And I certainly don't want to minimize or attack the fine work that World Renew and World/Home Missions / Resonate is doing.
Why are we hiding our incredible mission focus under a secular 'branding' bushel? Our focus needs to be on 'ministry'; not fundraising. We seem to be selling off our birthright so that we can appeal to a few more potential shekels from beyond our Reformed world.
The time will come -- probably sooner than we like -- when synod will actually debate a denominational name change, arguing that "Christian Reformed" gets in the way of appealing to a wider donor base. Look at all of our ministries? Which ones are left with an offical CRC tag?
It's been three months since that initial posting and much has happened since then. There has been a growing endorsement of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Hillory Clinton is almost assured to receive the Democratic Party nomination.
While I agree that synod should not get into a partisan debate, there is considerable merit in having synod talk about the 'state of the union'; that is, the state of American society. What is sparking the anger?
As Mercatornet editor Michael Cook recently wrote, "about 40 per cent of American children are born out of wedlock ... 55 per cent of teenagers live in families where their biological parents have rejected each other. Broken homes are associated with poverty, personal instability, and poor employment prospects. In this year's election campaign, this might encourage people to vote for an anti-establishment figure like Mr. Trump."
American society seems broken. The notion of 'the family' is disintegrating. If ever there was a time for the church -- in our case, Synod -- to discuss the issue, it is now. And it shouldn't be a discussion on which candidate or which party to support -- though it may come to that; it should be a discussion on how the church should respond to the desperate cry for help from millions of American families who seem hopeless and disenfranchised.
While it may be wise for the church to stay out of the partisan debates, the church does have a significant message of hope to bring to a broken society ... and it indeed is broken.
A few years ago, I moved to a new town and church, and was elected to council. One of the first acts of business of this group of elders and deacons was to begin a season of confession for how they had treated their past pastors. Over the next few months, they wrote individual letters of confession to their former pastors, confessing their sins of pride and unChristian behavior.
That took a lot of humility and reflected the integrity of those elders and deacons. So, as an incredible show of support for our pastors -- especially former pastors -- consider how they were treated by the church's leadership and by members of the congregation. Repent. Then proceed to treat your current pastor with the love and honor that they deserve.
The problem, it seems to me, isn't The Banner's mandate. It indeed should “stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith and the culture of which we are a part.”
The problem arises when The Banner lives up to its mandate and actually publishes articles deemed to be controversial and designed to lead pew-sitting CRC folks to do some serious thinking. Those types are articles are the exception; not the norm.
As an avid and long-time Banner reader, I have grown accustomed to the USA Today style: church snippets and pictures of winning sports teams at local Christian schools. The Banner by its very design and content treats its readers as theological and ecclesiastical neophytes. The very fact that the editorial staff consistently needs to define what a synod or a classis are, reinforces that notion. I can't imagine any sports magazine worth its salt painstakingly explaining what a touchdown is, or a quarterback, hat trick or hole in one.
The Banner is mandated to stimulate critical thinking. Give us something to chew on. Challenge our long-held beliefs. But also give us some very basic information about our denomination. I, and probably thousands of others, bemoan the fact that our denominational publication no longer publishes information on ministers in transition from one church to another.
The blame for the apparent outrage over the publication of those two notorious articles falls squarely on the minds of ordinary Christian Reformed folk who have been spoon-fed light articles of church news for so long that they can't recognize a good potential debate when they see one. We can't handle controversy. We don't know what critical thinking really is.
We don't need a denominational publication to give us warm fuzzies about the state of our church. We need to be challenged to become more culturally relevant as a denomination. We need to look at the tension within the denomination between piety and Kuyperianism, the theology of our church plants, how we engage in mission, the demise (or is it a celebration?) of the second service.
I don't envy the new Banner editor. While he or she will be mandated to 'stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith', the truth of the matter is that we who sit in the pew aren't prepared to hear it or to engage in it. The new editor will need to develop thick skin -- even thicker than Bob DeMoor's -- who will need to be backed by a strong board and a stronger synod.
The Banner is the only place where grassroots Reformed people (I hate that term) can wrestle with pertinent issues of the day as they relate to the church and our own spiritual journeys. Our pastors and elders have the annual gathering of synod where they can engage in that kind of discussion. We have and need The Banner.
