. With both perspectives always co-joined, we planned as a team and made decisions as a team. There were no “elders only” meetings and no “evangelists only” meetings, and the elders normally attended the weekly staff meetings.
I believe that the best decision making process is the one that is most inclusive of different perspectives. I have advocated the inclusion of the elders’ wives in elders’ meetings on a regular basis, although the expectation should not be that they attend all meetings. But no matter what, I want to know their female perspectives before finalizing decisions. I feel exactly the same way about getting the perspective of those whose full-time job is ministry. Look at it from their viewpoint. For years, in the absence of elders, the evangelists were responsible for about everything that went on within the church, and were involved in about everything in one way or another. They were certainly involved in making the decisions (often too involved in an exclusive manner, as I argued in Golden Rule Leadership). But that was seen to be their job. They were right in the middle of everything, by design and job description. Now all of a sudden, elders are viewed by many as those at the helm, making decisions into which evangelists may have little input. The evangelists helped to raise up elders, and by virtue of appointment, elders are overnight seen by some as the main decision makers. This approach, left unchecked and unaltered, puts us on a course that bodes significant challenges, if my past experience in this area can be trusted at all.
I spent many months after the Kriete letter trying to get ministry staff people to understand what the members were feeling and why. Those who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, see what the real issues were, I recommended taking off of staff. Some such decisions were very complicated, and tremendously painful to them and to me. In the case of those who understood the issues, or wanted to understand them, I worked (and am working) to try and help them change. In recent months, I feel most compelled to help non-staff people understand what the staff folks are feeling. Whatever any of us did to implement the systemic sins imposed on us from above, we did it with a heart to serve and to see the world saved. Most of us were hurt by the system as much or more than we hurt anyone else as we passed the system’s sins down the ranks. Now we not only have to deal with the hurts imposed from above, we have to deal with our hurts about what we did to others. Yet, we feel called by God to do what we are doing. Those who remain on staff (a small percentage of those on staff two years ago) are serious about changing ourselves and the church. But we continue to feel the mistrust, suspicion of our motives, and sometimes downright disdain from some that we are trying to serve. I don’t think most of us who have not been on staff even begin to understand the pain and discouragement those of us on staff often feel.
I have strongly supported the establishment of biblical elderships, and am very grateful for our group in Phoenix. Having at least one elder/evangelist on the ministry staff is a safeguard toward which all elderships would do well to strive. The connection that this provides with “both sides of the river” is invaluable. I was privileged to work in harmony with both elders and ministry staff in Boston during my later years there. We weren’t perfect by any means, but one thing that elders/evangelists did was to remain united and continue to figure out ways in which they could function as a team. They are still doing that, from what I hear. On the other hand, you can find examples of elderships and evangelists that are anything but a team. The latter case is going to occur when elders allow the vocal minority—in or out of the church—to influence their thinking more than the ministry staff does. Elders who have never served on staff before have the greatest challenge here, in hearing all sides and being even-handed in proceeding. But that is why we are elders—to use our wisdom and knowledge of human nature gained by virtue of our age to help the family of God behave as the family of God. May our Maker help us to accomplish that worthy goal!
—Gordon Ferguson (February 2005)
I recently had an experience and an insight from it that may be very significant to the way we are leading the church. The recent experience was going through the Dynamic Marriage facilitator training program. Although the purpose of this brief article is not to promote that particular program, I will say that all churches would do well to train some people to facilitate this program in their local congregations. I’ve not seen anything quite like it, and as an elder in Phoenix, I will do everything I can to get every married couple in the church to go through these classes. But, on to the insight.
The thought that hit me is very simple but probably pretty profound at the same time. According to the Dynamic Marriage facilitator training, just about all marriages fall into 1 of 3 categories: 25% are good; 50% are stagnant; and 25% are on the verge of breaking up. The trainer said that the 25% good ones are good because the marriage partners in these unions are self-starters. They hear marriage lessons and put the suggestions into practice. They read the recommended books and talk to others and get help. Taking this at face value, about one-fourth of all people are self starters and the remainder are not. From my experiences in life, I would agree that this is likely an accurate figure.
By applying this principle to the church generally, we as leaders (self-starters) may be expecting virtually every member to become a self-starter spiritually. We have said in the past couple of years that people need to take responsibility for themselves and their spiritual growth and not be dependent on leaders. That sounds noble and righteous, but is it actually in touch with reality? What we are really saying to people is “Be like me” (a self-starter). People keep saying things like “I’m not pulled in to relationships.” “I don’t have any friends.” “I am isolated.” We keep replying, “Well, have you initiated with anyone; have you sought out help, etc.” Are we expecting the impossible?
How do the Dynamic Marriage people handle the fact that 75% of all people are not self-starters? They provide very detailed structure, with specific expectations and accountability. Otherwise, that large percentage of people will not get help in their marriages, and many will end in divorce. What did we as a movement provide for our church membership in past years? Detailed structure, with specific expectations and accountability. Was that wrong? No, it was necessary. What was wrong? The types of expectations, accountability and motivation used. Strong directive leadership was not what was wrong; I think it was what was right – another right thing often done in wrong ways.
Our people who are complaining about us not helping them with relationships and other components of the Christian life sound like complainers who won’t take responsibility for themselves. Could it be that they are simply crying out for help—the kind of help that non-self starters always have needed and will likely always need (at least at points in their lives until they reach real maturity)? The ideal is that all disciples should become self-starters, and hopefully with time and good direction to help mature them, many will. But if we don’t lead people from where they currently are to where they need to be, they may never even stay in the church. If many leaders keep leading like they are, the church may well end up with only self-starter type members, and quite long lists of immature or otherwise weaker disciples who have died on the vine.
