It's going to take time!

Finally I got to church yesterday. What with Christmas, family visits and weekend introductory courses, I haven't actually been to church for a month. Well not on a Sunday anyway, and not to a building that we mistakenly call the church and... Actually I have "been church" over the last month, just not in a standardised and sanitised appointed 1.5 hour worship experience.

Anyway, we toddled off somewhere yesterday and had a good time. Perhaps "good time" is not an appropriate description of what we did, but it will have to suffice. It certainly wasn't traditional, and it wasn't slick, but it was open and relaxed and engaging and okay. Is that the right way to describe a worship event-Okay? Who knows! It was interesting to be part of the congregation, mostly unknown in terms of my background. Only one or two possibly knew I'm a minister and I didn't tell anyone! Not that it's a secret, it just takes a bit of explaining! Rather like explaining that just because I used to work for British Gas didn't qualify me to fit a central heating system or that having studied chemistry that I would be able to fill my grandmother's prescriptions for her because the shop is called "Boots the Chemist" rather than "boots the Pharmacist"!

So what's going to take take time? Well, mostly it's about finding a place within a Christian community. One of the reasons for not disclosing readily my background as a minister is in order to not get pigeonholed into a role of any kind. If I'm a leader, then I want that to emerge through service rather than imposed by virtue of training. Eventually, if we settle in the community we visited, then it will become apparent, more widely known as we become more widely known within the community. The risk I run is being seen as the quiet one who doesn't say much. But then again, keeping quiet isn't a bad habit for someone who's been preaching for twenty years.

I don't know if it's going to be more difficult after two decades of ministry or if we will simply ease ourselves into ordinary church life. I don't know how it will be sitting in the congregation listening to otters do what I used to do. I don't know how I will respond if and when an opportunity to speak is offered. All these things lie ahead of us. I just hope that we don't lose sight of the simple church idea that is forming in our hearts and minds.

Holy Yoga

I know, I know, yoga and Christianity doesn't mix well, particularly for evangelicals, but as a form of exercise it remains fairly popular. So what are we to do?

One approach is to reject it as a distraction or deviation at best, fraught with pitfalls and dangerous mystical beliefs and practices. An alternative is to think redemption. That appears to be what one group is seeking to by developing a Christian based alternative.

I'm in London today to see for myself what holy yoga looks like and to meet a Christian practitioner. Should be an interesting morning!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Ministry and mission preparation

Here's an article that's worth a read if you are thinking/wondering about the role of the minister in a post-Christendom world.

One key quote to think about:

One of the most disastrous effects of Christendom upon our systems of theological education has been the unhelpful assumption that the Church does and should exist at the center of our society. Under this vision, seminaries have equipped leaders who would excel at managing and maintaining this system. However, as the missio Dei and its implications for the Gospel and the Church come back into focus in Post-Christendom, we submit that our systems of theological education must be re-imagined for the purposes of training missionary leaders. These will be leaders whose concerns and skill-sets revolve not around managing churches as part of an ostensibly "Christian" culture, or in the interest of "church growth," but around mobilizing the people of God for participation in God's mission in the world.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The problem with church is...

We had an interesting discussion at the ministers' gathering yesterday. Sparked by me I have to say before anyone looks for someone else to blame! The question I wanted to raise comes out of a continuing desire to see the church blossom and flourish as a missional community in partnership with God. It does not arise from any personal agenda beyond a conviction that we are not all that we could be. That there is an adventure of faith that we are yet to experience and enjoy.

I just needed to say that before anyone gets upset or worried about the question I raised and the analysis I offered.

My question was this: Is full-time ministry as we deploy it in today's churches the very reason the church is not flourishing? In other words, are we as minister the problem?

The reason for the question is probably rooted in a concern that the primarily management model of ministry into which we have fallen has removed the pioneering, church planting pattern of the early church. We have as they say, moved from mission to maintenance, and we need to move back again.

But there is more. This shift has produced a professionalisation of ministry to the point where I think it is in danger of being detrimental to the spiritual growth and ministry involvement of the majority of the church. We defer to the minister as the one trained to do what biblically we are all called to do. We look to our ordained leaders as omni-competent, able to fulfil all the required roles of the leadership of the church. This is not good. I don't believe any one person can fulfil the role of apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher and evangelist, and neither does anyone else as far as I can tell. But we act like it's true. We say the days of the one-man band are over, but we carry on doing things in the same way. Perhaps, if we didn't have so-called full-time minister, we might see more leadership talent released and more ministry happen as we all share from a similar position busyness. Who knows.