We will hopefully experience a transition in the kinds of articles that will appear in future Banners. Here's the point: The Banner's editorial staff needs to expect more from its readers. They need to trust that CR folks can engage in a meaningful and thoughtful discussion on matters of faith. The Banner needs to push and prod and lead the CR constituency down a path of critical thinking.
We, the audience, need to open our minds and hearts as we hear our own preconceived notions challenged in our beloved denominational publication. After all, The Banner is mandated to engage us in that kind of critical thinking.
Thank you so much, Scott, for pointing out the painstaking efforts that Seminary and its professors take in teaching, training and mentoring potential pastors.
I am particularly impressed by the work of the Center for Excellence in Preaching and for the amount of 'traffic' that the website receives. It is my hope and prayer that pastors continue to use the excellent resources that the Center offers, both online and in person.
The pulpit continues to be the single most effective way to disciple, teach and grow the congregation. Within an hour on a Sunday morning, the pastor is able to reach hundreds of men, women, young adults and children with a message that reveals God's grace, holiness, covenant relationship and love for his people. That is an incredible responsibility and opportunity.
Thanks, folks, for your varied responses and for the interesting tangents that this discussion took. I do understand that congregations are fickle and that a pastor can fit in wonderfully in one congregation but not in another. I also understand the pain of churches and pastors in conflict and the growing need for transitional pastors and specialists to deal with that pain.. I do think that you've missed the fundamental point of the initial question: Why do we have pastors who preach poorly?
Your natural reaction as a pastor is to blame the congregation for being stressed or anxious or finicky. You've got to protect your own. I think it was Peter who mentioned that "the quality of preaching can never be measured." I beg to differ. When a church loses it members because of what those members describe as poor preaching, that's measurable. Maybe, just maybe, a more appropriate term is 'lazy' preaching. When one sits in the pew and hears a sermon that lacks substance and that clearly hasn't had much thought put into it, that's lazy preaching. When pastors are more prone to exegete a TV show or the latest newscast, that's lazy preaching. Granted, perhaps those pastors consider their preaching 'relevant'. Is it being old fashioned to expect a pastor to 'preach the text'?
I am delighted that Seminary's Center for Excellence in Preaching regularly puts on touring workshops across the denomination. Their very existence underscores the need for excellence in preaching.
And perhaps Seminary should create a Centre for Excellence in Discerning, Listening, Tolerance for those of us in the pew who are at the receiving end of that solitary Sunday morning sermon.
I don't envy today's pastor/preacher. He/she has a tough audience. Preaching isn't for the faint-hearted, nor for the lazy, nor for the person who is looking for a soft job and a fat cheque (check). Congregations not only deserve excellence in preaching; it's crucial in equipping the saints for the working world and the battles that exist in the trenches.
It's confession time, and this is only a slight digression from the topic. I will come around to Roger's comment about 'Spirit-filled preachers'.
I was asked a while ago to offer my personal testimony to a large gather of Christian media folks.
I began by saying that I always knew God: I grew up in a Christian home, attended Sunday school, the requisite Christian schools, and had a deep passion for the church. I owned a Christian newspaper, then worked in the national offices of three different Christian denominations -- Christian Reformed, Presbyterian and Anglilcan (Episcopal). I knew God, but it was a theoretical knowledge. I spoke the church language, served several terms as elder (usually chair of council) in several different locations.
It was only after I left my last 'church' job and spent a few months at home in prayer and 'letting go', that I finally began to 'experience' God. It took 60 years to move from my head down to my heart. For the first time in my life, I began to depend on God .. for everything. I finally realized what it meant to walk with God ... after mouthing those words for decades.
Roger concludes his latest piece with an interesting and pointed question: "Is the absence of this anointing by the Holy Spirit what makes CRC ministers poor preachers?" I would never, ever dare question a pastor's faith, especially as it relates to 'poor' preaching. I do recall an incident many years ago when a parishioner asked to meet with her pastor. When they sat down in his office, she asked him: "How is your spiritual walk with God?" He was deeply offended. How could she dare ask him -- the pastor -- about his spiritual walk? She was, and still is, a godly woman who was genuinely concerned about the pastor's spiritual life.
