Leadership

If you never invite criticism, you're teaching everyone around you that they must conform to your preferences or be punished. Leaders don't grow in this kind of environment. They whither or leave.

If you only see faults, you won't trust or entrust. But if you're quick to forgive, you'll find it easier to entrust and empower others.

General Robert E. Lee’s Life Lessons on Leadership.

General Lee was an icon in the American south during the Civil War.  A committed Christian and soldier who’s leadership and principles represented the classical statesman of any era but especially that of the antebellum south.

In the prologue to the book “Robert E. Lee on Leadership” the author quotes General Lee’s biographer, Emory Thomas, who noted, “..Lee was a great person, not so much because of what he did (although his accomplishments were extraordinary); he was great because of the way he lived, because of what he was.”  And he was foremost a Christian in principle and conduct.

Lee’s lessons offer a way to live out Christian principles.

The following is an example of General Lee’s principles as represented in his correspondence.

·        To lead others, one must first master oneself.  “I cannot consent to place in the control of others one who cannot control himself.”

·        A leader’s primary responsibility is to think of others first.  The “great duty of life” is “ the promotion of the happiness and welfare of our fellow men.”

·        A leader should always do what conscience dictate so he will never have cause for self-doubt.  “You have only always to do what is right.  It will become easier by practice, and you will enjoy in the midst of your trials the pleasure of an approving conscience.  That will be worth everything else.”

[Wouldn’t we wish that some Pastors and Elders would apply these principles in the church.]

Excerpted from “Robert E. Lee on Leadership, Executive Lessons in Character, Courage, and Vision” by H.W. Crocker III, published by Three Rivers Press, New York, © 1999. (pgs. 6 and 27)

Spot the Difference at the E Churches

 I wonder if highly observant readers can spot the subtle differences between these two descriptions of the ideal candidates for ministry?

Elevation Church:

The typical applicant is 23-30 years of age who is a recent college/seminary graduate or someone with relevant experience. However, do not let the age range deter you from applying. The applicant should also be someone seeking to join with Elevation Church, who is a high capacity leader with the ability to multi-task and thrives in a fast paced ministry environment.

Ephesian Church:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. 

Thanks to Pastor Carl Trueman for this insight: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/spot-the-difference-at-the-e-c.php

Of Good Reputation With Those Outside

…I want to focus on the last qualification for eldership, 1Tim. 3:7, 'Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders....'

At first glance, that is an odd qualification for Paul to include in the list.  Often, Christians are not well thought of by those outside.  I am fortunate to have two jobs which shelter me to a large extent from the rough and tumble of  life in the secular world.  Many in Cornerstone's congregation work in secular environments where there are many pressures on Christians precisely because Christians are not liked or respected in the wider world.  Yet that is often because of the offence of the cross.  The message of the cross is that we are all sinners and in need of a savior.  That is an offensive message.

Clearly, Paul is not requiring Christians to abandon the offence of the cross in order to qualify for office.  What he is saying is, to use the old English idiom, that elders should be decent people.  Their neighbours, work colleagues, and non-Christian friends should know them as people of integrity, who embody the Christian virtues in which they profess to believe.  

The reason should be obvious: the church's leaders are the public face of the church.  When a Christian falls, say, into adultery, it is a bad enough scandal.  But when a leader falls, the impact is so much greater because the general public regard leaders as the moral barometer of the church as a whole.   A further implication of this is that the manner in which a church handles the sin of its leaders will be seen by the wider world as indicative of the church's own commitment to her stated moral standards.

The world, however, takes a different line.  It does not trust and then verify.  It verifies and then, after a period of time, if at all, it trusts.  And that is not something we can simply dismiss as the way of the world and as of no relevance to us.  When Paul speaks about 'of good reputation with those outside,' he demands that the church take the logic and the opinion of the world seriously when we are dealing with leaders and when we are not talking about the offence of the cross but rather the offensiveness of some Christians' behavior.

This has twofold relevance in the current climate.  First, what has become the standard New Calvinist approach to the critics (either ignore them as irritating upstarts or point to them as the real problem -- but never, ever, treat their concerns as worthy of serious respect) fools nobody but those who want to be fooled.  It certainly does not fool the outside world as it looks on.  And as the various Mars Hill scandals have made their way into the secular media, we can assume that the favoured strategy of 'Now, see here, you little whipper-snapper...' will be seen for what it is: a deflective move to avoid  addressing the root problems.