A second danger is the reenforcement of the sacred-secular divide. Ministry is what the pros do in the scared places at sacred times. Everything else falls outside of this and is therefore secular. Any meaningful engagement in ministry for the non-ordained specialist is limited to occasional involvement on a Sunday or in a mid-week group. How unhelpful is that?

I recently attended a meeting at LICC where Mark Greene did a great job launching a new initiative aimed at supporting Christians in their workplaces and challenging the churches along the way about how they empower them to be effective whole-life disciples.

All of this makes me wonder if we don't need a radical reimagining of leadership and ministry in order to make the shift to a more fully engaged and involved community of faith. If the five-fold pattern of Ephesians is a workable model of leadership then most churches cannot afford to pay for that, so it would mean a flatter, less professionalised understanding of ministry and leadership.

Still much to reflect upon.

Why bi-vocational is not part-time

I got pulled up a while ago for suggesting that the long-term future heath of the church may lie in a bi-vocational approach to ministry. It was suggested to me that "bi-vocational" was simply another way of saying "part-time". It is not, and here's why.

In the first instance, part-time describes what you do in terms of how many hours you spend doing it. That is a wholly inadequate way to describe a vocation. We don't call people who work twice the average hours in a week than most people double-timers, we just call them full-time ministers!

Secondly, who would dare suggest that Paul was a part-time worker for the kingdom when he used his tent-making skills to earn an income. It's nonsense.

But I guess it's the division of our lives into the so-called secular and sacred that most troubles me when we use terms like part-time and full-time. It's an old argument I know, but I think such language reinforces this divide and feeds the unhealthy self-understanding it creates. We are all called to be full-time followers of Jesus Christ, deploying our gifts and skills the best ay we can for the sake of the kingdom and in the mission of God. Postman, dentist, lawyer, retail worker or church worker, we're all the same. None of us is more special than any other.

So why is bi-vocational better? Well I guess it's not if we only use as a posh way of saying the church can't afford to pay me a full-time income. My first churches had very little money available for ministry, so my wife worked to support us and I gave my time freely and fully to serve them. They paid me what they could and we worked it out from there. But that's not all I'm thinking about.

I believe that maybe bi-vocational ministry will demystify ministry and ultimately empower the local church to be the community of faith it ought to be. Instead of having one or two professionals doing the majority of the ministry, the whole church will be mobilised and engaged. Why should bi-vocational help this more than full-time? Maybe because we will need to be far more specific about the bi-vocational leader's role.

These are just some emerging thoughts. They are incomplete, but I think the distinction is important.

Foundations and footings

I watched a video of Ken Robinson talking about education that I may have seen before, but I can't remember. Anyway, the link came via a friend and I'm really glad they sent it. The basic premise of Robinson's argument is that our educational systems educate creativity out of us. The result is that by the time most of us reach adulthood we are only interested in the right answer and generally afraid of getting the wrong answer. So we simply learn not to think creatively, because that might lead us to the wrong answer. It's a really interesting video and there is much to learn and apply to the church.

What also interested me was something he said about what originally drove public education and how it came to colour how we deliver and measure it. Two things determined all public education policies. One was the enlightenment the other was industrialisation. To some extent you hear echoes of this every time an industrialist wades into the argument about the outcomes of education. Anyway, I'm moving away from the point I want make.

Some time ago I began to ask questions about the nature of leadership in church and I wonder if we'd been building on the wrong foundation. Instead of building on apostles and prophets, we were building on pastors and teachers. But Robinson's point made me wonder how we got there. Where did we start? What turned a missionary movement into an institution? Was it just the result of moving from the margins to centre of society after the conversion of the Roman emperor? I don't think so.

For the most part we have to acknowledge that we are essential a selfish people. We not naturally predisposed to think what might be best for others at the expense of what might be best for us. You never hear the wealthy say to government, "Raise our taxes so that the poor don't have to suffer." On the contrary, we wriggle and squirm our way towards an economic construct that assume that if you make the rich richer, it will trickle down to the poorest parts of society.

So I think we need to take seriously that simple truth that we do what meets our needs first. And that is true of church. Perhaps we have built upon the wrong foundations, but we have done so because it suits us. It creates a comfortable environment for us and we can simply blame the world for not recognising the truth we preach. And that needs to change.

