TILL HE COMES Blog

I made it to round 3 at the PlantingSpace Blogging Tournament! Thank you to everyone who voted for me. Below is my submission for Round 3, in which we were to address some aspect of leadership selection and training. I chose to focus on how to find leaders. If you want to vote for me or someone else, click here. Thanks!

If you want to find the leaders in your church, you need to look for marshmallows. No, not people who are puffed up and white. We have enough of those already. Instead, look for six other good marshmallow leadership qualities.

First, marshmallows are tasty. They can make bad things taste good (Marshmallow Yams) and good things better (Fluffer Nutter). Similarly, leaders are enjoyable to be around. They will be people of grace, kindness, tenderness, and compassion.

Second, they bind together and are sticky. Rice Crispy Treats would be just a bowl of cereal without the marshmallows. And have you ever tried to get melted marshmallow out of your hair? Leaders bring people together and bind them around a common purpose or goal.

Third, they always rise to the top. Ever try to sink a marshmallow? It can’t be done. People naturally follow leaders and leaders naturally lead. In your church, who do people look to for solutions? Who do they go to for answers and advice? Who do they turn to for comfort and safety?

Fourth, marshmallows are multifunctional. Marshmallows are not only good for eating, they can also be used to generate laughs (Chubby Bunny anyone?) and for endless holiday crafts. Similarly, leaders are flexible enough to work in a variety of situations and flow effortlessly from one role to another.

Fifth, they’re often singed because they’re frequently near fire. A good church leader storms the gates of hell. They make friends at the fringes and take risks where they might get burned or come home smelling like smoke.

Sixth, when they get in the fire, they actually get bigger. Leaders learn best in the forge. If they can stand the heat, they will increase their leadership skills, expand their sphere of influence, and become great leaders.

3 Comments »

I was reading the Gospel of Matthew today and came to the sobering realization that if I were alive at the time of Jesus Christ, I probably would not have been one of his disciples. All Christians today like to think that if we were alive when Jesus walked the earth, we would be the thirteenth disciple. I think most of us are delusional. I know I am.

In Matthew 8:19, a man comes to Jesus and says, “I’ll follow you!” It’s so easy to say. Isn’t it?

How does Jesus respond? He basically says, “If you follow me, you won’t have a home, an income, a bed to sleep in, or regular meals to eat. Still want to sign up?” (Matthew 8:20).

Take a real, good, hard, honest look at your life. Are you really willing to give up your house, your job, your bed, your income, and your meals to follow Jesus?

I know my own heart. I think I would have said, “Oh. Well…in that case…let me go home and ‘pray’ about it.” (Which is Christian lingo for “No.”)

And then I read this in Alan Hirsh’s book The Forgotten Ways:

I have come to the conclusion that for we who live in the Western world, the major challenge to the viability of Christianity is not Buddhism, with all its philosophical appeal to the Western mind, nor is it Islam, with all the challenge that it poses to Western culture. It is not the New Age that poses such a threat; in fact, because that is a genuine search going on in new religious movements, it can actually be an asset to we who are willing to share the faith amidst the search. All these are challenges to us, no doubt, but I have come to believe that the major threat to the viability of our faith is that of consumerism (p. 106).

Consumerism has actually become the driving idealogy of the church’s ministry (p. 110).

[Consumerism teaches us] that the thing that will complete us in a new kitchen or a house extension, whereas in fact these only add more stress to our mortgages and our families. … Offered “heaven now,” we give up the ultimate quest in pursuit of that which can be immediately consumed, be it a service, product, or pseudo-religious experience (p. 111).

What are your thoughts on all this? I want to follow Jesus, but I also want to provide a nice home, good food, warm clothing, and a soft bed for my wife and three girls. How can that be incompatible with following Jesus? I don’t see how it can be, but maybe I’m just drunk on consumerism and am in denial. Any suggestions?

