Church Leadership Conversations

  • Andy Stanley Says There is No Such Thing as Distinctively Spiritual Leadership

    Here are my comments on the article: Is Ministry Leadership Different? Andy Stanley and Jim Collins in an unexpected point-counterpoint by Eric Reed at Leadership Journal’s Out of Ur blog:

    Andy Stanley, pastor of the third most influential church in the nation with more than 18,000 in attendance, is right in urging pastors to practice competent leadership regardless of its source. He says: “I grew up in a culture where everything was overly spiritualized . . . A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles.” He is right in saying that too often churches have permitted abuse, waste, and ineptitude in the name of forgiveness, family, and niceness. He is also right in declaring it makes sense to learn from others. We should be reexamining Scripture for wisdom as well as sifting through leadership and business management books for wise insight. (See my list of recommended business management books that are helpful for pastors here).

    But Christian leaders are different from other leaders because of their Christian character (as Andy tacitly indicates in his words about the importance of prayer, counsel, and integrity when he speaks to church leaders). If leaders are not formed by Scripture, prayer and counsel [Eugene Peterson calls these the three angles in his book Working the Angles)], their vision and leadership will ultimately be shallow and self-serving. So I think Andy overstates the case when he says “There’s nothing distinctly spiritual [about the kind of leadership I do].” There is such a thing as spiritual (pleasing-to-the-Holy-Spirit) leadership that is often different from secular business leadership. Spiritual formation will actually change the way we do leadership. Some practices which would violate Scripture cannot be used even to meet seemingly good goals. In other words, Scripture restrains the use of some means. The ends do not always justify the means.

    Eric Reed is right in pointing out that many young people are attracted to Andy Stanley but that he does not fit with the “emerging” leader profile which is also popular among young people. Reed writes:

    “Stanley is becoming the model for the next generation of large church pastors [note Reed’s adjective large] . . . Because Andy connects well with younger leaders, who in general are bent more toward spiritual formation than church growth . . . I thought I’d hear something that backed up the pendulum swing we have heard prominent emerging leaders identify–that younger leaders don’t buy all the church growth stuff, that the models that built megachurches worked for boomers, but for Gen-X and younger? Fuggidaboudit.”

    Many young suburban white young adults are attracted to Andy Stanley. He is what they want to be: attractive, making-a-difference, young, confident, and articulate with a gorgeous facility and a talented staff. But Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger describe in Emerging Churches a different set of young people who don’t want to copy management principles or accept megachurch assumptions. They want to emulate Jesus’ practices – wandering around talking to people, without a building, praying, telling stories, and helping people. Seeker churches like Stanley’s, on the other hand, want people to “meet Jesus” through getting them through whatever means to sit in the seats of their church.

    My comments on the Gibbs and Bolger book Emerging Churches are here.

    Most of the college students in my classes at Taylor University are attracted to both Andy Stanley and the Emerging church conversation. They are attracted to young charismatic leaders regardless of their ministry approach. Rob Bell and Erwin McManus are probably the two most popular among them since they have all the things Andy Stanley has (attractive, making-a-difference, young, confident, and articulate with a large facility and a talented staff) but also embrace some of aspects of the emerging churches: art, attitude, informality, stories, urban culture, and justice.

    See my list of sermon audio links to listen to Stanley, Bell and McManus here.

    For a scholarly presentation of how the apostle Paul dealt with secular ideas of leadership when they began to appear in Corinth, listen to New Testament scholar Bruce Winter‘s lecture "Secularization of First Century Christian Leadership – Inroads of Secular Models." Here is the synopsis.

    Bruce Winter questions the word "leader" as the name we use when talking about church ministers. He says Paul intentionally does not use the Greek word for leader to describe the ministers in the early church. Winter also says Paul intentionally rejected the braggart, money-making, attractive orator image that was readily apparent in the culture at the time.

    This must cause all of us to pause as we think of the kind of Christian leaders that are so often held up as "making a difference" in our culture. Most often they get famous as successful pastors because they are great speakers and attractive. Perhaps this is always the way to fame and there is no preventing it. But that does not mean we need to try to emulate the famous (as is so natural).