Maybe we need to ask that question more often of our pastors. After all, it is regularly asked as part of the traditional family visit ... if we still do that. And perhaps those who are concerned about the proverbial 'poor preaching' should sit down with that pastor and ask that pointed question ... without causing offense.
When a preacher truly experiences God, that is bound to profoundly affect the content of the sermon.
To clarify, I mentioned 'dozens of conversations' with folks in CRCs across Canada. No, there isn't a mass exodus of Christian Reformed members leaving the denomination.
Granted, we have many excellent preachers across the denomination and those churches are thriving.
As a life-long member of the CRC who was privileged to have had a few leadership positions, my heart aches for the church ... especially for those congregations that have struggled with pastors who simply don't preach well. And it is proverbial slap in the face to suggest that things would change if the congregation simply prayed more. I have seen church leaders agonize over this issue.
I also recognize that Calvin Seminary has a stellar reputation for its theological and scholarly work.
This wasn't mean to be a finger-pointing exercise but to simply raise the issue and the concern. To put it crassly, some of our pastors preach poorly. Then again, I am sure that no pastor intentionally plans and preaches a poor sermon. There's the rub: is a sermon's quality in the ears of the beholder? I don't think so. One can quickly spot a sermon that has been thrown together without little exegetical thought: a few anecdotes here, a quote from Tim Kellar there.
It makes me wonder -- speaking broadly -- if we have pastors who don't spend enough time exegeting a text, digging into scriptures, spending hours chewing on the text during the course of the week. Is it possible that we have pastors who would rather do a lot of the usual pastoral/administrative work instead of searching scriptures for next Sunday's sermon.
The church today needs excellent preaching. That is how we grow, numerically and spiritually.
Your comments make a lot of sense. In fact, I regularly come across employers who approach most of their decisions this way. I am the executive director of the Canadian Christian Business Federation and I regularly connect with about 3,500 Christian business leaders across the country, from small operations to multi-national corporations. Our membership also includes a half dozen Christian universities and 15 Christian non-profits.
Hundreds of Christian business leaders meet monthly over breakfast to deal precisely with the kind of issues that you raise. But why stop at hiring practices? Why seek God's will only when we're hiring an employee ... whether that's in a church or in a business?
We claim that God owns everything ... even the church!
I regularly come across men and women who live and breathe their faith at their work. When they develop long range plans for their companies, it's a prayerful process, balancing THEIR plans with God's will.
When they create their corporate budgets, they include a set amount for 'kingdom causes' ... rather than simply giving God 10 per cent of their net profits ... if they have any.
They responsibly value their employees, providing mentoring environments and appropriate maternity and paternity leave.
Your suggestion to employ the spiritual disciplines when hiring staff and appointing volunteers seems to me to be a foundational practice that every church should employ. Certainly this should all be done prayerfully and pastorally.
Here's one more tip when it comes to the appointment of volunteers to head up various church ministries. Pay them a dollar a year. They're now considered 'paid' employees and the appropriate church body now has the right to 'fire' an employee if he/she isn't doing a good job. It's virtually impossible to fire volunteers. After all, they volunteered. If nothing else, it conveys a message to the volunteers that they're accountable and that they can be released from their responsibilities if there are valid reasons.
The Church can learn a few things from their members who genuinely reflect Christ in their business.
... I need to add something. There is a recurring refrain among the Canadian Christian business community (and they're a broadly ecumenical lot): If you're involved in business, you're involved in ministry.
I know hundreds of men and women who feel 'called' to their ministry in business, and who refer to that same sense of calling when they hire CEOs, managers or sales people.
Here's a digression: I recently spoke to a group of Christian multi-millionaires and billionaires. They told me two things: they're lonely (their friends want their money) and they have left the organized church (the church just sees them as walking ATM machines or, at best, a potential chair of a capital campaign).
They don't seem to be valued for their leadership skills or their spiritual needs. When's the last time you appointed a very wealthy member to the Diaconate or used his/her gifts as Sunday school teacher?
It was something that Harry said that caught my eye: The need for a sunset clause on some of the ministries and/or committees.
I occasionally facilitate strategic planning sessions for Christian non-profits. One of the first questions I ask is: "If you had to begin this ministry from scratch, would you?" That question caught one particular group off guard and the said that, no, other organizations do it better than they do. So they folded.
