Outsourcing: the complete interview

A recent interview with me in OUTCOMES Online can be found here.  Because of limited space for the magazine version of the interview, a significant amount of content needed to be trimmed.  The unedited version of the interview follows below:

1.    What is the best framework for deciding when to outsource certain ministry operations?

I’m delighted you used the word “framework” in your question, because the framework we tend to use is inappropriate for the outsourcing conversation, and that assumes we are actually conscious of it. A framework always exists, but if it is ignored decision makers cannot explain why they did what they did, and why it connects to the mission of the organization. And if the framework is consciously present but is inappropriate, then resulting decisions do not build the long-term effectiveness of the organization.

One inappropriate framework is too often that of “outsourcing is for when you cannot afford a staff position and need to spend less money.” This framework is inappropriate because it believes that reducing expense outranks ministry effectiveness and long-term ministry growth.

A better framework begins with an organizational metric. This can be found by answering the following questions:

• What is the size of our organizational economy? Also, how much of this economy is in annual income we use for operations?
• What is the healthy distribution percentage of operations money for staff, for program and facilities? This needs to add up to less than 100% because the difference is the carryover to keep building up cash reserves.
• In accomplishing and expanding our mission objectives, what staff tasks must be performed? Of these tasks, which must be carried by employees that embody the mission and values of the organization, and which ones are best carried by vendors who share a passion for our mission and values? The key in such a decision is the regularity of the task, interaction with the constituency (employees), versus irregularity of the task, expertise, continuous learning, and efficiency (vendors)
• How will we distribute our staff budget in such a way that accomplishes and expands our mission objectives, while retaining flexibility to respond to needs when they arise? This points to some money remaining unspent, or spent for only part of a year in order to take advantage of a vendor’s expertise or to cover the costs of a special project.

One obstacle that prevents organizations and leaders from moving to this better framework is that they are already spending everything and more that they have available for staffing. Thus, outsourcing requires extra money or is put in place to cover the tasks after having cut a staff position. This creates problems for the vendors because they are resented as job stealers, or because the expectation is to preserve an organization by cutting expenses rather than through mission fulfillment. By working ahead and working from a larger economic point of view, vendors become part of the organizational growth strategy rather than a last ditch choice.

2.   What are benefits to using vendors and consultants versus in-house staff? What are some drawbacks to this method?

Let’s assume it is a problem to use vendors and consultants too much and it is a problem to not use them at all. A total staff approach is rigid and bound to the confines of the budget. An organization has to postpone addressing specific needs if it has no money to hire the needed staff. Further, for large organizations, staff can lodge their loyalty with their division or department instead of the overall organizational mission. Conversely, a total vendor approach makes it difficult to build an organizational culture and loyalty to the organization’s mission is always suspect. Where staff might be perceived as entrenched, vendors and consultants might be perceived as mercenary. Employees cost less per day, but cost more to train, hire and replace. Consultants and vendors cost more per day, but most work for specific projects in a time-limited basis, usually cost less per year than an employee does, and can be more easily replaced.

An intentional mix of the two works best, especially with thoughtful responses to the above questions giving strategic guidance. Staff can then provide overarching perspective and continuity while vendors and/or consultants bring fresh perspective and targeted expertise.

The drawback of staff resentment for vendors has already been mentioned. Other drawbacks to avoid are hiring vendors or consultants who cannot detail their own sense of mission and values, consultants and vendors who use their platform to seek a job rather than practice a vocation, or consultants and vendors who structure their services in an attempt to keep their contract with the organization until the end of time. The best ones in the business detail the objectives they will help you reach and the time-frame in which they will do it with you. When it is done, they are done.

 3.    How can a ministry be designed to allow for both outsourcing and traditional staffing?

An organizational metric is key. If an organization does not make its staff budget flexible enough to build the mix of employees and vendors, it simply will not work over the long haul.

Depending on how an organization sets up its chart of accounts, certain facility costs can be outsourced too. Outsourced custodial services are one many organizations use. The core of this discussion, however, seems to be outsourced administrative and staff tasks that carry out the program in which the ministry organization invests. Depending on the organization’s size and resident expertise among the employees, items such as executive search, training, facilitating complex decisions or organizational development, capital fundraising counsel, payroll, event planning and others might be better served by a vendor. Many ask why so, and the answer is because trying to do these things in addition to the normal full-time tasks may make employees inattentive to the work they need to be doing. Many tasks best served by a vendor are time-bound and intensive. It becomes an inefficient use of donor dollars to delay or reduce a ministry program run by staff in order to engage other important, but nonrecurring tasks.

One co-worker I experienced many years ago was emblematic of the problem. She did not want to be shut out of anything, and she was on record that she would rather leave a task undone than entrust it to someone else outside the system. This stands in contrast, of course, to the many consultants I have known who think they can do anything better than anyone else and keep bullying their clients to let them do more.

4.    How can a ministry effectively make a smooth transition as tasks move from in-house to being outsourced? How can a leader effectively communicate these changes to the current in-house staff?

A smooth transition means working ahead, and I would again point to working through the metric establishing questions detailed at the beginning of this interview. Thoughtful answers to these questions help leaders build and then follow a trajectory rather than doing something abruptly. Working toward a trajectory brings in-house staff into the conversation and implementation of vendor roles. They become part of making it happen rather than it happening to them.

As to communication; this will sound simplistic, but I’ve found this following formula incredibly helpful in building toward significant change within an organization:  Talk about the fact you are going to talk about it, then talk about it, then talk about the fact you talked about it. Even after this, leaders should expect that some are still not going to track with it until changes actually begin. In some cases, a person might be criticized for not paying attention, but in many cases such a person is a tactile learner and needs to see the change happening before they can fully grasp it. Patient and persistent communication is more likely to be effective communication than outstanding PowerPoint slides or corporate-wide e-mail announcements released during the weekend.

 5.    Do you anticipate increased outsourcing in ministries of the future?

I believe we can expect that outsourcing will and should grow some, but I don’t think it will be like a rocket. Even as organizations begin to try outsourcing as a more efficient and quality way to accomplish organizational mission, too many consultants and vendors are entering the system. The recent recession put a lot of other persons in the mood to try their hand at being a vendor. As a result pricing, quality and definitions of vendor and consultative services are all over the place. This threatens the ability for good vendors and clients to find each other. It seems for every positive step forward, vendors and clients pull stunts that set the growth back for everyone.

Clients seeking vendor services are well-advised to check references, expect a contract that details the scope and chronology of work, along with an out if they are not satisfied, and to make sure they are not paying too much of the money up front. Consultants that want their work to be an honorable vocation do well to coach their clients to expect these things.

Mark L. Vincent, is the CEO of Design Group International, an organizational development firm that helps organizations and their leaders discover clarity and implement solutions.

You can’t change this! Thoughts from Hebrews 13:7-16

I once saw a picture in the Wall Street Journal of a super taster’s tongue. The photo compared the number of taste buds on such a person’s tongue with that of a normal person. It was an incredible difference.

I suddenly understood why it is some people react so strongly to salty, sweet or slightly stale foods when I almost never have such a reaction and wonder why they do.

It also made me wonder if there is a “wimpy taster’s tongue,” where the number of taste buds are significantly less than that of a normal person. I also wondered if I am such a person because most foods taste pretty bland to me unless they are spicy hot, very sweet or extremely salty.

I’ve been more observant about this since I saw that picture and notice that people with finely crafted palates take their time with food and savor it. The smells of preparing and then consuming their meals are higher art than the usual sub sandwich and large drink from a paper cup that I prefer. I’ve also learned that I enjoy dining with people like this–my daughter and one of my sisters-in-law are key examples, because they help me slow down and savor the complexities of the foods they enjoy.

How true is this for you? Think about the difference between a candy bar and richly layered baked from scratch chocolate cake. Both are chocolate. If you devour them you barely notice the difference. If you take your time, however, and are conscious of each bite, you begin to notice a substantial difference. Some of us can do this more readily than others, but we all benefit by being more conscious of the potential beauty of what we are eating.

We have a similar experience when we open the Scriptures to learn what God says to us. Our tendency is to read quickly and hope something jumps out and makes a difference in our spiritual or moral lives. Sometimes it does. More often, however, we have to take a more deliberate and reflective approach. If we don’t we will miss God who so often speaks in a still, small voice. If our minds and hearts are not quiet, we will not hear it.

It is the difference between speeding to a destination in a high-powered car while the radio is blasting and we are balancing a cell phone on our knees and a cup of coffee in one hand, or walking to a destination and leaving early so that we can take our time. In the first scenario we arrive without having noticed the world around us. In the second, our minds are aware, rested and ready for action.

We need to be deliberate when we study scripture. A major benefit of a nicely crafted worship service is that it can prepare the mind to do so. If we are in personal study, finding the quiet space to read, reflect and pray is helpful for our spiritual digestion. Consider this text from Hebrews for instance. If we rush through a reading of it a faithful person will re-affirm that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. But if they are deliberately focused they will know why. Their faith will be strengthened with a deeper conviction of how true and important it is to have an unchanging Savior.

One purpose that can be claimed in studying Hebrews 13  is to receive encouragement as a Christian, and to be reminded of what is important for our spiritual development after we receive Jesus as Savior, after our baptism, and once we have begun exercising our spiritual gifts in ministry.  We could think about it this way:

•  If you feel lost, then God’s call in your life is to receive his salvation offered in Jesus Christ. Then be baptized as a public confession of your intention to be a follower of Jesus.
• If you wonder if God has a plan for your life then sit down with a trusted mentor to figure out where your greatest joy intersects with the needs of the world so that you can begin engaging in ministry now, where you are, with what you have.
• And if you have done these things and wonder if there isn’t something more of God that you are missing, then you are ready for what Hebrews 13 offers.

A study of the first six verses shows that going deeper into Christian living is not about accumulating more experiences at different types of revival meetings, or collecting more versions of the bible, or owning thirteen types of portraits of Jesus, as much as it is incorporating faith into the everyday aspects of how life is organized. It is about developing a household that can show hospitality and has capacity to care for other believers who might find themselves in prison or in a prolonged illness. It is about developing a household–whether we are married or single–that honors marriage as a portrait of Christ’s relationship with the church. It is about developing a household that attests to faith in God over the desire to accumulate material wealth..  In other words, if we feel as if our Christian life is going nowhere, we need to ask ourselves if this kind of capacity exists in the way our households are organized. If it does not, then we have an answer as to why we feel spiritually dissatisfied. We do not need to look any further.

Now, as we consider verses 7-16, we find the writer of this letter to Hebrew Christians is finding multiple ways to say the same thing because he repeats the theme:

            Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise–the fruit of lips that confess his name. And do not forget to do good and to share      with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased.  (vv.15,16).

Worship and loving service to others needs to be the focus of Christian living. If it isn’t present, it is no small wonder we would feel disconnected from God.

Notice again, how these two verses start: “Through Jesus.” In effect, we need to know Jesus if we are going to bring praise to God and then turn and take the risk of doing good and sharing with others. The writer of the Hebrews wants to make sure we know about him and uses the preceding verses to tell us a little about him.

He begins by telling us that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever (v.8). If we read this passage quickly it almost appears like a parenthesis, something disconnected between the thoughts surrounding it. The writer talks about showing respect to the leaders who go before us, and then shifts to talking about the High Priest and the offering of sacrifices. The comment about Jesus in crossing all of the eons drops into the middle. The point of connection between these thoughts gets lost unless we slow down enough to grasp the complexity of thought, savoring all the writers wants to tell us.

As I’ve studied the passage, I find it easier to explain by working at the writer’s logic in reverse.

