“Many pastors back off from the tough acts of leadership because they do not want to experience the pain” (p.110).
As previously discussed, the Bible and Spirit of Prophesy do not endorse many if not most of the “tough acts of leadership” that Borden advocates, but in a larger sense he has a point. In a religious context particularly, there is the tendency to slip into the comfortable belief that all must be happiness and warm-fuzziness, and that anything which isn’t should not be part of the religious experience. All professions have their share of unpleasant but proper and necessary tasks, and the professional is remiss if they ignore these responsibilities simply because they are unpleasant. (We are going to leave this subject dangling for the moment because we are devoting this post to a description of the current state of leadership in the church. Our next post will consider the responsibilities and privileges of church leaders.)
“Most had never led a congregation to growth and health (this was one reason they were in judicatory or denominational work) and they were ignorant of most of the voices who are writing about congregational health, congregational growth, changing organizations, or missional thinking” (p.41).
“Along with other consultants I was confrontational with pastors and congregational leaders about Jesus’ mandate to go and make disciples. I pointed out that this was not happening in our congregations and as a result we were being disobedient and failing to meet the very purpose for the church’s existence. I then tried to show the values, and in turn behaviors, that had led to this predicament. Through the consultation process we then offered a better way of acting which would demand a change in values for the congregation” (p.72).
As much as we would like to, we can’t dispute that the Adventist Church often participates in the practice of dealing with ineffective ministers by “kicking them upstairs.” This brings us back to a couple of subjects we have already covered, specifically that 1) being a pastor is as much a profession as any other career and if the pastor isn’t being effective in their job they should not be allowed to continue to hold it, and 2) in religious contexts there is a tendency to shy away from unpleasant but proper and necessary tasks. We could also argue that this touches on the “protection” mentality among clergy, but in any case the end result is a tolerance of mediocrity in job performance which should not exist.
The other issue raised by these statements is that of what pastors are doing with their time (and what they should be doing, but again we are straying into the material of another post). Borden identifies two things that pastors are not doing, 1) studying what others have to say about congregational health and growth, changing organizations, and missional thinking, and 2) following the Great Commission. As we stated in the original post of this series, the need to get serious about the Great Commission is one of the things about which we agree with Borden. We also find it oddly appropriate to define the activities of our pastoral leadership in terms of what they are not doing since in too many cases one can find little evidence of activity beyond weekly occupation of the pulpit. (Don’t get us wrong, preparing and delivering sermons is an important part of the pastor’s job, but it’s not the entire job.) We are less sympathetic with Borden’s complaint that pastors aren’t keeping up with the trendy thinking on organizational philosophy. “There is need of systematic labor; but where some of you are so long in devising, and planning, and getting ready for the work, Satan preoccupies the field with bewitching fables, and the attention of men becomes absorbed in the delusions of the master deceiver” (Review and Herald, March 13, 1888). In other words, spend less time worrying about how others think you should do your job, and more time actually doing it, because if you wait until you are thoroughly versed in the latest popular theory you will never get around to doing anything.
“The elder ministers should be qualified to so educate the younger men that they may become able ministers, who will feel the responsibility of the work, and will build upon the sure foundation. There are many who neglect their duties outside the desk, and the condition of the churches testifies to the character of their work. Doubts, unbelief, backsliding, formality, exist in a marked degree. Oh! how much men of God are needed, who will faithfully warn the people of their sins. …Talents are now buried in earthly, temporal pursuits, that should be used in saving souls from perdition. When the church stand as God's chosen people should, they will be a peculiar people, zealous of good works. There will be no slackness, no concord with Belial. Oh that we could realize what God's people might now be, had they kept themselves in his love, without any compromise with evil, and had retained the peculiar character that distinguished them, and separated them from the world! In experience, in wisdom, in true holiness, they would be years in advance of what they now are. But as a people our obedience, our devotion, our spiritual attainments, are very far from being in proportion to our privileges, and to our sacred obligation to walk as children of the light” (Review and Herald, October 21, 1884 par. 22).
Borden blames the majority of the evils he sees in the current state of church leadership on the fact that congregations and denominational hierarchies focus governing power in committees or boards. As we have already discussed, the solution he advocates for this perceived problem is to eliminate committees and boards and give all that power to individuals, specifically pastors.
“In most religious settings we find it almost impossible to confront an individual in order to tell that person he or she is performing poorly in conducting ministry. It is even more difficult to confront a group and inform the people in the group that they have failed to conduct ministry well” (p.128).
“The marriage of authority, responsibility, and accountability is best done with individuals, not groups. First, give an individual the authority and responsibility for a task. Then establish how this individual will be held accountable for results. Then let that individual select whomever she or he desires to help them. This person, however, clearly understands that he or she will be held accountable, not the people selected to minister with them” (p.128).
This system may be, as Borden describes it, “efficient,” but it fails to take into account the fallibility of humans. The best, most efficient system of government on earth is a benevolent monarchy. The problem is that there is no way of ensuring the “benevolent” part. Likewise, the government of heaven will likely resemble the philosophies of communism, but communism on earth is a dismal failure because it depends on the goodness of people. On the other hand, capitalism and democracy assume and encourage the opportunistic aspects of human nature, but they also provide checks and balances to counteract that behavior when it becomes harmful, which is why they work so well in this fallen world. Since we are still in this fallen world, we need to place power where it is the safest—under the guardianship of the collective wisdom.
“When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan's efforts upon such a man's mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man. God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man's mind and one man's judgment” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 3, p. 493).
“There is much for men in responsible positions to learn. When men feel that their ideas are without a flaw, it is time for them to change their position from president to that of a learner. When they think that their ideas, their judgment, should be accepted without question, they show that they are unfit for their position. God sees not as man sees. Whatever position a man may be called to fill, his judgment is not to be regarded as unerring. His entrusted responsibility makes it far more needful than it otherwise would be for him to be free from all egotism, and willing to receive counsel” (Manuscript 55, June 3, 1897, "Development of Workers").
We included the following statement earlier in this series, but it is equally applicable to this subject and bears repeating.
“Notwithstanding the fact that Paul was personally taught by God, he had no strained ideas of individual responsibility. While looking to God for direct guidance, he was ever ready to recognize the authority vested in the body of believers united in church fellowship. He felt the need of counsel, and when matters of importance arose, he was glad to lay these before the church and to unite with his brethren in seeking God for wisdom to make right decisions. Even ‘the spirits of the prophets,’ he declared, ‘are subject to the prophets. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.’ 1 Corinthians 14:32, 33. With Peter, he taught that all united in church capacity should be ‘subject one to another.’ 1 Peter 5:5” (Acts of the Apostles, p.200).
Friday, May 28, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Bullseye: Leadership Criteria
What criteria must a person meet in order to be a leader in God’s church?
“Leadership in one sense is amoral. It can be use to lead people to great achievements, such as those who led thirteen colonies to independence and nationhood. It can also be used to produce great evil, such as Adolph Hitler” (p.57).*
Borden makes this statement but then fails to thoroughly consider its ramifications in the criteria he sets out for church leaders. Because skill in leadership can be used for productive or destructive ends it is essential in choosing leaders for the church to consider their history and the moral standards they have given evidence of adhering to. Borden doesn’t do that. He looks exclusively at whether or not the potential leader is capable of producing the end result he desires, and he doesn’t care how they achieve that result. Basically, Borden believes that ends justify means.
“We also defined leaders as people who actually had other people following them. Leadership ceased to be a position and became a function” (p.38).
“We insisted that leadership has one basic criterion, and that is whether anyone is really following or not” (p.107).
“Good leaders produce effective ministry and lead healthy congregations. Poor leaders are not only ineffective, they assist congregations in creating even greater dysfunction” (p.106).
Even when Borden enlarges on his basic criterion the additional requirements he lists do not take into account any moral, spiritual, or theological aspects.
“After all it is not enough to find good leaders, but we mujst find leaders who have the courage to perform, the wisdom to know what foundational principles need to be adopted, and the insight to implement effective strategies” (p.58).
“Moving from dysfunction to health demands courage, passion, and the willingness to risk, coupled with the understanding of the basic principles required for change and how to lead change. It also requires the wisdom to implement these principles with both skill and courage. Too often I believe we have asked people who are not leaders, or have not been trained to be leaders, to lead such dangerous change” (p.108).
The Bible’s criteria for church leaders are very different.
“Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.
“Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.
“In the same way, their wives are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.
“A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well. Those who have served well gain an excellent standing and great assurance in their faith in Christ Jesus.
“Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:1-15).
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:5-9).
Let’s review that list of biblical criteria. To be a leader in the church one must be:
above reproach
monogamous
temperate
self-controlled
respectable
hospitable
able to teach
not given to drunkenness
not violent, but gentle
not quarrelsome
not a lover of money
a good manager of their own family
not a recent convert
of good reputation among nonbelievers
worthy of respect
sincere
not pursuing dishonest gain
holding the deep truths of the faith
not malicious talkers
trustworthy
not overbearing
holy
capable of refuting false doctrine
We see a cavernous difference between the biblical criteria and the criteria of Paul Borden. The biblical requirements are, admittedly, a tall order, but they revolve around three simple principles. First, a church leader is to exemplify all virtues to the greatest extent humanly possible so that the cause of God is not besmirched by their behavior and others can learn from their example. Second, the church of God is intended to function as a family, therefore individuals who have proven that they manage their families well may be assumed to have the skills necessary to manage the church well. Finally, the church leader must be thoroughly versed on the beliefs of the church so they can teach them to others and refute erroneous beliefs.
“May the Lord impress upon the minds and hearts of all connected with the sacred work of God the importance of ascertaining whether those who are to minister as deacons and elders are suitable men to be entrusted with the flock of God. Jesus calls Himself the ‘Good Shepherd.’ He does this in contrast with those who occupy positions of trust in connection with the church, but who have no right to these places, because they put a wrong mold upon the work. What is natural will appear. Compare the Good Shepherd, who gave His life for His sheep, with those who are filled with self-esteem, puffed up, dictatorial, loving to rule in the church.