What about a sunset clause for every local church; especially every church plant. Are they effective in spreading the gospel to the community? Is there another church that can do ministry more effectively?
_______
And now a point about this most recent synod. It seems to have ended rather quickly, with very few substantive issues that required much debate. Take away the bureaucratic appointments and the drivel over The Banner's editorial integrity, and there is nothing that couldn't be held over for another year or two. The CRCNA is one of a very few denominations to hold annual assemblies. The cost savings might fund an overseas missionary or two.
There was a time when CRC campus chaplains were seen as on-campus babysitters for our tender CRC teens who headed off to college or university. It was quickly discovered that the vast majority of CRC freshmen on the 'secular' campus simply wanted to discover life, perhaps even skip worship, and not become immediately connected to the campus chaplain's office.
Today's campus chaplain is, firstly, a Christian presence on campus for the broadly ecumenical student body. The campus chaplain's office is the place where students (re)discover their spiritual identity and become engaged in meaningful discussions as they try to connect their Sunday faith with their university campus setting.
You pose the question: Are CRC campus chaplains mostly ministers to Christians on campus or mostly evangelists on campus? The answer is Yes! ;o)
I think that chaplains provide a nurturing environment for Christian students who want to continue to grow in the faith but they also provide a nurturing environment for not-yet Christian students who are searching their own spiritual direction.
Should chaplains be sidewalk evangelists on our university campuses? I certainly hope not. That's not our Reformed style.
Students expect to become engaged in an intellectual discourse ... whether it's their area of academic interest or their own spiritual journey.
I suspect that the campus minister's life is a very lonely one. It is my hope and prayer that he or she has a strong support group within the local church communities and among clergy peers.
Posted in: Ashamed of Our Christian Reformed Identity
Thanks, Carmen. So true.
And I certainly don't want to minimize or attack the fine work that World Renew and World/Home Missions / Resonate is doing.
Why are we hiding our incredible mission focus under a secular 'branding' bushel? Our focus needs to be on 'ministry'; not fundraising. We seem to be selling off our birthright so that we can appeal to a few more potential shekels from beyond our Reformed world.
The time will come -- probably sooner than we like -- when synod will actually debate a denominational name change, arguing that "Christian Reformed" gets in the way of appealing to a wider donor base. Look at all of our ministries? Which ones are left with an offical CRC tag?
Posted in: Is the Republican Option Still Viable for Christians?
It's been three months since that initial posting and much has happened since then. There has been a growing endorsement of Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Hillory Clinton is almost assured to receive the Democratic Party nomination.
While I agree that synod should not get into a partisan debate, there is considerable merit in having synod talk about the 'state of the union'; that is, the state of American society. What is sparking the anger?
As Mercatornet editor Michael Cook recently wrote, "about 40 per cent of American children are born out of wedlock ... 55 per cent of teenagers live in families where their biological parents have rejected each other. Broken homes are associated with poverty, personal instability, and poor employment prospects. In this year's election campaign, this might encourage people to vote for an anti-establishment figure like Mr. Trump."
American society seems broken. The notion of 'the family' is disintegrating. If ever there was a time for the church -- in our case, Synod -- to discuss the issue, it is now. And it shouldn't be a discussion on which candidate or which party to support -- though it may come to that; it should be a discussion on how the church should respond to the desperate cry for help from millions of American families who seem hopeless and disenfranchised.
While it may be wise for the church to stay out of the partisan debates, the church does have a significant message of hope to bring to a broken society ... and it indeed is broken.
Posted in: Pastor and Ministry Appreciation Month Is Here
A few years ago, I moved to a new town and church, and was elected to council. One of the first acts of business of this group of elders and deacons was to begin a season of confession for how they had treated their past pastors. Over the next few months, they wrote individual letters of confession to their former pastors, confessing their sins of pride and unChristian behavior.
That took a lot of humility and reflected the integrity of those elders and deacons. So, as an incredible show of support for our pastors -- especially former pastors -- consider how they were treated by the church's leadership and by members of the congregation. Repent. Then proceed to treat your current pastor with the love and honor that they deserve.
