Pastors as Friendless Leaders??

In one of my classes yesterday we were talking about role identity issues and boundaries in the pastorate. How do you know when to say what? When you give advice, it is always as the pastor? Or can it sometimes be simply as a friend? Is there a difference?

I was surprised at the division in opinion amongst the class. Some people were extremely adamate about the fact that pastors should not make friends within their own congregations. Other people couldn't understand how a pastor couldn't make friends in his own church.

Those who argued against friendship said that a pastor may lose all respect if she tells people her true struggles and thoughts. They said that they would rather be friendless than chance breaking up a healthy congregation if information of their "true life" got out.

Those who argued for friendship couldn't imagine how a pastor could encourage community in his/her congregation without being in true community themselves. Granted, this would look different in various size churces. However, a pastor who has no genuine friends in a church seems vulnerable to burnout and the sinful dangers which accompany isolation. If the church is called to exist as a community of individuals who are together learning to live like Christ, then how can a pastor not be friends with anyone?

What do you think? Is it possible to not have friends in your congregation? It is possible to have friends and still retain some personal boundaries? Where do you draw the line between professional and personal?

Or should there even be a line at all??

Leadership From Inside Out

So I'm reading this book by Wesley Granberg-Michaelson called Leadership from Inside Out and it is really making me think about some of the ways which the church operates. Of course he covers a multitude of topics, but there was one chapter in particular that stuck out to me as counter-cultural. When we discuss these things, they seem so obvious, but when we reflect on the way we actually function... well, I think we're in trouble.
In a chapter about instilling new values into the culture of any organization, one of the values that the author emphasizes is the importance of Sabbath. Not your typical Sunday morning "obligation" to go to church, but rather the significance of building REST into your schedule. How does this apply to the corporate world? Or to the Church?
How doesn't this apply to either? Look at the ways which we operate. Most of the time, the Church is no different than the corporate world (if not worse) in its expectations of those in positions of authority. Pastors are stretched so thin that they burnout before they've even reached their peak. Church staff members are expected to do so much with so little time, that they neglect their families and their own physical health.
What can we do as a church to act counter-culturally to this illusive "need" to be always working? How can we go against the grain of "production" and allow for the self-care that is necessary in everybody's life? It'll definitely ruffle some feathers, but it MUST be done.

Being REAL at Church

Ideally, I probably shouldn't say "Being real AT Church" as much as "Being real AS the Church". But I actually am referring to the habit in which many of us are stuck come Sunday mornings. When we wake up and get all "pretty" for Church we walk into our sanctuaries (or wherever your community may gather) and we pretend that everything is so good with our lives. When people say, "Hi, how are you doing?" our automatic response is, "Good, how are you?" The problem is, we go through these motions whether we've just had the best week of our lives or the WORST! Why can't we be REAL at church?

As a worship pastor I've heard a line used time and time again (in fact, I've used it many times myself): "Lord, help us to leave everything at the door this morning and focus on You." Maybe you've never heard this before or approached church with a "leave all the crud of life at the door" mentality, but for some of us it is way too familiar. When we "leave it at the door", however, we cannot possibly be REAL, not only with each other, but also with God.

Instead of "leaving it at the door" we need to "bring it in" and praise God in spite of everything that's tearing us apart and dragging us down. How much more does a worship song mean when it isn't isolated from the context of our everyday lives? When we can actually put the words of a song into the fabric of our family life, work life, social life, etc., then we allow God to see how we're REALLY feeling. When we are still able to praise our Creator in spite of the struggles of our life then we are learning what it means to rely on God in faith.

Just something that's been on my mind...

Learning to Lead

Again, it's been way too long since I've posted anything here... I'm sorry. I'm starting a new quarter at Fuller today and two out of my three classes (the third one being Hebrew) are classes about leadership. One of the classes works in conjunction with the internship in which I am currently involved, and the other class surveys the various forms of leadership portrayed throughout the Bible. It should be interesting taking these classes simultaneously to see how they play off of each other.