I have long held the view that those of us who know Jesus as leader and forgiver will have an eternity to sort out our problems and issues. An eternity where we can enjoy the fruit of our relationship with God and possibly even improve our backhand! On the other hand we are surrounded by people who only have a lifetime in which to make that choice. So what should be our priority? comfort for ourselves or engagement in mission for the sake of others?

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Challenging Call

When Jesus stood strong, He was crucified. When the apostles spoke the truth, they were martyred. When the early church modelled the message, they were persecuted. But they turned the world upside down. Many were rescued from emptiness and despair by their message of the cross! Is our calling any different?

Church Awakening, 270

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

What kind of leader am I?

A little while ago I took the APEST assessment. I first came across the concept through reading about it in books and on blogs. Essentially proposes that the leadership of the church comprises apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers and evangelists. If the church leadership is going to function properly, then it only do so with all five of these leaders present.

So anyway, I took the assessment and came out strongly as apostle and prophet. Now at first glance I was a bit confused because I'd always though of myself as a preacher/teacher primarily. But then I dug a little deeper and discovered that in fact the role of preacher was actually subsumed into the role of prophet and the role of teacher was actually more of the role of organiser.

Now that makes more sense to me, even if you don't define teacher this way. I'm no organiser, but on my good days I can be an effective preacher.

I guess the question that arises now is what does this mean for my ministry and my leadership role, and of course for the role of those with whom share
leadership responsibility. At its most basic, the question is: where are the evangelists, the pastors and the teachers?

Too much of church leadership rests on the shoulders of an individual. It's time that changed. How you change that I'm not sure, but would it be too apocolyptic to suggest that the future of the church depends upon it?

A time may very well be approaching when all ministry will have to be what is euphemistically known as bi-vocational. We will no longer be able to hide behind the paid professional church leaders of whom we expect a wide range of gifts and skills than in truth none of us actually possess.

It is quite unsettling to think that one day one might actually have to carve out a career outside of the church in order to minister and lead effectively within it. After 20 years of full-time ministry one wonders what else one might be suited to do! And I also wonder how many of us would feel if we no longer had our professional status to wear as a badge of honour.

Much to ponder!

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The upside down kingdom

In God's kingdom, the basement is the penthouse. The first become last, and the last are first (Matt.19:30). The humble are exalted, and the exalted are humbled (1Pet.5:5-6). The weak are strong, and the strong are weak (2Cor.13:9). The rich are impoverished, and the poor are wealthy (8:9). The wise are foolish, and the foolish confound the wise (1Cor.1:27). Death comes from life, and holding onto life brings death (Matt.10:39).

Organic Leadership, Neil Cole

Apart from the last sentence, which I'm either not reading clearly or should say "Life come from death". The point that Jesus was making was that letting go of your life, with all its ambitions and demands actually leads to life, whereas holding onto life leads to death.

That apart, I think this is a great reminder of the nature of the kingdom of God. All too often we get sucked into an interpretation of the kingdom that draws more on our business models than on the values Jesus spoke about.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Organic Leadership

A couple of quotes from Neil Cole's book that resonate with me:

If only my job as a pastor was a holy calling, the jobs the other people in the church were fulfilling were not holy callings. If this was the case, more was expected of me than of them in the church. This lets them of the hook with the responsibility of the kingdom of God. Something Jesus never intended.

I began to learn that a job is a job, but I am a disciple of Christ no matter where I work. Kingdom fruit was not restricted to what happened as a result of church ministry or even my professional clergy status.

The more I think about the church and it's organisation, its purpose and how we can do that in a God-honouring and effective way as fully devoted followers of Jesus, the more I think we must face the demands of change. Not change for the sake of change, not change in order to become contemporary or change in order to become more transcendent. Change in order to become more like Christ.

The last few days have made me think about a lot of things. I've begun to wonder about proactively dropping the title "Reverend", removing it from letterheads and business cards and just becoming plain "Mr" again. I'm so glad I don't wear any distinguishing clothing or carry some big Bible around with me.

Such changes would of course be largely cosmetic for most people. Perhaps even troubling. But if my privileged position as an ordained minister is actually hindering the fuller expression of the mission of the church, then I for one would give it up in an instant. There are too many soul at stake to hang onto something that is largely irrelevant and Biblically questionable.