Posted in: Reviewing The Banner
The problem, it seems to me, isn't The Banner's mandate. It indeed should “stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith and the culture of which we are a part.”
The problem arises when The Banner lives up to its mandate and actually publishes articles deemed to be controversial and designed to lead pew-sitting CRC folks to do some serious thinking. Those types are articles are the exception; not the norm.
As an avid and long-time Banner reader, I have grown accustomed to the USA Today style: church snippets and pictures of winning sports teams at local Christian schools. The Banner by its very design and content treats its readers as theological and ecclesiastical neophytes. The very fact that the editorial staff consistently needs to define what a synod or a classis are, reinforces that notion. I can't imagine any sports magazine worth its salt painstakingly explaining what a touchdown is, or a quarterback, hat trick or hole in one.
The Banner is mandated to stimulate critical thinking. Give us something to chew on. Challenge our long-held beliefs. But also give us some very basic information about our denomination. I, and probably thousands of others, bemoan the fact that our denominational publication no longer publishes information on ministers in transition from one church to another.
The blame for the apparent outrage over the publication of those two notorious articles falls squarely on the minds of ordinary Christian Reformed folk who have been spoon-fed light articles of church news for so long that they can't recognize a good potential debate when they see one. We can't handle controversy. We don't know what critical thinking really is.
We don't need a denominational publication to give us warm fuzzies about the state of our church. We need to be challenged to become more culturally relevant as a denomination. We need to look at the tension within the denomination between piety and Kuyperianism, the theology of our church plants, how we engage in mission, the demise (or is it a celebration?) of the second service.
I don't envy the new Banner editor. While he or she will be mandated to 'stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith', the truth of the matter is that we who sit in the pew aren't prepared to hear it or to engage in it. The new editor will need to develop thick skin -- even thicker than Bob DeMoor's -- who will need to be backed by a strong board and a stronger synod.
The Banner is the only place where grassroots Reformed people (I hate that term) can wrestle with pertinent issues of the day as they relate to the church and our own spiritual journeys. Our pastors and elders have the annual gathering of synod where they can engage in that kind of discussion. We have and need The Banner.
We will hopefully experience a transition in the kinds of articles that will appear in future Banners. Here's the point: The Banner's editorial staff needs to expect more from its readers. They need to trust that CR folks can engage in a meaningful and thoughtful discussion on matters of faith. The Banner needs to push and prod and lead the CR constituency down a path of critical thinking.
We, the audience, need to open our minds and hearts as we hear our own preconceived notions challenged in our beloved denominational publication. After all, The Banner is mandated to engage us in that kind of critical thinking.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thank you so much, Scott, for pointing out the painstaking efforts that Seminary and its professors take in teaching, training and mentoring potential pastors.
I am particularly impressed by the work of the Center for Excellence in Preaching and for the amount of 'traffic' that the website receives. It is my hope and prayer that pastors continue to use the excellent resources that the Center offers, both online and in person.
The pulpit continues to be the single most effective way to disciple, teach and grow the congregation. Within an hour on a Sunday morning, the pastor is able to reach hundreds of men, women, young adults and children with a message that reveals God's grace, holiness, covenant relationship and love for his people. That is an incredible responsibility and opportunity.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
Thanks, folks, for your varied responses and for the interesting tangents that this discussion took.
I do understand that congregations are fickle and that a pastor can fit in wonderfully in one congregation but not in another.
I also understand the pain of churches and pastors in conflict and the growing need for transitional pastors and specialists to deal with that pain..
I do think that you've missed the fundamental point of the initial question: Why do we have pastors who preach poorly?
Your natural reaction as a pastor is to blame the congregation for being stressed or anxious or finicky. You've got to protect your own.
I think it was Peter who mentioned that "the quality of preaching can never be measured." I beg to differ. When a church loses it members because of what those members describe as poor preaching, that's measurable.
Maybe, just maybe, a more appropriate term is 'lazy' preaching. When one sits in the pew and hears a sermon that lacks substance and that clearly hasn't had much thought put into it, that's lazy preaching. When pastors are more prone to exegete a TV show or the latest newscast, that's lazy preaching. Granted, perhaps those pastors consider their preaching 'relevant'.
Is it being old fashioned to expect a pastor to 'preach the text'?
