Andy Stanley recently gave an interview to Leadership Journal. The interview, published in the Spring 2006 issue, addressed Stanly's view of leadership in the church. Stanley is a great leader and an inspiration to young pastors. But, I was disturbed by some of his comments in this interview. Stanley was asked, "What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do?" He responded, "There is nothing distinctly spiritual. I think the big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership…A principle is a principle, and God created all the principles."
Now – I am not going to ascribe motives to Andy. I am not anti-Andy Stanley. I do think that God has given us many principles that are transferable to leadership in all areas of life. But, is this a true statement about leadership in the church. The classic work of J. Oswald Sanders, Spritiual Leadership, contradicts Stanley's statements. Sanders writes in the chapter titled Natural and Spiritual Leadership, "A true leader influences others spiritually only because the spirit works in and through him to a greater degree than in those he leads." "We can lead others only as far along the road as we ourselves have traveled. Merely pointing the way is not enough. If we are not walking, no one can be following, and we are not leading anyone."
The statement I bolded is really powerful! As a write this my heart breaks because I know the limitations of me leadership. I know the places where I cannot not lead this church because there are places that in my stubborness I have not allowd God to take me. I believe that leadership in the local church can utilize principles that are transfereable to business and other areas of life, but I do believe these principles will only take you so far. They can help us grow great and large organization – but can they lead us to true revival and spiritual renewal? I think only Spiritual Leadership can do this.
I would love to hear your insights on this? I am sure that Andy would also agree on a certain level that there is a spiritual dimension to leadership, it just did not come across this way in the article. What say you?
Tad,
I read the same article and I was saddened. Andy makes several statements that are questionable. His observations on the death of the shepherd is crazy. I was talking to my wife about the article because she read it and I concluded that Andy is a great leader but not a great spiritual leader. I would go to Andy for structure and organization but would not go to him to be more intimate with Jesus. That is sad. I came across a quote from Tozer that sets an amazing mission for us as spiritual leaders. Tozer writes, “The world is perishing for lack of the knowledge of God and the Church is famishing for want of His Presence. The instant cure of most of our religious ills would be to enter the Presence in spiritual experience to become suddenly aware that we are in God and that God is in us. This would lift us out of our pitiful narrowness and cause our hearts to be enlarged. This woudl burn away the impurities from our lives as the bugs and fungi were burned away by the fire that dwelt in the bush.” Isn’t this where we are to lead people. We are to lead to the very presence of God for God to do what He wills. As Blackaby writes, “we are to lead people onto God’s agenda.”
I will be anxious to see where Andy leads his church in the future. The question is not what say you? but what God says.
Aaron
Tad
I have also been a bit concerned over Bro. Andy’s statements in the new leadership magazine. I disagree with his statements that the term “shepherd” needs to go away and “By the time of the Book of Acts, the shepherd model is gone.” He believes that Jesus would use some modern day term like “CEO” to instruct the disciples. Well, we don’t know what term Jesus would use today. So, let’s not speculate. He also states that the term shepherd is not culturally relevant today. Therefore the word needs to go away according to him. If you play that train of thought out, you would not teach any of the Bible because it was written to people who lived in a first century agricultural society. The calling of a pastor and teacher is to take the Bible and teach it by explaining what it meant to the people in the text when they experienced it and when the hearers of the text heard it. Then illustrate those truths just explained and then help those who are listening apply it to their lives. Therefore, explain what a shepherd did, illustrate and then apply it to our context. There is a great teaching behind being a shepherd and what it means to lead, love, and nurture a flock. Bro. Stanely, I disagree with your premise.
Yes, there is a business aspect to ministry today. We live under laws that control property rights, regulate taxes, labor laws, and many others. As a shepherd of the flock, I lead those who are given gifts of administration to protect the church legally. Do I necessarily do all the work, no, but I am responsible for seeing the work done.
I might add that Paul described the church as a body with different parts all working together for kingdom growth. This even affects how we see the responsibility and role of pastor.
So, should we drop the term shepherd from the pastoral ministry? Absolutely not! If we do we get away from the heart of what Jesus meant us to be as pastors.
God Bless
Bro. Robin
As a member of your curch, Tad, I’d take you over Andy Stanley every day — and I’m not anti-Andy Stanley, either.
