Shepherd leadership November 9, 2006

From D.C.: What metaphor Jesus would use to describe effective leadership if He were speaking to an American Rotary Club on the issue in 2006. Would he speak in terms of shepherds? Probably not… we’ve never even seen a shepherd, which means we don’t really have the ability to clearly link the shepherd idea with modern leadership.

My response: The definition of “shepherd” is: “A person who herds, tends, and guards sheep; A person who protects, guides, or watches over a person or group of people; A member of the clergy; The Shepherd, Jesus Christ; To tend or guard as a shepherd: to shepherd the flock; To watch over carefully” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shepherd).

Do we really need to see a shepherd in order to lead like a shepherd?

Christian administrator in a secular environment November 8, 2006

From K.A.:  I wonder, really, what difference there is for a Christian who administers? What distinction does the setting bring to the administrative practice between church and secular? Do the biblical imperatives only apply to what we do in the church organization?

My Response:  The answer to your question: “what difference there is for a Christian who administers?” is there is no difference. If a person is Christian, then he/she leads an organization using Christian principles. My youngest son was in a great public elementary school in Kentucky. I think the reason it was great is that the principal was a Christian. He used Christian principles to lead teachers and teach students (treat others the way you want to be treated, everyone has a purpose, etc.). The place “felt” different.

Parents knew there was something different about the school. The word got around that the school had such a positive environment (led by a supportive principal) that they had to turn down several resumes each year. It turns out that the principal also hired Christian teachers. Even though they were not allowed to openly discuss Christianity, there was always somebody ready to explain the gospel if the question was asked.

The Coercive Word of God cont. November 4, 2006

From D.C.: Teresa, You are correct in saying “‘real changes’” can only occur if there is a real change in people.” The issue then becomes one of how best to facilitate such changes in the lives of people. Since that’s the issue, I disagree with your assertion that “it doesn’t matter what method of leadership is employed.” The fact is some methods won’t work with some people unless the Holy Spirit overwhelms the person despite the method people use (however irresponsible or ill advised) to help facilitate those changes.

The issue is using the right method at the right time for the right purpose in order to persuade toward mutual purposes. While there may be occasions when coercion is appropriate, those instances are few and far between.

My Response: You’re thinking of strong-armed tactics, while I’m thinking of the Word as being the coercive power. I’m not talking about superficial change, but a life-change. How can anyone possible change if they have never heard the gospel? Regarding the corporate world, Rost mentions in his leadership book, “Coercion is not only an acceptable behavior in authority and power relationships, it is often essential if the relationship is going to be productive or effective” (106). He refers to traffic laws, but God’s law is far more important to convey. The world (corporate or otherwise) is temporary. We need to worry about the eternal state of the person.

We are to be people changers. It’s essential that people hear that the wages of sin is death, which is why they need Jesus Christ. This is the first step of change. Yes, only the Holy Spirit can convict the person, but we need to do our part by presenting the gospel.

You say you disagree with my contention, “it doesn’t matter what method of leadership is employed,” but your statement, “The fact is some methods won’t work with some people unless the Holy Spirit overwhelms the person despite the method people use” is exactly what I’m saying. It’s not the leadership that does the changing—it’s the Word.

A Jonathan Edwards type “Great Awakening” is what we need in this country-

http://www.jonathanedwards.com/sermons/Warnings/sinners.htm

“After its initial presentation, the audience was so frightened that many attendees were found openly weeping. There were also a number of reports of swooning, outcries and convulsions from audience members. It was also reported that, unlike the stereotype of fire and brimstone preaching, Edwards read the sermon in a monotone voice, and actually asked the audience to quiet down so he might finish his sermon” (http://www.answers.com/topic/sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god)

The Coercive Word of God November 4, 2006

My statement: This is a definition of coercion— “the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will” (dictionary.com).