I am delighted that Seminary's Center for Excellence in Preaching regularly puts on touring workshops across the denomination. Their very existence underscores the need for excellence in preaching.
And perhaps Seminary should create a Centre for Excellence in Discerning, Listening, Tolerance for those of us in the pew who are at the receiving end of that solitary Sunday morning sermon.
I don't envy today's pastor/preacher. He/she has a tough audience. Preaching isn't for the faint-hearted, nor for the lazy, nor for the person who is looking for a soft job and a fat cheque (check). Congregations not only deserve excellence in preaching; it's crucial in equipping the saints for the working world and the battles that exist in the trenches.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
It's confession time, and this is only a slight digression from the topic. I will come around to Roger's comment about 'Spirit-filled preachers'.
I was asked a while ago to offer my personal testimony to a large gather of Christian media folks.
I began by saying that I always knew God: I grew up in a Christian home, attended Sunday school, the requisite Christian schools, and had a deep passion for the church. I owned a Christian newspaper, then worked in the national offices of three different Christian denominations -- Christian Reformed, Presbyterian and Anglilcan (Episcopal). I knew God, but it was a theoretical knowledge. I spoke the church language, served several terms as elder (usually chair of council) in several different locations.
It was only after I left my last 'church' job and spent a few months at home in prayer and 'letting go', that I finally began to 'experience' God. It took 60 years to move from my head down to my heart. For the first time in my life, I began to depend on God .. for everything. I finally realized what it meant to walk with God ... after mouthing those words for decades.
Roger concludes his latest piece with an interesting and pointed question: "Is the absence of this anointing by the Holy Spirit what makes CRC ministers poor preachers?" I would never, ever dare question a pastor's faith, especially as it relates to 'poor' preaching. I do recall an incident many years ago when a parishioner asked to meet with her pastor. When they sat down in his office, she asked him: "How is your spiritual walk with God?" He was deeply offended. How could she dare ask him -- the pastor -- about his spiritual walk? She was, and still is, a godly woman who was genuinely concerned about the pastor's spiritual life.
Maybe we need to ask that question more often of our pastors. After all, it is regularly asked as part of the traditional family visit ... if we still do that. And perhaps those who are concerned about the proverbial 'poor preaching' should sit down with that pastor and ask that pointed question ... without causing offense.
When a preacher truly experiences God, that is bound to profoundly affect the content of the sermon.
Posted in: Our Biggest Problem: Poor Preaching
To clarify, I mentioned 'dozens of conversations' with folks in CRCs across Canada. No, there isn't a mass exodus of Christian Reformed members leaving the denomination.
Granted, we have many excellent preachers across the denomination and those churches are thriving.
As a life-long member of the CRC who was privileged to have had a few leadership positions, my heart aches for the church ... especially for those congregations that have struggled with pastors who simply don't preach well. And it is proverbial slap in the face to suggest that things would change if the congregation simply prayed more. I have seen church leaders agonize over this issue.
I also recognize that Calvin Seminary has a stellar reputation for its theological and scholarly work.
This wasn't mean to be a finger-pointing exercise but to simply raise the issue and the concern. To put it crassly, some of our pastors preach poorly. Then again, I am sure that no pastor intentionally plans and preaches a poor sermon. There's the rub: is a sermon's quality in the ears of the beholder? I don't think so. One can quickly spot a sermon that has been thrown together without little exegetical thought: a few anecdotes here, a quote from Tim Kellar there.
It makes me wonder -- speaking broadly -- if we have pastors who don't spend enough time exegeting a text, digging into scriptures, spending hours chewing on the text during the course of the week. Is it possible that we have pastors who would rather do a lot of the usual pastoral/administrative work instead of searching scriptures for next Sunday's sermon.
The church today needs excellent preaching. That is how we grow, numerically and spiritually.
Posted in: Hiring: A Practice in Spiritual Discernment
Your comments make a lot of sense. In fact, I regularly come across employers who approach most of their decisions this way. I am the executive director of the Canadian Christian Business Federation and I regularly connect with about 3,500 Christian business leaders across the country, from small operations to multi-national corporations. Our membership also includes a half dozen Christian universities and 15 Christian non-profits.
