Navel Gazing

There are three distinct responsibilities for the Pastor/Elder. They are to Lead, Feed, and Protect. Included in the Leading and Feeding roles is the clear imperative of making disciples. This means reaching lost people with the message of the Gospel. This has become ever more challenging in our culture of narcissism – it’s all about me/us.

A deadening reality has settled upon many/most churches. They are engaged in what I label ‘Navel Gazing’. That is, the vast majority of ministry initiatives are focused on what makes those currently in the fold happy. Failing to do so puts the pastor at risk. He will be deemed a failure and often there will be action initiated to terminate him for cause (that cause being he did not make me/us happy!).

One of the services IgniteUS offers the local church is a Pastoral Placement Process. We work with the Placement Office at Southern Seminary led by Sam Tyson. As I review the postings of churches seeking a pastor a glaring and repetitive factor emerges. Nearly all their focus is on what the pastor must do internally. They are focused in an inordinate manner on making the existing members happy. Let me be quick to add that caring for and nurturing the flock that exists is a vital and important aspect of shepherding. However, this may not be the only or exclusive work of the pastor. To do this is deadening and is a causative factor in the persistent decline of the evangelical church in America. When churches complete the Assessment we provide nearly ALL score 1 or 2 on the Community Connection question on a scale of 1-7. This indicates they are not reaching their community and making disciples as commanded by the GC. So, what is the focus of ministry where you serve? Is it full-orbed and exegetically sound or are you 'Navel Gazing'?

The Condition of Your Flocks

Know well the condition of your flocks, and give attention to your herds, (Proverbs 27:23)

The following quote is from John Gill’s Commentary of Proverbs 27:23:  

In what condition they are; what health they enjoy; how fat and fruitful they be; what pasturage they have; and that they want nothing fitting for them that can be had and is necessary; and also the number of them. The calling of the shepherd is here particularly mentioned, because valiant, honourable, innocent, and useful; but the same diligence is to be used in all other callings and business men are employed in, that they may provide for themselves and their families. It is in the original text, "the face of thy flocks"; perhaps the allusion is to the exact and distinct knowledge some very diligent careful shepherds might have, so as to know each sheep in their flocks distinctly; see ( John 10:3 ) ; The Septuagint version renders it, the souls of thy flock, as if it was an instruction to spiritual pastors or shepherds, who have the care of the souls of men: and certain it is, that if it is the duty of shepherds in common to be diligent in looking after their sheep, and doing everything the duty of their office requires; then it must become the indispensable duty of pastors of churches to take heed to the flock of God committed to them, and to look into their state and condition, and provide for them, and feed them with knowledge and understanding, ( Acts 20:28 ) ; [and] look well to thy herds; or, "put thy heart" to them: show a cordial regard for them, and take a hearty care of them, that they have everything needful for them; and which is for the owner's good as well as theirs.

Proverbs is classified as Wisdom Literature. Indeed! Every pastor-shepherd would do well to prayerfully ponder this passage and apply it in ministry. A reasonable application of the principle stated in this passage would include the benefits of an objective assessment that displays the true condition of the flock. It is not possible to provide optimal pastoral leadership apart from this knowledge.

So, why is it that nearly all pastors and church leaders absolutely refuse to submit to such an evaluation? This post will offer five possible reasons. Do you use these excuses to avoid submitting to a solid assessment?

 

#1 – Fear Pastor-shepherds with their eyes open know intuitively the condition of their flock. They are aware of broken relationships. They are aware of the failure of the church they serve to reach the community around them. They monitor the declining attendance and offering figures. But, they would rather witness the slow decline than risk the turmoil generated by strategic intentional change initiatives that they are responsible to lead.

#2 – Substitutes Activity, frenetic activity is a smoke screen used to hide reality. The idea is this. Since we are so busy, have so much activity we must be effective. Wrong. Activity alone does not produce transformation. That requires intentionality with purpose, persistence, and accountability.

#3 – Incompetence 75% of pastors who participated in a survey done by the Francis Schaeffer Leadership Institute indicated they had no training or equipping from their college or Seminary in leadership. They know deep down they are not equipped to tackle the rigors required in the transformation process. This is sad. Hiding from reality is not the solution. Be bold and courageous. Get some equipping and enlist an outside voice that will guide the process.

