Riverside's Leadership (Elder) Covenant

Below is the Leadership Covenant that we developed for Riverside Christian Church.  Very little is original.  It's a collection from many different sources.  It was a long time coming, but I think it will definitely improve the leadership at our church through them knowing their expectations.  "Leader" is synonymous with "Elder" at Riverside.


RIVERSIDE CHRISTIAN CHURCH'S LEADER COVENANT


GROWING IN PERSONAL DISCIPLESHIP

• Develops a real, authentic relationship with God through a daily time of prayer and Bible study.
• Regularly attends the weekly worship gathering at least 39 times every year.
  
• Models the life of Jesus in his daily life and shares the gospel regularly.
  
• Ministers to their own families.
  
• Tithes to the ministry at Riverside.

CARING FOR THE CONGREGATION

• Mentors people in the congregation.
• Participates in the leadership calling program so that everyone in the church is contacted once a month.
• Visits people who are homebound or hospitalized.
  
• Discipline members who are out of step with the congregation or straying morally in their personal lives.

LEADING THE CHURCH IN ITS MISSION

• Agrees with and actively supports Riverside's vision to love one another, love Jesus, and love all.
  
• Agrees with Riverside's Statement of Beliefs and Statement of Convictions.
  
• Participates in leadership meetings that serve as the primary forum to discuss and give input on key policy and strategic decisions.
• Leads the congregation in discerning what God is calling the congregation to be and do.
• Helps the congregation stay focused on its mission.
  
• Leads the congregation through change in order to be more effective in its mission.
  
• Actively participates in mission and outreach ministries according to their gifts and available time.
  
• Teaches in different capacities throughout the church.

SUPPORTING AND ENCOURAGING ONE ANOTHER

• Attends leader's meeting when scheduled for training, sharing, and prayer.
• Goes on the annual leadership retreat for spiritual renewal and team building.
  
• Prays daily for the other leaders, the minister(s), and ministry heads.
  
• Involved in a weekly accountability relationship with another leader in the church.

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

• Serves in reviewing monthly financial statements
  
• Approves yearly budget
  
• Approves individual expenses over $5,000.

ROLE TO THE LEAD PASTOR, STAFF, AND MINISTRY TEAM LEADERS

• Serves under the lead pastor and receives training and guidance from him.
  
• Holds the lead pastor accountable.
  
• Supports the lead pastor in holding all other ministry team leaders accountable. It is not the responsibility of the leaders to discipline ministry leaders for their mistakes, pitfalls, or perceived failures in ministry. Ministry leaders are under the lead pastor and answerable to him.
  
• Encourages all of the people actively involved in ministry in the church.
  
• Serves as the primary transitional team overseeing the process of replacing the lead pastor should the need arise.
  

I, _______________________________________, am willing to serve as an active member of Riverside's Leadership Team per the requirements and responsibilities outlined above. I understand that this is a one-year commitment and I can be removed at any time through the decision of the other leaders. I will invest at least ten hours into my spiritual growth and the church every week.

_{___________________________________                            __________}

^{Signature                                                                                                  Date}

Leadership Message - Pursue Excellence

I read a quote recently that the difference between a professional and a amateur is that the professional has standards.

I know that all of you are volunteers in your ministry here, but for us to be the church God wants us to be we have to strive for excellence in every ministry we do. Being a volunteer doesn't mean that you can cut corners or be lazy about something. There is a difference between doing something with excellence and doing something poorly. We should never have poorly done ministries.

If we can't do something well, it is better to not do it. Really. None of our ministries are needed to the point that they need to be done poorly. Because not doing a ministry isn't as detrimental as doing it poorly. If something needs to be done, then we need to put the time in to do it well. It is better to do less things well, than it is to do more things poorly.

Our ministries should always be changing and trying to improve. If your ministry hasn't changed something in the last year, it should be a warning sign that you have started to coast. We always need to improve. We can fail and do a bad job, but it should never be a result of a lack of preparation, a lack of communication, or a lack of self-examination on how to improve.

So I just want to encourage all of us, in every one of our ministries, to pursue excellence. Prepare. Look for improvement. Be self-reflective. And seek to glorify God in all that we do.

