An Introduction by Gordon
The ICOC family of churches is facing a crisis of which too many are unaware. It is an age crisis in leadership. It is an issue all movements inevitably must figure out, and their ability to do so defines their ongoing impact. Early in this century we went through a serious upheaval, during which we all but lost a generation of young leaders. Many were taken off the ministry staff simply because our contributions dropped, producing a financial crisis. We couldn’t afford to keep everyone on staff, and as expected it was “last on, first off.” More sadly, many chose to get out of the ministry because of being seriously criticized for things we older leaders had done but most of them had not. It was a confusing time for everyone, and although much clearer now in retrospect, the damage was done to our pool of younger leaders.
Since then, in my opinion, we have not made the concentrated efforts needed to raise up younger leaders. Some good efforts have been made, but too many have not been made wisely or intentionally, failing to take into account what our younger members in general are thinking about how we do church. We tend to be far more traditional than we think and can be far too comfortable with the current status quo. While many of our older members have become satisfied with a less radical, more comfortable version of Christianity, our younger members have not. Just doing church is not what they are looking for – they are looking for ways to change the messed-up world of which they are a part. They want their lives to make a difference in their world and in eternity – a big difference!
In discussing these concerns recently with my good friend, Daren Overstreet, the congregational evangelist of our Seattle church, he shared some thoughts with me that I think deserve a wider audience. Thus, I asked him to write an article to post on my teaching ministry website (gordonferguson.org), which he has now done. He has at least two more articles in mind on the subject that he would like to write also, which I highly encourage. Most of the articles on my website are my own, but when someone else writes on a topic that I see as critically needed, I am anxious to publish it. Daren’s article is one of those. Please read it carefully and prayerfully.
Daren Overstreet’s Article
We just returned from the Delegates meeting and the International Leadership Conference in Panama. It was a productive week, full of conversations about how we as a fellowship organize ourselves, stay connected to each other, and most importantly, how we collectively keep a hurting world on our hearts. Ultimately, the most significant thing we are doing together as church builders is helping lost souls find their place in God’s amazing story. An enormous part of that task is intentionally passing the torch on to the next generation. Our movement is nearly 40 years old, and I know we talk a lot about empowering those behind us, but are we intentionally doing it? Further, are we sure we’re teaching and modeling the things they feel are important? I’m talking to my fellow leaders and ministers who have been around awhile. We are building a church that can be a beacon of light right now, but unless we are intentional about thinking through what the next generation needs from us in order to lead into the future, our hard work now will be sadly short-sighted and struggle to endure.
The Seattle church belongs to the Northwest family of churches, and like all other regional families, we have strengths, weaknesses, and areas/opportunities for growth. A topic we’ve been talking about for the last couple of years is getting younger! And not just getting younger, but purposely raising up the young leaders required for us to see our churches not only thrive now but endure long after we’ve moved on. At a meeting a few years ago, we were all shocked when we looked around and saw mostly older, seasoned veterans in the room! The room contained quite a bit of wisdom, but not even close to enough engagement with the next generation. We have committed to making this different and have all been working hard to invest in young leaders, which includes having a much more inspiring vision for church planting and growth. We simply must have places to send them and their evangelistic dreams. Having said that, I was surprised and inspired to hear what THEY think is important as they watch us do ministry and hope for their chance. Let me explain…
This last July we had a Northwest leaders meeting in Spokane, Washington. During one session, I split the group up into 2 rooms: the younger people in one, the older leaders in another. We asked each group a series of questions. One question we asked the younger group was this: What do you want to see MORE OF in us as we pass the torch on to you? Of course they talked about more and better opportunities for training and leading, but a few of their answers jumped out at me, especially as one of the veteran leaders in the group. These answers spoke to the quality of the relationships and spirituality they see in us. There are three specifically I hope we all think about:
Be More Unified
In other words, they would like us to show them a much more inspiring picture of unity. Ouch. I just returned from the Delegates meeting, and I think we would all agree, the older generation has strong opinions about how things should be! The younger generation also has strong opinions, but here’s the thing – we happen to be in charge and do most of the talking, so we are the ceiling, and the model for how to cooperate. That’s an incredible responsibility and an opportunity I hope we don’t miss. They are asking us to show them how to maintain biblical unity even when the room is loaded with strong, differing opinions.