An ongoing conversation that I've been having with peers and classmates is about the role of leadership in the church. Some churches have enormous staffs with multiple paid professionals each in charge of a specific realm of the church. Other churches only have one or two paid pastors who are forced to be multi-role players. Some churches don't even pay their pastor in an effort to eliminate the "profession" of the clergy. Is there a "correct" form of church leadership organization? Do different methods work better in different places?

I guess those are a couple of the questions that I will hopefully be more clear about as this quarter progresses. Any thoughts?

Missional Seminary?

In my American Culture class we were given the prompt to explore an aspect of American culture which is based in an unquestioned assumption. We've talked a lot about how the way we are brought up, specifically in the United States, shapes the way we see the world. The goal of the paper I'm writing, then, is to not only explore the assumption, but also come up with ideas of how the Church can think critically and live in a way which counters the assumption. (For example, one assumption may be that the more toys we have the happier our lives are... to which the Church could preach and live a counter-message).

I've decided to tackle the task of questioning the assumption that "the way we do seminary is the best way to do it". I plan on looking into the effects that the academy has had on theological education and that modernity has had on the way which we operate. Are grades effective? Should we be competing with classmates for the highest grade? Is the regurgitation of facts the best possible way to train for vocational ministry? There has been recent conversation about the need for transformation in theological education. www.allelon.org has some great resources which explore this idea further.

Any ideas? How can a seminary have a more missional approach to educating and training pastors while maintaining its academic integrity? Is a more integrative approach with local churches even possible? How can the Church itself encourage such a change? What would local congregations need to do to contribute to such a transition in pastoral training?

God and Time: Does it really matter??

So I got together with my buddy Patrick yesterday who is working on his PhD in Philosophy right now. Of course what began as "catching up over coffee" quickly became a deep (in my mind, anyway) dialogue about God, foreknowledge and time and space, etc. (This basically consisted of my questions with his answers). But it got my mind reeling about the question of God and time. Especially in regards to God's knowledge of future events, I've always been hung up on the issue of God's relation to time. Is God IN time with creation? Does God somehow exist ABOVE time or "beyond" time? Does that mean that God can see the entire spectrum of time at once?

Previously, I would think to myself, "OK, if God relates to humanity temporally, then God cannot see future events in their entirety (whether by choice or ability). But if God exists outside of time and can view the entire spectrum of past, present, and future events all at once, then God can see future events in their entirety."

After our conversation yesterday, Patrick pointed out an alternative starting point. Rather than starting with the issue of God and time, why not start with the issue of the existence of future events on the foundation of your belief in free will. Does a future event even exist if it has not yet happened? If it exists, then it must occur exactly as it exists. This would be determinism and we would have no other option than acting exactly as the event exists as foreknown in the future.

However, if I start with my conviction that God gave humanity free will, and concur that events in the future must not yet exist (it's an impossibility- like a square triangle), then I am able to see that it doesn't really matter where I land on the God and time issue. Of course I have an opinion about God and time... but either way you put it--whether God exists within or outside of time--doesn't change the fact that future events do not even exist. So it's not that God isn't powerful enough to see future events in their entirety, it's that they don't even exist in the first place. So even if God IS outside of time looking at the entire spectrum... the spectrum of events that exist is a lot smaller than most may imagine.

OK... this is just my mind wrestling with this issue right now. I had to write it out to articulate it to myself, even. Of course it leads back to previous conversations about Open Theism and God's foreknowledge (which could go on and on), but I at least had to get some of this out of my head. Now off to that Hebrew homework...