Leading, It's All About God

Church leadership is not about making everyone happy, doing "church the way they want, or pleasing people. It's about ushering people into the presence of God, leading the way to being His people, and doing His will. That's going to make some people unhappy, but it's not about them. It is about God.

On Frank Viola, Church Structure, and the Thought That Our Way of Doing/Being Church is the Best Way

A friend of mine posted a comment about Frank Vola.

I made the comment:

I still think Viola uses Scripture to argue for a church model that is not clearly defined in Scripture. Without it being clearly defined, we have the liberty to be different.

I once did church thinking I was being church better than everyone else because the structure was "more biblical." I don't want to go there again. Maybe it's my fault, but Viola's teachings (and those of other house church/organic church leaders) lead to that prideful thinking. When I look back, at least from my faulty perspective, God has impacted people through His ministry through me more in a "corporate" setting than in a conversational, mutual ministry setting.
 
And when it comes down to it, structure doesn't matter. Fruit, especially love, is what it is all about. And Viola always leads people to argue about inessentials.

My friend and his wife - another friend - both then shared replies explaining things.  I do not feel comfortable sharing their replies here.  But I will share my reply back to them.

I appreciate the beauty of your journey and the inspiration Viola has been to you, yet I find his teachings dangerous - not in that good, radical follow Jesus way, but in that divisive, church is better the way I do/be it way. Now, I do think that we all should be doing/being church the way that we feel best. If not, we need to change.  But we don't have to come across that our way is the only way.

I did read the article, 10 Straw-Man Myths About “Pagan Christianity” & “Reimagining Church." Twice. To see if I missed him addressing my main thought about him. And I don't think he did address my complaint.  Maybe he did in a roundabout way but not in a way that satisfied me. Why is church structure an essential? 

We could all be going to churches that are structured correctly. Whatever that means. And that would not matter. The problem with church is not the structure; it's the lives of the people outside of the structure.  I agree that some structures are more conducive to inspiring people, but that structure changes culturally.  For me to be dogmatic about the way I connect with God and expect that to be the structure would cause the church to stagnate once the culture I am ingrained in has passed society by.  This has been one of the greatest problems facing the church.

There are people called to church leadership. There are leadership positions clearly established in Scripture. Everyone wanting to be church leaders or theologians makes an unhealthy church. Not being a leader does not make anyone less important. It actually makes everyone the part of the body they should be. What makes a healthy, vibrant church is everyone living out the faith in their homes, their communities, and their workplaces. We might disagree, but I think mutual leadership is more of an appeal to the Thoreauish individualism of America than to the early church.

I used to be overly cynical about the traditional, sanctuary church and its leaders. But now serving as a pastor, I know I don't want people to just show up, eat up, and leave on Sundays. But I also don't believe in open leadership. I want people to come, be involved in one another's lives, encourage one another, and go out and live the faith in a radical way that makes them shine the light of Jesus in our culture. Open leadership really is irrelevant to that happening.

There is a reason you find people to minister to who are burnt out from institutional church.  That's because we serve a great God who knows who to send people to to minister to them, and you and Eric are great ministers.  But the danger we face in ministering to people who have been turned off from the same things that we have been turned off from is that cynicism can flourish.

I think it is fine and great to do church differently. I am happy Viola invigorates you and others. But I would hope that there would be enough grace to not tear down different expressions of the faith. Just like you don't like the traditional, sanctuary church acting like they are the only game in town, I think nobody should act like they are the only game in town. The kingdom is big and expansive, and once we get dogmatic on structure we lose some of our witness.

I am not so kind to say that I am not trying to convince you. I would love to convince you, Eric, and the whole world that the church can be a megachurch with 50,000 people and it can be a group of three worshiping in a clearing in the woods. It can have top-down leadership; it can have mutual leadership. It can have worship leaders with a planned, rehearsed, and flawless presentation; it can have a lady who brings out her guitar and sings spontaneously. I have seen empty, passionless Christians in churches of all varieties, from organic churches to megachurches. I don't think the structure is the issue.  Total surrender to Jesus is.