According to this definition, God used coercion through Moses—“Then the people complained and turned against Moses. ‘What are we going to drink?’ they demanded. So Moses cried out to the LORD for help, He said, ‘If you will listen carefully to the voice of the LORD your God and do what is right in his sight, obeying his commands and keeping all his decrees, then I will not make you suffer any of the diseases I sent on the Egyptians; for I am the LORD who heals you’” (Exo. 15:24-26).

In Exodus 32:25-28—“Now when Moses saw that the people were unrestrained…Moses stood in the entrance of camp, and said, ‘Whoever is on the LORD’s, side—come to me.’ ..Let every man put his sword on his side…let every man kill his brother…his companion…his neighbor…So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men fell that day.”

Even though the word coercion has a negative connotation, if “coercion” is used to change a person’s will to follow God’s will, then it is a good thing. However, the problem is that some people use coercion to usurp power for selfish gain.

From T.K.: Teresa, to what extent is it okay to use coercion to move people to follow God?

I agree that God used coercion (through Moses) to get his people in line, but I don’t think strapping a sword to my side to move people to follow God today is “biblical” (though it might help move committees along and that would be nice). I know you are not proposing a sword-wielding evangelist, so help me understand the extent coercion would be okay?

My Response: There are consequences for our behavior. In fact, we know that the penalty of sin is death, but the problem is that the majority of the people do not know this. In fact, many of them have no idea what “sin” is. The Biblical illustrations I used (Exodus 15 & 32) showed that sin equals death.

There are churches that do not even talk about sin anymore; they might mention that a person needs Jesus to get to heaven but never give the reason why. People are so busy trying not to offend people, that they never hear the whole truth of the gospel.

People need to fear God—“Do not be afraid of those who kill the body…fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!” (Luke 12:4-5). That’s coercion! It’s God who is wielding the sword. This is what people need to hear—not the candy-coated version of the gospel: God is love, everyone who is “good” goes to heaven, etc.

“Real changes” can only occur if there is a real change in people. It doesn’t matter what method of leadership is employed, if people are not truly changed then the work of God is not really done. You end up with people “playing church.” They will lose their focus. The focus being that the ministry of every church should be to tell others about Jesus by presenting the whole gospel.

Let me give you an example. We were at a feeding for international students in another church. They had probably 200 young adults, but no one verbally presented the gospel. They passively gave them booklets instead. In fact, some of the booklets were left on the sidewalk. They probably felt they were getting the job done, but did they?

Biological paradigm November 4, 2006

My statement: Our brain and personality traits/disposition are intertwined and affects our behavior. If someone subscribes to the biological paradigm, a teacher might think that due to a student’s biological state, that he or she is incapable of change/learning. For instance, many of the specialized classes for public school students with behavioral disorders have curriculum that is several grades below the capability of some students. A few middle school classes show cartoon videos and have the students draw pictures or play games all day.

In addition, someone with the biological paradigm mindset might be limited in their understanding of God’s power to change individuals. Simply because someone is born with a certain disposition does not mean that it dictates the rest of his or her life. I often think of the passage in Exodus (4:10-12): “But Moses pleaded with the LORD, “O Lord, I’m just not a good speaker. I never have been, and I’m not now, even after you have spoken to me. I’m clumsy with words.” “Who makes mouths?” the LORD asked him. “Who makes people so they can speak or not speak, hear or not hear, see or not see? Is it not I, the LORD? Now go, and do as I have told you. I will help you speak well, and I will tell you what to say” (NLT).

From T.K.: I agree that the biological paradigm predisposes educators to limiting students. And I’m wondering if the BP not only limits our understanding of God’s power to change lives, but in reality locks him out. The approach smacks of a deistic view … “God has left the building.” What do you think? Am I taking this too far?

My Response: I guess people who think God is incapable of changing anyone might be the same people who think God is no longer involved with the world He created. That would be the logical assumption since the opposite is true—if people believe that God is capable of changing someone then they most likely believe that God is still involved with His creation.