Second, we need to remember that overseers are held to a higher standard because they are the public face of the church.   That is why behavior such as we have witnessed actually disqualifies from office, no question.  Now, there are some sins, such as adultery, which I would argue disqualify from office permanently.  For some other serious public sins, it can be for a period of time.  As restoration to office requires restoration of reputation inside and outside the church, such a time cannot be specified precisely in advance.  It requires the fallen leader working at some other calling while being pastored under the Word by wise and godly men until such time as he has grown to maturity in the faith.  Then he may again be qualified to be considered once more for office.  As Todd pointed out yesterday, disciplining fallen overseers is not hateful but the best thing that can be done for them.

The moral onus is on the church.  It is on the church to make sure that its leaders are of good reputation with those outside.  If they are not, then the world, lacking an elaborate taxonomy for the evangelical universe, will assume we are all in on the scam, every single one of us.

Excerpted from a post dated March 19, 2014 @ 10:03 AM by Carl Trueman.  Read the complete post HERE: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/of-good-reputation-with-those.php

The Accountability Question

An interesting post today by Pastor Carl Trueman at Reformation21Blog.  If you have read many of his articles you should be familiar with Trueman’s perceptive insight into today’s problems in the “evangelical movement” and the mega-church.

Carl Trueman’s recent article speaks to the issue of dealing with potential problems affecting the evangelical community at large and by extension the local church before they become too great to control.

He refers to his earlier warnings against the current “cults of personality” in which people fail to speak against pastors who have built up followings of devotees who refuse to correct pastoral abuse.  His reference is to current mega-church leaders who amass great fortunes and power by fleecing the flock and using dubious means to promote and maintain their prominent positions. In principle his argument could also apply to those who want to maintain a similar position in a smaller venue.

Trueman states that when accountability was called for in the church “the critics were to be treated as the problem…”. And he states,  “part of me thinks that, if the early warnings had been seen as significant….perhaps things might be different today”.

Read the entire article HERE and make up your own mind: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/03/celebrity-pastors-a-retrospect.php

God’s Providence

“God’s providence supplies a testing ground for men’s prayers.  Its workings have been likened to the spokes of a wheel, sometimes up, sometimes down, but always moving toward the grave, judgment, and eternity.”

Robert Jones in “Manna for Christ’s Servant and Witness”, pg. 144, Published by Old Paths Tract Society (date unknown).

Three Tips (Plus One) in Responding to Criticism

The following was posted this morning and I thought appropriate to share as it relates to some issues. (The Plus One was added.)

Criticism is inevitable. At certain times we will all face another person’s analysis or rebuke of our behavior. The best kind of criticism comes from friends, from those who know us and love us best. “Better is open rebuke than hidden love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy” (Proverbs 27:5-6). In his little book True Friendship, Vaughan Roberts offers three tips for responding to criticism, and especially this kind of criticism—the kind that comes in the context of friendship, of iron sharpening iron.

Expect It

 

We should expect criticism. We should expect criticism because we are sinful, so far from the holiness God requires and so far from the holiness we desire. If anything we ought to be surprised that we receive so little criticism. We should also expect criticism because friendships—especially close friendships—invite it. Criticism may arise from a negative spirit, but it can also arise from love. Our best friends must have an open invitation to offer criticism of our lives. Is there no one in your life who offers you critical feedback? Then it may be that you have chased off your friends by responding poorly and pridefully in the past. Expect to be criticized from time to time, and give your friends an open invitation to do so.

Examine It

 

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

When we receive criticism, and especially when that criticism stings or seems outrageous, we need to examine it to see if it is true. It may be that our friends have a faulty perspective, but it may be that they have a better perspective that we do. George Orwell was right when he said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” Humility admits that others may see what we cannot or will not see ourselves. Roberts says, “We should resist the instinctive temptation to defend ourselves or attack the critic, but rather consider whether there is truth in what is being said.” Prayerfully examine that criticism to see if it is true and fair.

Endure It

 

There will be times the criticism will be painful but true. In such times, we will need to endure that criticism as we respond to it by making changes to our lives. There are times the criticism will sting because we come to believe the criticism is unfair. In either case, we need to keep ourselves from responding in kind or lashing out at the one who criticized us. We must resist the temptation to gossip about that person or to sever the friendship. Far better, we must endure criticism just as Christ Jesus patiently endured all the criticism that was heaped upon him. As always, as ever, he is our model.

Plus One – Ignore It

For some this seems to be their response….which, as you know, solves nothing…and often delays the inevitable.

Posted on Challies.com March 05, 2014