As a minister - as every minister I know has been - I am inflicted with tremendous pain by the body of Christ at times.  I understand hurt.  Maybe yours has been more extreme.  But I also see tremendous beauty.  It's amazing.  As Tony Campolo said, "The church is a whore but she's my mother."

I view Facebook as a place of conversation, more of like saying something publicly so that other people respond with their thoughts. If that is not what Eric and you want with it, let me know. Because I still want to be your friends on here, but I don't mean to upset you.  I post on Facebook to hear what others think of what I think or am experiencing. I just assumed others do too.  After Eric's last refusal to comment, I did quit commenting on his posts for a while. But what sort of friendship is it that does not talk about different ideas and disagree at times? Personally, I am not just engaging in mental sparring. Although you are probably not intending this, stating that is my motive is a way to dismiss my thoughts and not consider them. If there was any evil in my comment it was to arrogantly hope that Eric would consider what I wrote initially: "When it comes down to it, structure doesn't matter. Fruit, especially love, is what it is all about. And Viola always leads people to argue about inessentials."

To sum up, I don't think the problem is institutional versus organic versus house or versus some other kind of church.  The problem is bad church versus the kingdom.  The kingdom can manifests in all sorts of believers, no matter how many they are or how they are structured.

Inappropriate Circumstances

"If you demonstrate by dancing, you will be placed under arrest."

"Everyone have permits for those videos?" 

"You're not allowed to have free expression, free speech, in the memorial to Thomas Jefferson - the champion of free speech."

"Stop, you're dancing."

"We're allowed to dance in America."

"This is America....It is illegal to dance."

"What would he (Thomas Jefferson) think of this?"

True, I think the dancers were a distraction to the monument. I can just imagine taking my kids there at that moment when the arrests started happening. It would be total confusion. I would be talking about Jefferson and how he was one of the men who stood up for freedom, and then we would see people being arrested for dancing at his monument. I thought the policemen handled themselves appropriately regarding the circumstances. The problem was that the circumstances they were placed in were wrong. The law prohibiting dancing is ridiculous. If a fun, crazy, freedom-loving America wants to dance at the Jefferson Memorial, then they should be able to. If we can't see the irony of people being arrested at the Jefferson Memorial for harmless dancing, then we misunderstand the freedom that Jefferson struggled for. It is true that he fought for more significant freedoms than dancing, but if people aren't allowed to do something as little as dancing, then why would we presume that they would allow freedoms more significant than that?

It all reminds me of an unhealthy church. Churchleaders.com published an article last week that talked about the five core values of a church in decline. A similar situation to that at the Jefferson Memorial happens all the time in unhealthy churches across this land. You can hear the phrases, "We've never done it that way before." "That would make the Jones' unhappy." Like at the Jefferson Memorial, people act appropriate for the situation in an unhealthy church, but the situation is all wrong.

Instead of doing whatever it takes to further God's kingdom, the church will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo.  Unfortunately, because we are in a society that is everchanging, the status quo must be everchanging. That doesn't mean that we change our DNA, it means that we change our clothes. A church that does not change it's clothes regularly is a church like a human that doesn't change it's clothes. It stinks. Nobody can see the beauty of God beyond that stink.  It's time to stop stinking.  Let's change.

How to Lead by Consensus

Taken from Kenneth Gangel’s Feeding and Leading (195-198)

Each member has one voice
            It’s not a vote.  It’s a voice. 

Each member has a responsibility to express his or her opinion
            “Not a week later!  Not out in a parking lot after the meeting!  Not in a whisper to the person next to him!  Carefully, lovingly, clearly, and gently in the meeting where all the concerned, interdependent decision-makers have gathered to deal with the issue!”

Each member must listen respectfully to all other options
            “Nobody has a corner on God’s truth—not the chairman and not the pastor…We’re seeking the mind of the Spirit of God as He gives each one of us wisdom; and we know truth could come from anyone (remember the disciples discounting Mary’s record of the resurrection of Jesus.)”

Each member must detach himself emotionally from his own ideas
            “The mature person can suggest an idea, ‘place it on the table,’ and deliberately allow his fellow decision-makers to weigh it, evaluate it, attack it, build on it, and take it in different directions because that is precisely his role as a member of the decision-making group.  When they attack his idea he understands full well they are not attacking him.”