#4 – Cost The persistent decline in churches includes the decline in available funds. However, cost is not the real issue. There is a net net increase in the contributions to a local church when that church becomes healthy and effective. When a church is healthy they have new people that become members. Redeemed people live in obedience to the LORD and contribute financially. Refusing assessment that enables the church to become healthy and effective perpetuates the inadequate funding required for ministry.

#5 – Comfort This is not pretty but sadly true. I have been told that while things are not well, they will be OK until I am gone. What? That is the attitude of what Scripture calls a hireling not a faithful shepherd. Leading the change process of necessity includes tension and perhaps even outright conflict. 

Be that as it may, faithful shepherds that know the condition of their flocks lead on, embrace assessment, and respond appropriately to what the assessment tells them about the condition of their flock.

Exegetical Precision

If you please God, it does not matter whom you displease. And if you displease Him, it does not matter whom you please. (Steve Lawson)

I recently responded to a post on Face Book. There was a picture of a young lady wearing a long sleeve green t-shirt. One word was printed on the shirt – ‘Whosoever’ in large letters. In much smaller letters under that word was the reference John 3:16.

I responded to that post and pointed out that there is no such word (whosoever) in the text in the original language in John 3:16. WOW! The free-willers went ballistic. Hundreds of people cited the NIV, the KJV, etc. as proof that whosoever is indeed in that passage.

It mattered not that I gave the following interpretation from the text in the original language:

In this manner, God loved the world that he actually gave his unique one of a kind son with the express purpose that the believing ones will not perish but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

Emotions and tradition trump exegesis. Many virtually attacked my person for even stating such. I graciously thanked each person for their response and once again cited the textual evidence for this interpretation.

Why do I share this incident? Because our culture is swimming in biblical illiteracy and it is evident that no amount of sound interpretive evidence changes anyone’s mind. Private interpretations (2Peter 1:20) rather than the authority of the text reign supreme in what they want to believe the Scripture says. Take note of this pastor as this is what you are facing.

God uses the message of Special Revelation to transform people. He does not honor the distorted and privatized preferences of ill-informed people clinging to their traditions.

Weigh Not Thy Life

http://www.hymnary.org/text/my_soul_weigh_not_thy_life 

I post this hymn to encourage and lift up those faithful men who are weary in the battle. Read the words of this hymn over and over. Sing them in the night season. Let them penetrate the deepest fiber of your pastoral being. And remember, JOY comes in the morning!!

Author: Leonard Swain

Swain, Leonard, D.D., was born at Concord, New Haven, Feb. 26, 1821, and educated at Dartmouth College and Andover. In 1847 he became a Congregational minister at Nashua, New Haven; and in 1852 of Central Church, Providence, Rhode Island. He died July 14, 1869. His hymns, "My soul, it is thy God" (The Christian Race), and "My soul, weigh not thy life" (The Good Fight of Faith), appeared anonymously in The Sabbath Hymn Book, 1858, and their authorship has only recently been determined. The second hymn is the more widely used of the two. [Rev. F. M. Bird, M.A.] -- John Julian, Dictionary of Hymnology (1907).

Weigh Not Thy Life

 My soul, weigh not thy life

Against thy heavenly crown;

Now suffer Satan's deadliest strife

to beat thy courage down.

With prayer and crying strong,

Hold on the fearful fight,

And let the breaking day prolong

The wrestling of the night.

The battle soon will yeild,

If thou they part fulfill;

For strong as is the hostile shield,

Thy sword is stronger still.

Thine armor is divine,

Thy feet with victory shod;

And on thy head shall quickly shine

The diadem of God.

New Year’s Resolutions & Commitment

I recently received a request from a Missionary in Zambia Africa. He expressed interest in the ‘Leadership Is’ material that I offer. At the close of his message he said - - “commitment is a problem in Africa”!

I responded by stating that commitment is a problem in America as well and particularly in the evangelical church. People seem to have forgotten or perhaps never considered the Biblical Principle ‘Let Your Yes be Yes’ and do what you agreed to do. Service is not an option. It is both a privilege and an obligation.

The following chart shows the failure of most in honoring this tradition?

Percent of Americans who usually make New Year’s Resolutions	45%
Percent of Americans who infrequently make New Year’s Resolutions	17%
Percent of Americans who absolutely never make New Year’s Resolutions	38%
Percent of people who are successful in achieving their resolution	8%
Percent who have infrequent success	49%
Percent who never succeed and fail on their resolution each year	24%
People who explicitly make resolutions are 10 times more likely to attain their goals than people who don’t explicitly make resolutions

How do you measure up? Happy New Year!!