•  We do good and worship Jesus because we identify with him.  Why do we identify with him?
• Because we are with him outside the city.What in the world does that mean?
• The writer to the Hebrews compares Jesus to the sacrifice carried outside the city, not the normal type of sacrifice from which those serving in the temple might eat and provide for their families, but the type of sacrifice that needs a scapegoat. The reference here is to the day of Atonement in Leviticus 10, a day when the people and the priesthood makes sure all sins are covered, all sins are paid for: the sins of the people and the sins of the priests, the sins that they know about and the sins they did not, the sins that they did and the sins committed against them, the sins committed by their actions and the sins committed by their inaction. It was such an important sacrifice that two animals were involved. The first was not killed but banished to the wilderness. The second, the one representing all the sins of everyone, was killed at the temple but then carried outside the city to be burned and then discarded. This is the type of sacrifice Jesus is:  for all your sins–those you committed by acting or not acting. Those that harmed you. Those that harmed others. Those that were not just done by you, but done to you. By believing in Jesus, we are outside the city with him, no longer needing a sacrifice to pay for our sins, but with the One whose sacrifice paid for our sins. Our citizenship is now outside the city with him. Our identity is based here, and it is the reason we worship and serve others, because we identify with the lamb who was slain and by whose slaughter a people was made from every tribe, language, people and nation, who become a new priesthood who worship God and serve others, making it possible for others to find their citizenship and identity with Jesus outside the city.
• This is the Jesus who is the same yesterday, today and forever. This is the Jesus followed by our leaders we now seek to emulate. They are a model, showing us it can be done. We now can be a model showing others it can be done.

So let’s return to this verse in the middle about Jesus, the one that at first glance seems parenthetical, but now we know it is not. And let us allow this verse to be a calling to us:

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday. Who is Jesus? Oh yes, the one who has paid for all my sins. Those who went before me–parents, grandparents, church leaders, neighbors, previous co-workers, knew this and followed him. Yes, some claimed to and botched it up pretty good. Those are not the leaders we remember. We call to mind the good examples. The people who were definitely human, but found a way to make their life a testimony of God’s goodness, God’s forgiveness and a life of worship and service.

Jesus Christ is the same today. Who is Jesus? Oh yes, the one whom I identify with and serve. I now am a model for others who will come after me. I now seek to be a good example, someone who is human yet authentic, finding a way to make my life a testimony of God’s goodness, God’s forgiveness and to live a life of worship and service.

Jesus Christ is the same forever. Who is Jesus? Oh yes, the Lamb of God slain from the foundations of the world. The one who shows mercy to us all. He is our hope, our promised reward. It is to him we offer our lives of worship and service.

So, let us return to what we know to be true. Let us dust off our bibles and get our noses in them. Let’s put creases in our journals and callouses on our knees. Let’s get our prayer closets unlocked. Let’s mark periods of sabbath in our calendars and smartphones so that we make a priority of worship with God and intimacy with our family and friends. Let’s set aside the firstfruits of our incomes again, and prioritize time for worship and service. Let this be the testimony we live, and the avenue of our growth in Christ.

If we do this the resurrected Christ will show up and increase the health and outreach of our congregations. Not because Jesus returned after an absence, but because we started believing in him again.

-mark l vincent

Postdenominationalism: part deux

My previous post asking whether it is the end of denominations generated a fair bit of conversation — on facebook especially. This post borrows and builds from there:

I believe that an accountable connection within a family of congregations is more desirable than the complete isolation of the local church. Those who follow the independent, unaffiliated congregational path find they face a microcosm of denominational dynamics just as soon as they begin multiple worship services, plant daughter congregations, try to train people for ministry, attempt to publish something or engage in missionary activity. Figuring out how to be church beyond a single worship service of a small group of people does not go away just because a church leader wants to function independently.

What we know about associational systems (i.e. a system that requires some sort of affiliation for it to work) is this–we like to form connections and give sacrificially to the bottom line of the whole when we feel like we are part of a movement–especially as it begins and if we are part of the formation.

The bad news: we are long past the formation stage in almost every denomination. Even as we form new configurations of being church together and build great big church buildings up the street from long-time middle-sized ones, old congregations and old denominations are dying at an incredible rate of wasted resource.

The good news: This way of doing church might be broken enough that we may be at the beginning of a possibility for new and more sustainable formation if leaders have a tenacity born from moral conviction, and if enough grace remains to reclaim and reform a constituency who believes in what they are doing.

Assuming there is metanoia (repentance) and a real desire to transform, here are the steps I have experienced as working:
• Re-orient the work of the denomination/region/institutions into being a resource to congregations and congregational leaders rather than entities that extract resources from congregations. Re-orienting in this way means determining what must be done and separating it from all the other things that are nice to do. Once it is determined what must be done, re-organization takes place accordingly. This is a painful surgery that tests the moral will of leaders and support of key constituents.

• Begin a system-wide study of what it means to engage in an apostle’s ministry. What are the functions, behaviors and strategies needed to care for the whole of the church and its work rather than just one’s desk in the department of their institution, or just their congregation? My experience is that very few denominational leaders and fewer pastors have read the letters of Paul, Peter or John from this point of view.

• Form a new covenant among institutions, congregations and leaders for the best practices of being in denominational life together. Those that want in ramp up to meet those mutually decided specifications, sign off on the covenant and begin participating in renewed denominational life. Time and resources flow in this new direction accordingly. Those who want out leave. Those who want in without responsibility are no longer allowed to influence the course of events.

This is a four-year or longer process that drains the bank account of goodwill, while also developing a new level of trust among those committed to something larger than themselves and their congregation or institution they represent. Many leaders do not have the sustained attention span for this. Even fewer boards do. And there is always the problem of whether the constituency that has already abandoned the formal denominational structure will actually let the leaders do this.

I’ve been involved in a couple of these that are making it through to the other side. Hopefully their experiences can help to begin creating momentum where people will choose this painful yet life-giving process rather than trying to resurrect something out of an increasingly unalterable crisis.

By the way, we need only look to the experience of the PC USA, the ELCA, Mennonite Church Canada and the Episcopalians in the last two years to see how important this conversation is becoming.

-mark l vincent

Is it the death of denominations?

Shall we declare the death of denominations?

Shall we send out a message that a memorial service will be held and where memorial gifts might be sent?

• Denominations can no longer justify their existence based on connection to European Protestant expressions and specific ethnicity.
• Church members and congregations no longer contribute to denominations at a level that keeps them solvent, relevant and growth oriented.
• The ability of denominational leaders to inspire and rally the faithful is severely diminished.
• Denominations no longer provide an efficient means to develop resources for congregational leaders, to strengthen ministry skill or to carry out mission.
• Denominations no longer provide the best avenues for connecting and networking, especially for newer and younger leaders.
• Moral authority and ability to arbitrate a confessional identity is deeply compromised.
• Denominations hold little sway over their related institutions.
• Denominations can no longer maintain that they occupy the space of “helping us do better together than what we could do alone.”

The sole remaining (and still nearly exclusive) territory of denominational life–usually best carried out at a regional level instead of via a national office–is the training, certification of and ongoing resourcing of leaders so that they can be considered for ministry positions. In some settings denominations remain best suited to provide interventions where there is conflict and interim ministers where there is transition. But even this is finding its way to outsourcing among providers who do this work repeatedly, expertly and efficiently.

_

David Schmidt predicted this in the mid 1990’s in a study funded by Lilly and the then Christian Stewardship Association. In the book that resulted, Choosing to Live, he provides suggestions for how denominations might retool to occupy this space no other entity effectively can.

_

I can point to perhaps one denomination that is limping in the direction of survival and relevance. I know of a middle judicatory or two that are making valiant attempts. Everyone else seems to be dying death by a thousand bites or suffering fatal seizures.  It is death either way.

_

Why do so many of us who lead the church shrug our shoulders, roll our eyes and consider it a victory to move from ugliness to mediocrity, or at best from mediocrity to mere adequacy on those rare occasions we even get that much done? I don’t want denominations to die but denominations must find a reason and a will to live.

-mark l vincent

Celebrating generational differences: a birthday reflection

I am privileged to share a birthday with my nephew Hunter. On this occasion when he turns eleven and I can no longer avoid saying I am in my late 40’s, we will sing our annual duet of Happy Birthday to Us! 

As we do I find myself reflecting on how different his world is from mine. For him:

• There was never a time without video games.
• He has no conscious memory of what life is like without Facebook.
• His Aunt Lorie (my wife) has always had cancer.
• His world is all post 9/11.

I could go on . . . .

So much about generational differences and experiences leaves we older ones saying “Don’t mess with my handiwork!” Younger ones are tempted to say “Get out of my way, you’ve had it long enough!”

Instead, what we should all be saying is “What can I learn from you?”

I am astounded by what my many nephews and too few nieces teach me–not just what I once learned and then forgot, but what I would never have known had they not told me. Some of them are experts in flora and fauna. Another is a walking encyclopedia of U.S. presidents. Still another conquers technology challenges without breaking a sweat. Their budding expertise is matched by my own children who know more about social work, photography, youth ministry and social media than I ever will.

I do not need to match them. I need to bask in the wonder of what they know and celebrate the benefits.

And, if I let myself relax and enjoy each priceless moment I have with them, I can be their wise friend who provides loving guidance in the critical moments they are primed to hear it (and may I say this is an art form?).

I aspire to take these intergenerational relationships seriously–in my family, within my church, and in the marketplace. This is not because I wish to be relevant. Instead, I believe this is how a real legacy is built. The Psalmist writes, ” . . .show your mighty power to our children” (Psalm 90:16b).  More often than not that power is shown through the faith of parents, aunts, uncles and significant adult mentors.

-mark l vincent

threading 3 leadership concepts together.

Portions of the following note were also used in a memo for the members of Prairieview Mennonite Church, near Flanagan, Illinois this past week.

I spent this past week at the Christian Leadership Alliance meetings, with 1700 leaders from organizations as diverse as christian camping to crisis pregnancy centers, and from small local churches to the national director of the Gideons. Here are three standout items I am taking home:

1. From pastor Chuck Swindoll– integrity is not so much about perfection but authenticity. It is the single most necessary tool of the leader.

2. From missiologist Reggie McNeal– We need to prepare to take the church to where people already are instead of trying to create something we invite people to at our church building.

3. From Priscilla Shirer, a reminder of what Joshua said to his people– “consecrate yourselves for God is going to do a great thing among you tomorrow” (Joshua 3:5). I was impressed with the link between our personal consecration and the great thing God will do next.

Reading the newspaper as I was returning home Peggy Noonan’s column advocating for Pope John Paul II’s sainthood gripped me  (Wall Street Journal, 30 April 2011, A15). In her description of this Catholic leader’s approach to faith, it seems all three points were lived: personal integrity even as a flawed person, a commitment to take the church to the people and personal consecration in anticipation of the next great work of God.

These concepts come from a variety of people representing several streams within Christianity. The example of Pope John Paul II is from yet another. Yet, the God who does great works is not limited by our narrow views and specific preferences of where or how we worship.  To better align myself with what this God will do next, I do well to take these insights to heart and let them guide my point of view as a Christian leader.

-mark l vincent

Not letting go of the gospel

Reflections from 1 Corinthians 15:1,2

 

An often told fable within Islam is when the cat said “I am going to take a hajj.” The hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca that good Muslims desire to complete as one of the pillars of Islam. Upon the cat’s return from his hajj, the mice wondered whether the cat really had transformed from his former sinful ways. The king of mice decided he should pay his respects, but the other mice remained suspicious and did not go. The mouse king found the cat in prayer, but upon seeing the mouse the cat pounced. The king barely escaped.

When the mouse king returned, the mice asked him if the cat had changed his ways.  The king said, “The cat prays like a hajji, but he pounces like a cat.”

This fable reminds us how hard it is for true transformation to take place. Each of us is born a pagan, and the pagan remains close by, even as we grow in faith and practice.

The word pagan can mean a person without religion, and that is the sense in which I use it here. Even though I am a Christian, there are moments I think and act as if I have no faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. I act as if no transformation is present in my life. In truth, all too often, I pray like a Christian, but then pounce like a pagan.

This uncompleted transformation is the Apostle Paul’s concern for the Corinthian church as he writes the letter we call 1 Corinthians, and especially the passage we mark as 15:1-2.

Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. (NASU)

I’ve already mentioned that pagan can mean holding to no religion. The word also refers to belief in many gods and practicing this belief in ways that monotheistic religions consider unholy—such as child sacrifice or ritualized sex. Both definitions of pagan surrounded the Christians in Corinth. Outside the church walls were many temples to many gods, and many prostitutes who served those gods. Inside the church walls were people who distorted the gospel in many ways—from forcing competition among church leaders that led to church division (ch. 3), to celebrating their tolerance of an incestuous relationship (ch. 5), to suing each other and thus ruining their testimony to pagans (ch.6), to not understanding the place of marriage within the Christian community (ch.7), to disputing whether food offered to idols made one more or less of a Christian (ch. 8), to a myriad of issues about the reason for, the order or and the appropriate conduct of worship services (ch.11 ff).  Like me and like you, there were many ways for the Corinthian Christians to pray like Christians, but to live as if they did not believe in the God who makes salvation possible in Jesus Christ.

Several times in this letter, Paul points to our Christian faith as an integrating and transforming principle for all of life, each time appealing to the pervasive power of the gospel message.  One of the best known is found in 10:31 at the conclusion of his discussion about food offered to idols:

So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (NIV)

And here, as Paul opens his great discourse on the resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, he reminds this church he loves so much that the gospel is the center of whatever they do.

• He preached this gospel to them. That is why they even exist as a church.
• They received this gospel. That is why they formed a church.
• They took their stand on this gospel. That is why their church was different than the many pagan temples around them.
• They were being saved because of this gospel. Paul deliberately uses a form of the verb “saved” to demonstrate that their salvation in the gospel was an ongoing process. They were saved and they were being saved. Their church fellowship and unity needed to be strong in order to keep a proper focus on the gospel. Paul states they must hold firmly to it.

 

If these Christians lost sight of the gospel, the work of preaching it, and the results of belief in it would be in vain.

 

Paul repeats the gospel message frequently in his writings, and he does so here in 1 Corinthians 15:3ff so that there is no mistaking what he means before he launches more fully into his discourse on the resurrection of Jesus. Paul serves as an example for all leaders of why frequent repetition of a mission statement is so critical to getting that sense of mission into the fabric of an organization. The gospel is the mission, and living it out is the core of all mission-related activity for the Christian. By taking our stand on it, repeatedly; by calling it to mind repeatedly; by reminding each other of what it is and what it means, repeatedly, we are more likely to stop pouncing like pagans, and to keep praying and serving like Christians.

 

For now, let’s note that the gospel is a little different between how Jesus preached it and how the apostles preached it.

• Jesus and John the Baptist: “The time has come . . .The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15 NIV).

• Peter at Pentecost: “ God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of this fact. Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. . . .Therefore, let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. . . .Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” (Acts 2:32-39 NIV).

• Paul at Athens: “. . .now [God] calls all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.” (Acts 17: 30,31 NIV).

 

When John the Baptist and Jesus, preached the gospel, they looked forward to the act of salvation God was bringing. When the apostles and early Christians preached the gospel, however, they looked back to the events of the crucifixion that brought salvation, the resurrection that showed God’s power over death, and the ascension that exalts Jesus as part of the Triune God, who intercedes for us, pours out his Spirit upon us, and is preparing a place for us. Thus, once the act of bringing salvation was complete, the content of the gospel expanded naturally and accordingly.

In essence, Jesus says, “Here I am!” For the apostles and we who represent this third generation of Christianity[i] the message is “the resurrection happened!”  This is especially important to the Apostle Paul and for his conversation here as he sets down the resurrection as the reason the gospel is reliable. For Paul, if there is no resurrection there is no gospel. If the Corinthians stopped believing in the gospel, then, they might slip all the way back into paganism.

Further discussion on this subject can dip deep into theology and quickly lose those of us who don’t make a habit of reading 2,000 page books in a 10 point font.  Here is a diagram I developed to try to convey it in a simpler fashion:

 

Each of us has a region of what we care about. For the non-religious person (pagan) or the person whose religious impulse is to try to stay out of a god’s notice, the region is care of self. While this sentiment exists in all places, times and cultures, never has it been so refined a notion as the philosophical work of Fredrick Nietzsche in the 19^th century, and the economic theory offered by Milton Friedman and the Chicago school alongside Ayn Rand’s utopian writings such as Atlas Shrugged in the 20^th. The influence of the individual self as over and above all else held great sway in both U.S. and global economic policy since the Reagan years. It serves as at least one significant contributing factor to the economic turmoil we have faced recently—especially the emphasis on short-term results at the expense of long-term relationships with customers, workers and vendors.

The pagan cares about their welfare and will sacrifice yours without thought in order to feel more secure and to get what they want.

A higher level of care is when one cares about their progeny. This might be direct, biological descendants, or people with whom you have significant relationship because you hired them or taught them. In this sense, progeny might also be a thing—such as a business you built or a book you wrote. This is the approach taken by the Sadducees in Jesus’ day. It is also the impulse behind loyalty to the clan or tribe or ethnic group we see continuing to operate in much of the Middle East, the Balkan region and throughout Africa.  And for those of you, who like me, share Scotch-Irish ancestry, let’s not forget that the Hatfields and McCoy’s continued their clannish feud here in the U.S. until at least the 1890’s.

The Sadducee doesn’t believe in the resurrection, or at least it doesn’t matter to her or his values. The closest thing to eternal life they can see is the importance of continuing their family—passing along the values taught by their ancestors. Thus, the Sadducee is deeply concerned that enemies are sidelined or even vanquished so that the people they are part of are not threatened and their way of life continues.

In contrast to the pagan and the Sadducee is the Christian whose region of care rises higher still, to that of one’s neighbor, and we know from the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) that our neighbor can be the very person who threatens our self-preservation, or the enemy who threatens the well-being of our people group. According to Jesus, his followers love their neighbors as themselves (Luke 10:27). According to the apostles, those who received the gospel feed their enemy and slake his or her thirst, overcoming evil with good (Romans 12:20,21). And according to what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15, the fuel underneath it all—that which makes it all real and worthwhile—is the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection. Because it is real, and because we immerse ourselves in it, we keep preaching and living the gospel as servants of the world, not just ourselves or our families. It is because of this resurrection that the entire universe gathers around the throne of God and sings this song of praise to the Resurrected One:

“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals,

Because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God

From every tribe and language and people and nation.

You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,

And they will reign on the earth.”

(Revelation 5:9,10) NIV

In v. 2, Paul states his concern that to lose this perspective is to lose the power of the gospel. Postmodern thinking and culture is also moving into a post Christian way of thinking and living. Moving beyond the gospel, we regress to thinking at best about our progeny, and at worst, just about ourselves. Paul contends it is much easier to move forward and up than it is backwards and up. Remaining resident with our Christian calling, then, requires a persistent articulation of and reflection upon the gospel. It is difficult to claim it again if we once chose to abandon it.

The understanding we should hold after considering all this, is that the resurrection is proof of God at work in redeeming the world, and that it gives us a reason to keep articulating and reflecting upon the gospel. The power within the gospel saves me personally, satisfying my pagan interest. It brings hope for my family and peoplehood, satisfying the love held by the Sadducee impulse. And, it places me in a position to see as God sees and act as God acts.

Friends, I want to remind you of the gospel. It has been preached to you. You received it. You chose to make a stand on it. This gospel brings you salvation and keeps you oriented in the place you truly belong. Hold firmly to it. Don’t let go of it, or all this effort is in vain.

-mark l vincent

---

[i] The first generation is those who witnessed Jesus on earth. The second generation is those Christians reached by those who were witness to Jesus. We in the third generation are those who did not witness the life and ministry of Jesus, and did not learn about the gospel from those who did.

 

Growing with other trees

Twice in my life I cut down large trees that outgrew their space.

The first was a black walnut whose trunk was twisted by a wind shear and hung precariously over three houses in our inner-city neighborhood.

The second was an enormous old elm in the far corner of our backyard. It had survived Dutch elm disease, but not the storm that careened through our neighborhood, tearing every mature tree – and some young ones – up by their roots.

One tree-sized limb hung suspended in our neighbor’s now ruined cherry trees. Nearly half of the tree broke off ten feet up, landing in two neighbor’s yards, smashing bushes, fencing and two lawn sheds on its way down. The remaining half towered over our house, threatening to come down at any time.

We were blessed to have friends help us clean brush for three straight evenings. Even then we only got half of it moved before the professionals came in. Needless to say, there was no shortage of firewood, even after what we gave away.

Our beautiful, shade-bearing, life-giving tree was gone.

God made trees to live in forests, with competition for space to make them grow tall and straight. Without it, trees grow larger, wider and heavier than their trunks can support. Eventually, the tree comes crashing down under its own weight, often with memorable, destructive force.

Likewise, God made us to live in communities. Those of us who have great gifts, or maturity beyond our years, often stand as the tallest trees in such a forest. Without the shaping forces of accountability, family, community, regular worship, and spiritual disciplines, we might take on more than we should, and grow larger than our character can support. When this is the case, a lifetime of productive service can come crashing down in an instant, often destroying other lives along the way.

And the worst part is the momentary but spectacular crash will be remembered far more vividly than the many other good actions that came first.

-mark l vincent

M&A

I recently wrote a list of the mergers and acquisitions I participated in over the years. Their numbers nearly match the new organizations or re-launch of organizations where I was privileged to play a part.

In any successful scenario, core leadership was a necessity. It might have been a sole entrepreneur. It might have been a team with interchangeable key players. The organizational form did not matter, but the steady, reliable, inspirational core leadership did.

Whenever this core disintegrates during the pervasive organizational change caused by a merger or acquisition, the anticipated value of the merger or acquisition is almost always lost. When core leadership remains clear it has a charge: to complete the transaction until the point a deliberate succession is enacted, the possibility of achieving potential value grows accordingly.

Too often, the core disintegrates because leaders have relatively short attention spans. Maybe it is because promoting organizational growth was a means to achieve personal success (once they have the money, they bail), or because they fundamentally misunderstand the perils and responsibility of leading well (getting a deal struck is the goal for them rather than making the deal work). The best leaders I worked with (I’m sad not to supply a long list of such persons), not only built long-term value for an organization, but built up people who care about building long-term value through people who care about long-term value.

It might be helpful to keep re-reading that last sentence until it starts to sink in.

-mark l vincent

Who gets to speak for God?

Early in ministry I wrote a graduate school paper on women in ministry. I learned what wading into controversial waters meant because my professor flunked half of my paper for the theological pre-supposition of starting the argument with eschatology, although he gave me an “A” for my logic from there. At the same time, my conference minister made the paper available to the pastors of the conference because he found it to offer refreshing insight. Go figure. It was about this time that the theologian Tom Finger published his two-volume theology that started with eschatology. Go figure again.

Although the argument of gender roles in ministry is well settled for some into either conservative or progressive camps, it continues heartily for other congregations. Here is a sermon presented recently for one such family of believers:

WHO GETS TO SPEAK FOR GOD?

In our Scripture readings this morning, two texts are placed side by side. Acts 2 presents the apostle Peter’s explanation of what the Holy Spirit did and will do. People of all genders and ages who are filled with this Spirit will prophesy, proclaiming the good news of God’s saving work through Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit’s action was the fuel behind the spectacular wonder of the Pentecost event.   The second text, near the end of 2 Corinthians 14, comes at the end of a substantial lecture from the apostle Paul on the use of spiritual gifts so that orderly worship might be maintained. Corinthian Christians, to whom he writes, had numerous issues that affected worship-competing over their favorite teachers, abandoning their marriages and getting drunk at the Lord’s table, for instance. Plenty of disorder there! Apparently some women were disorderly as well, although we are not told the why or what in a direct way. To address this Paul wants women not to speak and to restrict their discourse to conversation with their husbands at home. He appeals to the order of creation and the penalty of sin handed out at the Garden of Eden as the reason why.

Studied individually, these texts might seem to provide entirely different pictures. Studied side by side, we end up with a question: Who gets to speak for God, especially when the church meets for worship?