“The prophets have specified Christ's attributes. They foretold Him as a gentle Shepherd, who would carry the lambs in His bosom. There are others pointed out by prophecy, who have accepted the position of leaders and religious instructors, whom the Word of God rebukes for their neglect, in their ignorance, to do the work which they should have been doing in their places of responsibility” (Manuscript Releases, Vol. 21, p.3).
One quick detail we should address here is who we are talking about when we speak of church leaders. As we have pointed out in posts prior to this series (see The Lord’s Anointed, Pt. 2), in the biblical model of church leadership there was no such thing as clergy. All administration of local congregations was done by what we would now call lay leaders. Borden, on the other hand, mentions lay leaders in passing from time to time during his discussions on criteria for leaders but focuses his primary energy on pastors. He clearly considers pastoral leadership superior to lay leadership. So long as that is to be his approach we submit that the degree of superiority he implies should also be found in the extent to which they meet the biblical criteria for lay leaders of the church.
*Two of the quotes from Hit the Bullseye that are featured in this post contain spelling or grammar errors. We aren’t having a bad typing day; we are reproducing them exactly as they appear in the book.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Bullseye: Attitudes Towards Laity
Paul Borden makes so many absolutely flabbergasting statements about how lay members ought to be “dealt with” that it is hard to know where to start this subject. His statements stem from the previously discussed position that the congregation is the primary unit of mission and therefore sacrificing individuals is acceptable if you believe that doing so will benefit the congregation. Beyond the arguments we have already advanced in opposition to that position, the reality is that individuals can survive without the congregation if they need to, but congregations cannot continue to exist without individuals. Therefore, we go into this particular analysis with the assumption that we don’t need to reestablish that there is no such thing as an expendable soul. With that in mind, let’s look at some of Borden’s statements.
“One reason we are often unwilling to create specific goals and measures of effectiveness is that we know that many in our 'family' will not measure up. Yet if we are committed to mission we must tell such people that if they cannot change they can no longer have positions in leadership. Such actions go against our current value of family. We say these people are part of the family so we cannot embarrass them or hurt them. As a result, we let our institutions develop a codependent habit of protection, thereby avoiding missional goals that demand accountability” (p.24).
“We are also willing to confront those congregations and congregational leaders (the emotional terrorists) who for years have chewed up pastors and spit them out” (p.32).
We can’t speak to the sort of family life Borden has experienced, but this doesn’t sound like a description of our families. Our understanding of family life includes calling family members on bad or unhealthful behaviors, or when they are not performing in a way that best utilizes their potential. The key is that this is done in love, because the family desires the best good for the member they are addressing. This behavior is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy family. There may be families who refuse to address the unhealthy behaviors of its members, just as there may be organizations who refuse to address unhealthy behaviors of their members, and as a result allow the entire unit to become unhealthy. But the bottom line here is not the legitimacy of the metaphor of a family being applied to the church (which was initiated by Christ Himself), but rather whether the relationships in that church family are healthy or unhealthy. If those relationships are so unhealthy that it is not possible to address issues with members in love and a desire for their best good, then addressing them without love and in a spirit that assumes they are disposable is certainly only going to make matters worse. “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (1 Tim. 5:1, 2).
“One thing we who were new to the region had learned in former ministries was that even good changes are resisted by those who hold current positions of influence, if that change means they no longer have influence. We had also learned that most who were in positions of influence now would resist change, again, no matter how effective that change might be, since those changes would be perceived as a repudiation of their current leadership, which in most cases was true” (p.134).
We are struck by the contrast between this statement and the statements discussed in the previous chapter of this series in which Borden claims, “I always assume the best…of every pastor” (p.110), and speaks of the “moral obligation” (p.42) to train pastors in the skills necessary to accomplish the tasks they are given. As we said in the previous chapter, we believe that the principle of believing the best of someone until proven otherwise should be applied to both pastors and lay members. Here Borden openly confesses that he starts by assuming the worst of lay members. It then ceases to be surprising that he can so easily implement such ruthless actions against them.
But let’s get back to that moral obligation. If pastors, who have formal theological and ministerial training, could be in need of additional training in order to be effective, doesn’t it stand to reason that the same could be true of lay members? Borden speaks of repudiating the current lay leadership. If they are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their training it hardly seems fair that they should be repudiated for failing to use skills they haven’t been trained to develop. Lay leaders should be given as much opportunity and assistance to develop their ministry potential as pastors are given. We are willing to allow that such lay leaders might be filling positions for which their spiritual gifts are not best suited, but in that case the moral obligation becomes one of helping the individual find the area of ministry in which they are most effective, rather than simply plowing them out of the way of the new order of things. Every individual has a work to do for God.
“Our heavenly Father has been pleased to make men co-laborers with himself in the work of human redemption. Those who have been commissioned to preach the gospel are not the only ones whom he will use as his instruments. All whose minds have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit will in their turn be required to enlighten others. 'None of us liveth to himself.' Every individual has his station of duty in the accomplishment of God's great plan. And every one who receives and obeys the light which God has given, will be a living witness for Christ and the truth” (Review and Herald, February 9, 1886 par. 4).
“Not all are called to engage in the same line of labor, but to every man and woman who enters the service of Christ, are given responsibilities to bear, and a special work to do. My brethren and sisters, Christ sends you this message, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me.' Humble your hearts before God, and seek counsel of Him who never makes a mistake. …You are Christ's purchased possession. Ask Him to tell you what He would have you do” (Jehovah Is Our King, p.5).
“Our churches are not receiving the kind of training that will lead them to walk in all humility of mind, to put away all pride of external display, and to labor for the inward adorning. The efficiency of the church is precisely what the zeal, purity, self-denial, and intelligent labor of the ministers make it. An active missionary spirit should characterize its individual members. They must have deeper piety, stronger faith, and broader views. They must make more thorough work in personal effort. What we need is a living religion. A single individual of enlarged conceptions of duty, whose soul is in communion with God and who is full of zeal for Christ, will exert a powerful influence for good. He drinks at no low, turbid, polluted stream, but from the pure, high waters at the fountainhead; and he can communicate a new spirit and power to the church. As the pressure from without increases, God would have His church vitalized by the sacred, solemn truths they believe. The Holy Spirit from heaven, working with the sons and daughters of God, will surmount obstacles and hold the vantage ground against the enemy. God has great victories in reserve for His truth-loving, commandment-keeping people. The fields are already whitening for the harvest. We have light, and rich, glorious endowments from heaven in the truth made ready to our hands; but men and women have not been educated and disciplined to work in the fast-ripening harvest fields” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, pp.581, 582).
Borden’s beliefs about lay members are self-fulfilling. He assumes that his strategies will be opposed, and then admits that he deliberately goes about stirring up opposition.
“The best way to expose poor values and give congregations the opportunity to embrace new values is to create stress. Therefore, in our prescription process we usually offered some ways to put the body under stress” (p.94).
Having made the problem, Borden goes about “fixing” it.
“We were open to confronting individuals who were unable to make the changes or who even worked against the changes” (p.63).
“For example we would often have people take on new behaviors and responsibilities and then act as though no change had occurred. In many cases it was simply a habitual response from the past while in others it was done in anger or malice. Every such case needed a response that was appropriate to the situation” (p.112).
“Third, we wanted the pastor to help us understand what we would encounter during the consultation weekend and who would be the most resistant to change and why that was so. Fourth, we wanted to know how we could help the pastor deal with those people most resistant to change” (p.88).
“When congregations are in decline or on a plateau those controlling it need to be replaced with those who will lead it to grow. Such action often creates friction. When this friction occurs it is important for those with influence to use it to protect the new leaders from the former leaders who would often rather be in positions of influence than see health and growth occur” (p.97).
This brings us to the subject of motive. Borden assumes that the exclusive motivation for opposition to his philosophies and systems is protection of personal power, status, and control. While Borden may be right in some cases (and we will address that eventuality in a moment), we find ourselves compelled to point out that there is another possibility—sincere conviction that his philosophies and systems are wrong. When this is the motive the solution is to have an open and honest dialogue. Such dialogue might not always produce agreement, but it would go a long way in reducing the friction and general angst of the situation. The key words here are “open” and “honest.” If either side enters the room with their minds made up the exercise is useless. The openness also encompasses making these dialogues accessible and transparent to the entire congregation. Trying to be secretive about and/or impose limitations on the communication will only exacerbate the friction.
The thing of it is, Borden doesn’t do dialogue. His approach goes into a situation assuming that it knows what is right and has all the answers and needs only for the parties concerned to either jump on the bandwagon or get out of the way. When placed face to face with such a disinterested juggernaut the only option available to those with serious concerns is to “raise a stink.” Some would say that there is also the option of completely keeping silent, but both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy condemn those who keep silent when they ought to speak up for God.
“He sent back this answer: ‘Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?’” (Esther 4:13, 14).
“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. 'Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.' John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth…
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. …They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
“Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.578).
Of course, there is always the possibility that the motives of the objectors are not altruistic. Even then, however, we don’t endorse Borden’s methods of addressing the situation.
"Congregational transformation will create tremendous conflict in dysfunctional, dying churches. It will be even greater in congregations that perceive themselves as healthy when they are really dying. The worst thing that can happen in the midst of such conflict is mediation, since the conflict is more about the transfer of power and who will lead the congregation, than individuals or groups not being able to get along" (p.33).
“Third, for a congregation to move from dysfunction to health, it usually requires that those in control now can no longer have any say in the direction of the congregation. Yet these people usually perceive themselves to be either the most biblically literate or the most spiritually wise individuals in the congregation, which is why they think they should be in control. After all they usually have hung around the longest, investing the most time and sometimes the most money in the life of the congregation” (p.73).
“We found that by touching structure we created stress, because the changes affected those who, often for years, had been in power, protected turf, and controlled the money and in turn the overall ministry of the congregation. This move exposed those who desired a congregation that was truly interested in reaching out to people versus those who wanted to control things, even if it meant that such control would bring eventual death to the congregation” (pp.94, 95).
Borden’s universal method of dealing with lay members who don’t share his views is to exclude them from influencing the congregation, and if that is not sufficient to silence them, ask them to leave altogether. This methodology avoids actually addressing whether the person is right or wrong in the stand that they have taken, and that is a problem. It is, however, not a new one. The founders of the Adventist Church faced similar methods when they accepted the truth of the nearness of the second coming.