Each member must publicly support the group’s decision.
            “Consensus does not mean total unanimity.  It means that a group of people operating in informed, spiritual accountability has made a decision which they will now present to the larger group of people who have authorized them to make that decision.”

Each member must keep group processes confidential.

Wives, Submit to your Husbands or How to Have a Healthy Family

A study was released in July that described three types of families.  One happy, termed cohesive.  Two unhappy, termed disengaged and enmeshed.

“Typically cohesive families are characterized by harmonious interactions, emotional warmth, and firm but flexible roles for parents and children. "Think the Cosby family," says Sturge-Apple, offering an example from the popular TV series about the affable Huxtable family.

Enmeshed families, by contrast, appears to be emotionally involved and display modest amounts of warmth, but they struggle with high levels of hostility, destructive meddling, and a limited sense of the family as a team. Sturge-Apple points to the emotionally messy Barone family in the family sitcom Everybody Loves Raymond as a good example of an enmeshed family.

Finally, disengaged families, as the name implies, are marked by cold, controlling, and withdrawn relationships. The seemingly pleasant suburban family in the movie Ordinary People provides a classic illustration of a disengaged family, as per the authors. Reacting to the death of their oldest son, the parents in the film retreat emotionally, creating a barren home environment in which feelings cannot be discussed.”

The authors of the study are clear in saying that family life isn’t the only factor that results in troubled children.

Another article describing the same study wrote:

The research found that children from disengaged homes began their education with higher levels of aggressive and disruptive behavior and more difficulty focusing on learning and cooperating with the classroom rules. These destructive behaviors grew worse as the child progressed through school.

By contrast, children from enmeshed home environments entered school with no more disciplinary problems or depression and withdrawal than their peers from cohesive families. But as children from both enmeshed and disengaged homes continued in school they began to suffer higher levels of anxiety and feelings of loneliness and alienation from peers and teachers.

The authors conclude that “children in the early school years may be especially vulnerable to the destructive relationship patterns of enmeshed families.”

Paul, in writing Colossians, wrapped up telling us about the new self with what almost seems to be a sidetrack into the household.  The old self is lying, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk while the new self is compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, thankfulness, forgiveness, and love.

What we see in Paul's passage on the household in Colossians on how to have the family God desires is similar to what the scientists in the studies mentioned earlier would describe as a cohesive family.

Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them. Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged. Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.  Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality.  Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 3:18-4:1 (ESV).

Now, let’s deal with the elephant in the room first.  I would prefer not to deal with the elephant in the room because in dealing with it we risk missing the forest for the tree.  But if I don’t deal with it, I doubt we will get to see the forest because of that tree.  The big, hot button issue is that first sentence.  "Wives, submit to your husbands."  Let's be careful though; we can major on a minor and still have a dysfunctional family.

An exercise that is useful in discovering the meaning of a word is to to examine what it meant in the original language through a Greek word study.  One of the biggest mistakes typically done is to just look the word up in an English dictionary and call it good from there.  The problem with our understanding "hupotasso" is that we don't use the word "submit" much in our normal conversations.  The only places I hear it is in wrestling/mma and in a classroom environment where a student submits a paper to their teacher.  In doing a word study, we can see how the word was used in other sections of Scripture.  So let's look at some of those verses.

And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive (hupotasso) to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.  Luke 2:51 (ESV)

Jesus was hupotasso to his parents.

Let every person be subject (hupotasso) to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Romans 13:1 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso governing authorities.

Now I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints—be subject (hupotasso) to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. 1 Corinthians 16:15-16 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to every fellow worker and laborer like those of the housefhold of Stephanas.

Submit (hupotasso) yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.  James 4:7 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to God.

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, submitting (hupotasso) to one another out of reverence for Christ.  Eph 5:18-21 (ESV).

We need to hupotasso to one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus.

We could get a grand and deeply authoritarian view of submission from the verses that teach us to submit to governing authorities and God, but there are uses of "submit" that throw a kink into that definition.  We see that submitting to one another is something that we are all called to do as believers. 