Chap Clark's HURT

So I just finished reading a book titled Hurt by Chap Clark. It was really interesting. The basic premise of his argument is that today's society completely neglects the true needs of mid-adolescents. He says that the programs and systems which we have in place to "nurture" teenagers actually inadvertantly do more harm than good. For example, he argues that organized sports oftentimes push so hard for competition that they harm the students who are not as athletic... ultimately, the adults (coaches and parents) vicariously live our their own dreams while pushing their children to unprecedented levels of expectation. He also argues that our school system requires so much studying, along with extra-curricular activity, along with anything else to fill an adolescent's schedule, that our society no longer values a teenager for being gifted in one thing in particular, but only awards those who are able to balance the most activities without drowning.
He makes the point that all teenagers want the same thing from each other... but it is the one thing that they cannot provide for each other. They are begging for the genuine love and care that only an adult can provide in the process of ushering a teenager into adulthood. It's a fascinating survey of youth-culture in America today and a challenging wake up call to churches and youth organizations to reevaluate the way they organize their leadership. The bottom line: teens need adults, and in today's society that reality is as true as ever. The problem, however, is that adults just aren't paying attention.

Any thoughts??

Back to School, and Ready for Some Theological Discussion

After a great summer, I've finally begun my fall quarter at Fuller Seminary. So it's back to the books, but I'm ready for it. I'm beginning Hebrew--which looks a little scary a this point. I'm also taking Foundations of Youth Ministry with Chap Clark (author of Hurt, among others). That should be a really good class. My third class is called American Culture: Social Location and the Gospel. Basically it's a class surveying the ways in which our Western culture in the US shapes the way our churches think and work. We are theologically shaped from birth, and it places our perspectives in a box that is hard to escape from. So that should be an interesting class as well. Sorry it's been so long since I've posted... but keep tuned, because I'm sure I'll have some great topics to discuss!

Hermeneutical Dialogue

In my Exegetical Methods class the other day we were discussing the idea of hermeneutics. In particular, we were talking about the benefit of hermeneutical dialogue, especially when it includes voices from several different perspectives into a single conversation (e.g. various socio-economic standings, ethnic histories, denominational affiliations, etc. etc.) The idea was presented that as more voices are represented in the dialogue, and each person is allowed to point out the biases of another, the conversation as a whole naturally transforms toward a more healthy reading of the text.
I can see how this makes sense, since each person who reads a text approaches it with his or her own biases, whether or not they intend to. So it seems logical that the more perspectives respresented in the conversation, the fewer biased readings of a text exist.
My question is this: In the midst of such a hermeneutical dialogue, what is the goal? As the Church body, existing in a variety of contexts, approaches a text and then discusses it, is it gathering to come to a "consensus translation," one on which everyone can agree? If this is the case, as each person points out the biases of another, each voice will have to allow for a bit of compromise as they together strive for a consensus translation. Or is the goal for each perspective to affirm the other perspectives in the conversation, even if they do not agree with each other? They wouldn't be forced to compromise their own translation of the text, but at the same time, there is plenty of room for plurality.
This is just something I've been thinking about... any other thoughts?

The Lost Tomb of Jesus

Sorry it has been so long since I've written... I've been pretty busy with school (but I know, that's a pretty stupid excuse).

Anyway, right now I'm in a really great class. It's "New Testament One: The Gospels" with Dr. Craig A. Evans, a professor who visits Fuller only during the summer to teach a couple courses. This guy knows what he's talking about. He's definitely one of the key players in some of today's top theological discussions. It's been extremely interesting, in particular, to hear him talk about The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a documentary that the Discovery Channel will be airing in the next few months. This documentary is directed by James Cameron (of Titantic fame, I believe). Dr. Evans has told us that he thinks this film is a huge joke... basically a bunch of guys who are using their mass media connections to spread a lie. If you're at all interested in what Craig Evans thinks about this, he's speaking at Fuller Seminary this Wednesday evening.

Here are a few links for you to explore on the subject:
Dr. Craig Evans' Site
Fuller Lecture Information
The Film's Website
Evans and Jacobovici on The Michael Coren Show
Dr. Craig Evans video
Dr. Ben Witherington's Blog