“The minister did not attempt to refer to a single text that would prove us in error, but excused himself on the plea of a want of time. He advised us to quietly withdraw from the church, and avoid the publicity of a trial. We were aware that others of our brethren were meeting with similar treatment for a like cause, and we did not wish it understood that we were ashamed to acknowledge our faith, or were unable to sustain it by Scripture; so my parents insisted that they should be acquainted with the reasons for this request.
“The only answer to this was an evasive declaration that we had walked contrary to the rules of the church, and the best course would be to voluntarily withdraw from it to save a trial. We answered that we preferred a regular trial, and demanded to know what sin was charged to us, as we were conscious of no wrong in looking for and loving the appearing of the Saviour. [THUS, FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THEIR STEADFAST TESTIMONY REGARDING THEIR BELIEF IN THE SOON COMING OF CHRIST, THE HARMON FAMILY WERE SEPARATED FROM THE METHODIST CHURCH.]” (Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen White, p. 44).
If a person is raising objections over sincere and legitimate concerns, that behavior does not constitute grounds for punishment or exclusion from church involvement. On the other hand, if the person is acting against the best good of the congregation out of selfish interest that behavior needs to be actively checked by the congregation. Either way, it simply doesn’t work to sweep the objections under the rug. What the person has to say needs to be fairly and openly considered by the congregation as a whole, which then needs to reach a conclusion about the legitimacy of the statements made and act accordingly. Again, the key words are “fairly” and “openly.” As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
“As local congregational leaders began to risk in leading their respective congregations from dysfunction to health, those resisting the change often contacted judicatory leaders. It was at this point we assured these resisters that their congregational leaders were on track and needed their support even when the change produced great pain. For some of the critics our support was enough. When that occurred the change happened more quickly, because the judicatory had thrown its support and credibility behind congregational leaders. Other congregational critics however, were frustrated with our support of their leaders. They in turn went around the judicatory and complained to national leaders. The national leaders by and large did not support the leaders at either the congregational level or the regional level. When this occurred the change process was slowed down considerably. These critics created havoc with members of the congregation by playing their denomination’s leaders against each other. Their actions were much like a child playing parents against each other so the child does not have to do her or his homework” (p.80).
“Tremendous change can occur in a short amount of time when both the pastors and lay leaders are in agreement about making changes and are committed to not allowing individuals within the congregation to drive wedges between them collectively or individually” (p.54).
Here again we see at work the juggernaut that takes no notice of alternate viewpoints and refuses to listen to the wisdom of others. The most significant point it refuses to acknowledge is that if God were really in the changes they would naturally foster a greater unity and zeal for mission, not an atmosphere of friction or stress which must be overcome.
“God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. The selfishness that exalts one man to rule the minds of his fellow men is not inspired of God; for the Lord works in and through those who will be worked by Him, and who in every line of Christian service will act in accordance with divine enlightenment” (Spalding and Magan Collection, p.247).
Scripture sums up this subject quite effectively.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.’
“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.’
“When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’” (Acts 5:27-39).
“One reason we are often unwilling to create specific goals and measures of effectiveness is that we know that many in our 'family' will not measure up. Yet if we are committed to mission we must tell such people that if they cannot change they can no longer have positions in leadership. Such actions go against our current value of family. We say these people are part of the family so we cannot embarrass them or hurt them. As a result, we let our institutions develop a codependent habit of protection, thereby avoiding missional goals that demand accountability” (p.24).
“We are also willing to confront those congregations and congregational leaders (the emotional terrorists) who for years have chewed up pastors and spit them out” (p.32).
We can’t speak to the sort of family life Borden has experienced, but this doesn’t sound like a description of our families. Our understanding of family life includes calling family members on bad or unhealthful behaviors, or when they are not performing in a way that best utilizes their potential. The key is that this is done in love, because the family desires the best good for the member they are addressing. This behavior is a necessary part of maintaining a healthy family. There may be families who refuse to address the unhealthy behaviors of its members, just as there may be organizations who refuse to address unhealthy behaviors of their members, and as a result allow the entire unit to become unhealthy. But the bottom line here is not the legitimacy of the metaphor of a family being applied to the church (which was initiated by Christ Himself), but rather whether the relationships in that church family are healthy or unhealthy. If those relationships are so unhealthy that it is not possible to address issues with members in love and a desire for their best good, then addressing them without love and in a spirit that assumes they are disposable is certainly only going to make matters worse. “Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity” (1 Tim. 5:1, 2).
“One thing we who were new to the region had learned in former ministries was that even good changes are resisted by those who hold current positions of influence, if that change means they no longer have influence. We had also learned that most who were in positions of influence now would resist change, again, no matter how effective that change might be, since those changes would be perceived as a repudiation of their current leadership, which in most cases was true” (p.134).
We are struck by the contrast between this statement and the statements discussed in the previous chapter of this series in which Borden claims, “I always assume the best…of every pastor” (p.110), and speaks of the “moral obligation” (p.42) to train pastors in the skills necessary to accomplish the tasks they are given. As we said in the previous chapter, we believe that the principle of believing the best of someone until proven otherwise should be applied to both pastors and lay members. Here Borden openly confesses that he starts by assuming the worst of lay members. It then ceases to be surprising that he can so easily implement such ruthless actions against them.
But let’s get back to that moral obligation. If pastors, who have formal theological and ministerial training, could be in need of additional training in order to be effective, doesn’t it stand to reason that the same could be true of lay members? Borden speaks of repudiating the current lay leadership. If they are fulfilling their obligations to the best of their training it hardly seems fair that they should be repudiated for failing to use skills they haven’t been trained to develop. Lay leaders should be given as much opportunity and assistance to develop their ministry potential as pastors are given. We are willing to allow that such lay leaders might be filling positions for which their spiritual gifts are not best suited, but in that case the moral obligation becomes one of helping the individual find the area of ministry in which they are most effective, rather than simply plowing them out of the way of the new order of things. Every individual has a work to do for God.
“Our heavenly Father has been pleased to make men co-laborers with himself in the work of human redemption. Those who have been commissioned to preach the gospel are not the only ones whom he will use as his instruments. All whose minds have been illuminated by the Holy Spirit will in their turn be required to enlighten others. 'None of us liveth to himself.' Every individual has his station of duty in the accomplishment of God's great plan. And every one who receives and obeys the light which God has given, will be a living witness for Christ and the truth” (Review and Herald, February 9, 1886 par. 4).
“Not all are called to engage in the same line of labor, but to every man and woman who enters the service of Christ, are given responsibilities to bear, and a special work to do. My brethren and sisters, Christ sends you this message, 'Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of Me.' Humble your hearts before God, and seek counsel of Him who never makes a mistake. …You are Christ's purchased possession. Ask Him to tell you what He would have you do” (Jehovah Is Our King, p.5).
“Our churches are not receiving the kind of training that will lead them to walk in all humility of mind, to put away all pride of external display, and to labor for the inward adorning. The efficiency of the church is precisely what the zeal, purity, self-denial, and intelligent labor of the ministers make it. An active missionary spirit should characterize its individual members. They must have deeper piety, stronger faith, and broader views. They must make more thorough work in personal effort. What we need is a living religion. A single individual of enlarged conceptions of duty, whose soul is in communion with God and who is full of zeal for Christ, will exert a powerful influence for good. He drinks at no low, turbid, polluted stream, but from the pure, high waters at the fountainhead; and he can communicate a new spirit and power to the church. As the pressure from without increases, God would have His church vitalized by the sacred, solemn truths they believe. The Holy Spirit from heaven, working with the sons and daughters of God, will surmount obstacles and hold the vantage ground against the enemy. God has great victories in reserve for His truth-loving, commandment-keeping people. The fields are already whitening for the harvest. We have light, and rich, glorious endowments from heaven in the truth made ready to our hands; but men and women have not been educated and disciplined to work in the fast-ripening harvest fields” (Testimonies to the Church, Vol. 5, pp.581, 582).
Borden’s beliefs about lay members are self-fulfilling. He assumes that his strategies will be opposed, and then admits that he deliberately goes about stirring up opposition.
“The best way to expose poor values and give congregations the opportunity to embrace new values is to create stress. Therefore, in our prescription process we usually offered some ways to put the body under stress” (p.94).
Having made the problem, Borden goes about “fixing” it.
“We were open to confronting individuals who were unable to make the changes or who even worked against the changes” (p.63).
“For example we would often have people take on new behaviors and responsibilities and then act as though no change had occurred. In many cases it was simply a habitual response from the past while in others it was done in anger or malice. Every such case needed a response that was appropriate to the situation” (p.112).
“Third, we wanted the pastor to help us understand what we would encounter during the consultation weekend and who would be the most resistant to change and why that was so. Fourth, we wanted to know how we could help the pastor deal with those people most resistant to change” (p.88).
“When congregations are in decline or on a plateau those controlling it need to be replaced with those who will lead it to grow. Such action often creates friction. When this friction occurs it is important for those with influence to use it to protect the new leaders from the former leaders who would often rather be in positions of influence than see health and growth occur” (p.97).
This brings us to the subject of motive. Borden assumes that the exclusive motivation for opposition to his philosophies and systems is protection of personal power, status, and control. While Borden may be right in some cases (and we will address that eventuality in a moment), we find ourselves compelled to point out that there is another possibility—sincere conviction that his philosophies and systems are wrong. When this is the motive the solution is to have an open and honest dialogue. Such dialogue might not always produce agreement, but it would go a long way in reducing the friction and general angst of the situation. The key words here are “open” and “honest.” If either side enters the room with their minds made up the exercise is useless. The openness also encompasses making these dialogues accessible and transparent to the entire congregation. Trying to be secretive about and/or impose limitations on the communication will only exacerbate the friction.
The thing of it is, Borden doesn’t do dialogue. His approach goes into a situation assuming that it knows what is right and has all the answers and needs only for the parties concerned to either jump on the bandwagon or get out of the way. When placed face to face with such a disinterested juggernaut the only option available to those with serious concerns is to “raise a stink.” Some would say that there is also the option of completely keeping silent, but both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy condemn those who keep silent when they ought to speak up for God.