So the word "submit" is often misunderstood. This teaching of womanly submission has tragically been abused by the patriarchal society of the past and is still being abused in sexist settings.  I have heard of tragic stories of abuse in which a woman has been told to submit to her husband and remain in that abusive relationship.  That is not what this verse in Colossians is implying.

Submit (hupotasso) is voluntarily placing ourselves under someone in order to support them and help them achieve the dreams they have.  When Paul wrote that a wife should submit to her husband he was stating that a wife needs to be a person who is voluntarily supportive of their husband, but that is nothing more than what Paul said we need to be to one another as brothers and sisters in Jesus. It is nothing more than the husband should also be to the wife.

Submitting does not mean that we don’t speak up, that we don’t ever disobey.  It does not mean that we endure torture or abuse under another. It means that we know the dreams of the other person, we put ourselves voluntarily under them to help them achieve those dreams. We become a support to lift them up and help them achieve their goals. 

Each time that the Bible commands the wife to submit to her husband, it joins that with a command for the husband to love and take care of his wife.  Paul even goes so far in the letter to the Ephesians to say that the husband must love his wife like Jesus loves the church.  

 

A domineering man might then ask, "What does authority matter if it does not mean blind obedience by those under authority?"  It’s mean Christian authority.  If you are over someone in Christ, then you are their servant leader.  Jesus does not force His will to be done through taking away free will.  He leads out of submission and love.  We are to do likewise.

"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matt 20:25-28 (ESV).

Jesus also taught that leadership in the church and in Christian relationships is upside-down.  

The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.  Matt 23:11-12 (ESV).

Servant leadership is what Christian leadership is all about.  As a pastor, I think about my role a lot and what I am to do.  I am in this position to serve the people in the church I minister at, the community around here, and world abroad.  It is not about me getting special treatment; it's about me serving people through calling on them, meeting their needs, and studying the Scriptures for what I think God wants us to hear.  The other leaders in a church are there to do likewise.  If you are living out the life of Jesus in your workplace, then you should be about serving them.  Government, if it is doing it’s job, is here to serve us.  Christian leadership, whether it is the role of a husband in the house, parents to their children, a teacher to their students, a law enforcement officer to the citizens, is one of sacrifice and service.

We all know in the core of our being what good leadership is.  What kind of cowardly father would flee if his family was endangered?  I know this one is a stretch, but what kind of corrupt politician would seek to gain personally from their position as a representative of the people?  What kind of shameful law enforcement officer would abandon people in need of help?  We all know, in the core of our being, what good leadership is.  And that is what Paul is laying out here because, so often, men can create a destructive family environment from their unhealthy leadership.  The leadership trap for a husband, as Paul warns, is to become harsh with their wives and provoke and discourage their children.     

But a healthy family is not one of selfish and personal ambition.  It’s one of  compassion, patience, love, humility, forgiveness, and love.  It is the new self lived out in unison one with another.  A healthy family is the most basic example of the love of Jesus lived in community.

It is dangerous for someone to get into a relationship with an unbeliever because the believer, if living the way Jesus would have them live, would be walked on by the other. The new self can only truly be lived without being abused when both people are living in the new self.  The family is designed to be a place where people are encouraged and built up to be who Jesus wants them to be rather than a place of manipulation and selfish ambition.
 
In the healthy family, telling a wife that she is to submit to her husband is also proclaiming that the husband must serve his wife.  We must never separate a wife submitting with the love of the husband that is always connected with that command to submit.

The main crux of the argument, as Paul described the way the household should function is that the man should no longer abuse his position.  At the time this letter was written to church in Colossae, the man was very domineering over the family. Paul gave three warnings to the man. One, he is not to be harsh with his wife. Two, he is not to provoke and discourage their children. And three, he is to treat his slaves justly and fairly.  This was a radical teaching that would be liberating to wives, children, and slaves at that time.

The Roman society was patriarchal and vicious.  The babies would be presented to the father after birth at which he could decide to let the baby not enter the family forcing the baby to die from exposure.  No property was allowed to be owned in a Roman family except for the father; this even included grown men.  All children were to be under the authority of their father until his passing.