A pastor faced with controversial questions in their congregation knows immediately that their relationships are in jeopardy. No matter what they say someone will take offense. Say nothing and someone is offended. Say something and people in the congregation look to have their views confirmed. If not, there is offense.

With many such questions, Christian people are uninterested in how the Bible is interpreted in a faithful manner. They simply want their views confirmed. We are considering such a question today. As we work through the material it is important that we proceed with your understanding that I intend to be faithful not provocative, and with a commitment on your part not to be easily provoked. Together we might then consider the witness of Scripture.

The accompanying chicken-scratched diagram taken from one of my journals shows three ways many faithful Christians approach scriptural interpretation. Each one leads to a different response to the question, “Who gets to speak for God?” A fourth, that of disregarding the biblical text altogether, is not for our consideration in this study even though this is an approach many of us take for many dimensions of our lives.

I.   This first approach tends not to trust human experience as a reliable guide. Instead, the Bible provides a corral fence that governs one’s life. This type of biblical structure helps many people whose lives were wild and godless find forgiveness, health and help. This corralled point of view looks for biblical commands and tries to follow them without question because a person gets better results following these instructions than when they were their own moral guide. It isn’t necessarily legalistic, although a corral can become like a second type of law for some, and an inappropriate platform from which to judge the faithfulness of others.

II.  The second approach (the middle one in the diagram) brings a person’s life experience or their important questions to Scripture, looking for principles that helps them understand what happened to them, how they should live, or what answers they might find. You might map this as life–to faith–to life. the person starts with life experience, moves to the Scriptures for specific counsel, then seeks to apply what they learn (which makes for new life experiences). The Scriptures, then, are a funnel through which a person passes, hoping for guidance. This approach can get very topical and subjective, especially when the interpreter slices and dices rather than stepping back to look at the overall guidance of Scripture.

As a preacher, I normally avoid the second approach because I am committed to explaining biblical passages far more than preaching on pet topics. Even still, important concerns come before us that drive us to discover what Scripture says–this question of who speaks for God, for instance. As I trained for ministry, Dr. David Biberstine taught me a method of working with the whole of the biblical message in such a case. Once the related passages are considered in their entirety, the student of the scriptures drills down to guiding principles. This style brings this second style of biblical interpretation into the orbit of the third which I will show you now.

III.  The third style can be described as faith to life (the bottom picture in the diagram). In this case the Scripture funnels through me as I make myself open to receive it. Rather than conform myself to the Scriptures without discernment as in the first style, or choosing which Scripture to study based on my felt desire or need as in the second style, the Scriptures form me as I systematically study, ask questions, discern and am open to the insights of others.

This third style has its own danger–that of reverencing the Bible ahead of the God who gives us its message. Someone with my commitment to biblical exposition must keep their guard against bibliolatry.

To use this third style well I start with the whole of scripture, not parts in isolation. Even when working with a specific text, I labor to keep the perspective of the larger scriptural narrative. I must also do my best to suspend my preferences and pray for insight that God’s Spirit will guide my preparation.

This style works well with systematic exposition of the Scriptures, The difference between it and the first style is that style 1 expects questions to be settled and no longer questioned, whereas style 3 assumes we are never done learning, discerning and finding new light. The difference between it and the second style is that style 2 expects that my questions determine which Scriptures will be studied, whereas style 3 puts the Scriptures in the position of examining me.

All three come with intentions to be faithful but lead believers to different conclusions about our question of who speaks for God. The first approach usually concludes that until Jesus returns men do the speaking for God–especially among a worshiping community. Paul tells women to keep quiet after all. The second approach tends to follow the dominant set of experiences within the congregation, often alienating those who do not share those experiences. If there are no women leaders, then men continue to lead. If women have positive experiences in leadership elsewhere, and tell the stories of how they sensed God working through them, then over time the Scriptures begin to be discerned differently. The third style, which I admit is my style of preference, offers an alternative I invite you to consider this morning–especially as a way for faithful Christians of many preferences to live together in unity and common mission. Let’s dig a little deeper.

**********

Rightly or wrongly, here are three principles of Biblical interpretation I follow as I prepare to preach and teach. They are especially useful when dealing with what appear to be differences within various Biblical texts. I find them to be a consistent and faithful framework. I share them knowing that someone here might disagree with me, and fully aware that other competent Bible teachers use different frameworks in their desire to be faithful.

1.Distinguish between direct and indirect references.

2.Rely on clear intent over implied meaning.

3.Defer to Jesus.

Let’s consider each more carefully.

Distinguish between direct and indirect messages. Let’s return to the two passages we are considering. The Acts passage gives a direct message of explanation of the events of Pentecost:  people of all ages and genders are going to be filled with the Spirit and prophesy. Paul’s long treatise on spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12-14) offers a repeated and direct message: orderly worship takes precedence over the exercise of YOUR spiritual gift. Each correction Paul asks for is in light of this direct message. Paul expects a servanthood that promotes the gospel, even if you or I must set aside our rights to do so. These direct messages are the heart of these texts and should be the heart of our faithful interpretation. They take precedence over any other message we might find there. Indirect messages we draw from passages, such as the role of women or men  in ministry, should not be the base for doctrinal teaching.

Rely on clear intent over implied meaning. This is especially true in trying to understand the connection of a specific text within the full scope of the biblical narrative.

CLEAR INTENT– in Acts 2, Peter’s words about who will prophesy did not originate with him. They come from the prophet Joel, looking ahead to the time after Messiah lives on earth and brings redemption. Passages like this one in Acts and the one that precedes it in Joel, point to God’s redeeming work and how it overcomes the penalties of sin given to men and women after the fall. One of my favorite such passages is Isaiah 65:17-25. It too points to God working to undo the results of Eden. One can even find the apostle Paul preaching this theme:

Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:21-29 NIV).

I cannot locate the original source, but I have a quote written in my bible next to the curses of Eden in Genesis 3. It is from a favorite author of mine, Em Griffin, a former communications professor at Wheaton College. He writes, “there is no question women were relegated to a submissive role as a result of the fall. Pain and childbirth and hard toil in the fields were also tragic outcomes. But there is no reason to perpetuate the fruit of sin. We don’t object to anesthetic during labor or tractors to till the land on theological grounds, why then gulp hard at women giving direction to men?”

By laying these passages of God overcoming the penalty and curses of sin beside one another, we find a clear understanding that the genders are deeply similar but not completely identical. The different genders experience sin and overcoming sin in similar and differing ways. The God we worship offers salvation and the filling of the Holy Spirit to them all.

IMPLIED–Someone studying the Pentecost event of Acts 2 might notice that public, marketplace preaching was effective in 1st century Jerusalem. This is an implication, however, not what the passage was written to convey. That same student, if considering 2 Corinthians 14, might notice that something gender related was happening in the worship services of congregations Paul founded, because Paul otherwise models Jesus’ approach (see below). Even still, trying to use 2 Corinthians 14 to prove or disprove who gets to speak for God moves into implied meaning and away from messages that are direct and clear.  The message about God redeeming women and men that they might carry his message far outweighs the secondary themes of marketplace sermons as a technique, or just what it was the Corinthian women did that was so disruptive.

Defer to Jesus. Jesus is the one to whom we defer when passages seem to offer different directions. Some Christian traditions defer to Moses as the means to interpret Jesus, some traditions start with the apostle Paul as the point of reference. Who you start with makes a difference in the conclusions you reach, even though each one takes Scripture seriously. Deferring to Jesus absolutely does not mean we throw away or disregard what certain biblical texts say, but that we seek to understand them in the light of what Jesus tells us and exemplifies for us.

Here is a practical for instance: let’s say I have an older sister who wants to be the boss of me.  She tells me to mow the lawn and take out the trash because she knows these are my responsibilities, but my mother tells me to take out the trash, mow the lawn and make my bed. These are differing instructions and differing sequences, but they are not opposed to one another. I can do what either one says without being disobedient. Still, one of these voices is the more significant authority in my life and I do best by seeking clarity from mom. The biblical interpretation model I follow is that I seek clarity from Jesus.

Using this principle, we can look at passages like John 4 where Jesus meets the Samaritan woman by the well. We learn that Jesus:

•Engages women and men directly.

•Establishes and offers the kingdom, available to all men and women.

•Works to remove the penalties of sin for all men and women.

•Commissions his disciples to be witnesses and disciple makers everywhere. Although the twelve were men, we are given a clear picture that his community of disciples included many women, that the first witnesses of his resurrection were women carrying the message to the disciples, and that women and men formed the first Jerusalem congregation.

In the case of the Samaritan woman, she becomes the means by which her entire village is introduced to Jesus. She was the primary carrier of the message.

***********

There are many aspects of this conversation we might consider. Perhaps you want to go further and carry this into who gets to be ordained to ministry, or the role of women and men in marriage. The topic at the moment is narrower, however, regardless of the implications. The purpose now is to consider who gets to speak for God, and using this method of trying to grasp the biblical scope and draw related principles before we answer, we discover the answer is those persons filled with the Spirit of God. This is not the conclusion everyone will reach. If you disagree it is incumbent upon you to join me in this search to understand the witness of scripture in our lives. No one need feel alienated or shut out if they want a more conservative or open approach than I have taken.

And let us remember for all controversial conversations such as these:

• Our competition is not Christians who reach different conclusions. Our competition is warmongering, poverty, the theft of freedom, sexual slavery, recruiting people into sinful and destructive lifestyles, and all that we might put in the register of evil.

• Congregations are made up of people who use different approaches to studying scriptures, sometimes even mixing and matching them to suit the conversation. We have to find a way of living together in our diverse approaches to being faithful.

• We bridge these differences in our embrace of the gospel, through submission to Scriptural direction and mutual accountability. Thus, a Christian congregation is well served to not set up an authoritarian structure (which historically has been filled by men), who lord authority over women and the congregation via lifetime appointments to the role. Neither is it well served by a laissez-faire structure where we all have a say to the point that each individual gets to be an autocrat and leadership roles are filled with people who must do what pleases ahead of what is right if they want to be effective. Instead, we must create structures that keep the gospel at the front of everything, and where women and men work together in mutual submission to Jesus Christ who teaches us to love God with all our heart, soul, mind and strength, and our neighbors as ourselves.

This is important for a congregation calling its next pastor. Who gets to speak for God here? Some of you feel it must be a man and you are quite vocal about it. Some of you are open to a woman  and are far more silent for fear of bringing tension or offense.  Maybe there are others who feel far more strongly on either side of this than I have described. The call from today’s sermon, is to remember that you  serve Christ and one another before your own rights, to remember that faithful Christian might reach different conclusions based on the approaches they take to Biblical interpretation, and that we are responsible to find ways to live in unity and a unified witness in the face of hideous evil.

Let us do it to the glory of God who makes women and men and fills them with his Spirit that they might prophesy.

-mark l vincent

 

Committing yourself to agreement: a little more humility please

I’ve worked in enough congregations placed in the middle of farmland to be able to feel farmers feeling spring. Seeing cropland emerge from under snow cover changes the demeanor, adds to the sidelong glances to check how well the fields are drying out as you drive to town, and affects the subjects of coffee shop conversation. Farmers begin making comments about how busy they will be in just a few weeks. Speculation increases about the cost of materials and commodities.

Many other persons in rural congregations work in businesses that support agriculture. They too begin sitting a little more on the edge of their seat as spring looks like it might get sprung. It is a second skin that cannot be shed. Persons living in it might not realize how ingrained it is, but it is a rhythm they have learned to trust and live by. It is what they KNOW.

Working with congregational systems as long as I have I can sense where most congregations are in the cycle of organizational development. I get a good idea pretty quickly about what might be done, by whom and by when. This is my second skin. I sometimes don’t realize how deeply ingrained it is. It is a rhythm I’ve learned to trust and live by. It is what I KNOW. This is why I say I can feel farmers feeling spring. I feel it because I know the impact it has on church life when there are crops to be planted, crops to be harvested, the winter time when everyone goes on vacation.  Important decisions that require broad conversation and widespread ownership have to be woven in between these times.