    Jeffrey Fox lays out "the rules to rise to the top of any organization" in How to Become CEO. Here are a few out of the 75.

    • Keep Physically Fit
    • Dress for a Dance
    • Be Visible
    • Learn to Speak and Write in Plain English
    • Say Things to Make People Feel Good
    • Look Sharp and Be Sharp
    • The Concept Doesn’t Have to Be Perfect But the Execution of It Does

    I am quite sure that Fox is right that if we applied these we could rise to the top of any organization including the church. The Corinthians would have sent Paul the book. "Work on your appearance, Paul. Don’t do manual labor. Charge higher fees. Try to be a bit more polished."

    We could work on those things or instead we could learn to pray the Psalms.

    1 Sam 16:7. But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things human beings look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart" (TNIV).

    May God give us wisdom to do our tasks well – gathering wisdom wherever we may find it – from secular and Christian mentors and books. But may God also form us as people after his own heart so that we do the right tasks in the right way.

  • Seminaries for Evangelicals

    Seminary is great.

    A number of Taylor University students (where I taught from 2005-2007) asked me about seminary. I think seminary is a wonderful thing. It is a chance to read great books and devote time to the intellectual side of faith. Meanwhile, if you are intentional, you can work on spiritual formation with a group of friends. You can also get involved in a local church and get ministry experience. There is no replacement for seminary if you are going to work with adults.

    Start on it early if you want to.

    Another thing I always tell students is that they can start right away from wherever they are. For example, I took Church History 1 and 2 from Gordon Conwell through their extension program. They sent you a bunch of tapes or CD’s and you have to listen to them. Then you have to have someone unrelated to you proctor your exam. Then you have to send in your paper. It is great!

    Most credits will transfer from school to school. Check on this but I think this is almost always true.

    How to pick a seminary:

    1. When you are nearby traveling for other reasons, check out the seminary, visit a chapel, talk to an admissions person, meet with a prof, and see what you think of it.

    2. Pay attention to the books you like (and don’t like). Where did the authors go to school? Where do they teach?

    3. You will likely have some interests. Are you looking for apologetics? Are you looking for mentoring? Are you looking for innovative church ministry? Do you want a seminary that hates the megachurch or loves it? Do you want a seminary that likes the emerging church conversation or hates it? Do you want a seminary with a wider statement of faith or a narrower one? Many schools have some kind of specialty.

    4. Check out the websites.

    5. Realize that where you go to seminary will often influence where you end up living. You will tend to settle down nearby.

    6. A seminary will certainly form you so this is a big decision.

    7. Go to Regent College’s summer school. They have awesome 1-2 week classes in May, June and July with professors from many seminaries.

    8. Seminaries accept most everyone.  I'm not saying not to take the admissions process seriously.  Write good essays, turn in your recommendations, send your transcripts, follow the directions, etc.  But, it bothers me when people say, "I got in so that must be the right place!"  Hmm . . . no.  Most everyone with a college degree and a C average without a criminal record gets accepted at most every seminary.  Hmm . . . again, you should check on whether this is true.  Princeton and Duke are definitely more picky.  All I am saying is that getting in is not necessarily God saying "Go here."  Talk to your friends and family, visit, read, etc.   

    My List of Seminaries

    Below I have listed a number of seminaries where Taylor University grads have attended. I have tried to list them from most liberal to most conservative. There are some schools that I don’t exactly know where they lie so I have guessed.

    Certainly there are many, many more seminaries. There are many more that are smaller and more denominationally oriented. There are many that are more liberal. There are bible colleges. There are many in other countries!

    After naming the seminary and providing the link, I have listed some of the more famous faculty members. Now, this “fame” is just my opinion and is most often determined by authors I have happened to have read. I just thought it would get you started on your search. I have also listed some friends of mine and where they went to school. If you email me, I can probably give you their contact info.

    The List

    Princeton Theological Seminary – Princeton, NJ. Darrell Guder, Ellen Charry, Kenda Creasy Dean, Bruce McCormack, Daniel Migliore, George Hunsinger. Friend: Brendon Benz – fellow 1998 Taylor grad.