No Comments »

David Murrow is one of my favorite authors. Not only that, he is a creative thinker about how to reach one of the hardest segments of our culture–men. Here is what he wrote about a new paradigm for church planting that he has been rolling around in his head. I think he is on to something here that will help all of us do a better job at making disciples. Thank you David! I look forward to reading the rest of his thoughts on this. 

Today’s most talked-about church models are polar opposites: megachurches and house churches. Megachurches attempt to draw thousands each weekend with a combination of professional music, top-flight preaching and a phalanx of ministry opportunities. House churches assemble a handful of believers for intimate fellowship, personal expression and a sense of belonging.

These approaches have both strengths and weaknesses when it comes to reaching men. Megachurches offer amazing quality – but they’re so big men can fall through the cracks. House churches offer close fellowship – but they can become ingrown and a bit stale.

I’d like to suggest a third model for the local church, based on Luke 10. I call it The Seventy-Two Church. It’s an idea that’s been rolling around in my head for a couple of years. It’s a hybrid – a cross between a house church and a typical congregational model. It bears some resemblance to the Methodist societies that led so many to Christ in the 1700s and 1800s. Let me share the concept with you and see what you think.

How we plant churches now. Almost every church plant begins as a weekly worship service. The goal is to present good preaching and music so that people start coming. Eventually you buy property and build a building. The idea is to create a large gathering of strangers (a crowd) and eventually work these folks into the life of the church (the core). This is the concept that built Saddleback into one of the world’s most influential churches.

The weakness of this approach is obvious: as the church grows, its ability to minister to individuals is diminished. Big churches know this, so they work overtime to get people into small groups. But most church attenders never find their way to a small group. So these churches draw big crowds, but their impact on their members’ lives is not what it could be (Willow Creek recently admitted as much).

Now, what if you flipped the equation? Instead of growing a large worship service, then trying to get people into small groups, why not build the church on small groups in the first place?

This is how Jesus did it. He started His church with one small men’s group. Twelve regular guys learning, doing and living life together.

Eventually He expanded his reach to 72 men (see Luke 10). Now, where do you think these 72 came from? How were they trained? The Bible does not say. But I have a theory: if each of the 12 apostles trained 5 more men, you’d have 72 men either directly or indirectly trained by Jesus.

Why couldn’t you establish a church today based on this model? Its centerpiece would not be a weekly worship service, but rather a network of relationships – in this case, seventy-two men who are all being personally discipled every week.

I hear paradigms cracking all over the world. I can imagine the objections are already rising in your throat. Bear with me a moment, as we see how a seventy-two church might work in the real world.

Structure and leadership are crucial. Our new church plant starts with a leader (let’s call him Pastor Jack). His first task would be to call 12 men to a rigorous, demanding course of discipleship. Jack would meet regularly with his twelve, focusing on the basics of the faith, including mutual confession, accountability, Biblical living, beating temptation, and practical service to God.

Once friendships form among the men, Jack would pair them up two-by-two. He would give each pair of men a nickname. (Jesus dubbed James and John “The Sons of Thunder.” That sounds nice and manly.) Jack would send each pair out to do stuff together: ministry, recreation and fun. The idea is to get them working together as a unit.

After a year or so, Jack would have a dozen trained, committed leaders who will become the foundation of his church of seventy-two. Then Jack would issue the big challenge: each pair should go out and find 10 more men who really want to grow in faith. Jack would continue to meet with his original 12 men to help them form their groups and raise their men up to maturity.

Assuming the pairs fill their groups, you’d have 72 men being discipled. (12 original disciples, leading 6 groups of 10 men each = 72 men). The foundation of Jack’s church is not a weekly gathering of strangers but a rich honeycomb of men becoming like Jesus. These men are already in accountability pairs, following Jesus as a team.

At this point, a church of 72 would look more like a men’s ministry than a church. But don’t worry; you’re just laying the foundation. Christ told us to build upon a rock. He looked a Simon (a man) and changed his name to “Rock.” It’s time we begin building our churches not on preaching and music, but on the bedrock of transformed men. Upon this rock you can build a strong, enduring church.