The Implications of Eph. 4:11 for the local church

I continue to ponder the implications of what Paul says about leaders in Ephesians 4. It would be unfair to build too big a case based simply of this verse alone, but it does have some big implications for most local church leadership teams.

First off, it asks some fundamental questions about who is n the core leadership team and what does it spend its time doing. That's not a criticism, just a question. In many a baptist church, the only leadership team to speak about that is formally recognised by the church is the team of deacons. Typically their job is more akin to maintenance and  management than it is to vision and equipping. All of that stuff gets delegated to the full-time or not so full-time minister.

Secondly, there's a question about the role of a senior leader in the church. I've blogged before about building on the foundation of teachers and pastors rather than on apostle and prophets. Now I'm not elevating one above the other, but we do seem obsessed with getting pastors at the top and I question the validity of that approach.

What is certain to me is that we've become so focussed on pastoral leadership that we have neglected any other leadership role and we endlessly force non-pastors into pastor shaped holes because that is what we think they are supposed to be. I think we lose a lot of leaders this way and I think we make a whole lot more ineffective in the process.

The problem is that if we are going to develop a broader view of leadership, if we are going to train leaders in a broader context, then the one thing we have to address is the historical attitude in the church to the role of the minister as leader. And we will have to address the fundamental principle of ministry being the responsibility of the whole church body and not primarily the responsibility of those highly trained Bible College graduates.

I continue to ponder.

APEST Leadership

A quick note to my previous post.

It was Alan Hirsch's writing that talks about Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherds and Teachers.

You can read about it here. And even take a test to see where you fit!

In brief:

• APOSTLES extend the gospel.
• PROPHETS know God's will. 
• EVANGELISTS recruit.
• SHEPHERDS nurture and protect.
• TEACHERS understand and explain.

Ephesians 4:11ff

These verses have been going around my head for some time now, ever since a chance conversation with someone before a worship group practice in fact. And that might have been a month or two ago when I think about it. I really can''t shake it off, and wouldn't want to. If you know your epistles, you will know what it says. Here it is in the updated NIV:

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

And just for good measure, the 1984 rendering:

It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Translation isn't the point here, although it is interesting to see the subtle variations. The point is the role of leadership in the church. And the question I keep asking myself is this: Is this the pattern for leadership that we ought to be seeking to establish?

Let me put it this way. It would appear from Paul's argument that the primary purpose of a leadership team should be to equip the church to do the ministry and to do the ministry for the church. The church is meant to be an active participant in ministry not a full-time consumer of it. Surely the body image in the New Testament confirms that, and all that Paul says about each person having the full measure of the Spirit's anointing, a spiritual gift to be used for the common good and so points to a simple fact that the church is designed to do ministry more than it is designed to receive it.

And if this is true, then why do we persist in abdicating responsibility for ministry to a few highly trained individuals and not delegating it as a responsibility of all members of the body? Our whole ordination process sets us up for such a distinction that is in the end apparently quite unbiblical!

I will continue to ponder the implications of these verses and reread what either Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch or David Fitch has written about it. Unless of course it was someone else!

Global Leadership Summit

Yesterday was the first day of the Willow Creek leadership conference at St Albans. As usual the was a lot of good stuff to ponder. Bill Hybels talked about going from here to there and the need not only to describe what's good about there but why we can't stay here.

Second up was Jim Collins talking about why great organisations fail. It was interesting to reflect on some of the phases he described and how easy it is to ignore the sings and even blame the wrong factors.

Then we had a session about moral failure in leadership, one about when not to solve problems or resolve tensions but to manage them with Andy Stanley. The day finished with a lively presentation by one of the teaching staff members from Hillsongs.

At the end of Bill Hybels talk he shared some thoughts about listening to the whispers from God. Some people think that I idolise Bill, but I don't. I actually think he is one of the most Spirit led leaders I've ever known. With great humility he talks about how God prompts him. He doesn't make it into more than it is, he doesn't talk about hearing voices. He just talks about the way God nudges and prods. If only we had more leaders who listened like this. If only I could learn how to do so more effectively than I do.

He's written a book about it and I think that's one resource I'll be buying sometime today.

Well the worship band has hit the first note, so I guess the second day in underway.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

No more planning?

Reading Missional Map-Making by Alan Roxburgh, I realised I needed to write down an idea before it gets lost again in the busyness of life and ministry.