In the Northwest, I happen to know what some of them are referring to. We’ve had some meetings where strong opinions were shared in the group. In some of these conversations, unity was modeled well, in others not so much. I knew we had a problem when after one of these meetings, a younger leader asked me this: “Hey, do you think that at the next meeting the young folks could get their own room? We’d love to talk about some stuff on our own.” Yikes. I may not know everything, but I DO know that if younger generation is asking for their own room, there is a problem. Do you know how your young people feel you and your fellow leaders are doing here? You may want to ask…
Humility About Weaknesses
We all know humility is the main ingredient for ministry longevity. Without humility, the next generation won’t last in ministry. But again, do they see it in us? Are we modeling biblical humility by, in Scott Green’s words, “putting our worst foot forward?” Do they see us older ministers being open to change? Do they see us being able to move off our opinions and yield to each other out of love? By the way, isn’t that what the bulk of the New Testament was all about? Do they see us working at getting better, even if we’ve been in the ministry for a long time? Believe it or not, they get inspired by that, it motivates them. In Seattle this last summer, we invited Steve Staten in to do an “appreciative inquiry” (turns out, that’s a fancy name for a survey!). We wanted to find out what we were doing well, and what we needed to grow in. It’s really helpful to regularly invite an outside perspective to take a look at your work, it really is.
After Steve presented his work to the church, I got up and responded. Among other things, I told the church that my desire for us is to be a “learning church,” which simply means I want us to be in the habit of learning what we can do better. To my surprise, of all the things I said during that service, it was that one comment that was highlighted. Why? Humility resonates with people who are trying their best to grow, and I’m telling you, seeing humility in their experienced leaders inspires the young people to want to grow more. Are we modeling what the apostle Paul felt deeply in 1 Timothy 1:15-16?
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. 16 But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life.”
I have no doubt that Paul putting his “worst foot” forward provided motivation and inspiration to the young leaders he was training. How are we doing in that area?
How to Receive Criticism and Feedback
If you lead any group over about five people, I know you receive a lot of feedback, and plenty of constructive criticism. How are you doing implementing the things people have asked you to consider changing? Young people today are flattened by criticism! In a world determined to make everyone feel great, a lot of young people simply do not know what to do with the knowledge that they may have some things to grow in. I remember a sermon recently preached by one of our ministry interns in Seattle. He’s 25 years old, and a very good preacher. Here is what he said about millennials: “We are the most educated group to ever live, the most socially connected, the most benevolent, the most empowered, the most environmentally conscious, the most ambitious, AND the most sensitive. We hate hearing criticism. We know we need it, we just need to learn how to process it correctly.”
Where do they learn that? From us. So the question is, how are we at hearing things about ourselves? When is the last time you invited input into your life? When is the last time you assembled your trusted leaders and asked them what they see in you that could make you better? When is the last time you asked your leadership group or staff, “what is it like to work with me?”
By the way, it’s not just our young leaders that need to see us working through the things that hold us back, it’s also important for our members. Admit it, as your congregation ages, which means they are increasingly confronted with how often they don’t measure up to righteousness, the sermons that resonate with them are NOT the ones filled with challenging goals and high idealism. Those are needed, but they find us truly inspiring when we’re sharing the various ways God is taking our flaws and refining us. “Perfect” preachers aren’t that inspiring, flawed ones that are using God’s word to grow more Christ-like are.
In my opinion, that is precisely what made Paul the most effective trainer of men in the New Testament. He was more competent than we’ll ever be, but deeply in touch with where his power came from, which allowed him to offer us scriptures like Philippians 3:12-15:
“Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things.”