No Comments »

So we’ve seen the two basic models of discipleship and the pros and cons of each. Ideally, there should be a way to blend the two so we keep the positive aspects of each while avoiding the negative. Here is what Matt Chandler is doing at his church: 

1. You must create an air that celebrates life transformation and change. These things must be championed and celebrated from the stage in the service every single week. Use video and testimony to celebrate growth, transformation, and movement. It cannot be a sermon series once a year. You have to constantly, constantly bang the drum of progressive sanctification. And you MUST celebrate more than just the “miracle.” Yes, put up the guy who drank and drank and drank, and then came to Christ, and hasn’t desired a drink since. But also, champion the guy who is still raw, who still struggles. You get a guy up there to say, “I’m struggling, but let me tell you where I see God.”

2. Have lots of “on ramps” and “off ramps.” Make it easy for people to get involved in various ways of spiritual transformation, and make it ways for them to just rest in what they have learned. Allow times when you just back away from everything, and not try to control things, and just let them sit, rest, and germinate.

3. Keep flexible. The mission and end goal is sacred, but nothing else is. Ask yourself: What stirs your affections for Jesus Christ? And what robs you of that affection? Almost all of us have different answers to these questions. You must be flexible enough not to dictate to the people in your church how they are to grow spiritually. Some read Edwards. Some play the piano. Some go to the graveyard. Some go the art museum. We’ve got to figure out how to give our people freedom to press on toward the Lord. You can lay some track for them, but you can’t punish people when they deviate off that track.

4. There needs to be a relational aspect to everything. Everything. Here are some ways to make things relational:

a. Home groups. You can’t just throw people in a room and have community together. We need to try to help people build community, but it is very, very difficult. If they already have community, encourage them to stay with that group. Tell the older people they have a fishing license, and you are giving them a stocked lake. Tell them to look around and invite a couple over for dinner so they can pour their lives into someone younger. If you try to assign people to relationships, it won’t work.

b. Recovery ministry. There are lots of “short circuits” that people need help with. Drug. Alcohol. Relationships. Porn. Anger. Eating.

c. Whatever teaching you do, be heavy on application.

d. Use film to teach theology. (But get a license to show these films.)

e. Children and youth. Don’t teach moralism. Don’t teach a fake, external morality. Teach strong doctrine, and then engage the parents in the process. Provide the parents tools to help teach the children. For example, suggest field trips they can take their children on and questions they can ask. If we teach the children at church, and this doesn’t get reinforced at home, all we are teaching our children is to compartmentalize their Church life from the rest of their life.

6. ALL OF THIS TAKES TIME. LOTS OF TIME. Find mature leaders. Pair them with 2-3 others, and tell them to walk together for 2-3 years intentionally. Then, these people turn around, and disciple 2 or 3 more, while they are still being discipled by those over them. So eventually, everyone is discipling and being discipled.

So, that is a broad-brush overview of what they are trying to do. He said to check back in 20-30 years to see if it worked. Do you have any ideas or suggestions on how we can encourage community while keeping people in the Word?

No Comments »

Yesterday I introduced the two basic discipleship models. Today, I review the pros and cons of each model as presented by Matt Chandler.  

Pros of the Mechanical-Linear Discipleship Model

1. There is no better way to disseminate information, and get people to learn Bible and theology.
2. It has had some historical success.
3. There are TONS of resources and curriculum.
4. It’s easy to measure. How many went through all the steps?
5. It’s easy to motivate people to join and participate.
6. It lends itself to great theology.

Cons of Mechanical-Linear Discipleship Model

1. It’s hard to sustain. It starts big, and people fall off every week.
2. It can lead to coldness.
3. It lends itself primarily to the mechanical, mathematical, engineering types (which is a good thing) but most others have trouble keeping up.
4. Such programs have a tendency to become very sacred, and if you later try to stop such programs, people get angry.