    Duke Divinity School – Durham, NC. Ellen Davis, Stanley Hauerwas, Richard Hays, Richard Lischer. Friend: Ryan Moore – 1999 Wheaton grad. 2011 update: Me (Th.D. work) and many friends now that I have been here 5 years.

    Pittsburgh Theological Seminary – Pittsburgh, PA. Craig Barnes, Edith Humphrey.

    The Seattle School of Theology and Psychology – Seattle, WA. Dan Allender. Friends: Jon Stanley, Atta Dawahare, Ken Peer, Jason Jost, Jon DenHartong, Chris Keller – all Taylor grads.

    North Park Theological Seminary – Chicago, IL

    George Fox Evangelical Seminary – Portland, OR.

    Fuller Theological Seminary – Pasadena, CA. Colin Brown, Eddie Gibbs, Archibald Hart, Don Hagner, Richard Mouw, Joel Green. Friend: Jacob Gaines – 1998 Taylor grad.

    Truett Theological Seminary – Baylor University, Waco, TX. David Garland, Roger Olsen.

    Palmer Theological Seminary – Wynnewood, PA. Ron Sider.

    Asbury Theological Seminary – Wilmore, KY.  Ben Witherington III, Craig Keener. Friend: Sally Evans – 1997 Taylor grad.

    Regent College – Vancouver, BC, Canada. J.I. Packer, Gordon Fee, Bruce Waltke, James Houston, and John Stackhouse. Friends: A million because I went there. Amy Rowell, Matt Ghormley, Ben Suriano, Cynthia Bennett, Jon Yeager, Brad Brummeler – all Taylor grads.

    Calvin Theological Seminary – Grand Rapids, MI. Cornelius Plantinga, John Witvliet. Friend: Mark Dykstra – 1998 Taylor grad.

    Bethel Seminary – St. Paul, MN. Associated with the Baptist General Conference. [Update: August 2013. This is where I am a professor now.]

    Denver Seminary – Littleton, CO. Craig Blomberg, Douglas R. Groothuis. Friends: Brooks Penner – 1999 Taylor grad.

    Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary – Hamilton, MA Robert Coleman, Scott Gibson, Walter Kaiser, Haddon Robinson, David Wells. And Charlotte, NC. Friends: Brad Bitner and John Noble 1998 Taylor grads. Eric Kniffin – 1998 Wheaton grad.

    Beeson Divinity School — Birmingham, AL.

    Wheaton College Graduate School – Wheaton, IL. Kevin Vanhoozer, Doug Moo, John Walton.

    Trinity Evangelical Divinity School – Deerfield, IL. D.A. Carson, Grant Osborne.  Friends: JR Kerr and Jim Matter – 1998 Taylor grads.

    Multnomah Biblical Seminary – Portland, OR.  (I don't know much about where to place this school).

    Talbot School of Theology – La Mirada, CA. William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Michael Wilkins, Norman Wright. Friends: Hank Voss – 1998 Taylor grad and Brent Croxton – 1998 Wengatz hall director.

    Reformed Theological Seminary – Jackson, MS. Orlando, FL. Charlotte, NC. Atlanta, GA. Washington, DC. Boca Raton, FL.

    Covenant Theological Seminary – St. Louis, MO. PCA seminary. Bryan Chapell.

    Westminster Seminary California – Escondido, CA. Michael Horton.

    Westminster Theological Seminary – Glenside, PA. Presbyterian and Reformed.

    Dallas Theological Seminary – Dallas, TX. Darrell Bock, Howard Hendricks. Friend: Jon Easterhaus – 1998 Taylor grad.

    Southern Baptist Theological Seminary – Louisville, KY. Thomas R. Schreiner, Albert Mohler. Friend: Joseph Bonura – 1999 Taylor grad.

    Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary – Fort Worth, TX. Paige Patterson, Craig Blaising.

    The Master's Seminary – Sun Valley, CA. John MacArthur.

    Update March 8, 2007:
    See the post by John Stackhouse (a professor at Regent College): Seminary: Who Needs It?  from March 8, 2007.