All of us have these deeply ingrained patterns that we trust. They are a base of knowledge for us. Our tendency is to trust what we know and to distrust what we do not yet know, because it might force us to adjust or reorganize the knowledge we do have. Even if we can observe the new knowledge to be helpful , we tend to distrust it because it means changing our assumptions or our patterns of living.

A graduate professor of mine, B. Wayne Hopkins, used to tell of a Texas oil refinery worker who hoisted himself across catwalks and up ladders to adjust a valve several times a day. It was the most boring of jobs, but he tolerated it because it provided for his family and it was believed spinning the wheel to adjust the valve was necessary for the refinement process. After thirty years his job was eliminated because it was discovered adjusting the valve had no effect on oil refinement. The man sunk into despair because he now felt unnecessary and as if the purpose of his life was declared worthless.

This story illustrates a good reason why we might distrust new knowledge! It might be accurate, but it can simultaneously dismember what we spend our lifetimes building.

Distrust of new knowledge might be rooted in arrogance (I know what is best and what works), or anxiety (I don’t know for sure if it will work and I certainly don’t want to fail), or even anxiety masked as arrogance (That is a stupid idea!). These reactions show up when we have hard decisions to make and differing operating patterns out of which we make them.  Somehow, we have to move beyond what we know to what we do not know in order to embrace solutions that move us beyond stuck places.

Prairieview Mennonite Church is a good example of why moving to what you do not yet know is good and helpful. This congregation has now spent ten years already moving to an unknown place as two previously separate congregations merged to form one. Now, this congregation must move to the unknown place as a ten year old congregation whose people came from one of the previous two congregations, but everyone else now present and anyone else who comes to them did not. Having been two congregations is now the history. Living as one congregation is the present.

Here is a way of diagramming what being humble enough to move to new knowledge looks like:

I first learned of this diagram while working on my doctorate. I had to write a philosophical orientation that I bring to any research, revealing any biases I might discover. This provides a way for any future researcher to critique my work. If I reveal any bias I might have, it makes the work easier to build future knowledge later.  One of the biases I wrote about was my strong belief that the more that is learned, the more we learn, exponentially, that we do not yet know.

Look at the diagram and you discover it is simple to grasp. Each of us an arena of knowledge (the upper left hand corner). For instance, I know how to lace a shoe. This is the arena of those patterns we have learned to trust because they work.

Next come the items we know that we do not know (lower left corner). There are other ways to lace a shoe. This I know. How to lace them up in that manner I do not.

Third, are the items I do not know that I know (upper right hand corner). This can be tougher to grasp, mostly because I am describing something of which I am not aware. So, in this discussion of lacing shoes, we could say that I’ve forgotten that I could figure out how to lace shoes up in different ways if I simply sat down and became creative.  Of course, the minute I figure out an alternative way to lace up a shoe, it shifts over to the Known Knowns quadrant.

Finally, there are the things I do not know and I do not know that I do not know them (lower right hand corner). Are you confused? It is okay to be confused about this corner of the diagram because we are describing not only a lack of knowledge, but a lack of awareness of that lack of knowledge. Perhaps there are other ways of fastening shoes that remain to be discovered and I’m not thinking about it at all. Now that I am, however, it shifts over to the Known Unknowns because I’m conscious of them.

Let’s put the same box to work in a church context—a church that is between pastors.

You might be further interested to hear an observation which I hold about people who prefer rural living and those who prefer an urban lifestyle. While everyone functions from what they know, it is my observation that urban people are much more comfortable with ambiguity, marked by the gold circle in the next diagram. They might even prefer to be in an environment that keeps forcing them to have new experiences, but remain uninterested in figuring it out. They often pay people who know rather than having to know themselves. Rural people, by contrast, often prefer a higher degree of self-sufficiency, wanting to master skills and doing without rather than paying someone else to do them until they either have the time or the knowledge to do so. You can see their arena marked by the grey circle.

So, while we have much in common as humans, we also have significant differences—differences that become more marked and distant in our culture. We emphasize the difference and choose to accentuate them rather than to find new ways of working together.

I point this out because those who are moving into the small towns around farm land may well reflect a more urban mindset than a rural one, and that is different from yesteryear. It will make discernment and decision-making more intricate because not only will people have different opinions, they will also use different words than those who are already present at the church. When they use the same words, they will often mean something different than what was meant before. How complex it all becomes if we are not humble servants!

Becoming a humble servant is what the Apostle Paul has in mind as he writes to an internally conflicted and externally persecuted Philippian church, even while he languished in prison.  He writes:

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.  Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,  but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.  And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

-Philippians 2:3-11 NIV

It is good for us to hear him inviting those who lead the church and those who are called to be mature to move more comfortably and less anxiously toward the unknown unknowns we inevitably face.

It is also good for us to hear each of Paul’s instructions in isolation:

1. Do nothing from selfish ambition. Life is not a homecoming game with losers you trample on in order to win. Instead, life offers a chance to build your succession. Each of us needs to matter less even as we raise the standing of others. This is what Christ does, yet look at the exaltation he receives.
2. Do nothing from vain conceit. Remember, our resistance to moving into the unknown unknowns can sometimes be our belief that we know better. Conceit of this type is destructive and refuses to acknowledge that our unknown unknowns are well-defined known knowns that others possess.
3. In humility, consider others better than yourselves. This is almost the same command as not acting from vain conceit. It is stated in the positive, however. Paul’s instruction is for us to stop being conceited and to pursue humility. We can start by deferring to the knowledge others have and we do not. This is what starts building succession as you raise the standing of others.
4. Have the same attitude as Christ Jesus. This is the same word Paul uses when we calls the Philippian Christians to have the same mind. “Mind” and “attitude” are the same expression in Greek, referring to a disposition, a direction one points their mind. We can easily draw the conclusion that not only does Paul tell the Philippians to have the same mind, but the mind he has in mind is the mind of Christ.

As the Son of God, Jesus could lay claim to omniscience and omnipresence. There are no quadrants with him. It is all Known Knowns. Yet, we see him functioning in the place of unknown unknowns, trusting that God would complete the work of salvation, putting the welfare of all humanity ahead of his own, and being held up as the example for our trust in one another, our making decisions together and our offering ministry to others.

I recall the missiologist Ray Bakke telling of an urban Baptist church in Chicago he pastored as it decided to add a Spanish language worship service. It has become one of my favorite stories that depict change. Apparently this English-speaking church had a particular member who resisted any Spanish language service. She was the oldest member and blocked any vote with her defiance. “Let them speak English if they want to worship with us,” she would say.

Ray knew that the church actually once spoke Swedish when it was an immigrant congregation but made the change to English back in the day. He was sly enough to know this woman had lived through the change so he went to visit her and asked her to tell him the story, if she remembered it, when this church she loved so much had made the original change in languages.

It turns out she was the culprit. She had begun a bible study with women in the neighborhood, and of course, none of them spoke Swedish. When they asked if they could come to church and perhaps hold an English service there, the leaders said no.  If they wanted to come to their church they needed to speak Swedish. So, this now elderly champion of English began holding English worship services anyway—to the point it could no longer be resisted and the change was made.

Half-way through her story the woman stopped, fixed her eyes on her pastor and said, “I know what you are doing! You caught me! All-right, I will support a Spanish service.”  According to Ray Bakke, at the next meeting of the congregation, she stood, shared the story, repented of her resistance, and invited her sisters and brothers to join her as they marched into a new round of unknown territory.

A good number of people gather in worship services today who face a similar scenario. The next years are unknown unknowns for them individually, and for the congregations they love. Their readiness to assume the mind of Christ and to move into what they do not yet know and cannot foresee will make all the difference to the impact of their witness.

-mark l vincent

Committing yourself to agreement: reflections from Philippians 2:1-2

My memory of the event about which I am telling you is that Lorie and I were newly married—one of the first times we were able to rent a car. We filled it up as a gas station in Ft. Wayne, Indiana before we returned it, but it simply would not start again. Not even a growl.

It turns out it was a newfangled electronic chip that burned out, a precursor to electronic systems gracing our cars today. It was just a little chip, but its failure to send a signal made the whole big auto in-operational. It looked and felt like a car. It had gas in it. The steering wheel still tilted and the battery could still power the stereo. Air filled the tires. The upholstery was in fine condition and the exterior still gleamed. All appearances looked normal, but the car could not work unless that one necessary circuit functioned.

So many arenas of life work this way. A vacuum cleaner will not work if the plug comes out of the wall or a belt breaks. A well-bound book without the last chapter does not read. Or consider a musical scale minus the last note.  It is no longer a scale is it? Even though it approximates a scale, it is broken and unresolved.  Another example is the many organizations with which I work, trying to figure out what is next. They can do fine planning and work through complicated problems to discover new approaches, but if a key leader feels threatened or inadequate, the new and helpful initiatives come to a screeching halt, no matter how many times others circle back to try to kick-start the process once more.

In our verses today, the Apostle Paul adds to this little list, telling us that when oneness, what we might call agreement, goes missing, the church does not work.

“Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” (Philippians 2:1-2 NASU)

We can show up for services. We can go through the motions of giving, making decisions and trying to keep program alive, but it no longer functions as it should. In effect, our ability to agree is a circuit that makes the church engine roar to life. It is the way, this oneness, that Jesus tells helps others recognize our Christianity as something real and vital (John 17:20-26).

And here is another dimension we must consider: some broken items eventually become irreplaceable.  If you misplay a scale, for instance, you can quickly fix it. But misplay it at a virtuoso performance and you can never get the moment back. Consider Christina Aguilera singing the national anthem at the 2011 Super Bowl. Web sites posted scathing attacks within minutes of her flubbed lyrics. Her forgettable performance there will live with her always, no matter how powerful her singing voice.

Perhaps you can live beyond a hazardous and tragic first marriage, or find a new and happy church home after abandoning an unhappy situation. Maybe you can retrain for an entirely new vocation. But if you make this your pattern of response to difficulties you reach a point where you can no longer recover. You will be abandoned even as you have abandoned. You will be alone precisely because you chose end of life aloneness over the current pain of working through difficulties in your relationships so that agreement might be reached.

The point here is how precious our relationships are: at work, in our families and most especially in our fundamental units of community—our houses of worship. If we fail to understand their purpose or fail to cherish them, not only do we lose their value for our well-being, but we are guilty of removing the potential of that well-being for others.

The church has been given us by those who struggled through and somehow made it work. Now it is our trust to take care of and hand off to others. It is not someone else’s task from which we benefit. Rather, it is our task from which others get to benefit.

To the heart of a congregation experiencing external persecution and internal conflict, Paul says, “Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose.” From his pen and for our ears, Paul tells us the circuit along which the church keeps running is oneness. Our mental framework (world-view) needs to be the same.  The spirit (passion, energy and perhaps the infilling of the Holy Spirit) needs to be the same. Our purpose (what we hope to achieve in our common ministry vocation) needs to be the same.

If these are not in place we must ask ourselves what is missing. We must seek to discover what is wrong. How shall we proceed to re-establish oneness yet again? And please understand: this is not just a discussion of a past, common experience of professing faith in Jesus Christ. We are pointing to a common focus as we face the future, a common commitment to make church life work, and a mutual encouragement of one another as we do.

Paul’s thoughts run the same here in these verses as he moves from past experience in Christ to the church’s agreement and commonly forged perspective as it does its work.

If you have been encouraged by Christ . . . .

If you have any comfort from love . . . .

If there is any fellowship of the Spirit

If there is any affection and compassion . . . .

If these are the foundation of Christian experience, then we must move forward in oneness, drawing on these things if we are to have any integrity.  And if there is not a deep level of agreement like this, then we need to go back and re-establish the foundation.