“He sent back this answer: ‘Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?’” (Esther 4:13, 14).
“Now as in former ages, the presentation of a truth that reproves the sins and errors of the times will excite opposition. 'Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.' John 3:20. As men see that they cannot maintain their position by the Scriptures, many determine to maintain it at all hazards, and with a malicious spirit they assail the character and motives of those who stand in defense of unpopular truth…
“In view of this, what is the duty of the messenger of truth? Shall he conclude that the truth ought not to be presented, since often its only effect is to arouse men to evade or resist its claims? No; he has no more reason for withholding the testimony of God's word, because it excites opposition, than had earlier Reformers. …They received grace and truth, not for themselves alone, but that, through them, the knowledge of God might enlighten the earth. Has God given light to His servants in this generation? Then they should let it shine forth to the world” (The Great Controversy, pp. 458, 459).
“Those who have too little courage to reprove wrong, or who through indolence or lack of interest make no earnest effort to purify the family or the church of God, are held accountable for the evil that may result from their neglect of duty. We are just as responsible for evils that we might have checked in others by exercise of parental or pastoral authority as if the acts had been our own” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p.578).
Of course, there is always the possibility that the motives of the objectors are not altruistic. Even then, however, we don’t endorse Borden’s methods of addressing the situation.
"Congregational transformation will create tremendous conflict in dysfunctional, dying churches. It will be even greater in congregations that perceive themselves as healthy when they are really dying. The worst thing that can happen in the midst of such conflict is mediation, since the conflict is more about the transfer of power and who will lead the congregation, than individuals or groups not being able to get along" (p.33).
“Third, for a congregation to move from dysfunction to health, it usually requires that those in control now can no longer have any say in the direction of the congregation. Yet these people usually perceive themselves to be either the most biblically literate or the most spiritually wise individuals in the congregation, which is why they think they should be in control. After all they usually have hung around the longest, investing the most time and sometimes the most money in the life of the congregation” (p.73).
“We found that by touching structure we created stress, because the changes affected those who, often for years, had been in power, protected turf, and controlled the money and in turn the overall ministry of the congregation. This move exposed those who desired a congregation that was truly interested in reaching out to people versus those who wanted to control things, even if it meant that such control would bring eventual death to the congregation” (pp.94, 95).
Borden’s universal method of dealing with lay members who don’t share his views is to exclude them from influencing the congregation, and if that is not sufficient to silence them, ask them to leave altogether. This methodology avoids actually addressing whether the person is right or wrong in the stand that they have taken, and that is a problem. It is, however, not a new one. The founders of the Adventist Church faced similar methods when they accepted the truth of the nearness of the second coming.
“The minister did not attempt to refer to a single text that would prove us in error, but excused himself on the plea of a want of time. He advised us to quietly withdraw from the church, and avoid the publicity of a trial. We were aware that others of our brethren were meeting with similar treatment for a like cause, and we did not wish it understood that we were ashamed to acknowledge our faith, or were unable to sustain it by Scripture; so my parents insisted that they should be acquainted with the reasons for this request.
“The only answer to this was an evasive declaration that we had walked contrary to the rules of the church, and the best course would be to voluntarily withdraw from it to save a trial. We answered that we preferred a regular trial, and demanded to know what sin was charged to us, as we were conscious of no wrong in looking for and loving the appearing of the Saviour. [THUS, FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN THEIR STEADFAST TESTIMONY REGARDING THEIR BELIEF IN THE SOON COMING OF CHRIST, THE HARMON FAMILY WERE SEPARATED FROM THE METHODIST CHURCH.]” (Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen White, p. 44).
If a person is raising objections over sincere and legitimate concerns, that behavior does not constitute grounds for punishment or exclusion from church involvement. On the other hand, if the person is acting against the best good of the congregation out of selfish interest that behavior needs to be actively checked by the congregation. Either way, it simply doesn’t work to sweep the objections under the rug. What the person has to say needs to be fairly and openly considered by the congregation as a whole, which then needs to reach a conclusion about the legitimacy of the statements made and act accordingly. Again, the key words are “fairly” and “openly.” As Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”
“As local congregational leaders began to risk in leading their respective congregations from dysfunction to health, those resisting the change often contacted judicatory leaders. It was at this point we assured these resisters that their congregational leaders were on track and needed their support even when the change produced great pain. For some of the critics our support was enough. When that occurred the change happened more quickly, because the judicatory had thrown its support and credibility behind congregational leaders. Other congregational critics however, were frustrated with our support of their leaders. They in turn went around the judicatory and complained to national leaders. The national leaders by and large did not support the leaders at either the congregational level or the regional level. When this occurred the change process was slowed down considerably. These critics created havoc with members of the congregation by playing their denomination’s leaders against each other. Their actions were much like a child playing parents against each other so the child does not have to do her or his homework” (p.80).
“Tremendous change can occur in a short amount of time when both the pastors and lay leaders are in agreement about making changes and are committed to not allowing individuals within the congregation to drive wedges between them collectively or individually” (p.54).
Here again we see at work the juggernaut that takes no notice of alternate viewpoints and refuses to listen to the wisdom of others. The most significant point it refuses to acknowledge is that if God were really in the changes they would naturally foster a greater unity and zeal for mission, not an atmosphere of friction or stress which must be overcome.
“God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. The selfishness that exalts one man to rule the minds of his fellow men is not inspired of God; for the Lord works in and through those who will be worked by Him, and who in every line of Christian service will act in accordance with divine enlightenment” (Spalding and Magan Collection, p.247).
Scripture sums up this subject quite effectively.
“Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.’
“Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.’
“When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. Then he addressed them: ‘Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God’” (Acts 5:27-39).
Friday, May 14, 2010
Bullseye: Attitudes Towards Clergy
We now come to one of the stickiest issues to be addressed in this series—the treatment of people. On this subject there are two categories of people, clergy and laity. Borden advocates markedly different attitudes and allowances when dealing with pastors than when dealing with lay leaders. We agree that it is appropriate to make that distinction, but on somewhat different grounds and with very different results than Borden does. Because of the volume of statements Borden makes on this subject we are going to give it two posts. This one will address treatment of pastors. The next will get into the treatment of volunteer leaders and rank and file members.
So why the distinction? As we pointed out in our previous post on unsubstantiated statements, Borden believes that pastors are due special honor and consideration simply by virtue of their being leaders. He therefore starts by giving them the benefit of the doubt.
“I always assume the best in every cluster meeting of every pastor regardless of how poorly the pastor thought about his or her ability to lead. I constantly envisioned a better future and what these pastors would be doing some day to lead healthy, growing, and effective ministries. I believed they all could develop as leaders. Some might develop better than others and accomplish more as leaders; however I really did believe they each could improve. I found that by treating pastors this way and expecting the best, they did improve and some have even surpassed my greatest expectations for them” (p.110).
“It is important to state at this juncture that we always went into the consultation supporting the pastor and attempting to conduct the consultation to prepare the pastor to be the primary leader of change” (p.86).
Borden also allows that when an individual pastor or congregation has been underperforming in spreading the gospel the problem may simply be a lack of training in the skills needed to accomplish the task. He responds supportively by offering training and resources and encouraging the pastors to grow their newly acquired skills through use.
“By changing the title of area minister to area consultant, accompanied by new expectations, we now had the moral obligation to provide these individuals with the resources required to accomplish their new responsibilities and meet the new expectations” (p.42).
"Our goal was not to lose pastors over this decision but have them step up to the task of being a leader who would take risks and be willing to be held accountable for fruitful ministry. We also assured them that if they took such risks the region was not going to abandon them. In the past when congregations had conflicts, it was often easier to have the pastors leave, and the region was known for advocating this. We knew that change would bring conflict, and we assured the pastor that when the conflict came, we would help the pastor deal with the dragons in the congregation who did not want health and growth because it affected their ability to hold influence in the congregation" (p.49).
The support Borden encourages for pastors goes well beyond the traditional understanding of that term, becoming “protection.” This manifests in various ways, from helping pastors “deal with” lay members who don’t fall in line to running interference between pastors and other denominational leaders who might become concerned with their conduct and seek to counsel them.
“Third, we wanted the pastor to help us understand what we would encounter during the consultation weekend and who would be the most resistant to change and why that was so. Fourth, we wanted to know how we could help the pastor deal with those people most resistant to change” (p.88).
“I also served pastors by being a regional representative who would come into their congregation when needed and speak the truth to people who still behaved in dysfunctional ways” (p.109).
“I also saw my role as protecting the pastor and leaders from any undue denominational pressure” (pp.78, 79).
Ultimately, Borden recognizes that some pastors simply aren’t capable of bringing about health and growth in a congregation.
“Another implication of fulfilling our mission is that we are willing to confront pastors who are ineffective” (p.32).
“Sometimes protecting congregational leaders meant meeting with pastors to remind them that, since they now had both the authority and responsibility for ministry, if goals were not met they were accountable and could not shift the blame to others” (p.98).
“In our congregational consultations our goal was to establish the pastor as the leader of the congregation. At the same time the pastor had to be willing to be held accountable for specific missional goals. If the goals were met the pastor was given even more freedom to lead. If the goals were not met, then the pastor needed to realize that perhaps a different calling and vocation was in the pastor’s future” (p.97).
Our reasons for making the distinction between pastors and lay membership are rather different. First, a pastor’s influence is much greater and more far-reaching than a lay member’s. Second, the pastor is the official representative of the denomination both within the congregation and to those outside of it. Third, a pastor receives a paycheck for his religious work. Finally, a pastor is also a regular member (and the two roles are not interdependent). Each of these distinctions contributes to making the way a pastor should be treated different than the way a lay member should be treated.
“Heaven is watching to see how those occupying positions of influence fulfill their stewardship. The demands upon them as stewards are measured by the extent of their influence” (Gospel Workers, p. 495).
A pastor’s larger influence means that both their successes and their errors have much greater impact. Consequently, their behavior must meet an even higher standard than lay members are held to so that their actions don’t lead people away from Christ rather than toward Him. Also, as an official representative of the denomination a pastor’s actions reflect not only on him but on the entire denomination.