Like modern sitcoms jokingly show the faults in the American family, Roman theater did the same for their audience.  And we can see in the family comedies of Plautus and Terrence that the Roman family could devolve into manipulation and greed.  With such a patriarchal structure, the wife, children, and slaves would all try to manipulate the father to get their will done.  Paul's writings were a direct assault on the Roman family structure and would have transformed a Roman family that lived selfishly into one that would be a witness for Jesus.

If the man is the head of the house, it is not a domineering head. Christian leadership is the exact opposite of being domineering. If anyone is the head of anything, then that person is to be the servant of those he is the head of.  True Christian leadership is serving, not domineering. It is an authority to serve rather than an authority to boss around and be obeyed.

Submit does not mean that someone should be silent, obedient at all times, or a slave. Actually, if submit means to support someone to achieve their dreams, then speaking up and telling the other person where they need to improve would be needed at times. So submit, in Paul's command for a wife to submit to her husband, just means that the woman will help the man achieve the dreams he is trying to achieve.  She will be his support. From other verses, we see that a man should be just as supportive of his wife.

Article On Leadership - Economist on Intel and Andrew Grove - Changing Established Churces to Be Focused Outwardly

This article deals with being a great leader and Andrew Grove's thoughts on how the government not allowing companies to fail is a bad thing in the long run.

Paranoid Survivor: Andrew Grove, the former boss of Intel, believes other fields can learn from the chipmaking industry that he helped bring into being.

"Computer firms come and go all the time, such is the pace of innovation in the industry. Yet for some reason this healthy attitude towards creative destruction is not shared by other industries."

"Every company will face a confluence of internal and external forces, often unanticipated, that will conspire to make an existing business strategy unviable."

"He launched the “Intel Inside” campaign, which marketed microprocessor chips directly to consumers, starting in 1991. This incensed his rivals and his immediate customers, the computer-makers, but the strong demand for Intel’s new Pentium chip showed that the strategy had worked."

"Dr Grove, however, insists that it was his experience at City College, where talent and hard work were rewarded and where students challenged their professors without concern for rank, that impressed upon him the value of meritocracy....The meritocratic culture he created at Intel then helped it attract the best talent in the industry."

This last point stuck with me the most. Churches tend to develop a culture that rewards those who have been there the longest and who give the most money. That would go completely against the approach that Grove took to make Intel successful. A healthy church is one that takes any good idea no matter where it came from and allows gifting to decide who gets to serve rather than seniority or time at the church. This is why church plants grow faster than established churches. An established church will already have all the "prominent" positions filled and will already know who they listen to as their idea people. If you aren't in the circle of the prominent or one of the reputable idea people, you will be ignored. They will gladly plug you into one of their cookie cutter ministries, but you better fit the mold. An open church, which most church plants are naturally, allows those with gifting to serve and implements any new idea that is useful in reaching out. Established churches need to figure out how to open things up and allow God, through the people He has gifted, to lead rather than allow the Old Boys' Club to continue on.

In pointing out that Intel became successful when it started marketing to the end consumer rather than marketing to computer manufacturers who actually made the decision to put the chips in computers, I was struck at the difference between a church that "does church" for those already in the pews compared to a church that is willing to do whatever it takes to share the Gospel to all. The former approach always leads to stagnation and death if not changed. The latter leads to life and vitality. Although you might lose some of the Christians who do not want to reach out along the way, a church that is focused on outreach will always be blessed more than an inwardly-focused church.

There might be problems in the immediate future when an established church changes focus, but change is necessary if we want to see the trend of dying churches stopped and enter into an era of vibrant local churches throughout the communities around us. It's either change or remain stagnant and die. Many are in churches that face this decision, and it is not an easy decision to make. People who have been catered to, have always heard the messages they wanted to hear on their pet doctrines that would not challenge them, and have controlled what is done in the church do not take kindly to a church changing its focus from pleasing the pew sitters to loving the community. The key is letting God control what we do rather than any person in the pew, no matter how much they have paid for that seat. It's His Church; it's His mission; He will provide what we need to fulfill that task if we are open to Him, His changes, and His will.