Hundreds of Christian business leaders meet monthly over breakfast to deal precisely with the kind of issues that you raise. But why stop at hiring practices? Why seek God's will only when we're hiring an employee ... whether that's in a church or in a business?
We claim that God owns everything ... even the church!
I regularly come across men and women who live and breathe their faith at their work. When they develop long range plans for their companies, it's a prayerful process, balancing THEIR plans with God's will.
When they create their corporate budgets, they include a set amount for 'kingdom causes' ... rather than simply giving God 10 per cent of their net profits ... if they have any.
They responsibly value their employees, providing mentoring environments and appropriate maternity and paternity leave.
Your suggestion to employ the spiritual disciplines when hiring staff and appointing volunteers seems to me to be a foundational practice that every church should employ. Certainly this should all be done prayerfully and pastorally.
Here's one more tip when it comes to the appointment of volunteers to head up various church ministries. Pay them a dollar a year. They're now considered 'paid' employees and the appropriate church body now has the right to 'fire' an employee if he/she isn't doing a good job. It's virtually impossible to fire volunteers. After all, they volunteered. If nothing else, it conveys a message to the volunteers that they're accountable and that they can be released from their responsibilities if there are valid reasons.
The Church can learn a few things from their members who genuinely reflect Christ in their business.
Keith Knight
Posted in: Hiring: A Practice in Spiritual Discernment
... I need to add something. There is a recurring refrain among the Canadian Christian business community (and they're a broadly ecumenical lot): If you're involved in business, you're involved in ministry.
I know hundreds of men and women who feel 'called' to their ministry in business, and who refer to that same sense of calling when they hire CEOs, managers or sales people.
Here's a digression: I recently spoke to a group of Christian multi-millionaires and billionaires. They told me two things: they're lonely (their friends want their money) and they have left the organized church (the church just sees them as walking ATM machines or, at best, a potential chair of a capital campaign).
They don't seem to be valued for their leadership skills or their spiritual needs. When's the last time you appointed a very wealthy member to the Diaconate or used his/her gifts as Sunday school teacher?
Posted in: Advisors and the Collateral Benefits of Synod
It was something that Harry said that caught my eye: The need for a sunset clause on some of the ministries and/or committees.
I occasionally facilitate strategic planning sessions for Christian non-profits. One of the first questions I ask is: "If you had to begin this ministry from scratch, would you?" That question caught one particular group off guard and the said that, no, other organizations do it better than they do. So they folded.
What about a sunset clause for every local church; especially every church plant. Are they effective in spreading the gospel to the community? Is there another church that can do ministry more effectively?
_______
And now a point about this most recent synod. It seems to have ended rather quickly, with very few substantive issues that required much debate. Take away the bureaucratic appointments and the drivel over The Banner's editorial integrity, and there is nothing that couldn't be held over for another year or two. The CRCNA is one of a very few denominations to hold annual assemblies. The cost savings might fund an overseas missionary or two.
Posted in: Are CR Campus Ministers mostly ministers to Christians on campus or mostly evangelists on campus?
There was a time when CRC campus chaplains were seen as on-campus babysitters for our tender CRC teens who headed off to college or university. It was quickly discovered that the vast majority of CRC freshmen on the 'secular' campus simply wanted to discover life, perhaps even skip worship, and not become immediately connected to the campus chaplain's office.
Today's campus chaplain is, firstly, a Christian presence on campus for the broadly ecumenical student body. The campus chaplain's office is the place where students (re)discover their spiritual identity and become engaged in meaningful discussions as they try to connect their Sunday faith with their university campus setting.
You pose the question: Are CRC campus chaplains mostly ministers to Christians on campus or mostly evangelists on campus? The answer is Yes! ;o)
I think that chaplains provide a nurturing environment for Christian students who want to continue to grow in the faith but they also provide a nurturing environment for not-yet Christian students who are searching their own spiritual direction.
Should chaplains be sidewalk evangelists on our university campuses? I certainly hope not. That's not our Reformed style.
Students expect to become engaged in an intellectual discourse ... whether it's their area of academic interest or their own spiritual journey.
I suspect that the campus minister's life is a very lonely one. It is my hope and prayer that he or she has a strong support group within the local church communities and among clergy peers.