“God's servants have to deal plainly, act openly, and not cover up wrongs; for they are standing between the living and the dead and must render an account of their faithfulness, their mission, and the influence they exert over the flock of which the Lord has made them overseers” (Early Writings, p.99).
“Those who profess to be servants of the living God must be willing to be servants of all, instead of being exalted above the brethren, and they must possess a kind, courteous spirit. If they err, they should be ready to confess thoroughly. Honesty of intention cannot stand as an excuse for not confessing errors. …Those who profess to be teachers should be patterns of piety, meekness, and humility, possessing a kind spirit, to win souls to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. A minister of Christ should be pure in conversation and in actions. He should ever bear in mind that he is handling words of inspiration, words of a holy God. He must also bear in mind that the flock is entrusted to his care, and that he is to bear their cases to Jesus, and plead for them as Jesus pleads for us with the Father. I was pointed back to the children of Israel anciently and saw how pure and holy the ministers of the sanctuary had to be, because they were brought by their work into a close connection with God. They that minister must be holy, pure, and without blemish, or God will destroy them. God has not changed. He is just as holy and pure, just as particular, as He ever was. Those who profess to be the ministers of Jesus should be men of experience and deep piety, and then at all times and in all places they can shed a holy influence” (Early Writings, pp.102, 103).
As with any other form of employment, a pastor’s employers have a right to expect the pastor to earn his paycheck through the accomplishment of certain predetermined duties, and if those duties are not fulfilled they have the right to terminate the employment. Such a termination does not conflict with our assertion in a previous post that there is no such thing as an expendable soul, because terminating a pastor’s employment in no way impacts his standing as a regular member of the church or implies that he is no longer welcome to be active in outreach. The only thing that changes (assuming the termination was for ineffectiveness rather than some sort of moral or ethical transgression) is that the former pastor is no longer paid for his efforts and must therefore have some other source of income.
“Those who give themselves to the ministry of the Word enter a most important work. Some have made a mistake in receiving ministerial credentials. They ought to take up work for which they are better adapted. Their efforts are feeble, and they should not continue to receive pay from the tithe. In many ways the ministry is losing its sacred character” (Review and Herald, October 6, 1904 par. 17).
Our point here is not that we are, or should be, “out to get” pastors—we are simply saying that with pastors the stakes (and therefore the consequences) are higher. We have no problem with Borden’s approach of assuming the best in pastors until proven otherwise. (In fact, we believe this principle should be applied to all people, but that’s straying into the topic of our next post.) What we do take issue with is Borden’s concept of “protecting” pastors, as the behaviors he recommends for accomplishing this goal often require treating lay members badly. He goes so far as to refer to pastors leading congregations through change as “velvet covered bricks” (p.120). This hardly strikes us as modeling Christ-like behavior to a congregation.
“Do not lead with harshness and severity, but with respect, kindness, confidence, and love.--You do not feel under sound obligation to God to be patient and kind and respectful toward your ministering brethren and toward every member of the church. They lose confidence in you and then your influence is crippled. You need the kindness, courtesy, meekness, and lowliness of Christ. You have many valuable qualifications that can be perfected for highest service if sanctified to God. You should feel the necessity of approaching your brethren with kindness and courtesy, not with harshness and severity. You do not realize the harm you do by your sharp, domineering spirit toward them.--EGW'88 245” (Pastoral Ministry, p.53).
“There is a most fearful, fatal deception upon human minds. Because men are in positions of trust, connected with the work of God, they are exalted in their own estimation, and do not discern that other souls, fully as precious in the sight of God as their own, are neglected, and handled roughly, and bruised, and wounded, and left to die” (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 357, 358).
Then, of course, there is the question of whether a pastor acting in accordance with God’s will would really need human protection.
“That same night the LORD said to him, ‘Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.’
“So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime.
“In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal's altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar!
“They asked each other, ‘Who did this?’ “When they carefully investigated, they were told, ‘Gideon son of Joash did it.’
“The men of the town demanded of Joash, ‘Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal's altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.’
“But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, ‘Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.’ So that day they called Gideon ‘Jerub-Baal,’ saying, ‘Let Baal contend with him,’ because he broke down Baal's altar” (Judges 6:25-32).
When religious conflict arises it is not God or His servants who need human protection, but rather the human systems that have been set up in opposition to God.
So why the distinction? As we pointed out in our previous post on unsubstantiated statements, Borden believes that pastors are due special honor and consideration simply by virtue of their being leaders. He therefore starts by giving them the benefit of the doubt.
“I always assume the best in every cluster meeting of every pastor regardless of how poorly the pastor thought about his or her ability to lead. I constantly envisioned a better future and what these pastors would be doing some day to lead healthy, growing, and effective ministries. I believed they all could develop as leaders. Some might develop better than others and accomplish more as leaders; however I really did believe they each could improve. I found that by treating pastors this way and expecting the best, they did improve and some have even surpassed my greatest expectations for them” (p.110).
“It is important to state at this juncture that we always went into the consultation supporting the pastor and attempting to conduct the consultation to prepare the pastor to be the primary leader of change” (p.86).
Borden also allows that when an individual pastor or congregation has been underperforming in spreading the gospel the problem may simply be a lack of training in the skills needed to accomplish the task. He responds supportively by offering training and resources and encouraging the pastors to grow their newly acquired skills through use.
“By changing the title of area minister to area consultant, accompanied by new expectations, we now had the moral obligation to provide these individuals with the resources required to accomplish their new responsibilities and meet the new expectations” (p.42).
"Our goal was not to lose pastors over this decision but have them step up to the task of being a leader who would take risks and be willing to be held accountable for fruitful ministry. We also assured them that if they took such risks the region was not going to abandon them. In the past when congregations had conflicts, it was often easier to have the pastors leave, and the region was known for advocating this. We knew that change would bring conflict, and we assured the pastor that when the conflict came, we would help the pastor deal with the dragons in the congregation who did not want health and growth because it affected their ability to hold influence in the congregation" (p.49).
The support Borden encourages for pastors goes well beyond the traditional understanding of that term, becoming “protection.” This manifests in various ways, from helping pastors “deal with” lay members who don’t fall in line to running interference between pastors and other denominational leaders who might become concerned with their conduct and seek to counsel them.
“Third, we wanted the pastor to help us understand what we would encounter during the consultation weekend and who would be the most resistant to change and why that was so. Fourth, we wanted to know how we could help the pastor deal with those people most resistant to change” (p.88).
“I also served pastors by being a regional representative who would come into their congregation when needed and speak the truth to people who still behaved in dysfunctional ways” (p.109).
“I also saw my role as protecting the pastor and leaders from any undue denominational pressure” (pp.78, 79).
Ultimately, Borden recognizes that some pastors simply aren’t capable of bringing about health and growth in a congregation.
“Another implication of fulfilling our mission is that we are willing to confront pastors who are ineffective” (p.32).
“Sometimes protecting congregational leaders meant meeting with pastors to remind them that, since they now had both the authority and responsibility for ministry, if goals were not met they were accountable and could not shift the blame to others” (p.98).
“In our congregational consultations our goal was to establish the pastor as the leader of the congregation. At the same time the pastor had to be willing to be held accountable for specific missional goals. If the goals were met the pastor was given even more freedom to lead. If the goals were not met, then the pastor needed to realize that perhaps a different calling and vocation was in the pastor’s future” (p.97).
Our reasons for making the distinction between pastors and lay membership are rather different. First, a pastor’s influence is much greater and more far-reaching than a lay member’s. Second, the pastor is the official representative of the denomination both within the congregation and to those outside of it. Third, a pastor receives a paycheck for his religious work. Finally, a pastor is also a regular member (and the two roles are not interdependent). Each of these distinctions contributes to making the way a pastor should be treated different than the way a lay member should be treated.
“Heaven is watching to see how those occupying positions of influence fulfill their stewardship. The demands upon them as stewards are measured by the extent of their influence” (Gospel Workers, p. 495).
A pastor’s larger influence means that both their successes and their errors have much greater impact. Consequently, their behavior must meet an even higher standard than lay members are held to so that their actions don’t lead people away from Christ rather than toward Him. Also, as an official representative of the denomination a pastor’s actions reflect not only on him but on the entire denomination.
“God's servants have to deal plainly, act openly, and not cover up wrongs; for they are standing between the living and the dead and must render an account of their faithfulness, their mission, and the influence they exert over the flock of which the Lord has made them overseers” (Early Writings, p.99).
“Those who profess to be servants of the living God must be willing to be servants of all, instead of being exalted above the brethren, and they must possess a kind, courteous spirit. If they err, they should be ready to confess thoroughly. Honesty of intention cannot stand as an excuse for not confessing errors. …Those who profess to be teachers should be patterns of piety, meekness, and humility, possessing a kind spirit, to win souls to Jesus and the truth of the Bible. A minister of Christ should be pure in conversation and in actions. He should ever bear in mind that he is handling words of inspiration, words of a holy God. He must also bear in mind that the flock is entrusted to his care, and that he is to bear their cases to Jesus, and plead for them as Jesus pleads for us with the Father. I was pointed back to the children of Israel anciently and saw how pure and holy the ministers of the sanctuary had to be, because they were brought by their work into a close connection with God. They that minister must be holy, pure, and without blemish, or God will destroy them. God has not changed. He is just as holy and pure, just as particular, as He ever was. Those who profess to be the ministers of Jesus should be men of experience and deep piety, and then at all times and in all places they can shed a holy influence” (Early Writings, pp.102, 103).
As with any other form of employment, a pastor’s employers have a right to expect the pastor to earn his paycheck through the accomplishment of certain predetermined duties, and if those duties are not fulfilled they have the right to terminate the employment. Such a termination does not conflict with our assertion in a previous post that there is no such thing as an expendable soul, because terminating a pastor’s employment in no way impacts his standing as a regular member of the church or implies that he is no longer welcome to be active in outreach. The only thing that changes (assuming the termination was for ineffectiveness rather than some sort of moral or ethical transgression) is that the former pastor is no longer paid for his efforts and must therefore have some other source of income.