Here is what concerns me in this area. The younger generation are getting jobs for companies that have realized the power of feedback and objective criticism. They have entire systems and departments in place for receiving and implementing it. The secular world simply cannot be better at modeling this for the next generation than we are as Christian leaders. None of us have arrived, and all of us have plenty to work on as we press heavenward. Let’s show the leaders coming behind us how to find glory in the growth process.
Do any of these things surprise you? When you think of passing the torch to the next generation, are these areas you would think to spend time and energy. A common complaint from the younger generation is this: “You older folks are answering questions we’re not asking!” Let’s make sure we’re asking them what matters to them. A lot is at stake.
More to come…
Introductory Note: This article is actually an excerpt of the first few pages of my book, “The Apostle Paul: Master Imitator of Christ.” The book is one of my longest (272 pages) and also one of my most in-depth. Greater spirituality must include greater knowledge, meaning that we cannot remain satisfied with shallow reading and study. The writer of Hebrews put it this way in Hebrews 5:12-14: “In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.” In the interest of promoting deeper study, I wrote this book. In the interest of promoting deeper study through this book, I am providing this brief excerpt to whet your appetite for reading it. Enjoy!
Acts 8:1–3
And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.
Acts 9:1–2
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
This first mention of Paul (using his Hebrew name, Saul) is shocking, but it also raises a number of questions. Trying to figure out the context of a passage means that we not only look for the explicit information provided in it, but also the implicit information. Regarding the latter, some implicit information is absolute, while other information may or may not be implied. But the fact that it may makes raising the possibilities important and helps the Bible come alive. Using our imaginations can fill in many blanks for us, as long as we stay within the bounds of what would seem to be at least possible and reasonable. Thus, what is taught here explicitly is that Paul (I’ll just start using the Greek form of his name, since that is the one that we know him by best) was totally in favor of making Stephen the first Christian martyr. Next, we see that Paul’s hatred for the Christian cause wasn’t assuaged in the least by this one murder; he wanted to kill every Christian or at least inflict as much emotional and physical pain on them as possible. Then we see that he was verbally quite outspoken against disciples, and finally, that he was going all the way to Damascus to arrest both men and women who were dedicated to Jesus. Commenting that Paul seemed to be a bit of a madman isn’t a stretch, based only on what is said in these texts. Hence the question about whether he was driven solely by zeal for God (as he then understood God) or by some sort of intense anger is a reasonable one.
One reason for the question is based on our understanding of Jewish discipleship in this era. To follow a Jewish leader as your mentor involved much more than simply learning the Law, and the traditions based on it, from him. Discipleship meant that you were committed to becoming as much like this person whom you were learning from as possible. In fact, it involved a level of committing to imitate them to a point that even those of us in churches that employ discipling would be quite uncomfortable with their practices. Honestly, those practices wouldn’t be dissimilar to some of what we look back on in our history as being clearly wrong. So, why is that practice of discipleship within Judaism so relevant to our question about Paul’s motivation for persecuting Christians? It is relevant because we not only know who his mentor was; we also know something of how he chose to view and treat Christians. Suffice it to say that it was far different from Paul’s choices.
His name was Gamaliel, perhaps the most famous Rabbi of the day. We are introduced to him in Acts 5, when the apostles were creating havoc in Jerusalem. A special meeting of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body, had been called, and the confrontation between the High Priest and Peter and the other apostles led to these Jewish leaders being “furious” with the apostles and quite ready to have them put to death. In the midst of this wild atmosphere, Gamaliel spoke—calmly and reasonably. Whatever else Paul may have imitated in Gamaliel, he had not imitated his demeanor and approach in emotionally charged settings. The conclusion of his speech was quite striking: “Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God” (Acts 5:38–39).
Thus, we can safely say that Paul’s intense anger was not based upon imitating the one who was training him; it came from some other source. What might that source have been? I have two ideas, both of which are possibly implied and not stated clearly, but each of which has some biblical support (with a little imagination). Before delving into these, it must be admitted that whatever may be said about Paul’s anger level and its source, he was an extremely zealous person. That was true when he was a Jew only and it was also true when he became a Christian Jew. He was a man of passions when it came to his service of God—period. But he had an anger level that begs for a deeper examination and explanation.