Let us assume the foundation is in place for a moment. What would oneness look like for the congregation then? It isn’t hard! Any congregation would agree to a substantial effort to make a difference in the community where they are planted. They would begin to spread out and make new families feel welcome in neighborhoods where they reside. They would offer tutoring to student struggling to make it in school. They would lead neighborhood bible studies and pray for their neighbors. The church would go to people instead of demanding that people must come to church at a specific time and place for it to count.

A church living in agreement:

• Does not criticize nearby churches who may use a different approach to living out the gospel
• Tweaks its organizational structure when needed to keep matters clear and simple, especially to help invite new and younger leaders into positive ministry experiences
• Offers to work alongside the pastor(s) it calls to serve
• Readily enters the process of expanding and renovating facilities needed to carry out kingdom work
• Commits itself to find newer, deeper and more generous ways to offer to the Lord the first and best of income and all other life assets

A church living in agreement does all this and more with joy. Such a people know they received encouragement from Christ. Together, they now offer that encouragement to others.

Committing oneself to agreement is a key way we express our service to Jesus Christ. And if we cannot make such a commitment to agreement, we need to check the foundation of our house. A house might look like a house. It might feel like a home. But if the foundation is missing it cannot last long. How great a fall it will have!

-mark l vincent

 

Keep moving or die

Keep moving or die as a slogan for work and life never felt more apropos than now.

• Each advance we make in business procedure or consultative technique is quickly matched by competitors who are just as eager to live to see another day.
• Each dollar we squeeze demands to be squeezed even more.
• Technology just keeps making quantum leaps forward. For instance, I’m writing this in an internet-based word processing program we are testing with the hope to increase our company’s computing mobility.
• Few if any economic certainties allow us to rest on past patterns of procuring and retaining clients.

So we keep pushing on. But it isn’t because we must. It is because I’m privileged to work with a group of people committed to keep moving. We enjoy it. We relish the challenge to design betters way of operating organizationally. We believe it is the grist from which we can guide other organizations down the same path of a thriving survival.

You might be interested to know that these are matters that concerned Theodore Roosevelt, the 26 th President of the United States. His concern did not flow just from the politician or warrior that he was, but also connected to his deep interest and exploits in natural science.  Speaking at the Académie de Sciences Morales et Politiques in France, following his presidency and a lengthy hunting safari in Africa to collect museum pieces, he said:

“It Is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

–mark l vincent

 

Letting new leaders lead: reflections on Acts 6:1-7

Lorie and I began pastoral ministry in an urban setting–First Mennonite Church of Fort Wayne, Indiana, the congregation where the Ft. Wayne Rescue Mission began.  Our congregation was populated in the 1950s and 1960s by young adults coming from Iowa, Illinois and Ohio farms to work in Alternate Service in Fort Wayne. A good number found their spouses and chose to remain in the city rather than return to the farm. In the 1970’s the congregation added to its population by assisting refugees coming from Laos and Chile. By the time I became the pastor in the 1980’s all that was over. No-one was having babies anymore and no-one was moving to the city from the farms. If our church was going to stay the same size or grow it needed to engage in outreach with the people in the church neighborhood.

So this is what we did . . .and with some success. We reached a number of people with no church connection at all, or just a marginal one they had abandoned after childhood. A good number of these folks had significant life agenda to address in order to follow Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind and strength. Many had been divorced multiple times, usually siring/birthing children each time.  There was a good deal of former addiction. One particularly tough scenario was an unemployed couple who came to us pregnant with their second child, but the woman was not yet divorced from her previous husband.

This made my time with other Mennonite pastors quite interesting. Their churches were debating whether the rare divorced person that came their way could become a member of their congregations. Many of our newly baptized were divorced. usually more than once. They wondered whether a couple who had once lived together could be married in the church–even if they repented from it. I was a pastor for seven years before I had a wedding where the couple had not lived together.

In short, the people our sister congregations would not embrace as members were the ones we were reaching and preparing for leadership. Instead of trying to debate who was right, we decided the best thing was to return to scripture as the point for our orientation. We tried to study it without bias so we could learn what was appropriate to do in identifying and preparing new church leaders.

I’ve led some significant study in recent months where we did something similar. We returned to the early chapters of Matthew to reacquaint ourselves with Jesus because so many have differing perspectives on who he is and what he taught. In this study we learned Jesus was a person who did not care where the cross was hung on the church wall, who did not cut off relationships with others based on whether the church had an organ or not, and who sets the example of leadership development with people like Judas, Peter and Matthew by his side – all men who would be disqualified in many churches. The manner and method of Jesus give us good insight into what is appropriate and what is not when identifying, calling and preparing leaders. The scene of the early church in Acts 6 as it appoints its first Deacons gives us even more insight. Yes, Acts 6 yields many insights on many subjects, but none more than identifying church leaders.

A brief summary of the passage is that the Greek speaking widows were not receiving material support as were the Hebrew speaking widows. The Greek speaking widows shared the same ethnic heritage–all of them were Jewish– but their culture was substantially different from Hebrew speakers.The Hebrew widows were supplied better because they had natural connections and networks as long-time residents of Jerusalem. The complaints of the Greek speaking widows reached the apostles who met to deal with the situation. They determined that service (the Greek word  is diakonia, where we get the word Deacon) is deeply important, important enough to appoint other godly leaders to oversee a more just collection and distribution of material support for the Greek speaking widows. They asked the Jerusalem congregation to identify such leaders and they did. The diaconate was born.

I believe there are at least five significant observations to make as we watch the apostles identify, call and bless new leaders to lead. I offer these observations with the suggestion that the method of leadership selection modeled by the early church is exemplary for us today. We do not need to make the task more difficult than it already is, and we gain no benefit by adding complexity to the simplicity of their method.

1. Ministry is emphasized and expanded, not diluted. The apostles make a distinction between their work of prayer/ministry of the word from “service.” They did not rank them as if one was more important than the other. Instead, they preserved both by expanding roles and identifying new leaders. Had they tried to include the work of service into what the apostles were already doing, ministry effectiveness would become diluted and dissatisfaction would have increased.

2. The expectations of leadership characteristics are high, not low. My daughter attends a church that takes this sort of high expectation seriously. Much like many other leading congregations have discovered, they expect significant training before people are recognized in service ministries of various sorts. My daughter is considering whether she wants to join her congregation’s Stephen ministry program. Her church will expect her to voluntarily participate in a year’s worth of preparation before she can represent the congregation in this ministry.

Similarly, the new leaders in Acts 6 were to be filled with the Spirit and connected to wisdom. The spiritual community surrounding them needed to recognize these gifts and call them out. Warm body slot-filling was of no use and would violate the process.

3. These high expectations were used to identify leaders, not to prevent them or remove them from leadership. Some people try to use these standards of Acts 6 (or also Titus 1 or 1 Timothy 3) to disrespect or remove current leaders. They tell fellow church members,  “I know what our pastor did when they were ten years old. So I can’t respect them as a leader.” Or, “I overheard an argument they were having. This means their marriage is troubled and they have no right to be a leader.” If these were the real standards and this was the way they should be applied, then no one could serve!

Others are sorely tempted to discard these standards because they feel they are so high that no-one will agree to serve. So they fill leadership spots with people who don’t know how to say no, or as a means to try to keep someone involved they are afraid might bail. Sometimes they even guilt a person into the role. “It’s your turn. The rest of us are tired,” they say.

Whether it is disrespect or discarding the standards, such actions set up new leaders for failure—a completely different experience from Acts 6 where deacons were called to the role because of their godliness.

4. The kingdom of God is grown, not reigned in or controlled at the apostolic level. This is the underlying mission and foundational impulse of apostolic choices throughout the book of Acts. Perhaps the most critical part of the decision to expand leadership to these new deacons was the apostles’ conviction that they must stay focused on the mission and let the mission guide the decision.

5. Money serves the kingdom, not the other way around. And how often have we seen it the other way around —-kingdom work set aside and “pay the bills” language inserted when we discuss money?  When we make the kingdom serve money we delay important, life-giving and faithful action. Sometimes we even reduce the capacity for God’s people to be generous because we substitute fundraising speech for the more appealing invitation to expand ministry.

**********

This text points at us and says “Follow our example!”

If we do follow their example we grow the kingdom instead of preserve a heritage. We identify and train leaders — taking the risk of their failure over the risk of their never having led. And, we keep the church a living extension of the ministry of Jesus Christ, rather than something we feel belongs to us alone.

I have now lived through my own growing up and the growing up of my children. In both these generations I witnessed many persons being called to and nurtured into leadership, including myself, my wife, my children and a good number of our friends. The bright and wondrous moments during all these years came in taking the risks to grow the kingdom. The dark and unhappy moments were when leaders and parishioners, both, gave in to concerns over getting what they want or preserving the kingdom they had built. In such dark moments the living body of Christ was turned into a tomb of memories.

So . . . let us count ourselves a  living body, not an empty building, especially as we call out new leaders, prepare them for ministry, and let them lead.

-mark l vincent

Two theological errors

The following essay was originally printed in Depth Perception (15 January 2011), an electronic resource developed by Design Group International. I’ve received significant response to it already and decided to post it here for an even broader audience. To subscribe to Depth Perception, click here…

Two Theological Errors

Two days, two serious theological errors.

Error #1″ A television preacher says, “If you don’t want to follow Jesus and obey his ways, then he has prepared another place for you!”

I saw this video snippet while flipping channels. I don’t know who the preacher was, but the text strip at the bottom of the screen identified him as a best selling author and pastor. Sorry, but the words of Jesus and the witness of Scripture do not indicate that God built perdition. Hell is the place God chooses not to be, not the place God goes after hours for entertainment.

Error #2: The next day I saw an article from a major resource institution for Christian ministries. They claim our greatest stewardship responsibility is managing the talent of other people. Sorry again. The scriptures repeatedly witness that a steward focuses her or his work on God’s good news. The Christian cares about the talents of people because that good news is about redemption provided and forgiveness offered, but caring about people in their vocation is not the equivalent of treating the gospel as a precious gift to be shared with others.

I am as enthusiastic as anyone for multiple paths into ministry. I believe God calls the weak and unlearned, but this is no excuse to remain intellectually undisciplined and rhetorically sloppy. Neither does it give a person permission to love the sound of their own voice and to think they have the authority to discern and teach theological truth all by one’s self. These errors I noted over a two-day period seem to have their roots in this lack of accountability.

When we are granted the leadership mantle, we bear responsibility for the quality of our conduct and the impact of our words. Along the way, a good number of us will make mistakes like these. The bigger problem in such a moment won’t be that we made the mistake, but that our response is defensive and we refuse to admit our vulnerability or make amends when our mistake is pointed out. Instead, we must be ready to admit our errors and thank those who offer us correction if we want to be respectable and impactful leaders over the long season of our careers.

-mark l vincent

©Design Group International

www.DesignGroupInternational.com

This e-mail is proprietary. All requests to reprint must be submitted in writing.

To subscribe to Depth Perception, click here…

 

Grace that is Grrrrreat! A sermon from Acts 4:32-37

The following sermon has a diagram in it that sparked a conversation among many families who call Prairieview Mennonite Church their church home-even though the diagram did not project very well on the large screen. It is produced here so that everyone has access to it, but also because this sermon sets the stage for a period of significant discernment the congregation now enters. Its presence here gives us a point of reference we can keep referring to along the way.

 

Grace that is Grrrrreat!: A sermon from Acts 4:32-37

It only takes a minute to lose sight of Who I belong to and the values I hold. Without regular time in worship, bible study and prayer; without consistent time in Christian sisters and brothers where we encourage one another toward faithfulness, then where I do spend time will influence my responses.

Here is a recent incident from my life . . . .

Lorie and I were at the movie theatre in the middle of the afternoon. It was a good-sized theatre and maybe six people were seated when we entered. We chose a seat in the front row of the upper section and behind the rail. We kept two seats between us and the far wall.

Just after we entered, two women entered and it did not take long to establish that one of these two friends was obsessive-compulsive. She wanted the seat next to the wall in our specific row–the two seats between me and the wall. This was difficult to do without Lorie and I abandoning our seats so they could clamber over us, and socially awkward to do since almost all the other seats were open. This woman’s friend felt the awkwardness and suggested they simply move up a row, still against the wall but in the top row of the lower section. So they moved along.