Arguing that strategic planning is useful but not defining, he says:

The task for leaders is more about how we cultivate environments that call forth and release the mission-shaped imagination of the people of God in a specific place and time. If cultivation of environments and facilitating the work of God's people is the vocation of mission-shaped leaders, then strategic planning is not simply an I'll-fitting tool; it will never assist us in forming such people.(p77)

This is the same argument he made in Introducing the Missional Church. Hardly surprising, but I made a note of it then and I just felt the importance of it again as I read it here too.

Of course the question is how do you do that? How do you create environments, and what do those environments look like? What does it mean for churches that are still working with old models of strategic planning that treat the future as a predictable outcome of a well oiled plan?

Somehow the plan has to support the mission not define it, but all too often the plan defines the mission because we measure our success or failure against the plan. So, if we are going to change the church then we will have to change the measurement criteria. We need a different scorecard as Reggie McNeal would say.

And we will need to be brave. It won't be easy making these changes. We will wonder if we are measuring the wrong things, diluting the gospel imperative of the church or reducing evangelism to serving the community.

There are no easy answers to any of the questions that arise from these concepts. But the truth is that many of us in leadership and in congregations know that something is wrong, that business as usual doesn't work anymore and hasn't worked for some time, that people no longer share our story or are ready to conform to our preferred future.

Still much to consider and ponder about what comes next for the church in the 21st century.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Parkland Ave,Romford,United Kingdom

Peer Supervision

Everyone, at least everyone in ministry, knows how lonely and hard it can be. Having a second voice to keep you sane and help you reflect is vitally important. The second voice gives you a safe place to let go of all the frustrations and heartaches, to share all the joys and highs with someone who knows what it feels like to walk this road of the servant leader.

The question is will peer supervision provide that place? For some I think it will, for others I'm not so sure. The concept is fundamentally sound. The principle of having a fixed relationship with another practitioner who will listen to the issues, share the journey and ask the tough questions is good. Whether that needs to be a single voice is up for grabs.

In Bedford I was privileged to be part of a small group of ministers who met once a month. Some might call it a fraternal, but it was more than many a fraternal of which I've been a part. We shared our stories, we listened to the questions, we never judged each other. We prayed for each other and we never let each other get away with simply moaning about things. Maybe above everything else, we knew we were not alone. We knew that some of the questions for which we had no answer were questions we shared in common. And none of us had answers for them!

So, yesterday was a valuable day. Initially I thought it was an information day, but it turned out to be a taster day. Fortunately my partner for the day had come to see in the same way I had come to see, so we talked about how the process might work for us and what we might do without actually committing ourselves to the process.

The biggest challenge to any process of peer supervision or peer mentoring is that you moan together. That you share sympathy and avoid responsibility. But that can be avoided. The other area of concern is the assumption that we all begin with the skills needed to offer this kind of mutual support. Those who have trained in counselling will approach the task with skills and questions that are not necessarily possessed by every minister no matter how competent they might be.

Personally, I'm still looking for the level of friendship and support I had previously. Perhaps it's an unrealistic search!

Of course none of this takes away from the process of reflection and prayer that should be the practice of every leader. Self-mentoring or self-leadership is an area in which we can all develop. Taking time to reflect on pastoral situations and leadership issues, personal discipline and spiritual growth is healthy. I bet there's a website somewhere about that.

I know I go on about it, but keeping a journal is a really helpful tool, especially if you review it. You can learn a lot about the recurring themes that are impacting your ministry. It can also help you get a perspective on things. Perhaps the reason you are feeling down about something is because you haven't really faced it, truly faced it. Your journal will show you this is you're honest when you write and when you read it back.

The Inner Conversation

Here is another helpful article by Gordon MacDonald about the need for time alone with God.

It is always helpful to be reminded of the necessity for such times of reflection and re-calibration of one's spiritual life, especially as a leader. We are often pulled in many directions at once and need to press the spiritual reset button.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Decision-making in the Local Church

As many of you know, I'm a baptist minister. I use the lowercase intentionally at this point. As a baptist we're governed by the church meeting, the gathered people charged with the shared responsibility of discerning the mind of Christ together. Over the years, even centuries, this has created much debate about what it means to lead in such a setting, and we're still wrestling with that one. Perhaps the church's (not just baptist churches, but churches of all flavours) current confusion over leadership is because we are appointing people who are CEO's first and pastorally motivated second. Perhaps that is too convenient a generalisation.