The point about Spiritual leadership being more than just technique is so critical. The amazing thing about being a leader in God’s church — if I have read my NT properly — that that “vision-casting” and “administration” don’t seem to be listed in the criteria for elders and pastors. Personal integrity, handling God’s word rightly, self-control, sound doctrine are the criteria I see as what Paul had in mind.
See: I think a pastor is not a CEO or a cruise director. And I think church is not a corporation even at the local level. I think, based on what the NT says about these things, that the church is more than a harbor or a country club or an NPO. It is far more like a family than we are comfortable with in 21st century America, and I don’t mean the Brady Bunch.
[/soapbox]
Frank, you hit the nail on the head – Andy has adapted his model to a church that has moved away from the New Testament model. CEO’s are needed to move an organization towards desired outcomes. The Church is supposed to be an organism, moved and directed by the power of the Holy Spirt towards his desired outcome.
I also agree with the fact that the shepherd terminology is very biblical for today – is it not relevant that Jesus is the good shepherd?
Tad
Great conversation. So help me out guys. What is distinctly…and that’s the operative word here…distinctly spiritual about the leadership you do?
Keep a couple things in mind. There are Christian business men and women in your churches who see the marketplace as their sphere of ministry. There are business owners who see their business as a ministry. They are not just in it for the money.
Now, what is distinctly spiritual about your leadership as compared to the leadership conducted by the group I just described?
Andy,
You pose a great question. I do hope this is Andy and not some imposter! Anyway, As in your church as in mine I have incredible business men who love the Lord and desperately seek His will in everything they do. They want to follow God and honor His name in their business and in their spheer of influence. I am grateful for their leadership and their commitment. However, the church and the leadership given is different. One, the church belongs to Jesus. He is the bridegroom and the church His bride. The fact that He created and now controls and leads the church makes the church way different. He specifically lays claim to this body which He does not do to let’s say General Motors. Second, because Jesus is our head we have a specific mission or purpose which comes directly from Him. The church does not create the mission we follow the mission already laid out for us. I think in simplistic terms the church is not our own and the leadership we provide flows from obedience not skill. The most effective spiritual leader is the one who is obedient to the will of God. This person is automatically a better leader in the church then someone with an abundance of skill who relies on their own rather than Jesus.
We are not our own. The church does not belong to us. We don’t even have the opportunity to create our own mission. Then what are we? We are stewards of the King.
Aaron
I had to stop responding this morning for our Men’s D. I am back. I have been thinking about what is distinctly spiritual leadership. I had to define in my head the term spiritual. It is Spirit-led, Spirit-empowered, Spirit-contolled leadership. What makes that unique is not the what but the whom. Our primary job as spiritual leaders is to seek God. I am sorry for the continuous Tozer quotes but here is another, “They (men of God) habitually spoke with spiritual authority. They had been in the presence of God and they reported what they saw there. They were prophets, not scribes, for the scribe tells us what he has read, and the prophet tells what he has seen.”
I want to be that spiritual leader who has spent such intimate times with God that I stand before our people and describe to them what I have seen and heard flowing from His precious Word.
Aaron
First of all the thing I love about the blogosphere is that guys like Andy Stanley are reading it and taking it seriously. Let God be willing that we are all serious about what we are saying.
Second of all, I’m a fan, Pastor Andy – and I’m a big fan of my own personal pastor, who is Tad. That’s not a quality judgment but simply my commitment to him personally. I am sure you have fans in your local body who would say the same about you. Let me be on record to say that I love your books and we promote them in our little bookstore (which is not affiliated with Harvard Avenue Baptist Church), which include It Came From Within and The Best Question Ever.
So that said, Pastor Andy said this:
| Great conversation. So help me out
| guys. What is distinctly…and that’s
| the operative word here…distinctly
| spiritual about the leadership you do?
It’s a great question. And before I answer it from my perspective (as a guy who teaches Sunday school, is a husband, and is a leader at church and at work, but not a pastor), I think Andy offers some important qualifications:
| Keep a couple things in mind. There
| are Christian business men and
| women in your churches who see the
| marketplace as their sphere of
| ministry. There are business owners
| who see their business as a ministry.
I would rank myself among these people.
| They are not just in it for the money.