In less than a minute the obsessive-compulsive friend made it clear she was not comfortable and would not sit there a moment longer. Her accommodating friend offered to move to the middle of the same row. They began to move in that direction, but without even sitting down, the first woman turned and marched back to the seats she wanted in the first place, pinched between me and the wall.

Lorie and I stood up and moved to the side so they could climb around the rail and claim their desired seats. The accommodating friend climbed up last, apologizing for our inconvenience and accidentally spilling a good deal of her popcorn on me in the process. She was embarrassed but her friend cared not. Instead, she began a nonstop narrative of mundane matters that threatened to continue long after the movie started.

My story does not stop there. We still had a few minutes before the movie began. Lorie remembered she had not yet turned off her cell phone and reached down to turn it off just as it began to ring. It was our daughter who had been traveling and we were delighted to know she arrived safely. Lorie decided to leave the theatre momentarily, take the call and turn off her phone before returning. I placed the little satchel we were carrying on her seat to mark it as occupied, but it did not stop the advance of two couples who wanted the seats on the aisle side of where we were sitting. Apparently they believed these were the best seats in the house. The woman at the front of their little column marched right up and claimed Lorie’s seat, actually beginning to hand me our satchel so she could sit in Lorie’s seat. I tried to politely indicate that my wife had been sitting there and would return momentarily. The woman would have nothing of the sort, glaring at me then turning toward her now seated husband as if he was supposed to do something about this obstinate man who would not let her sit down. He looked at the couple beside him to see if they could scoot down a seat, but they were unwilling to move to the empty seats beside them. Feeling the pressure, he offered his wife his seat and said he would look elsewhere for a place to sit. At that point I intervened, glad for an excuse to claim empty seats elsewhere from the many remaining open. I offered ours up, told everyone I was more than fine with moving so they could have their precious seats, and went to claim new ones for Lorie and myself.

While I might sound like I handled the situation with grace, and as much as I want you to think I did, internally I was seething. Whatever was in my grace account that afternoon was now fully dispensed. Had anyone else crowded in on me, spilled something on me or crossed me in some way, I fear I would have been unkind. Worse, I was vulnerable enough to have taken it out on Lorie had we disagreed about something later that afternoon.

This is why I say it only takes a moment for me to forget what my values are and the Christ to whom I am committed. This is why I say it is important for me to embed myself in a Christian community, bible study, worship and prayer so I do not forget who I am pledged to be in moments like these.

———–

Many relationships work like those playing out in that movie theatre. Even a novice observer of human relationships can see it at work if they take time to look. Someone issues commands over their environment. Their companion accommodates. Someone believes they personally bear responsibility for what takes place in their environment and initiates action. Another believes others hold the responsibility and waits to respond to what someone else initiates.

Here is a diagram that illustrates how these dynamics intersect with each other:

Across the top runs a continuum of control. The further left, the more adaptive and accommodating a person tends to be in that particular relationship. The more to the right, the more a person attempts to command and control.  The left side shows another continuum, this one showing the center of responsibility. The more a person takes personal responsibility, the higher up they move on the continuum. The more they look to others for responsibility and initiative, the lower they move on the continuum. The intersection, then, where these dynamics meet, maps out the gifts and differences people bring to their relationships and communities. I attached silly names to each quadrant as reminders of what happens when people begin to grate on each other and forcefulness of their style comes into play. The names turtle and skunk are attached to the top continuum indicating how a person views control. Turtles pull their heads in and sulk. Skunks spray their environment.

I developed this diagram from several sources, chief among them are lectures from Willis Breckbill, one of my mentors, now retired after serving as the conference minister for Indiana Michigan Mennonite Conference. He pointed out that turtles might marry one another, and a skunk might marry a turtle, but if two skunks marry, one of them must act as a turtle in order for the marriage to work. I would add that regardless of whether this is workplace team, family, marriage, service organization or church, you cannot escape these relationship dynamics. If you are going to see any of them last in a long-term and covenantal fashion, you must work to soften the rough edges of yourself, even as others do the same– so that the benefits brought by each style can be had by all. The fuel for this, of course, is grace.

In my marriage Lorie tends to be more direct and I tend to be more accommodating. This does not mean I don’t have desires or that Lorie is inflexible. I am simply describing how we function in our relationship. When we are out of touch with grace she can get a little skunky and I can sulk like a turtle with his head encased in his shell. Yet, when we soften ourselves and show grace to one another, Lorie benefits from my instincts to be flexible and I benefit from her instincts to hold out for one’s expectations. When we call on grace we both benefit and we become a formidable and closely-knit team.

This plays out in a congregation as well. Those who desire control over their circumstances want to debate issues and move on. They are pretty confident they will win the debate anyway so they relish and dive into good arguments. “Put the issues on the table!” they say. “Let’s have it out and be done with it.”  They figure they can work out relationships after the dust settles. If losers do not want to live in peace afterwards then that is their problem. And, if they happen to lose the debate, then all those wrong-headed people at their (former) church can have their stupid old church. They will find another one that agrees with them. Or, perhaps they will start their own church.

Those who tilt toward accommodation tend to be quiet when others call for open debate. They are the first to defer to the stronger opinions of others. They try to make peace or try not to get in the way–to the point they lose touch with their own opinions and/or feelings until after everyone else has moved on without them. Then, when they finally figure out their preferences it sounds as if they hold everyone else back. “You had a chance to say what you were thinking. Why didn’t you weigh in then?” they are told. But the truth is they were either too busy trying to help others get along, or they were too afraid of being trampled under the forceful opinions of others to be a full participant in the conversation. We must also note that many accommodating people disappear altogether in these moments–waiting to see how it all turns out. If they see a peaceful community continuing into the future they will re-engage, but they will not be part of bringing it into being.

Can you see how each style grates on the others if not for grace providing lubrication for those relationships, fueling the needed appreciation for the benefits each style brings to the community? Where would we be if it were not for the strengths that others bring that compensate for our weaknesses? To be Christian, in part, is to keep returning to the Source of all grace, and to be the people who make families, workplaces and congregations work in spite of where we find ourselves and others as skunks or turtles. We are the ones called to show what grace can do.

———-

This is an important discussion for a congregation seeking its next pastor, trying to discern how it will reach out to its community, and considering if it needs to adapt its structure in some way. These need to be careful, guided and deeply spiritual discussions where all our gifts provide benefit, where we are patient with one another, where we encourage and trust our leaders, and where leader exemplify the grace and peace needed to lead well. In short, we need to draw on the grace of God.

It is good, then, to consider scripture texts where God’s people work together or need to make a decision, and to try to learn from their examples. Central to all these texts–the beginning place for our instruction–is Acts 4:32-37. And central within the text is the phrase great grace was upon them all.

“Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.  There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.”

This early account, summarizing wonderful ministry experiences of the first ever congregation, has been used to justify almost anything a congregation wishes to do. It has been used to justify both capitalism and Marxism. Church leaders who want to establish their apostolic authority appeal to this text, as do those who want church life to be communal. This text is also used to browbeat fellow Christians into being more evangelistic, more generous or more gracious to one another.

As always, we are helped by asking why Luke provides us with this summary. We readily discover that Luke shows us that what Jesus promised in Acts1:8 is coming true, and in wondrous ways. Luke provides evidence that Jesus was who he said he was, that Jesus was establishing his the church through his disciples, and that the Spirit that rested on him as he began this movement now rested on them as they continued it. It was this gift of the Holy Spirit, as much as anything else, that constituted the great grace that was upon them.

If we look more closely we can learn a little more about this congregation and the great grace that was upon them.

1. The disciples continued the rhythm of Jesus’ ministry. When we study the ministry of Jesus we find he followed a consistent rhythm of ministry: solitude and prayer followed by time in community, and then engaging in public ministry. This kept Jesus operational, in shape to continue ministering rather than collapsing in exhaustion, or becoming addicted to the adrenaline of performing for others in order to receive their praise. It appears from these early chapters in Acts that the disciples were doing the same; extensive time together in fellowship and prayer, followed by works of ministry, then returning to the cloister of a prayerful community once more. Grace flows from this rhythm because it keeps us in touch with the grace we received, preparing us to display this grace to others.

2. The disciples continued the rhythm of generosity they had always practiced. Deep within the DNA of an observant Jew was the calendar of Sabbaths, feasts, and the generosity they made possible. By not working one out of seven days, and by observing all the feasts, and by rotating land into and out of crop production so it too could rest TIME was freed up to rest and be available In service to others. By using this time to gather for worship where faith commitments would be recited and expounded upon, they developed an INCLINATION to be generous and merciful, turning themselves into ministry-oriented people. And by living in the rhythm of not taking all they could take because they religiously chose not to work all the time, not gleaning to the corners of their fields so that landless people might also have a food source, and then bringing the first and best of what they did take to God’s house as an act of worship, they developed RESOURCE for ministry. This means observant Jews regularly supplied TIME, INCLINATION and RESOURCE to form a ministering community. These early church members were observant Jews. They simply continued with what they had always practiced. The Law no longer compelled them, grace did. They chose to continue because God’s Spirit and its resulting great grace rested upon them.

Luke does us the favor of reporting how it worked, and providing a model for our own affairs.

Do you want to see your congregation get through a season of important decisions? Do you want to do it in a way that shows you are in touch with God’s great grace? Do you want to do it in such a way that the written records of it describe a time of holy activity and manifestations of God’s Spirit among you? Then you must commit yourselves to the Jesus rhythm of ministry and this ongoing rhythm of generosity. In this way you keep adding to the grace account. Grace will provide the needed oil to lubricate the rough edges of your personalities. Without it, we will grate upon each other. Without it, instead of reports of your proceedings telling of wonder and awe, they will tell of how wonderfully awful it all became.

May God’s grace be renewed in your hearts and in all your affairs. Today and always. A-men.

-mark l vincent

 

“It” is our value proposition

All of the following ads have the word it in the brand promise:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cnVCFYZSjk
GATORADE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDSnjjdGh5M
COCA-COLA (a classic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pp5dZZBKTXQ
NIKE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l2ljY2qDgQ&feature=related
AMERICAN EXPRESS CARDS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-xHMM8wXE
McDONALDS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJMsFGH4eoQ
BURGER KING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTu63IE6BfY
BUDWEISER
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILafW1RHPq4
HOOVER

And here is a link to an ad for Post-it Notes, a product with it right in the name:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohQCpKslXg

I put together this list as our organizational development firm, Design Group International, developed its own value proposition and brand promise. We settled on the sentence:

Design Group International helps organizations and their leaders discover clarity and implement solutions.

A shorter catch phrase we settled on is:

It begins with design.

We had an extensive internal debate about the proper use of the word it because it offers no definition. Do we mean the client’s success, their fulfillment of mission, their objectives?  We did not choose the word it because we could not decide, but because each respective client provides their own definition of what they need. Our value proposition is that we help clients get it done. In a number of cases we also helped the client discover what it was they needed to address to get unstuck and find new levels of success.

Our use of the word it, a word that requires an antecedent to make any sense, points to the important distinction between offering a product and guiding a process. If we only offered a product, we would tell a prospective client they need it. But when we offer a process, the client has to tell us what it is they need. Design Group International guides processes of discovery and implementation so that what the client desires is what gets achieved. I’m glad to be part of it.

-mark l vincent

In praise of our Peanut

Our daughter, Autumn, was called Peanut from the moment she emerged from her mother. Our doctor gave her the name in honor of her tiny frame. Autumn is now an adult, short in stature but mighty in spirit.

I’m taking a moment to celebrate being her dad because I admire her strength and resolve, not just to be a good friend and loving family member, but to make a difference in the lives of children. As a teenager she began describing a call to love children that she believed came from God. She sought certification to work in day care centers while she was still in high school, became a line therapist for autistic children as a means to earn extra tuition money while in college, and took the early morning shift and other odd hours at Alverno College’s Child Development Center to keep building up her teaching experience. Her internships and student teaching put her in several Milwaukee Public Schools. Now, she is in the first year of teaching in a Head Start classroom in Madison. The fruit of all this experience is one strong young lady, no matter how quiet she might seem to others.