Pros of the Organic-Relational Discipleship Model

1. It seems to yield the greatest results. People stick around when there are authentic communities. If they feel safe, they are much more prone to stick.
2. It tends to appeal to a broader group of personality types. Most of us are not intellects. But almost all of us are relational. We all long for and want community and relationships. It still allows the intellects to cross-pollinate.

Cons of the Organic-Relational Discipleship Model

1. We are all sinners. If we are not intentionally maturing, we won’t mature. Maturity doesn’t just happen.
2. It’s nearly impossible to measure. The only thing you have to count is numbers, and that doesn’t really tell you much.
3. It’s nearly impossible to control. You get leaders teaching very strange things in their groups.

Curiously, there is a huge schism over these two approaches today, and generally, this schism seems to follow along generational lines. Those who are in their 20s and 30s lean more toward the organic model while those over 40 lean heavily on the mechanical.

There may be ways to blend the pros of both while avoiding the cons. We’ll look tomorrow at what Matt Chandler is doing in his church, and maybe make a few general suggestions for what other churches can do as well.

3 Comments »

The number one question in most churches today is “How can we properly, adequately, and effectively make disciples?” If this isn’t your church’s number one question, you should probably shut down the church and go read Matthew 28:19-20 again.

This was the topic of Matt Chandler’s session at the Regional Acts 29 Conference yesterday. (They recorded the session, and so if/when I find out how to obtain the audio, I will update this post with that information.) In the next three posts, I will review what he said. It parallells exactly what I’ve been thinking for about a year now, which is why it was so exciting to me.

Today, I will simply introduce in broad brush strokes the two most common methods of making disciples in our churches today. Tomorrow, we will discuss the pros and cons of each, and on Friday, we will present a few ideas for how to take the pros from both approaches and incorporate them into the church while avoiding the cons.

Organic Discipleship

Matt began by pointing out that there are two basic approaches to making disciples in churches today. The first is relational discipleship (which he called “organic”), where the church encourages people to get together in some sort of home groups where they hang out, develop relationships, and just trust the Holy Spirit to work in their midst bringing them into the knowledge of the truth. They will often have some sort of “designated driver” to lead the group in a particular direction, but often the leader doesn’t really know how to get people “home” or what that “home” is. This approach tends to generate lots and lots of numerical growth in a church, but very little deep spiritual growth.

Mechanical-Linear Discipleship

Then there is the content-based model of discipleship, which Matt referred to as the “Mechanical-Linear” model. It will often have certain steps and classes that a person has to progress through on the “path” of discipleship. In this approach, discipleship is often equated with learning. There will be notebooks full of notes, classes that people can take, and different levels to aspire to. This approach does not get the great numbers that the organic approach does, but does give a few people a lot of information and knowledge about the Bible and theology.

During my five years as a pastor, I adopted and leaned heavily upon the Mechanical-linear model. I even spent time in certain sermons and Bible studies to criticize and condemn the Organic model. Now, three years out of pastoral ministry, and looking at heading back into it through church planting, I have been able to think, reflect, watch, and study these two models at work, and see numerous pros and cons to both. Tomorrow, I will review the pros and cons of each model that Matt Chandler has seen. 

No Comments »

I am not persuaded that “home churches” are the only way to do church. I think there is very little in Scripture about the “how” of church. As long as disciples are being made, and we are loving God, and loving others, I can be flexible on most other matters of the church.

However, one website I puruse has a post of 10 questions that all believers need to ask themselves about the church they attend. These questions come from a person who thinks that “home churches” are the only way to go, but I think we all need to ask them. Questioning why we do what we do in church can help us focus on what God says in Scripture, and how we can effectively live it out in our world. Here are the questions:

Here is my List of the Top 10 Questions to ask our caring friends and relatives about Home Church:

1. Well Uncle John, we home church because we see it mentioned in the scriptures like Rom.16:5 and I Cor. 16:19. When you’ve studied out why you gather the way you do, what did you discover?