Nobody said the group you just outlined – the disciples of Christ who are ministers in the workplace – were. Let’s not confuse them, however, with those who use spiritual methods of leadership for secular gain – because those people exist, and not just on TBN.
| Now, what is distinctly spiritual about
| your leadership as compared to the
| leadership conducted by the group I
| just described?
Here’s where I think you put the cart before the horse, Andy: your assumption is that what Christians do in the secular workplace is inherently secular and not spiritual when you admit in your premises that they do not “do it for the money”. My challenge to you is that I think there are strong spiritual forces at work that are transforming the secular workplace, and even in that there are people glomming the methods of spiritual leadership for worldly gain.
Let me give you some examples. About 4 years ago in Inc. magazine, they did a cover story on a guy who is a CEO of the “old school” – he’s the kind of guy who, frankly, I would run away from even if he had the last job on earth. His ideal for leadership was to make people work as many hours as possible without regard to any other aspect of their lives in order to enhance the financial value of the company without compensating them relative to that financial enhancement. Anyone who needed a day off had a commitment problem – rather than, for example, a medical problem or a marriage they were committed to. He didn’t have any legal-based ethics problems, but clearly he had God-based ethics problems.
The reason I bring this guy up is not to say that he is like a Purpose-Driven CEO of some church: the reason I bring him up is that he’s not the kind of guy “experts” promote as the model for leadership in secular corporate life.
The question is “why”? It’s because this guy doesn’t understand the value of human capital (which is the secular term, right?), and he doesn’t know how to sustain human capital. The question the experts ask is: who does sustain human capital?
The answer, btw, turns out to be in books like the Five Dysfunctions of a Team and Maxwell’s 21 Irrefutable laws of leadership.
Before I say another word, I anticipate that you, Andy, will say, “we are in actual agreement and we are quibbling over semantics.” If that turns out to be true, I will be glad for it. I don’t think that’s the case.
See: Five Dysfunctions is a secular book which unfortunately doesn’t really understand the principles it is very excited about. For example, while Patrick Lencioni says that the foundational principle of management effectiveness is “trust”, he doesn’t ever really say why except in MBA terms. And, for the record, trust was a factor in effective management of a specific kind a long time before there were any MBAs to quantify it. Also for the record, that kind of leadership was not business management.
In the case of Maxwell, I find an interesting irony. John Maxwell is, in my esteem, a Godly man with a great gift of communication and a heart for people through Jesus. No question. So when we read a book like 21 Irrefutable Laws, we (you, me, Tad) know why he thinks, for example, that leadership = influence. This is a Gospel principle – and John Maxwell is a servant of the Gospel. But here’s the question: does Maxwell tell people that this is a principle based on the example of Christ, or does he say it is a principle based on something else, or does he just not say?
I think he just doesn’t say.
And in the crosshairs formed between Maxwell and Lencioni, we have the heart of the problem: recognizing the source of a certain kind leadership method.
I am sure you have never read my blog, Andy, and if you’re smart you’ll stay away from it because it’s a blog. But one of the things that makes me crazy is when we try to spiritualize things which aren’t inherently spiritual, and in the end that practice winds up overlooking the things which are actually spiritual and discounting them.
But in this case, the source of the kind of leadership advocated by both Lencioni and Maxwell in foundationally and inherently spiritual. For example, to be willing to invest authority in others at the expense of one’s own prestige or direct authority is servant-minded. To bank on trust rather than fear or retribution is loving and merciful. To gather a multitude of counselors is … well, it’s Prov 11.
The source of this kind of leadership is specifically spiritual in nature. But it is also inherently spiritual in objectives as well. When I read Lencioni’s book, it made me laugh a little because his view is that there’s a financial goldmine in them thar hills – as if the basis for trust could be the quarterly statement to shareholders. Spiritually-minded leadership can only be spiritually minded in principle if it is spiritually minded in objective.
Taking that to the examples you provided, Andy, there is no question that there are men and women in the workplace today that are seeking to minister there. But let’s not set up a false choice about what they are doing. They have no objective of harming the financial objectives of their companies, but their primary objective in bringing the Gospel to the workplace is not a 4-point increase in comp sales: it is to seek and to save – to bring the Good News to people who would never otherwise set foot inside a church. If it is not – that is to say, if their goal is to make comp sales by implementing the Gospel – they do not understand the Gospel. It’s not a marketing tool or an H.R. strategy. Those who have employed it to that end will have a rude awakening when shareholder equity and the dividend are the object of the discussion.