    Update July 31, 2010:

    Embarrassed by some of my previous ordering, I have revised the order a bit.   

    Update September 21, 2011:

    I have again fixed some of the egregious goofs and changes.  Feel free to comment with changes I should make. 

    See also my other posts under the category Seminaries including some where I look at the data for the biggest seminaries in the United States and Canada. 

  • Gibbs and Bolger’s Emerging Churches Focuses Almost Exclusively On Small House Churches

    Gibbs, Eddie and Ryan K. Bolger. Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

    Disclaimer: I liked the book and I recommend that everyone read it. It articulates the ideals of the Emerging Church movement very well and gives practical examples of each ideal. Bravo! Now for the critique . . . which perhaps is no surprise considering the fuzzy nature of the movement . . . I didn’t like how they limited the definition of "Emerging Churches."

    It seems almost everyone agrees that Gibbs and Bolger have written the most responsible, comprehensive and current portrait of the Emerging Church movement. Their methodology seemed sound. They interviewed 50 emerging church leaders and tried to collate those responses into a report from the frontlines. I thoroughly appreciated the work and plan on writing more about its positive points. But today I have a warning for the reader: Gibbs and Bolger basically just focus on small house churches. Though there are large church pastors, traditional church pastors, youth pastors, and Next-Gen pastors “in the conversation” at any emergent conference or emerging church website, you will not hear from them in this book.

    Gibbs and Bolger have made the crucial decision to exclude Gen-X megachurches and Gen-X/young adult services from their portrait of the emerging church. They admit that these forms of church are often what people think of when they use the term emerging churches. But apparently Gibbs and Bolger have decided to try to change that. They write, “Popularly, the term emerging church has been applied to high-profile, youth-oriented congregations that have gained attention on account of their rapid numerical growth; their ability to attract (or retain) twentysomethings; their contemporary worship, which draws from popular musical styles; and their ability to promote themselves to the Christian subculture through websites and by word of mouth” (41). Though most people consider these youthful expressions of church part of the emerging church movement, Gibbs and Bolger dismiss these expressions as hopelessly “modern.” They write, “Taking postmodernity seriously requires that all church practices come into question. In contrast, Gen-X churches involve simply changes in strategy from what came before (e.g., adding stories, video, raw music, vulnerable preaching, art, and candles). However, to be missional is to go way beyond strategy. It is to look for church practices that can be embodied within a particular culture. In other words, theologies given birth within modernity will not transfer to postmodern cultures” (34). I think they are wrong to dismiss the possibility that Gen-X churches are missional. (Popularized by Darrell Guder’s The Missional Church, this term simply means a fresh application of the techniques of missiology to Western culture. There is no reason only church plants or house churches can do this. In fact, the book is written by Guder who is a PCUSA person with the intention to shake up the mainline churches especially). They are also naïve to assume that “emerging churches” can possibly remove themselves from the influence of modernity. Emerging churches will still likely use modern inventions such as printed Bibles, automobiles, public transit, computers, phones, etc.

    Because of their definition, it seemed to me that the description by Gibbs and Bolger of “emerging churches” sounds a lot like “house churches” to me. A small group of 10-100 people come together, discuss some Scripture, care for one another, stress participation in worship, eat a meal together, share leadership, do good to those in the community, and do friendship evangelism. They write, “When emerging churches meet in a large congregational setting, they widen their community ties and build on the intimacy developed in their small groups. These networks of small groups may gather together on a monthly basis. However, the large group meeting is of secondary importance” (112). There are a lot of church leaders which are not specifically house church-oriented that have been highly involved in discussing how to minister to postmoderns.