2. Sister Suzi, when you gather together on Sundays, how do you all fullfil I Cor. 14:26? And how did you personally exercise your to the edifying of others last Sunday?

3. Yes, Aunt Jenny order in the church is very important, I truly agree. And since the Bible is our source of understanding church order, can you help me to find the scriptures that identify a single, pastor OF a church? I see that pastors are one of several different given to the church, but I can’t seem to find where they are in charge of a church…

4. Cory, you bring up a good point about assembling together with other believers. So that we’re both on the same sheet of music, how many are supposed to gather together (minimum) before Christ will be in the midst of them? And also which verse tells me which building we must gather in?

5. Just so I understand you Cousin Andy, are you saying that if I don’t go to YOUR church I’m not in the will of God? What was the verse on that again? And also, which book in the Bible tells me how to create a 501(c)3 non-profit organization?

6. You’re absolutely right Neighbor Gene, we don’t have a Praise Team, a Vacation Bible School, and we don’t send our tithes to headquarters. Can you help me find the verses that direct me in these matters so I can walk in obedience like you?

7. How do we pay our tithes? Good question Ronnie. If I remember right, we live in the New Testament. Can you show me one place in the New Testament (which is after the death of Christ because that’s when Testaments come into effect) where I’m directed to tithe? Now if you’re asking about our giving, we give as unto the Lord (often times above 10%) to the poor we meet on our way, to ministries the Lord has directed us to give to and to our neighbor who is a widow and a godly woman. Reciepts? Well whether or not we get a tax write off isn’t the point is it…?
8. Accountability is important Brother Doug. And since accountability has in it’s definition rewards or punishments for our actions that we’re accountable for, could you tell me how you personally practice your weekly accountability where you fellowship? Who were you accountable to and what has been your weekly reward or punishment? I guess I thought I was accountable to the Lord (Rom.14:12)

9. Of course we care about our children Sister Edna. But if I’m not mistaken, the Bible tells us, as little Joey’s parents, that WE are responsible for diligently teaching and training our children in the knowledge of God. We didn’t know we were supposed to delegate that to a Youth Pastor. That’s very interesting. Can you show us that scripture or any scripture that talks about Youth Pastors, Youth Camps, Praise Teams, Youth Leaders, Sunday School… Not these aren’t helpful perhaps, but are they required?

10. Stan, we’ve been praying and seeking God for several weeks about our direction as a family, like you have for yours I’m sure. And with fear and trembling, we feel that we are walking in obedience to the Word of God concerning meeting together as a church in our home. I know you’re asking me the questions you’re asking because you care about us. Do you see something in what we’re doing that violates the scriptures? Can you show me?

I hope these thoughts are encouraging (and maybe a little humorous). I find that most folks haven’t really studied out why they do what they do, so when I ask for answers according to the scriptures, I usually get “uhs” and “Well, I’ve always heard that…”

We all should know why we do what we do. I’ve had to come to grips with each of these questions myself - according to the word. And it’s the word that is our direction, stability and authority. Anything else is opinion, heresay and rumor.

4 Comments »

One of the things I love most about being a pastor is preaching the Word. For years, I have thought that a church can get by without music, without a building, without programs, without youth groups and children’s programs, but a church is not a church if it doesn’t preach the Word.

But upon deeper reflection, I think this is partly due to the fact that preaching and teaching the Word is my gift. I am a teacher, and so naturally, believe that teaching is the most important part of church. And better yet, I even have a verse! 2 Timothy 4:2 says “Preach the Word.”

But recently, I have undertaken the practice of questioning absolutely everything the church does in light of Scripture and effectiveness. (By the way, I define “effectiveness” as “making disciples.” Something is “effective” if it is helping people become more like Christ.)

And the stats and studies are in. As much as it pains me to admit it, preaching is one of the most ineffective ways of making disciples. So along with me asking “Why?” about every other aspect of church, I have had to painfully face that tough questions about my own passion as well. Why do I preach, especially when it is so ineffective? Should we abandon the sermon altogether?