And before this response to you becomes a pamphlet, let me bottom-line (heh) what I think: I think that Paul was advocating spiritually-based leadership in the letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus. And I think some of those principles have, by hook and by crook, been implemented by accident and in a crude form in some secular workplaces. But for us – the Christians, who culturally are the source of those methods – to then see secular leaders who are aping spiritual leadership in order to make a buck and then fail to discern which of their practices are spiritual and which are secular speaks volumes about us and what we believe about the Gospel.
To answer the question you phrased in short form, “What is distinctly spiritual about the leadership that I do personally – and that I witness Tad do even though he’s a paultry 30 years old – is that its source or point of reference is spiritual, and its objective is incarnationally spiritual.”
I think this will instigate more dialog, and I hope I have been kind to you as I admire you and value your contribution to God’s work. Thanks for your time and interest.
Shoot. The Inc link didn’t take in WordPress, so I’ll try again here:
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20021101/24823.html
Sorry.
We can make false dichotomy between the secular and spiritual. Our Christian virtue should not be different whether we are a Church leader or a business leader. I do not think anybody would want to seperate the two like that. However, Church leadership is inherently spiritual because it is a spiritual body, enterprise, entity ect. Secondly, the qualifications for the position are spiritual. A business man can be a spiritual person with exceptional devotion to Christ but those qualities are not required for the position. Thirdly, the church leader has explicitly spiritual goals. The making of disciples, buliding up the Church, and ministering to the needy ect. Fourth, The auth. and suffic. of God’s word leaves us with spiritual means of accomplishing these goals and the absolute dependency on the H.S. for the use and effectiveness in using these means. Lastly, we are judged by spiritual measures of “success” for the work we do. We are judge on our faithfullness not our output. A leader outside the Church is going to be judged by the required standards of output. (i know that many worldly churches will and have evaluated leadership based on worldly output but that is a different subject) God and God alone gives the increase and the output. We are responsible for our faithfullness.
Andy – first of all let me say that I respect you and your ministry in Atlanta. I have enjoyed the catalyst conference and would love to attend drive. I am very excited that you are having Dr. Rainer – his Breakout Churches is a great book. It is interested that his work with Jim Collins demonstrated that the principles in Good to Great were not directly transfereable to the church. Your question has merit and this type of discussion is exactly what this blog is about. We must work through these issues.
On your question, I believe that business men, teachers, engineers, and trash men can exert spritual leadership wherever they are. I think you just proved my point, to some extent, the type of influence they exert is much different than a CEO who simply follows the Kouzes and Posner paradigm (which I happen to think is very Biblical) or the Good to Great Model. There is something distinctly missional about what they are doing, injecting spiritual leadership into the culture. This is distinclty different than leadership – leadership does not require desparately seeking the will of God – spiritual leadership does.
Second – the church is a unique entity. It is truly not an organization – is is a living and breathing organism because the true essence of the church is not processes, programs, and pradigms. People, the body of Christ, are the church. The church is people. An overseer is one who has been identified, by the body, as one who is called to provide oversight in doctrine, administration, and in spritiual formation. In other words – an overseer(s) must take an active role in ensuring for the spiritual maturity and growth of the body. I guess this is distinctly spiritual because the Scripture makes this a spiritual office – not an office that just anyone can fill – it is an office appointed by God throught the Church. Those who are appointed to this office are not better than others, but simply have a unique calling. This unique calling comes with a slew of uniquley spiritual appointments:
One of these being church discipline. This is a uniquley spiritual aspect of leadership in the church. Teaching, although overseers are not the only teachers, overseers have the unique role of being held divinely accountable for the teaching that takes place in the church. I reccomend that every pastor read Richard Baxter’s, the Reformed Pastor. This 17th century work is still applicable today and reminds us of our unique calling and the gravity of our calling.
Andy – the men that you mention should be the greatest joy of every pastor. Those who have a unique calling by God to take the gospel into their spheres of influence. I would say that this is the result of you and others being used of God uniquley as their pastors, equipping and exhorting them to live life in such a way as to pursue him in all of life.