Explanation 1: Paul Sensed the Truth about Jesus and Hated It
It is common for us humans to sense an unwelcome truth before we are prepared to admit it. We try to block it out of our conscious minds and keep it at the subconscious level. Most of us had exactly that reaction when seriously studying what the Bible said about our salvation for the first time (and maybe the second and third time, etc.). Is that not so? Many of us thought we were saved already and didn’t want to admit the possibility that we might be wrong and therefore yet in a lost condition. Further, by admitting that we were lost, we were also tacitly admitting that many of our relatives and friends were also lost. We knew what we had been basing our supposed salvation on and what they were basing theirs on as well. This is such a common phenomenon that we hardly need further illustrations, although there are many that could be mentioned.
Paul knew the Scriptures (Old Testament) as well as almost anyone in Jerusalem, the mecca of the Jewish religion. When he heard the Christian leaders quoting Messianic passages, he didn’t hear any passages with which he was unacquainted; he just heard a different interpretation of them. Jesus tied the Jewish leaders in knots using the exact same technique. In Galatians 1:14, here is what Paul said of himself: “I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.” By the time he wrote Galatians, his humility level had increased significantly, and to state that he had been the top student of Gamaliel wouldn’t be difficult to believe. As one becoming highly esteemed in Judaism at a young age, following in the steps of his teacher, admitting that the top echelon of Judaic scholars was completely wrong about Jesus being the Messiah of their Scriptures would have been unthinkable at first. Such an admission would not only call his own salvation into question; it would also call into question the salvation of all of his current heroes.
When Jesus finally confronted Paul personally, he made an interesting comment found only in Acts 26:14. The original account of Paul’s conversion is found in Acts 9. Paul then repeated that account in Acts 22 as he spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem who were ready to kill him. Finally, he repeated the account in Acts 26 to Roman officials, primarily King Agrippa, while imprisoned in Caesarea. In all three accounts, Jesus’ first comment to Paul is recorded: “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” For whatever reason, when he addressed Agrippa, Paul added an additional sentence spoken by Jesus when he appeared to him, as recorded in Acts 26:14: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads.” Paul also adds in this verse that Jesus spoke to him in Aramaic, a fact not mentioned in the other two accounts. I will include the three accounts of Paul’s conversion in an appendix in parallel columns if you would like to observe the similarities and the differences (asking yourself the question as to why these differences exist in their broader context).
Goads were sharp sticks used to prod livestock when they were not acting as their owners wanted. Similarly, Paul was not going in the direction for which he had been created, and was thus kicking against the goads. This was a common saying of the times in application to humans and not just livestock. The question is, precisely what did Jesus mean by it? Did he simply mean that Paul wasn’t accepting the gospel and his ultimate mission? Or was he implying also that deep inside his heart, he had already heard enough to sense that he was wrong. In the latter case, it would have been a matter of his conscience hurting him, even if he was unaware of this phenomenon at the time. Both this explanation of Paul’s anger and the next one involving the latter part of Romans 7 assume that his conscience was involved.
For the scholarly world, this assumption ushers in a problem. Some years ago, a Bible scholar named Krister Stendahl wrote a lengthy article entitled “The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West.” In this article, known now as a classic, he argued that Jews in Paul’s time didn’t struggle with guilty consciences. According to him, that is characteristic of a later form of Christianity in Western culture and popularized by writers like Martin Luther. Stendahl denied that Romans 7:14–25 applied to Paul before he was a Christian or after he became one. Of course, Paul did say that he had fulfilled his duty to God in all good conscience (Acts 23:1) and was faultless regarding righteousness based on the Law (Philippians 3:6). However, he also said that our consciences can be hardened (1 Timothy 4:2) and can be an unsafe guide (1 Corinthians 4:4). I think Jeremiah’s comment about the heart must be kept in mind when discussing conscience: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). Whatever else may be said, if having a guilty conscience is a learned behavior, as Stendahl implies, then Cain was an amazingly fast learner (Genesis 4); nor can David’s condition of being “conscience-stricken” (1 Samuel 24:5) be blamed on Luther or Western culture. I believe that Paul’s conscience, whether he was in touch with it or not, may well have had something to do with his anger level and extreme reactions toward disciples of Jesus.