Leaders & Listening

In 1962 I served on the USS Independence, CVA 62, an air craft carrier. In April we deployed to the Mediterranean  for what was to be a period of nine months. Near the end of August we returned to Norfolk, crossing the Atlantic Ocean in 3 days, a trip that under normal circumstances takes 8-10 days for a carrier.

In early September we deployed to the Caribbean. We circled Cuba for 6 weeks. We now have learned the reason for our rapid return to the East Coast - Russia had deployed missiles on Cuban soil, 90 miles from the USA.

We had 96 planes and a crew of 5,000 on that ship. One afternoon in late October we went to General Quarters, a condition of battle readiness. The launch of those planes was scheduled for 4 PM. Normally such drills ended after one hour. 3:15 - still on. 3:30 - still on. At 3:40 the launch was canceled. We came within 20 minutes of nuclear war with Russia! John F. Kennedy was our President at that time. He crafted a deal with Khrushchev that prevented the outbreak of war.

Fast forward to November 6, 2015. We visited the Arlington National Cemetery.  Kennedy is buried there. We viewed his grave site and the flame, etc. Several weeks ago I watched Bill O'Riley's movie Killing Kennedy. I relived much of what took place in 1962. In the mid 90's Peggy & I visited Key West Florida. I stood by the pylon that marks the southern most point of land in the USA. It is 90 miles to Cuba from that spot. It was then that I grasped some of the geographical significance of the missile crisis.

It is no secret that Jack Kennedy was a carouser and an adulterer. At one point Bobby Kennedy is speaking to Jack in his office. He covers several issues and then says - - 'Jack, you have a 'woman problem'. It is a matter of record that some of the females in Jack's philandering very well may have presented security risk to our country.

Jack turned his back, walked over to his desk and said indignantly - - 'is that all'? In that scene he was dismissing Bobby's rebuke and demonstrating a lethal flaw in the character of any leader. The refusal to hear and respond appropriately to a well placed rebuke.

Real leaders listen. What kind of listener are you?

Transcendent Authority & The Public Square

When any community of people loses a Transcendent and Authoritative “Center” that governs all morality and institutions, it has then embarked on the road to disintegration.

When the USA launched a deliberate and intentional campaign to rid the Public Square of God and His Truth, the seeds of our destruction had been sown. No prayer in the schools. The elevation of the individual over the community. The persistent elevation of man with unlimited ‘freedom’ to make rather than abide by any transcendent Law doomed us to fragmentation of the loss of community.

The onslaught persists. The Freedom From Religion folks are now trying to tell the football coach at Clemson University that he may not guide his players, albeit voluntarily to engage in Christian worship and activities.

The FFR folks tried that here in Cullman. The community response, we still have community here, was 5,000+ turned out for an impromptu Prayer Meeting.

Ask yourself this question – - ‘Are we better off today than we were in 1950?’

That deeper issue was the vogue of moral relativism specifically, Lippmann was concerned that there were no longer any transcendent moral standards to which to appeal in guiding either the government or the people. In the first half of the 20th century, there had been a trend to separate the law from reference to any higher moral system. Lippmann had now come to see that as a dangerous innovation. Institutions of free societies, the observed, had been founded “on the postulate that there was a universal order on which all reasonable men were agreed.” In the era of the America’s founding, even if the more secular thinkers and the traditional Christians may have differed on the exact source of that order and its content, “they did agree that there was a valid law which, whether it was the commandment of God or the reason of things, was transcendent.” Speaking of such essential principles as “freedom of religion and of thought and of speech,” Lippmann affirmed that “the middle of the seventeenth and eighteenth century who established these great salutatory rules would certainly have denied that a community could do without a general public philosophy.” But the idea, so essential to establishing democratic institutions, that there was such a higher moral order had not survived modern pluralism,” and “with the disappearance of the public philosophy–and a consensus on the first and last things–there was opened up a great vacuum in the public mind, yawning to be filled.” (George Marsden, The Twilight Of The American Enlightenment, p. 46 quoting Walter Lippmann in Essays In The Public Philosophy, 1955).

I vote NO! What about you?