So I set out to figure out what Paul meant in 2 Tim 4:2, and if it was meant as a universal command for all who lead part of church. For various reasons, I do think it is a universal instruction for all pastors. All pastors are to preach the Word.

As I studied what Paul might have had in mind when he told Timothy to “Preach the Word” I learned that preaching in Paul’s day was not much like “preaching” in our day. There are few (if any) accounts of a monologue sermon where one person gets up, and teaches for 30 minutes or an hour, and then sits down. ”Preaching” in Paul’s day was closer to what we would think of as “Teaching.” There was frequent interaction between the main teacher and the students.

When you read the Gospels and Acts, you see hints that this is the way Jesus, the apostles, and Paul taught. When you read the sermon transcriptions of the early church fathers, especially those of St. John Chrysostom (aka “Golden Tongue”) when he taught through books of the Bible, it becomes clear that while the “Teacher” did most of the speaking, there was a lot of interaction with those who were there to hear him.

And guess what? Those same studies that have proven the ineffectiveness of preaching have also shows that interactive teaching is incredibly effective. Interactive teaching engages the mind, helping the learner not only learn the text, but also how to study it on their own, and then apply it to their lives.

This is not to say that there is never a place for one person standing up in front of a crowd and delivering a monologue. In fact, that may be the only way to teach in some large-group settings (though even then, wise teachers may include a Q&A time after the message). But for the most part, I am convinced that some sort of interaction should be a normal part of “preaching.”

Looking back to the times I have taught this way, I now realize that it is in these interactive studies that I have most often felt the electric presence of the Holy Spirit. Do I love “Upfront-on-the-stage-in-the-spotlight” preaching? Sure. Who wouldn’t like that? But I love being used by the Holy Spirit to make disciples more.

3 Comments »

One question I have been mulling over recently is “Who is the church service for - believers or unbelievers?” Those who answer “believers” will often have church services that cater to the needs and desires of Christians. There will be an emphasis on programs and teaching that meet the needs of Christians. The sermons will often center on teaching Christians what they need to know to be better Christians. The songs will often use terms and ideas that Christians are familiar with. The programming will center around issues that Christians are dealing with. In the churches I have pastored, this is the approach I used. But we always did a poor job of reaching unbelievers, as do most churches who follow this model.

Unbelievers who visit a church that is focused on “making disciples of Christians” will often be confused and weirded out by what goes on: “What’s with all the teaching from Romans? What does ‘justification’ mean? You say Jesus is coming back? That sounds a bit like the legends that say King Arthur is returning. Why do I want to learn ‘Christian business principles’? I don’t really want to be ‘washed in the blood of the lamb’ or be the ‘bride of Jesus.’ ”

Some churches have understood that much of what the church does and says is a little strange to unbelievers, so they try to look at things from the perspective of an unbeliever, and make the church more “seeker sensitive.” They gear the church service not toward the Christian, but toward the non-Christian who knows next to nothing about the Bible or church traditions. This tends to attract lots of crowds, and even generates lots of new believers, which is great, but ends up allowing most of these new believers to remain in relative immaturity. Bill Hybels and Willow Creek have recently announced this fact for their own church. The “seeker sensitive” model, while it attracts large crowds, does a poor job of bringing those crowds to spiritual maturity.

Is there a balance or middle ground between the two? I think there is, which we will begin looking at tomorrow. We will see that the solution to the problem begins by reassessing who the church service is for.

3 Comments »

One of the blogs I read daily is The Ongoing Adventures of the ASBO Jesus. The author is a pastor in the UK who writes a comic strip about Jesus, Christianity, and the church. Most often, I find his strips spot on.  The one below is true on multiple levels.

This is true first of all as he has shown it. The “church” has made so many additions to what the church is supposed to be and do, that we barely represent the church any more. We need to strip all this away, and get back to being and doing what Jesus intended.

But also, this strip could be true of the offer of eternal life, how to be a follower of Jesus, and just life in general. Simple is always best.

No Comments »