Explanation 2: Paul Vented His Legalistic Spiritual Frustrations on Christians
As stated, this possible rationale for Paul’s extremity is also a conscience issue. If legalism could be perfected, Paul would be the champion. No one was more devoted to works salvation or a performance merited religion than he. His own statements along these lines speak for themselves. Perhaps that is why God chose him to be the apostle to the Gentiles rather than the apostle to the Jews, just to keep him in a place of having to constantly deal with Jewish legalists in order to protect his Gentile ministry. At any rate, one who strives with all his might to be righteous by meritorious works rather than by grace through faith is destined to be filled with frustrations and hurts, which inevitably lead to anger. Anger is a secondary reaction, a response to some type of hurt, even if the anger appears almost immediately in a given situation. If the hurts are deep enough, even from the distant past, they can prompt almost a constant state of anger, generating an emotional “hair trigger.”
In Paul’s case, his words in Romans 7:14–25 show some deep frustration and hurt that could easily have been vented through anger at others. The old saying about a man coming home from a bad day at work only to yell at his wife and children and kick the dog reflects this pattern. We often take out our pain on others, sadly. Who can claim to have never done this? Therefore, if Paul is describing his emotional condition as a legalist prior to his conversion in Romans 7, it could account for his anger at those who were saying that salvation could only be had by God’s grace demonstrated through the cross of Christ. It was that message that proved to be the stumbling block for the Jews who rejected Christ’s substitutionary death and their own woeful sinfulness (Romans 9:30–33).
Of course, in order to accept this explanation as a possible reason for Paul’s anger, you would have to accept the interpretation of Romans 7 that applies it to Paul’s preconversion days, in spite of the fact that he writes here in first person. Yet this is a literary device designed to make something more impactful emotionally for the reader—to make them feel the force of the wording in a more personal way. Although this interpretation of Romans 7 is much debated, I do believe it is the correct one. Whether it accounts for a significant part of Paul’s extreme anger or not might still remain a question, but I think this interpretation of the passage is correct, for a number of reasons. Rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel (my wheel, at least!), here is what I wrote in my exposition on the book of Romans, Romans: The Heart Set Free, under the heading of seeing ourselves as being dead to the law as paradoxical:
To really understand the law and the condemnation it wrought in our lives, we must understand its paradoxical nature (vv14–25). The paradoxes are difficult to deal with on a consistent basis, especially on an emotional level. For example, we are not under law (Romans 6:14), yet we are under law (1 Corinthians 9:21). We are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8–9), yet we are not saved without works (James 2:14–26). We must obey with all of our hearts, yet our obedience does not merit righteousness. We cannot work to earn our salvation, yet we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling! (Philippians 2:12).
Obviously, the line between correct and incorrect understanding can seem to be a fine one indeed. When we live with the correct understanding, life is fulfilling; when we live with the incorrect one, life is frustrating. Romans 7:14–25 graphically describes the latter situation. Much ink has been used discussing who Paul must have been describing in this passage. Some say it describes Paul as a Christian, while others say it describes Paul as a Jew. A variation of the second view claims that Paul used the first person in the present tense to be more graphic in showing his frustration as a Pharisee and of any person who seeks law justification. This view seems to square with the text and other texts the best.
On the surface, Paul was likely not in touch with the amount of his inner turmoil until grace found his heart. In Philippians 3:6, he wrote that he was “faultless” in legalistic righteousness. Addressing the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, he claimed to have lived before God in all good conscience (Acts 23:1). Surely Paul was one of the most exemplary Jewish leaders in all of Israel. But I have to wonder just why he was so filled with rage at Christians. A good amount of frustration and inner turmoil seems to be the most likely answer. After all, this phenomenon is not uncommon, for we all learn to stuff inner pain when we do not believe that solutions exist.