A Bike Ride - An Illustration in Leadership

Sometimes it is stressful to be a leader.

Isaac and I went on a bike ride yesterday. We had fun. We were going to ride our bike to a friends' house and eat some apples in his yard (ones that we were bringing, not stealing) and then ride back. The plan was flawless. We would get on our bike and drive down 49 (yes, that is the road that has semis on occasion) to the county road. From there we would make it to our friends' house, stop and eat, and come back home. As with many good things in life, we spontaneously stopped at my uncles' house and ate some pears that we stole off of his pear tree. At the time I thought their could be nothing greater experience in the whole world than picking a pear for me and my son, who could not reach one although he told me which one to pick, and eating it there together in the yard I used to play in when my Grandma lived in that house.

The ride was a reminder that God is great. What a privilege it is to ride down the road with my son on a beautiful day. Well, I did forget my silly hat that prevents me from getting too much sun, and I was wearing short sleeves. My dermatologist will definitely know that I have gotten sunlight. Part of me wonders if I really should obey her command to not get any sun. But I digress. It was a great time.

Anyway, the experience was perfect but stressful. As the adult, I needed to keep looking to make sure cars were not coming. I needed to inform Isaac when we needed to get off of the road.

It became even more stressful when we left our friends' house. We were sitting there, enjoying apples while his dog warmed up to us. We call the dog Nafai Jr. because he looks like our Nafai but only half the size. I would post pictures but nobody wants to see pictures of other people's dogs.

After the apples were devoured, we began to head back home. The dog decided to follow. I yelled, "Sit!" "Stay!" "Go home!" - anything that I could think of, but the dog would not listen. He was going to follow us home. I couldn't just shove him in my friends house because the dog might leave a mess. The chain outside had another dog on it, so I could not just chain him up. So Isaac, the dog we called Nafai Jr, and I began the ride back home.

As the adult, I had to now make sure that Isaac would not die and that Nafai Jr. would not die. I began to contemplate how we were going to get across the bridge on the way home. Hmm.

Nafai Jr. would sometimes stray into the middle of the road. Thankfully, I learned how to herd him with my bike to the side of the road before reaching 49 (the road with the semis). Then we began down 49. I was thankful that Nafai Jr. decided to run on the other side of the big ditch. He wanted to run down the middle, but he soon discovered that it was too muddy.

Then we got to the bridge. I still had not figured out how I was going to get us all across when Nafai Jr. ran down to the water to get a drink. I noticed that the creek was low and the dog could get across. I told Isaac to hurry up and get to the other side with me. He questioned my leaving the dog. I said, "I do not have time to explain everything we need to do to get Nafai Jr. across right now. I'll tell you later." He obeyed and we quickly rode across the bridge. Then we hopped off of our bikes and ran to the other side of the creek and started calling Nafai Jr., who mysteriously responded to his new name very well on the ride home. He had trouble making it up the creek wall. I thought I was going to have to get in and lift him up. It's crazy the things we are willing to do in a moment of "crisis." Anyway, just when I was going to get in, he hopped up and made it up the bank. Whew.

Our house is only about a hundred yards from the creek, so we had smooth sailing from there to our house. Nafai Jr. became an indoor dog, locked in our kitchen because he was the world's smelliest dog, for an afternoon until our friend came home from work. But leading him home was no bed of roses. It reiterated to me that in order to be a leader, even on a simple bike ride with your seven-year old boy, you have to be a servant.

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end. During supper, when the devil had already put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him, Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he had come from God and was going back to God, rose from supper. He laid aside his outer garments, and taking a towel, tied it around his waist. Then he poured water into a basin and began to wash the disciples’ feet and to wipe them with the towel that was wrapped around him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, do you wash my feet?” Jesus answered him, “What I am doing you do not understand now, but afterward you will understand.” Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you.” For he knew who was to betray him; that was why he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. I am not speaking of all of you; I know whom I have chosen. But the Scripture will be fulfilled, ‘He who ate my bread has lifted his heel against me.’ I am telling you this now, before it takes place, that when it does take place you may believe that I am he. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me” John 13:1-20 (ESV).