    It seems to me most of the leaders of the emerging church they interviewed would consider the Gen-X church leaders part of the “emerging church conversation.” Listen to these definitions.

    a. Jonny Baker: “Church, as we have inherited it, is no longer working for vast groups of people. The world has changed so much. So I think the term emerging church is nothing more than a way of expressing that we need new forms of church that relate to culture” (41).

    b. Ben Edson: “So emerging church for me is quite simply a church that
    is rooted in the emerging context and is exploring worship, mission, and
    community within that context” (41-42).

    c. Karen Ward: what is “coming to the surface that is new, unformed,
    still happening, emerging” (42).

    d. Mark Scandrette: “The emerging church is a quest for a more
    integrated and whole life of faith. There is a bit of theological
    questioning going on, focusing more on kingdom theology, the inner life,
    friendship/community, justice, earth keeping, inclusivity, and inspirational
    leadership. In addition, the arts are in a renaissance, as are the
    classical spiritual disciplines. Overall, it is a quest for a holistic
    spirituality” (42).

    e. Doug Pagitt: “He sees three types of responses to the current
    context: (1) a return to the Reformation (e.g., Mars Hill in Seattle); (2) deep
    systemic changes, but Christianity and the church are still in the center and
    theological changes are not needed (e.g., University Baptist in Waco and Mosaic
    in Los Angeles); and (3) seeing the church as not necessarily the center of
    God’s intentions. God is working in the world, and the church has the
    option to join God or not. The third approach focuses more on the kingdom
    than on the church, and it reflects the perspective of Solomon’s Porch in
    Minneapolis and characterizes what Pagitt would classify as emerging”
    (42).

    Gibbs and Bolger essentially decide to accept Pagitt’s most exclusive third approach as their working definition and ignore the more broader definitions articulated by Baker, Edson, Ward and Scandrette. (It should also be said that the third approach is not articulated well in the quote above. How is the church not the center of God’s intentions? I think what they are trying to say is that these churches have a fresh awareness of the importance of a kingdom perspective but this is overstated and unclear in the quote).

    I understand that Gibbs and Bolger could not profile everyone who is part of the emerging church conversation. They have to draw the line somewhere. So they have decided to argue that the emerging church is very different from other expressions of church. But it seems to me their definition ends up excluding some of the leading voices in the movement: Brian McLaren, Chris Seay, Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, and Erwin McManus. McLaren, indisputably one of the leaders of the movement, is rarely quoted in the book and his church is never mentioned as an example of an emerging church. Rob Bell, who is not explicitly part of the movement but was featured in the Christianity Today article by Andy Crouch on the emerging church and is extremely influential among young church leaders, is never mentioned. Chris Seay, who invited Tony Jones (coordinator of Emergent) to speak at the anniversary of his church, is dismissed. The Younger Evangelicals by Robert Webber, The Church on the Other Side by Brian McLaren, and The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball have other weaknesses but they do not exclude these other voices. They include the fact that many pastors are trying to help traditional, seeker and modern churches become more adept at ministering in a postmodern context. For Gibbs and Bolger, if you haven’t planted it from scratch, then it doesn’t count as an “emerging church.” I would say there is a range of emerging churches who are involved in the conversation. I’m interested in what all of them have to say. However, Gibbs and Bolger limit themselves to just numbers 8-9.

    1. Mosaic (Erwin McManus)
    2. Mars Hill Church (Mark Driscoll)
    3. Traditional churches that are being led by young pastors who are trying to adapt them to reach a postmodern culture
    4. Gen-X/young adult services
    5. Gen-X Churches
    6. Mars Hill Bible Church (Rob Bell)
    7. Cedar Ridge Community Church (Brian McLaren)
    8. Solomon’s Porch (Doug Pagitt)
    9. House churches / post-modern church plants

    To be fair, Gibbs and Bolger intend to include the overhaul of traditional churches and also large churches in their analysis. They write, “Most of these emerging churches are new, while others represent the rejuvenation of long-standing congregations and ancient traditions. Some of these frontline churches are large, the biggest attracting crowds of several hundreds or even thousands, but the majority are small, consisting of independent groups of less than thirty or clusters of house groups totally less than one hundred” (29). But in the end I had difficulty identifying any churches that have “thousands” in attendance or are the result of a traditional church being adapted. They also try to distinguish these emergent churches from “house churches” (60). “Unlike the stereotypical house church, emerging churches do not exist in isolation but establish networks for mutual support and encouragement” (113). Still I think the churches they describe are very similar to house churches. I think it would have been more fruitful to pick out how all sorts of churches are trying to reach postmoderns.