On the practical level, all of us experience the feelings expressed in this passage at various times, for all of us slip into a legalistic mindset. This is why the passage is written at this point of Paul’s argument¾he drives home the truth of how useless a performance orientation actually is! God does not want any of us to feel such frustration and failure. Being guilt ridden does not bring God glory, and it does nothing to produce in us real spirituality. In fact, living with a Romans 7 conscience is about the poorest advertisement for Christianity that we could possibly find.
Certainly this passage was not intended to be descriptive of the disciple’s normal life, although it can seem to be. Note the following biblical principles that demonstrate God’s plan for our spiritual victory over the misery depicted in Romans 7:
- We are under bondage to Christ, not to sin (Romans 6:16).
- We sin, but we do not practice sin (1 John 3:7–9).
- Christ, not sin, dwells in us (Galatians 2:20).
- We can follow through in faithful obedience with God’s power (1 Corinthians 10:13; Philippians 2:12–13, 4:13).
- Although there is a struggle between flesh and spirit (Galatians 5:17), the Spirit wins in a demonstrable way, for by his power, our lives can be worthy of imitation (1 Corinthians 4:16–17, 11:1; Philippians 3:15–17, 4:9; 1 Thessalonians 2:10–12).
- The law of the Spirit frees us from the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2).
- We are filled with rejoicing (Philippians 4:4; 1 Thessalonians 5:16), not with the frustration and failure that is described in Romans 7! Too many of us do live in Romans 7 and need desperately to move on to life in Romans.
- The most important ingredient in making that transition is how we see God and how we think he sees us.
Although there are other possible explanations for his intense degree of anger toward Christians, I think these two are the most likely, perhaps in combination. In describing Paul as a person, he was without doubt amazingly devoted to God as he saw him through the eyes of a Jewish legalist. Further, in my opinion, he was also the very epitome of the “angry young man.” He was full of zeal for God, a quality that remained for the rest of his life, but there seems to be more to it than that. In his non-Christian days, his personality went beyond zealous to the point of anger and hatred. We can debate the reason(s) behind that fact, but the fact itself would be difficult to debate successfully.
At first glance, that is an unusual title, isn’t it? It could bring to mind someone who was pressed into leadership out of pure necessity, although leadership wasn’t his or her gift (Romans 12:8). Sometimes the need does in fact call for such a decision and those who serve in such situations are to be commended for their efforts. However, I am using the title in another way, a way that may seem unusual, but with closer examination I think you will agree that it is a perfectly normal and necessary part of true spiritual leadership.
Although I have authored one book on leadership (Dynamic Leadership) and co-authored another (Golden Rule Leadership), I am always trying to learn more about such a vital subject. I believe that we have wonderful disciples of Jesus in our churches who want to be their best for God, and who will do about as well as they are led to do. That realization makes me want to keep growing as a leader in order to better help them grow as Christians. Further, the more you learn about any subject, the more you become aware of how much more there is yet to learn. I certainly view my knowledge of spiritual leadership in exactly that way. I’ve much still to learn.
So, what do I mean by the term “unnatural leader?” Actually, several related things. In the Golden Rule Leadership book that Wyndham Shaw and I co-authored years ago, we made a point about the importance of leading in an age-appropriate way. The parent who tries to lead their fifteen year old child the same way that they led them when they were five is headed for conflict and likely rebellion. The ministry leader who tries to lead a 45 year old disciple in the same way they led that same person when they were a new campus convert 25 years previously is making a similar mistake. The older disciple may not openly rebel, but at the very least they will not respond by wholeheartedly following that leader.