“Those who give themselves to the ministry of the Word enter a most important work. Some have made a mistake in receiving ministerial credentials. They ought to take up work for which they are better adapted. Their efforts are feeble, and they should not continue to receive pay from the tithe. In many ways the ministry is losing its sacred character” (Review and Herald, October 6, 1904 par. 17).
Our point here is not that we are, or should be, “out to get” pastors—we are simply saying that with pastors the stakes (and therefore the consequences) are higher. We have no problem with Borden’s approach of assuming the best in pastors until proven otherwise. (In fact, we believe this principle should be applied to all people, but that’s straying into the topic of our next post.) What we do take issue with is Borden’s concept of “protecting” pastors, as the behaviors he recommends for accomplishing this goal often require treating lay members badly. He goes so far as to refer to pastors leading congregations through change as “velvet covered bricks” (p.120). This hardly strikes us as modeling Christ-like behavior to a congregation.
“Do not lead with harshness and severity, but with respect, kindness, confidence, and love.--You do not feel under sound obligation to God to be patient and kind and respectful toward your ministering brethren and toward every member of the church. They lose confidence in you and then your influence is crippled. You need the kindness, courtesy, meekness, and lowliness of Christ. You have many valuable qualifications that can be perfected for highest service if sanctified to God. You should feel the necessity of approaching your brethren with kindness and courtesy, not with harshness and severity. You do not realize the harm you do by your sharp, domineering spirit toward them.--EGW'88 245” (Pastoral Ministry, p.53).
“There is a most fearful, fatal deception upon human minds. Because men are in positions of trust, connected with the work of God, they are exalted in their own estimation, and do not discern that other souls, fully as precious in the sight of God as their own, are neglected, and handled roughly, and bruised, and wounded, and left to die” (Testimonies to Ministers, pp. 357, 358).
Then, of course, there is the question of whether a pastor acting in accordance with God’s will would really need human protection.
“That same night the LORD said to him, ‘Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.’
“So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime.
“In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal's altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar!
“They asked each other, ‘Who did this?’ “When they carefully investigated, they were told, ‘Gideon son of Joash did it.’
“The men of the town demanded of Joash, ‘Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal's altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.’
“But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, ‘Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar.’ So that day they called Gideon ‘Jerub-Baal,’ saying, ‘Let Baal contend with him,’ because he broke down Baal's altar” (Judges 6:25-32).
When religious conflict arises it is not God or His servants who need human protection, but rather the human systems that have been set up in opposition to God.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Bullseye: Unsubstantiated Statements
Throughout Hit the Bullseye Borden makes a great many assertions that he fails to substantiate. This post is devoted to listing these assertions. As the fallacy of many of these statements is self-evident we will not bother to respond to every single one of them. We will be addressing the most egregious.
“Seminaries and denominational systems do not teach or train people to do effective ministry or to be leaders. (I do not believe that leadership development should be the job of seminaries, even though most claim to do it while ignoring the reality that they do not.)” (p.50).
“The New Testament speaks of the gift of leadership and most, if not all, of the New Testament epistles were written to leaders. The assumption of the biblical writers is that the leaders would bring about the changes they were addressing in their epistles. If the people are not following then either we are not leading as we are capable, we do not know how to lead, or we simply are not leaders and need to step away from leadership positions. Leadership has at least one simple test: Is anyone following or not?” (p.57).
“The traditional model of leadership that we have held up for pastoral leaders, a perverted model of shepherding, is not only unbiblical but quite ineffective. It produces small inwardly focused congregations that basically give into a consumer mindset of taking care of the blessed before reaching out to those who are spiritually sick and desperate” (p.106).
“We also needed to protect pastors, lay leaders, and even congregations from other pastors, congregations, and denominational leaders” (p.99).
“First, we must get back to honoring leaders and placing a New Testament value on leadership” (p.141).
“I find that all polities inhibit mission and create a conspiracy of smallness that has come to be valued at the expense of effective ministry” (p.140).
“Therefore, I believe we need to look at flexible polities that fit the requirement of biblical principles about mission, rather than trying to prop up idealized structures that reflect agrarian life in past centuries” (p.141).
“In essence we painted a contrast. The choice was the eventual death of both congregations and the region, or a new life that would produce even greater ministry effectiveness than had ever been seen by congregations within the region. When viewed from that perspective the choice was not difficult” (p.69).
Here we come to the statements that need to be examined more closely.
“One [bureaucracy-producing value] was the belief that many people needed to have their say on a number of matters, whether they were equipped or qualified to speak” (p.75).
“These leaders also want to make sure that every voice is heard. There is a failure to understand that, while every person is equal in his or her standing with and before God, not every voice carries equal weight” (p.61).
“Finally, we must get away from the notion in congregational life that everyone has an equal say. Everyone has equal standing before God in Jesus Christ. However, the right to speak and influence congregational life and behavior should be granted in proportion to one’s maturity as a disciple and ministry as a servant” (p.142).
These three statements have a common theme: it’s OK to exclude people from the decisions of the church. This raises the troubling question, “Who should get to decide who has a say and who doesn’t?” The only legitimate answer is, “No one.” Consider the following biblical story.
“After this, the Moabites and Ammonites with some of the Meunites came to make war on Jehoshaphat. …Alarmed, Jehoshaphat resolved to inquire of the LORD, and he proclaimed a fast for all Judah. The people of Judah came together to seek help from the LORD; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.
“Then Jehoshaphat stood up in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem at the temple of the LORD in the front of the new courtyard and said: ‘O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you…
“‘But now here are men from Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, …we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you.’
“All the men of Judah, with their wives and children and little ones, stood there before the LORD.
“Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly.
“He said: ‘Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's…’” (2 Chronicles 20:1-15).
An ordinary guy is God’s chosen messenger. What would have happened if Jehoshaphat had refused to listen because Jahaziel wasn’t important enough to truly have a message to deliver from God? The Bible simply doesn’t support Borden’s exclusionary philosophy. Even further, both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy urge believers not to allow their judgment to be subjected to any other individual. “Let no one despise your youth, but set an example in speech and conduct” (1 Tim. 4:12). “My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight” (Prov. 3:21).
“Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man's teaching to the test of Scripture. Whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth, that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. He will understand the Scriptures. ‘If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.’ John 7:17, R. V.” (The Desire of Ages, p.459).
“It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance. …The mind that depends upon the judgment of others is certain, sooner or later, to be misled.
“The power to discriminate between right and wrong we can possess only through individual dependence upon God. Each for himself is to learn from Him through His word. Our reasoning powers were given us for use, and God desires them to be exercised. ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18), He invites us. In reliance upon Him we may have wisdom to ‘refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ Isaiah 7:15; James 1:5” (Education, pp. 230, 231).
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
This brings us to another of Borden’s unsubstantiated statements.
“We will have the eternal opportunity to sit at the feet of Jesus Christ and be taught. However, our God has only given us one lifetime to make disciples for Jesus Christ” (p.138).
His argument here is that believers should use the time that they have previously spent deepening their knowledge of God to do outreach instead. Outreach is important, certainly, but in order to teach others about God we must first know something of Him ourselves. God is not pleased when we stop studying and growing in our knowledge of and experience with Him.
“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
“In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).
“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2).
“It is proper and right to read the Bible; but your duty does not end there; for you are to search its pages for yourselves. The knowledge of God is not to be gained without mental effort, without prayer for wisdom in order that you may separate from the pure grain of truth the chaff with which men and Satan have misrepresented the doctrines of truth. Satan and his confederacy of human agents have endeavored to mix the chaff of error with the wheat of truth. We should diligently search for the hidden treasure, and seek wisdom from heaven in order to separate human inventions from the divine commands. The Holy Spirit will aid the seeker for great and precious truths which relate to the plan of redemption. I would impress upon all the fact that a casual reading of the Scriptures is not enough. We must search, and this means the doing of all the word implies. As the miner eagerly explores the earth to discover its veins of gold, so you are to explore the word of God for the hidden treasure that Satan has so long sought to hide from man. The Lord says, ‘If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.’ John 7:17, Revised Version” (Review and Herald, September 11, 1894 par. 2).
To conclude this subject, we can only say as Jesus did that, “You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone” (Luke 11:42). The believer must be an active participant in both outreach and personal Bible study.
“Seminaries and denominational systems do not teach or train people to do effective ministry or to be leaders. (I do not believe that leadership development should be the job of seminaries, even though most claim to do it while ignoring the reality that they do not.)” (p.50).
“The New Testament speaks of the gift of leadership and most, if not all, of the New Testament epistles were written to leaders. The assumption of the biblical writers is that the leaders would bring about the changes they were addressing in their epistles. If the people are not following then either we are not leading as we are capable, we do not know how to lead, or we simply are not leaders and need to step away from leadership positions. Leadership has at least one simple test: Is anyone following or not?” (p.57).
“The traditional model of leadership that we have held up for pastoral leaders, a perverted model of shepherding, is not only unbiblical but quite ineffective. It produces small inwardly focused congregations that basically give into a consumer mindset of taking care of the blessed before reaching out to those who are spiritually sick and desperate” (p.106).
“We also needed to protect pastors, lay leaders, and even congregations from other pastors, congregations, and denominational leaders” (p.99).
“First, we must get back to honoring leaders and placing a New Testament value on leadership” (p.141).
“I find that all polities inhibit mission and create a conspiracy of smallness that has come to be valued at the expense of effective ministry” (p.140).
“Therefore, I believe we need to look at flexible polities that fit the requirement of biblical principles about mission, rather than trying to prop up idealized structures that reflect agrarian life in past centuries” (p.141).
“In essence we painted a contrast. The choice was the eventual death of both congregations and the region, or a new life that would produce even greater ministry effectiveness than had ever been seen by congregations within the region. When viewed from that perspective the choice was not difficult” (p.69).
Here we come to the statements that need to be examined more closely.
“One [bureaucracy-producing value] was the belief that many people needed to have their say on a number of matters, whether they were equipped or qualified to speak” (p.75).
“These leaders also want to make sure that every voice is heard. There is a failure to understand that, while every person is equal in his or her standing with and before God, not every voice carries equal weight” (p.61).