During these years, she has:

• been strangled
• had her fingers bent back
• been given a black eye
• had her glasses yanked off and broken
• been peed on
• called every obscenity

None of this troubles her overmuch. Where some would quit at the first physical altercation, Autumn just checks to make sure she has good insurance coverage. What bothers her is that someone might think she isn’t experienced enough yet, or if she is not carrying out her work perfectly. No wonder the children hug her and say, “I love you Autumn!” We echo their joy in having her in our lives.

Lorie and I raised one strong Peanut. She is making a difference. Thanks be to God.

-mark l vincent

Your honor, I object to the RFP

Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) appear to be increasingly ignored by the consulting firms that receive them, and most tellingly, by the organizations that issue them. While we do respond to all client inquiries, and want to do so helpfully and graciously, we rarely follow the requested format of the RFP.  We need to put our expertise on display if we are going to win the business and most RFPs prevent it. In addition, our experience is that many organizations make their decision about who to hire for reasons not expressed in the RFP.  In my conversations with other organizational development firms, I find we are far from alone in our response.

Here are our reasons:

1. It is a rare organization that can articulate its objectives well enough to put them in an RFP. Too often, the organization puts presenting issues in the RFP, but it is the real and hidden issues that really need to be addressed and that ultimately drive the decision of who to hire, regardless of what the RFP says.
2. The expectations in the RFP are usually greater than the organization is prepared to pay to achieve. When this happens some of the most competent firms are immediately overpriced, and the hiring organizations signs the cheapest operator–someone who needs the work rather than someone who can perform the work. All too often the result is not achieving the objectives of the RFP and poisoning the organization’s opinion of consulting in general.
3. Many RFPs seek a contractor rather than a consultant without realizing it. Contracting work is good and is a staple of what we do, but it usually comes after we have worked with our client(s) to figure out what needs to be done. Many organizations put out their RFPs with extremely specific sets of objectives and strictures on the work. This is good when there is specific work to be done that addresses a problem. It is not good when the organization is trying to figure out what the problem is and how it might be addressed. Simply put, consulting usually comes before contracting and many RFPs expect the reverse. 
4. Many RFPs expect the consultant to check their expertise at the door. A lot of consulting expertise is inquiry, research, probing, conversation, and developing ideas beside those closest to the issues. The RFP process holds prospective consultants at such a distance that they cannot do their most important work, again diminishing the value of following through on the RFP.  How can an RFP achieve its purpose if it declares that breakthrough strategies are unwelcome? Or worse, if it declares that it wants the consultant to do what the organization has already repeatedly done and failed, but this time to do it successfully?
5. The RFP is a consumptive rather than collaborative approach to organizational development. Yes, too many consulting firms are also consumer oriented which means the organization and the consultant use each other mutually for their own ends. The attitude seems to be “no-one got hurt,” so we assume this is the normal course. But when organization and consultant treat each other as disposable  and interchangeable, how can creative, contextualized work get done that grows a specific organization within its specific market with its unique niche?  This is not a call to return to collusion. We only have to look to Arthur Anderson and Enron to see how destructive that can be. But the RFP process needs to provide opportunity to develop trust so that the real work can be identified and completed–done on time, according to the objectives, and at the cost the organization is prepared to pay.

We are happy to consider the RFPs that come our way, but our integrity does not let us respond to those that come to us in the form of balls and chains. We would rather receive packets of seeds.

-mark l vincent

Duh, yes, the kingdom of God is supposed to grow. A sermon from Matthew 4:18-25

Last in a series on getting re-acquainted with Jesus.

An effort to become re-acquainted with Jesus blows fresh and welcome winds in the life of a congregation. It takes us back to a time before institutions, before denominations, before programs, versions of the bible and variations in worship style. In short, we leave behind those things that divide us and find ourselves at the beginning of a movement that brings much hope to the world. In becoming reacquainted we do our best to strip all these add-ons away and to bear witness to the person and words of Jesus.

The message at the heart of Jesus’ ministry was Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. This is how Matthew introduces his public ministry. We learned this message applies to everyone and for everything they did, did not do, or was done to them. We discovered we corrupt this message when we divide it apart or emphasize one part over the other.

We were present at the Jordan river as Jesus formally entered the kingdom he now offers to us–through his own baptism. We bore witness to the presence of the Triune God as Jesus emerged from the river water. We were with Jesus in a time of tempting, not just marveling at how knowledge of God’s word was a great help to him as it can be to us. We marveled that Jesus chose to spend time in the wilderness rather than exploit his initial popularity following his baptism.

And, we watched him establish his residence in the obscure Galilean town of Capernaum, fulfilling the ministry of John the Baptist as Jesus also began preaching Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.

In getting re-acquainted with Jesus we were also reminded of our heart posture as we enter the kingdom Jesus offers (see picture):

This posture should mark more than a moment of conversion. It is the posture of our heart as we live a Christian life. This heart posture helps us keep perspective on the purpose of Christ’s church. It also helps Christian communities discern their way forward in unity.

Here is an example: Our firm, Design Group International, has been working with a denominational region of churches for about four years. It was a journey of breaking down walls that grew up between its personnel and its entities—walls built up almost entirely of superficial hurts and silly druthers. The breakthrough to a new unity and cooperation began when key staff and board members got on their knees and offered themselves to God’s service once more—no longer seeking to preserve their positions and their incomes, but working to preserve the life and witness of their congregations. Out of this renewed posture of the heart they were able to begin building a new unity around the mission they believe Christ gives them. I was present with them as they celebrated their renewed sense of mission together. The difference in the atmosphere was palpable. Gone were the tense hallway conversations. In their place was song, prayer and celebration of strengthened efforts in ministry.

With this backdrop of renewed acquaintance we now turn to the ministry of Jesus. The scene is written in Matthew 4:18-25, as Jesus calls his first disciples by the Sea of Galilee and then begins a ministry of teaching and  healing the crowds that come to see him.

The ministry of Jesus is simply described:

1. Calling people to join him in his life of ministry. Reading ahead to Matthew 10, we discover his method of calling people to join him was followed by modeling of how ministry is done, and then sending followers out to do ministry.
2. Itinerant teaching. Jesus took time to teach his followers the implications of living out the gospel message. That the Sermon on the Mount follows these verses is no accident, as it is the core teaching Jesus offered on how to live as a person in his kingdom.
3. Praying for and healing the sick.

It is into this ministry that Jesus invites us to follow. It is this ministry that he models for his disciples. It is this ministry that he sends his disciples to do. Here then is an important question: Can you can say A-men to this list of three items that make up the ministry of Jesus?

Although an acquaintance with Jesus has a profound impact, what Jesus asks is simply expressed. Being acquainted with Jesus means repenting. It means aligning your life and allegiance with his kingdom. It means being sent in his ministry.

His invitation confronts you starkly. It blocks your path. It forces your choice.

There might be religion without these items, but there would not be Christianity.

Hearing this, many of us might feel helpless or guilty, certain we have not done what we could. Receiving the good news is one thing. Living it out in front of and offering it to others is something else. We might even feel despair over ever feeling qualified to offer healing to someone.

In answer to this concern we can again turn to Jesus who models the way for us. We already saw how he rationed his energy, living in a rhythm of ministry, rest/reflection and time in a community with friends. We also saw how he limited his scope of responsibility by basing himself in obscure Capernaum rather than seeking to maximize influence among political or commercial leaders. Now–in this text–we see him remaining deliberate and focused as he expands the reach of his ministry—a ministry intended to touch all people for all time.

1.  He focused his time around a small group whom he expected would also do the same.

2.  He focused his ministry on:

• his group of followers
• the crowd that sought him out.
• the individual with whom he came into contact.

3.  He focused his activity–teaching the crowd and providing compassionate care for afflicted people.

Jesus did not do much else. It was enough, and perhaps all he could manage as a fully human person. His focused approached provided maximum impact and it grew from a sustainable rhythm by which Jesus focused his life.  His manner of ministry provides the model for us to follow.

Perhaps you remember the statement where your greatest joy intersects with the needs of the world–enter your journey at the crossroads. Your use of this formula helps you enter this rhythm Jesus shows us. Spending yourself in ministry at this intersection is enough. It is not good to do nothing and it is not good to do many things. Find your arena for ministry and engage it with your whole heart. Then rest and reflect. Spend time in a loving community where your accountability rests. This is enough.

My greatest joy is seeing organizations and their leaders function in a healthy and sustainable way—especially organizations that desire to be part of God’s kingdom work. This is what I do. It is enough. I need the silent, unstructured time in between to think, to pray, to write—to get space so I can do my work well. My primary relationships are my colleagues in Design Group International, my nine nephews and four nieces, my parents and in-laws, and most importantly, my wife, and the two households of our adult children. It helps me live in this rhythm of being a sent one of Jesus. What is your intersection? What are you doing in the in-between times?

________

Getting acquainted with Jesus and his ministry provides some implications we might consider for a congregation’s life. Let me state it as if I were the pastor:

1.  If you come to me with complaints about this church, another church or your Christian brothers or sisters, it is my responsibility as a minister of the gospel to ask after the posture of your heart and your engagement in the ministry of Jesus. If this is properly in place we can then address your concern–if you still have one. The difference is that this congregation is not here to serve you. Rather, it is here to support you as you offer yourself in service to others in the name of Christ–and thereby find yourself served and refreshed. The only way we can adequately address concerns is if we first are clear about whose church this is, and share a common perspective about its mission and our role. The pastor’s job, as the resident shepherd, is to help you become spiritually mature in this way.

2. If you want to have a long-time relationship with a pastor, you must let her or him follow the Jesus model of ministry too. The pastor needs to focus on a group of leaders, likely to be the leadership board, who in turn will offer themselves to others. The pastor will need to devote his or her public energy to prayer and ministry of the word. Developing these leaders and engaging in substantial public ministry will be enough. If the pastor pursues this type of ministry as their full-time work, give themselves fully to it, and , in fact, are expected and resourced by you to perform in such a way, you will be among the healthiest, unified and strongest of congregations.

I’ll try to make this same point with a true story. I once received a letter of complaint from a parishioner, stating her expectation that I would take a moment to greet and shake the hand of her elderly, wheelchair-bound father. “Is it too much to expect you would do this?” she asked. “It is not unreasonable,” she said pointedly.

My response was that I enjoyed every moment I spent with her Father, and that I was committed to be among the last, if not the last to leave every Sunday. I would stay and greet and talk with anyone. However, were I to spend a mere sixty seconds with everyone following worship, I would be there for at least two hours. If I spent thirty seconds it would take an hour. Fifteen seconds of superficial conversation with each person would mean a thirty minute receiving line. Most persons, including her father, would be unwilling to wait this long just to shake my hand.

I tried to express all this gently. To her credit, my correspondent backed off from her expectation, actually stepping forward to strengthen the hospitality of our congregation. She began to see that the friendly face and ministering presence of our congregation was dependent on how she chose to be a sent person rather than on unrealistic performance demands on her pastor.

If we do not get this right, we will burn through a well-intentioned pastor. Worse, we will be unable to call a seasoned, skilled pastor to minister. They will sniff this problem out and turn down the opportunity. If we do get this Jesus style of ministry right, a new minister who shares this commitment will thrive. Even more, we will make ourselves an attractive destination for those seeking to develop a relationship with God.

So . . .before we walk away from this subject let us remember we who repented and entered the kingdom, we who live with this prostrate posture of the heart, are sent ones who leverage our gifts and talents for the healing of others. Discovering how you will do this is the second part of your spiritual journey (the first being your embrace of the gospel). your acquaintance with Jesus forces this question. Your refusal to figure it out will make you the typical disgruntled church member–no matter how piously you dress it up.

-mark l vincent