This leads us to the observation that leaders must be flexible enough to adjust their leadership style to the needs of those whom they are leading. All true leaders have a style that is natural to them. I call it their default style – they just do what comes naturally to them. That is not good enough. One style doesn’t meet all of the needs of the different types of people being led. Thus, all leaders have to learn to expand their leadership approaches beyond their own comfort zones in ways that are unnatural. At first, doing this will feel unnatural to both the leader and those being led, but in time, it will actually become fairly natural.
Does this sound something like hypocrisy to you? After all, it puts the leader in a position to do something that seems awkward and unnatural, perhaps making them appear as someone they are not. I have watched many leaders, perhaps the majority, lead in only one primary way – the way that comes most naturally to them. If they have a leadership gift, then they may well be effective with the majority of those whom they lead. But what about the minority of their group who doesn’t respond well to their particular leadership style? Can we just say that they are poor followers and leave it at that? That’s exactly what many (most?) leaders do, by the way. As a leader, I’m not satisfied with that answer, although I’m tempted to be. What if I can expand my leadership style in ways that would actually be effective with some of those minority folks who are more difficult to lead? If I could do that, wouldn’t God expect me to do it?
If you are a parent and have a child with learning difficulties or other behavioral challenges outside the norm, you can answer that question for us rather quickly, can’t you? You want teachers who adapt to the needs of your child, not teachers who just dismiss those needs because it is too much trouble to deal with them. Do you really think God wants those who lead his kids to just dismiss the needs of those who are more difficult to work with?
What are the real biblical issues involved here? “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). Oh, you mean that this verse about self-denial and taking up daily crosses might just apply to me as a leader? “in humility value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others” (Philippians 2:3-4). So now you are saying that these verses also apply to more than just ordinary Christian relationships − that they also apply to leader/follower relationships? Does not agape love demand that we do all that we can in any capacity to help every person as much as we can possibly help them, no matter the amount of sacrifice demanded on our parts?
Perhaps I’ve asked more questions than I’ve answered, but the answers are pretty obvious aren’t they? Being a leader is not about me; it’s about God first of all and then about his children. I don’t lead just because it’s my “thing.” I lead because God has given me a gift that carries a huge responsibility with it, the responsibility to help as many people as possible get right with God and then grow to be more and more like Christ. Every aspect of being a disciple is about the imitation of Christ in every area, especially in the area of leadership because of its increased influence on others.
Some leaders find it natural to be very challenging in their style and they love the passages that describe Jesus rebuking the Pharisees or turning over the tables of the money changers in the temple. Now that’s real leadership, right? That same Jesus had this said of him: “A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out…” (Matthew 12:20). That seems a bit different leadership style, used no doubt on those who were weak and damaged both emotionally and spiritually.
Other leaders find it natural to be gentle and encouraging. They love the Matthew 12 passage, but are uncomfortable with the Jesus who overturned those tables and rebuked the Pharisees. They pick and choose which parts of Paul’s well-rounded admonition in 2 Timothy 4:2 they want to follow: “Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.” They are good with the encouraging, the patience and even the careful instruction, but they are not so good with the correcting and rebuking parts.
Leadership is about leading in the most effective way for the most people possible. 1 Thessalonians 5:14 demands that you adapt and expand your leadership style to meet those varied needs: “And we urge you, brothers and sisters, warn those who are idle and disruptive, encourage the disheartened, help the weak, be patient with everyone.” (Note that Paul is addressing all disciples here, not just leaders.) Leaders are not called to lead within their natural personalities and comfort zones; they are called to lead like Jesus. They give encouragement when that is most needed by whomever they are leading; they give a timely rebuke when that is what is most needed. Neither discipleship nor leadership is about you doing what comes naturally. Following Jesus in any area and in any capacity means that we deny what comes naturally and do what is right before God, and through such heartfelt obedience, we will become like Jesus and what was once unnatural will become natural or at least much more natural. All leaders have to deal with their selfishness, and it comes in many forms. But if we take seriously the imitation of Christ as a lifelong process, the words of the old hymn will become an increasing reality in our lives: “Less of self, and more of Thee; none of self, and all of Thee.”
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)