—Gordon Ferguson (April 2005)
Co-authoring a book like Golden Rule Leadership has been a daunting task. Which of us thinks we have perfected Jesus’ style of leading? Certainly not Wyndham or I. Our primary goal in writing this book was to give insight and input as peers seeking to imitate Jesus, not as experts who have figured it all out. Our intention has been to prompt healthy discussion about leadership style at an important time in the movement. We have striven to be as humble as possible in addressing such an important topic, realizing fully that we are simply works in progress and not finished products.
All leaders are also followers in some settings. Therefore, when we read a book or an article on leadership, we can focus either on (1) how we are leading or (2) how we are being led. Perhaps it should go without mentioning that we should first think about how we lead others, but this is not our tendency, is it? We tend to immediately think about how we have been led, to contemplate whether our needs have been met, rather than contemplating how we may have met (or not met) the needs of those whom we lead.
Another part of the challenge in writing a leadership book is that some readers may respond in reactionary ways. For example, one such response might be anticipated as follows: “That’s how I always thought leadership should be, but it isn’t the way I have been led.” This is a predictable response, but not necessarily the most spiritual. I am reminded of a sermon about the nature of advice that Randy McKean preached soon after he became the lead evangelist of the Boston church. At that time, some leaders considered their advice to be fairly binding, but Randy took exception to that view in his lesson, insisting instead that advice is simply advice unless a specific Biblical statement or principle is clearly involved. Randy summarized his sermon by saying that three types of people would be challenged most in applying his lesson: those who had been wrong about the nature of advice; those who had been right; and those who had been wronged.
We find ourselves in a similar situation regarding the issue of leadership style. If you have led or have been led in less than a Golden Rule manner, your challenge is pretty much the same. Maybe you have been wrong in your exercise of leadership. You will have to be humble enough to admit this, repent and change what you can figure out needs changing. Or maybe you have been right and have seen leaders leading in a non-Golden Rule manner. You will have to guard your heart against self-righteousness, another form of pride. Jesus uttered some very appropriate words for situations just like this: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone” (John 8:7). Or lastly, maybe you have been wronged by leaders. For starters, I must ask, “Who hasn’t?”
In a recent author interview, Wyndham and I were asked why many leaders have not implemented better leadership dynamics sooner. My comments then fit well here. I wrote:
My children could easily ask this question of me as a dad. It’s a bit of a mystery that those most suited biologically to have children are the least experienced! As parents, we just have to learn as we go and do the best that we can figure out to do at the time. As spiritual parents, the challenge is the same. With our movement having grown fast, bringing fairly inexperienced disciples into leadership roles is a must. Remember that the apostle John started off as a ‘Son of Thunder’ long before he grew into being the ‘Apostle of Love.’ Sure, we have all made mistakes, some serious, as physical parents and spiritual parents. The two most important issues are our intentions and our progress. As a leader, I am not throwing stones, for even at my age (59), I still make mistakes and hurt people. But my intentions are good and my progress is real. Wyndham and I are simply trying to promote such progress by showing where changes are needed, while maintaining a grateful heart for all of the good we have experienced.
One of the greatest things about our movement is that we can look at ourselves and make changes as needed. Our leadership style has varied according to person, place and time. Many leaders have led by Golden Rule principles all along. Similarly, some ministries have been consistently blessed consistently with such leadership. The passage of time has brought changes in leadership style as we have learned from our mistakes. Al Baird wrote an article some years back entitled “A New Look at Authority,” in which he said that we had gone too far in how we applied authority to ordinary discipling relationships. As one of our most respected leaders, he was saying that we had overstepped certain Biblical principles in this area and should correct ourselves, which, in large measure, we have attempted to do. Wyndham and I are trying to prompt a similar result on a somewhat broader basis of leadership style.
Much has been right about leadership in the kingdom, without question. Forceful, visionary leadership is sorely needed in all groups, religious and otherwise, and we are grateful that our movement has been characterized by the raising up of new leaders. The Golden Rule Leadership book is about developing a leadership style and structure that is Biblically based and the most effective possible. In a nutshell, we believe that leadership style must change as congregations change in size and age, and this is the need we are addressing. Varying situations require different leadership styles, which must be selected or adapted to suit these different circumstances at any given time. Effective leadership depends upon many things: awareness of the nature of the task, the make-up of the group and its individual members, the environment in which the group is found, and particularly, the self-awareness of the leaders themselves. Younger and smaller churches will not have the option of working through strong leadership teams, but the leader(s) must strive to raise up other mature leaders who can share the load with them. I am thankful for our strong emphasis in the movement on leadership and “followership,” for God has blessed us in planting churches all over the world. Now we must take it to the next level of growing larger and larger churches, which will demand some paradigm changes in leadership style and structure.
In the end, it is a matter of faith in God⎯truly believing that he is directing us, even through our weaknesses and mistakes. All we can ever do is to do the best we can with our present knowledge and experience, trusting that God will continue to help us learn and change when needed. Paul put it this way in Philippians 3:15-16:
All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
The one thing arguably worse than having poor leadership is having no leadership at all. We are all works in progress, and if we were to wait until we had “arrived” before leading with confidence, none of us would ever lead! We can only do our best, pray about the rest, and trust that God will make up the difference as he continues to mold us.
As is often said, “Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.” Let’s avoid having a critical spirit regarding past mistakes on anyone’s part. Let’s remain very grateful for all of the good things that have been accomplished. And let’s trust that God is continuing to lead us all. Do we need more Golden Rule leadership? Absolutely. But that will only be possible when we all commit to being Golden Rule followers. Most of us are leaders in some sense, but all of us are followers. Rather than pointing fingers at others, let’s look in the mirror and be the best disciples of Jesus possible. God will surely be pleased with such an approach.
—Gordon Ferguson (March 2002)