Anyway, I wanted to think about how we make decisions rather than leadership. I'm still reading Reimagining the church. I take longer to read a book these days. Something to do with being busy and something to do with getting older and weakening eyesight! I've just finished the chapter on decision-making and was struck by a really helpful term Viola uses at the end of the discussion. He describes churches as guided democracies.

His argument is that the most biblical and God-honouring way to make decisions in the local church is by consensus. Hard as it is to achieve, it has to be our goal, even if it takes longer than we would like it to take to reach a decision. Now I know how frustrating consensus can be to achieve, and I know how frustrating it is as a leader to have to wait for consensus to surface. It would be far easier simply to delegate all responsibility for making decisions to a few people who could be relied upon always to get it right!

But that dis-empowers the church and robs the members of their full responsibility to share in the process. It's far less convenient to make decisions this way, but it might just be far more effective in the long run in terms of re-motivating the church for involvement in God's mission.

I was intrigued to listen the Bill Hybels talk at last year's GLS about how Willow Creek had been learning new ways of developing vision. He talked about how they took early ideas and thoughts to different groups within the church and asked questions like, "What excites you about this?" and "What scares you about this?"

With all the recent talk over the last ten years or so about how raising the bar when it comes to membership is the way to get people involved and committed, in other words make it more difficult to become a member, I wonder if the answer actually lies in calling people into deeper personal relationships. Relationships that are willing to work through the tough things and search out the mind of Christ through consensus rather than call for a vote and settle the matter by majority.

So perhaps we should have a simply mantra for church meetings and the processes by which we come to any and all decisions: Pray more, vote less!

Questions for leaders

The Acts29 Blog posted an interesting piece recently. It was a reprint of an article, available as a pdf, the references are in the original post here.

The post is a review of 1Thessalonians and the questions that arise for a church planter from the text. Of course the questions don't only apply to those involved in church planting, they apply equally to those of us who serve established churches and in fact many of them apply to non-leaders too.

Here's a summary of the questions, to get the full picture you need to read the original.

01. Am I faithfully pressing into prayer for my people?

02. For whose sake am I planting/pastoring this church?

03. Am I leading in a way that is calling people to turn from idols to Jesus?

04. Is a love of money or applause sneaking into my heart at all?

05. Am I willing to be shamefully treated if that means more people hearing the Gospel?

06. Have I worked really hard to remove any obstacles/burdens that could get in the way of my people hearing and responding to the Gospel?

07. Have I been gentle and affectionate with my people, like a mom?

08. Have I been for my people, cheering, like a dad?

09. Am I doing this work as if I will brag on my people to Jesus?

10. Would I be crushed if my people walked away from Jesus?

11. Do I love to be with my people?

12. Have I taught my people how they ought to live?

13. Have I hammered my people on the importance of sexual purity?

14. Am I constantly calling my people, especially those who have been with me for a while, to swim deeper in the Gospel?

15. Have I been timely and helpful in teaching my people the doctrine they are most in need of getting right?

16. Has my joy in and awe of Jesus been so consistently on display that my people would get why it is good news that we get to be with Him forever?

17. Have I had the courage to admonish my people when necessary?

18. Am I resting in the fact that God will accomplish the work He intends among my people?

Leadership lessons

This was in the latest Preaching Today email newsletter:

SWINDOLL'S LEADERSHIP LESSONS

Chuck Swindoll was given a Lifetime Achievement Award at last week's Catalyst '09 Conference. During his presentation, he described "10 Things I Have Learned During Nearly 50 Years in Leadership." Here's the list:

1) It's lonely to lead. Leadership involves tough decisions. The tougher the decision, the lonelier it is.

2) It's dangerous to succeed. I'm most concerned for those who aren't even 30 and are very gifted and successful. Sometimes God uses someone right out of youth, but usually He uses leaders who have been crushed.

3) It's hardest at home. No one ever told me this in seminary.

4) It's essential to be real. If there's one realm where phoniness is common, it's among leaders. Stay real.

5) It's painful to obey. The Lord will direct you to do some things that won't be your choice. Invariably you will give up what you want to do for the cross.

6) Brokenness and failure are necessary.

7) Attitude is more important than actions. Your family may not have told you: Some of you are hard to be around. A bad attitude overshadows good actions.

8) Integrity eclipses image. Today we highlight image, but it's what you're doing behind the scenes.

9) God's way is better than my way.

10) Christ-likeness begins and ends with humility.