We are marred image bearers of God and only God can “fix” it. John 9 illustrates that people thought sin was something one DID, but we know that sin is something we are born with (John 8:7, Rom. 3:23, 1 John 1:10). Jesus is the only one who can take those sins away (2 Cor. 5:21).

Human psyche November 4, 2006

From G.B.: From your perspective, does the integration of extra-bibical truth in our ministry practice undermine a belief in the sufficiency of Scripture?

My Response: All this talk about integration makes me wonder if we are getting the right picture of what it really means to be “integrated.” I worked as a case manager for people with Schizophrenia. I never understood why my Christian clients had difficulty in reflecting Christ.

As a counseling student at Southern, I had the privilege of learning about the human psyche from Dr. Eric Johnson. He explained that because of the fall, people have been damaged by sin. In fact, his definition of sin is, “those aspects of human life that have resulted from sin including human evil, the self-destructive and God-resisting motive known as the ‘flesh’ and the warping of God’s good creation indirectly due to sin.” For instance, those with mental illnesses have been damaged at the biological level (chemical imbalance, etc.). Others who were badly abused during childhood are damaged at the psychosocial level (they may not have a chemical imbalance but are deeply impaired emotionally and mentally).

Counselors should be an instrument that God uses to help restore people to Himself. Unredeemed people are “warped” images of God. People cannot be whole without Christ. The counseling process should realign the person to God’s image. As counselees see the ugliness of sin and its effects, they can allow God to change their perception about themselves. Reading the Bible daily helps reinforce the concept of being a “new creature” in Christ.

Church leadership November 4, 2006

From K.A.: Who are the elders, and where are they? Does the church have to pay for elder-leadership? why??? Why aren’t there more biblical/theological elders in our churches?

My Response: I think the lack of leadership we see in many churches was a result of the lack of Bible-centered teaching/training that ministers received during the “dark ages.”

When we interviewed the Pattersons during the SBC Convention in 2004, Dr. Paige Patterson mentioned that there was a “gap in leadership” due to past liberalism in our seminaries. It’s only logical to assume that the graduates from liberal teachings then pastored churches, but without a solid Biblical foundation, they were unable to grow spiritual leaders within their congregation. I’m not saying that this is the reason for a lack of elder leadership in your church, but it explains the lack of leadership in other churches.

I have not verified the contents of this one particular website, but if the statistics are accurate, then it only shows how a liberal seminary education leads to disbelief in the Bible. Check it out: http://www.tbaptist.com/aab/apostasyatsbts.htm.

Feelings and the helping culture November 4, 2006

From R.G.: I just finished reading the book One Nation Under Therapy by Sommers and Satel. The book outlines how our “helping culture” has eroded self-reliance. Not necessarily Christian, but there it is a cry for people to develop some thicker skin. Thicker skin (or CS Lewis would say “men with chests”) combined with a sense of duty and orthodoxy would produce some leaders.

Tying this thought to our mission to “develop people” what do you think about issue of the contemporary “helping culture”?

My Response: My experience with feelings and the “helping” culture was shocking. I have witnessed a graduate from a leading seminary pray over the dead (announcing to the family that their loved one is in heaven since he prayed for God to receive his soul even though the man had been dead for several hours), another seminary graduate saying that praying in Jesus’ name or to the Father is offensive (since some people believe God to be a “mother”), and yet another explaining that presenting the gospel to someone is not helpful. This was all done in the name of sparing people’s feelings. When we place people’s feelings above the Truth of the Bible, then we are not helping them at all.

Being a Christian leader means that we must tell the truth in love. We don’t give people a false impression of God, and we don’t compromise the Word.

I think society in general is overly concerned with making people feel less badly about themselves. In our public school system here, the “F” for failure grade has been eliminated. “F” is now “E” because “F” was too harsh for students’ self-esteem. They also don’t use red ink to correct papers since “red” is too negative. I think experiencing failure is healthy and makes us stronger, but that’s only my opinion.

Hello world! November 4, 2006

Welcome to my site.  Please feel free to post your comments.  Thanks!