“Finally, we must get away from the notion in congregational life that everyone has an equal say. Everyone has equal standing before God in Jesus Christ. However, the right to speak and influence congregational life and behavior should be granted in proportion to one’s maturity as a disciple and ministry as a servant” (p.142).
These three statements have a common theme: it’s OK to exclude people from the decisions of the church. This raises the troubling question, “Who should get to decide who has a say and who doesn’t?” The only legitimate answer is, “No one.” Consider the following biblical story.
“After this, the Moabites and Ammonites with some of the Meunites came to make war on Jehoshaphat. …Alarmed, Jehoshaphat resolved to inquire of the LORD, and he proclaimed a fast for all Judah. The people of Judah came together to seek help from the LORD; indeed, they came from every town in Judah to seek him.
“Then Jehoshaphat stood up in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem at the temple of the LORD in the front of the new courtyard and said: ‘O LORD, God of our fathers, are you not the God who is in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. Power and might are in your hand, and no one can withstand you…
“‘But now here are men from Ammon, Moab and Mount Seir, …we have no power to face this vast army that is attacking us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are upon you.’
“All the men of Judah, with their wives and children and little ones, stood there before the LORD.
“Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jahaziel son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, a Levite and descendant of Asaph, as he stood in the assembly.
“He said: ‘Listen, King Jehoshaphat and all who live in Judah and Jerusalem! This is what the LORD says to you: 'Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast army. For the battle is not yours, but God's…’” (2 Chronicles 20:1-15).
An ordinary guy is God’s chosen messenger. What would have happened if Jehoshaphat had refused to listen because Jahaziel wasn’t important enough to truly have a message to deliver from God? The Bible simply doesn’t support Borden’s exclusionary philosophy. Even further, both the Bible and the Spirit of Prophesy urge believers not to allow their judgment to be subjected to any other individual. “Let no one despise your youth, but set an example in speech and conduct” (1 Tim. 4:12). “My son, preserve sound judgment and discernment, do not let them out of your sight” (Prov. 3:21).
“Religious teachers read the Bible in the light of their own understanding and traditions; and the people do not search the Scriptures for themselves, and judge for themselves as to what is truth; but they yield up their judgment, and commit their souls to their leaders. The preaching and teaching of His word is one of the means that God has ordained for diffusing light; but we must bring every man's teaching to the test of Scripture. Whoever will prayerfully study the Bible, desiring to know the truth, that he may obey it, will receive divine enlightenment. He will understand the Scriptures. ‘If any man willeth to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.’ John 7:17, R. V.” (The Desire of Ages, p.459).
“It is a fact widely ignored, though never without danger, that error rarely appears for what it really is. It is by mingling with or attaching itself to truth that it gains acceptance. …The mind that depends upon the judgment of others is certain, sooner or later, to be misled.
“The power to discriminate between right and wrong we can possess only through individual dependence upon God. Each for himself is to learn from Him through His word. Our reasoning powers were given us for use, and God desires them to be exercised. ‘Come now, and let us reason together’ (Isaiah 1:18), He invites us. In reliance upon Him we may have wisdom to ‘refuse the evil, and choose the good.’ Isaiah 7:15; James 1:5” (Education, pp. 230, 231).
“We cannot, we must not, place blind confidence in any man, however high his profession of faith or his position in the church. We must not follow his guidance, unless the Word of God sustains him. The Lord would have His people individually distinguish between sin and righteousness, between the precious and the vile” (Signs of the Times, Aug. 17, 1882).
This brings us to another of Borden’s unsubstantiated statements.
“We will have the eternal opportunity to sit at the feet of Jesus Christ and be taught. However, our God has only given us one lifetime to make disciples for Jesus Christ” (p.138).
His argument here is that believers should use the time that they have previously spent deepening their knowledge of God to do outreach instead. Outreach is important, certainly, but in order to teach others about God we must first know something of Him ourselves. God is not pleased when we stop studying and growing in our knowledge of and experience with Him.
“Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly—mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly” (1 Cor. 3:1-3).
“In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil” (Heb. 5:12-14).
“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2).
“It is proper and right to read the Bible; but your duty does not end there; for you are to search its pages for yourselves. The knowledge of God is not to be gained without mental effort, without prayer for wisdom in order that you may separate from the pure grain of truth the chaff with which men and Satan have misrepresented the doctrines of truth. Satan and his confederacy of human agents have endeavored to mix the chaff of error with the wheat of truth. We should diligently search for the hidden treasure, and seek wisdom from heaven in order to separate human inventions from the divine commands. The Holy Spirit will aid the seeker for great and precious truths which relate to the plan of redemption. I would impress upon all the fact that a casual reading of the Scriptures is not enough. We must search, and this means the doing of all the word implies. As the miner eagerly explores the earth to discover its veins of gold, so you are to explore the word of God for the hidden treasure that Satan has so long sought to hide from man. The Lord says, ‘If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of the teaching.’ John 7:17, Revised Version” (Review and Herald, September 11, 1894 par. 2).
To conclude this subject, we can only say as Jesus did that, “You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone” (Luke 11:42). The believer must be an active participant in both outreach and personal Bible study.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Bullseye: Unit of Mission
“We assume that people leading middle judicatories must believe that the local congregation is the basic unit of mission in the world” (p.14).
We beg to differ. The basic unit of mission in the world is the individual. The Great Commission was given not to a congregation or organization, but to individuals.
“Each individual has a mission to fulfill which involves weal or woe to some other soul. If faithful to his trust, he is a light that shines to God's glory; by his Christian example, his constancy and fidelity, he represents Christ to the world. If he is unfaithful, he becomes a false light, an agent of Satan to allure souls to ruin. As the sentinel who sleeps at his post endangers the liberty and life of his comrades, so does the professed Christian who is untrue to his high calling endanger the eternal welfare of his fellow-men” (Review and Herald, April 24, 1883 par. 3).
“Letters come to me from near and from far, asking for definite instruction in regard to individual duty. I gladly refer these inquirers to the words of Christ, spoken just before His ascension to heaven. ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’” (Jehovah Is Our King, pp.5, 6).
Whether the basic unit of mission is the congregation or the individual may not seem significant at first, but the position taken on this point has consequences for how other issues are approached. Here is how Borden presents the logical outgrowths of treating the congregation as the basic unit of mission.
“Obviously relationships are important, but relationships are not the primary purpose for local congregations existing, just as sports teams do not exist so the team members can develop a sense of family” (pp.39, 40).
If the basic unit of mission is the congregation, then individuals become expendable and, as with sports teams, can and should be replaced if they are not "benefiting the team" sufficiently. We find that logical conclusion unacceptable. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). There is no such thing as an expendable soul. If souls were expendable there would be no need to spread the gospel in the first place. Each soul is of infinite value.
“The larger plans will be laid at the right time; but personal, individual effort and interest for your friends and neighbors, will accomplish much more than can be estimated. It is for the want of this kind of labor that souls for whom Christ died are perishing. One soul is of infinite value; for Calvary speaks its worth. One soul, won to the truth, will be instrumental in winning others, and there will be an ever-increasing result of blessing and salvation” (Review and Herald, March 13, 1888 par. 9).
“Upon every individual who has had the light of present truth devolves the duty of developing that truth on a higher scale than it has hitherto been developed. The Lord will hold us accountable for the influence we might have exerted, and did not because we did not earnestly try to understand our accountability in this world. We need not think that because we are only a tiny light, we need not be particular about shining. The great value of our light lies in its shining amid the moral darkness of the world,--in shining not to please and glorify ourselves, but to honor God. If we are doing service for God, and our work corresponds to the ability God has given us, that is all he expects of us” (Review and Herald, September 21, 1897 par. 2).
This doesn’t mean that the individual should be completely independent of the congregation. The congregation acts as training ground, resource depot, sounding board, support network, and amplifier. It is a well-known fact of group dynamics that the total amount of work a group can accomplish together exceeds the totaled amounts of work that could be accomplished by all of the individuals of that group working separately. This is why individuals band together into congregations, congregations band together into conferences, etc. We work more effectively together than apart, but it all starts with the individual.
“We cannot expect that ministers will be permanently located in settled charges, as they are located in other denominations; but each church member must individually learn to bear responsibility, and become a worker, making the advance of the cause of truth the first and highest interest of his life. Each one must devote his God-given power to the work of God; for every one has a part to act if the church is to be successfully established and carried on. The ignorance and inexperience of church members in regard to their duty in the church cannot be pleasing to God” (Review and Herald, October 22, 1889 par. 2).
Borden presents another logical outgrowth of treating the congregation as the basic unit of mission, namely that the congregation should receive primacy in attention and resources.
“A judicatory intentionally decides to expend the majority of its financial, time, and human resources on meeting congregational needs rather than fulfilling institutional and denominational demands” (p.15).
“Given the obvious scarcity of resources and competition for dollars, it also may mean that some dollars that have normally come to the denomination may need to stay with the congregation for it to have the resources to grow” (p.15).
“Our commitment to the mission and vision took precedence over everything including those specific denominational concerns that we felt hindered the accomplishment of the mission and achieving the vision” (p.63).
This is yet another consequence that we take a rather dim view of. To start with, it isn’t entirely clear what all these extra resources would be needed for. Borden does suggest that congregations would need extra funds to attract and hire a higher quality of pastor, but that particular need doesn’t exist within the Adventist system. Beyond that, the sort of individual to individual evangelism which is most effective really doesn’t require much of a budget, if any at all. Further, the question begs asking what “institutional and denominational demands” are to be sacrificed to free up all these additional funds. Is worldwide mission work to be sacrificed? Or perhaps our worldwide system of hospitals and clinics which spread our health message and thereby open hearts to the gospel? Frequently the Adventist proponents of Borden’s philosophies have targeted our educational system—seeking to close the schools that work to win the hearts of our youth for God during the ages when they are most receptive to the message. In our view none of these “institutional and denominational demands” are expendable. Some of these functions might conceivably be taken over by the local congregation with its new primacy and funding priority, but for the most part a local congregation simply cannot accomplish these things as effectively as the denomination at large can.
"If the enterprise is under control of the General Conference, the way is open for deliberate counsel and a careful consideration of the matter, and if it is undertaken, there will be a united force to give it influence and standing, and this will contribute largely to its success. Under such management, a class of workers could be enlisted that otherwise could not be secured, and thus the enterprise would prosper when it would prove a failure in ordinary hands. And furthermore, there must be an authority to guard such an institution, so that persons who are not qualified shall not be allowed to grasp responsibility through selfish ambition…” (General Conference Daily Bulletin, January 30, 1893 par. 5).
Borden also spends considerable time discussing what he considers to be the differences between the operational mentalities of large and small congregations. “Larger congregations are not simply smaller congregations that now have more people attending” (p.58). His position is that small congregations put their emphasis on people and status at the expense of effective function, whereas big congregations are able to view the work objectively and make good functional decisions because they don’t allow it to get personal. He believes that the line between big and small congregations occurs when a congregation has 200 people in regular attendance.
“In North America most small congregations are small and remain that way because they are spiritually and organizationally dysfunctional. Many large congregations have become large as a result of pursuing organizational health and in many cases spiritual health as well. If small congregations are truly healthy they will not remain small, but will grow and reproduce in one way or another. If a large congregation becomes unhealthy, it will eventually decline” (p.59).
We have no problem with the assertion that health will translate into growth, but we don’t buy into Borden’s blanket portrayal of smaller congregations.
“These are the congregations that in our day have become large and have the opportunity and ability to change communities. The criticism we often hear of such congregations is that they are a mile wide and an inch deep. Yet often those offering the criticisms are involved in congregations that are an inch wide and an inch deep. Our denominational polities have created organizations that promote a conspiracy of smallness that allows a handful of controllers to focus the church on membership privileges that are defined by their personal and family needs and desires” (p.141).
A conspiracy of smallness? The paranoia expressed in this statement defies logical rebuttal beyond pointing out that it is a statement of paranoia. God blesses congregations of many sizes, but His emphasis is not on congregations, but on people. It is people that He came to save, not congregations, and it is through individual believers that His work is carried forward.
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight. He will let his light shine into the chambers of the mind and into the soul-temple if men, when they lack wisdom, will go to their closets in prayer, and ask wisdom from him who gives to all men liberally and upbraids not. …As the sinner's sincere, humble prayers ascend to the throne of God, Christ mingles with them the merits of his life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged himself to intercede in our behalf, and the Father always hears his Son. Pray then; pray without ceasing; an answer is sure to come” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
We beg to differ. The basic unit of mission in the world is the individual. The Great Commission was given not to a congregation or organization, but to individuals.
“Each individual has a mission to fulfill which involves weal or woe to some other soul. If faithful to his trust, he is a light that shines to God's glory; by his Christian example, his constancy and fidelity, he represents Christ to the world. If he is unfaithful, he becomes a false light, an agent of Satan to allure souls to ruin. As the sentinel who sleeps at his post endangers the liberty and life of his comrades, so does the professed Christian who is untrue to his high calling endanger the eternal welfare of his fellow-men” (Review and Herald, April 24, 1883 par. 3).
“Letters come to me from near and from far, asking for definite instruction in regard to individual duty. I gladly refer these inquirers to the words of Christ, spoken just before His ascension to heaven. ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world’” (Jehovah Is Our King, pp.5, 6).
Whether the basic unit of mission is the congregation or the individual may not seem significant at first, but the position taken on this point has consequences for how other issues are approached. Here is how Borden presents the logical outgrowths of treating the congregation as the basic unit of mission.
“Obviously relationships are important, but relationships are not the primary purpose for local congregations existing, just as sports teams do not exist so the team members can develop a sense of family” (pp.39, 40).
If the basic unit of mission is the congregation, then individuals become expendable and, as with sports teams, can and should be replaced if they are not "benefiting the team" sufficiently. We find that logical conclusion unacceptable. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). There is no such thing as an expendable soul. If souls were expendable there would be no need to spread the gospel in the first place. Each soul is of infinite value.
“The larger plans will be laid at the right time; but personal, individual effort and interest for your friends and neighbors, will accomplish much more than can be estimated. It is for the want of this kind of labor that souls for whom Christ died are perishing. One soul is of infinite value; for Calvary speaks its worth. One soul, won to the truth, will be instrumental in winning others, and there will be an ever-increasing result of blessing and salvation” (Review and Herald, March 13, 1888 par. 9).
“Upon every individual who has had the light of present truth devolves the duty of developing that truth on a higher scale than it has hitherto been developed. The Lord will hold us accountable for the influence we might have exerted, and did not because we did not earnestly try to understand our accountability in this world. We need not think that because we are only a tiny light, we need not be particular about shining. The great value of our light lies in its shining amid the moral darkness of the world,--in shining not to please and glorify ourselves, but to honor God. If we are doing service for God, and our work corresponds to the ability God has given us, that is all he expects of us” (Review and Herald, September 21, 1897 par. 2).
This doesn’t mean that the individual should be completely independent of the congregation. The congregation acts as training ground, resource depot, sounding board, support network, and amplifier. It is a well-known fact of group dynamics that the total amount of work a group can accomplish together exceeds the totaled amounts of work that could be accomplished by all of the individuals of that group working separately. This is why individuals band together into congregations, congregations band together into conferences, etc. We work more effectively together than apart, but it all starts with the individual.
“We cannot expect that ministers will be permanently located in settled charges, as they are located in other denominations; but each church member must individually learn to bear responsibility, and become a worker, making the advance of the cause of truth the first and highest interest of his life. Each one must devote his God-given power to the work of God; for every one has a part to act if the church is to be successfully established and carried on. The ignorance and inexperience of church members in regard to their duty in the church cannot be pleasing to God” (Review and Herald, October 22, 1889 par. 2).
Borden presents another logical outgrowth of treating the congregation as the basic unit of mission, namely that the congregation should receive primacy in attention and resources.
“A judicatory intentionally decides to expend the majority of its financial, time, and human resources on meeting congregational needs rather than fulfilling institutional and denominational demands” (p.15).
“Given the obvious scarcity of resources and competition for dollars, it also may mean that some dollars that have normally come to the denomination may need to stay with the congregation for it to have the resources to grow” (p.15).
“Our commitment to the mission and vision took precedence over everything including those specific denominational concerns that we felt hindered the accomplishment of the mission and achieving the vision” (p.63).
This is yet another consequence that we take a rather dim view of. To start with, it isn’t entirely clear what all these extra resources would be needed for. Borden does suggest that congregations would need extra funds to attract and hire a higher quality of pastor, but that particular need doesn’t exist within the Adventist system. Beyond that, the sort of individual to individual evangelism which is most effective really doesn’t require much of a budget, if any at all. Further, the question begs asking what “institutional and denominational demands” are to be sacrificed to free up all these additional funds. Is worldwide mission work to be sacrificed? Or perhaps our worldwide system of hospitals and clinics which spread our health message and thereby open hearts to the gospel? Frequently the Adventist proponents of Borden’s philosophies have targeted our educational system—seeking to close the schools that work to win the hearts of our youth for God during the ages when they are most receptive to the message. In our view none of these “institutional and denominational demands” are expendable. Some of these functions might conceivably be taken over by the local congregation with its new primacy and funding priority, but for the most part a local congregation simply cannot accomplish these things as effectively as the denomination at large can.
"If the enterprise is under control of the General Conference, the way is open for deliberate counsel and a careful consideration of the matter, and if it is undertaken, there will be a united force to give it influence and standing, and this will contribute largely to its success. Under such management, a class of workers could be enlisted that otherwise could not be secured, and thus the enterprise would prosper when it would prove a failure in ordinary hands. And furthermore, there must be an authority to guard such an institution, so that persons who are not qualified shall not be allowed to grasp responsibility through selfish ambition…” (General Conference Daily Bulletin, January 30, 1893 par. 5).
Borden also spends considerable time discussing what he considers to be the differences between the operational mentalities of large and small congregations. “Larger congregations are not simply smaller congregations that now have more people attending” (p.58). His position is that small congregations put their emphasis on people and status at the expense of effective function, whereas big congregations are able to view the work objectively and make good functional decisions because they don’t allow it to get personal. He believes that the line between big and small congregations occurs when a congregation has 200 people in regular attendance.
“In North America most small congregations are small and remain that way because they are spiritually and organizationally dysfunctional. Many large congregations have become large as a result of pursuing organizational health and in many cases spiritual health as well. If small congregations are truly healthy they will not remain small, but will grow and reproduce in one way or another. If a large congregation becomes unhealthy, it will eventually decline” (p.59).
We have no problem with the assertion that health will translate into growth, but we don’t buy into Borden’s blanket portrayal of smaller congregations.
“These are the congregations that in our day have become large and have the opportunity and ability to change communities. The criticism we often hear of such congregations is that they are a mile wide and an inch deep. Yet often those offering the criticisms are involved in congregations that are an inch wide and an inch deep. Our denominational polities have created organizations that promote a conspiracy of smallness that allows a handful of controllers to focus the church on membership privileges that are defined by their personal and family needs and desires” (p.141).
A conspiracy of smallness? The paranoia expressed in this statement defies logical rebuttal beyond pointing out that it is a statement of paranoia. God blesses congregations of many sizes, but His emphasis is not on congregations, but on people. It is people that He came to save, not congregations, and it is through individual believers that His work is carried forward.
“The believer in Christ is consecrated to high and holy purpose. Before the service of the royal priesthood the glory of the Aaronic priesthood is eclipsed. Called according to God's purpose, set apart by grace divine, invested with Christ's righteousness, imbued with the Holy Spirit, offering up the sacrifices of a broken and contrite heart, the true believer is indeed a representative of the Redeemer. Upon such a worshiper, God looks with delight. He will let his light shine into the chambers of the mind and into the soul-temple if men, when they lack wisdom, will go to their closets in prayer, and ask wisdom from him who gives to all men liberally and upbraids not. …As the sinner's sincere, humble prayers ascend to the throne of God, Christ mingles with them the merits of his life of perfect obedience. Our prayers are made fragrant by this incense. Christ has pledged himself to intercede in our behalf, and the Father always hears his Son. Pray then; pray without ceasing; an answer is sure to come” (Review and Herald, October 30, 1900 par. 7).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)