Thanks for posting…and may God continue to bless Northpointe.
Andy – I forgot one of the most important, distinctly spiritual ascpects of pastoral leadership – corporate worship.
Tad:
Andy Stanley reads your blog. I get 500 hits a day, and nobody like Andy Stanley is reading me. I must be doing something wrong.
I agree with you Tad, that Andy believes there is a certain spiritual dimension to leadership. I think he has been misquoted after reading his article and blog.
When asked “What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do?”, I don’t believe the question was if he thinks leadership in the church is spiritual or simply business. I think the question was asked to find out if he thinks there is any difference between church and marketplace leadership spiritually speaking. Is leadership in the church more spiritual than those out in the trenches touching lives we will never touch? Is there something that sets church leadership apart? I believe his response and blog is appropriate when looking at leadership. God has given us principles that if followed will bring about solid leadership. For example, like John Maxwell says, “Leadership is influence”. Whether we are pastors in a church, a Christian business owner, or a factory worker – we can achieve a positive outcome of leadership by influencing others around us for the cause of Christ. Is there anything we are doing as church leadership that is distinctly different? Is the same goal in mind? Are we among equals? Can a simple leadership principle as influence be spiritual?
If Andy was asked – “Is leadership in the church spiritual or simply business” – and he responded by saying “simply business” then I would have great concern. I just don’t see that is what the article was about and I sure don’t believe that is what he is saying or believes himself. Just like how the article stated towards the beginning – “Andy references his own without drawing undue attention to himself” and “but he comes across as, well, Andy.” I think this is what Andy is all about – real, authentic, approachable – all keys to effective leadership. I personally saw nothing offensive and questionable in the article. I believe he makes some good points about the shepherd idea, about caring for the people God has entrusted him with, and about leaders who are like jello. Like he said – “I read some of the guys who are anti-megachurch. I respond not primarily to change their minds but to keep poking till they can tell me: What exactly is it you have about what we’re doing?” I do see a trend in the blogsphere that megahchurch pastors are targets. It may be wise on our part to get connected to what they are doing. Well, I think I am chasing a rabbit so I will stop there.
I totally agree with you Tad that we can only take people as far as we are willing to go. I know that is a leadership principle I need to take serious.
I agree with Andy that people have falsely dichotomized “leadership” and “spirituality.” That’s partly because modernity dichotomized almost everything into the realms of “spiritual” and “secular” and the church just kind of accepted it.
But I don’t think the answer is simply to throw out the “spiritual” part and keep just the “leadership” part. To do that implies two things: One, that the kind of leadership the Christian business-person provides to his or her enterprise is independent of his or her identity as disciple of Christ and a member of His Body. Two, it also implies that the church is an organization like any other that can be manipulated (in the best sense of that term) to achieve a result (albeit noble).
I honestly wouldn’t accuse Stanley of believing either of those things to be the case. But that is where his statements (in that snippet of the interview anyway) logical lead.
ps. In the interest of full disclosure, I haven’t read the entire interview. I let my subscription to Leadership run out a long time ago. I can do without a quarterly reminder of why I’m so disheartened by the current state of North American evangelicalism.
Thanks Rick… You are exactly right. I don’t think leadership in the church is simply business. I don’t think anyone who knows me or who attends here or who has served on our board of elders would accuse me of that.
So let me ask the question yet again because nobody has answered it yet. What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do? DO? What do you DO as a leader that is distinctively spiritual?
I can’t think of anything.
Tad, one of your paritioners answered it this way:
“What is distinctly spiritual about the leadership that I do personally – and that I witness Tad do even though he’s a paultry 30 years old – is that its source or point of reference is spiritual, and its objective is incarnationally spiritual.”
That’s not a “DO” answer. But he makes a good point.
How about this: What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of parenting that you do?
Andy,
What would you describe as distinctly spiritual? Is there anything you see as distinctly spiritual?
Let me say that Rick is the man and our church would be much dimished without him. He and his family are a cornerstone of our faith community.
As a blogger who has been critical of particular megachurches, I don’t care anything about the size of a church which is in the Gospel: I care, as a disciple and as a member of Christ’s body, about the size of the Gospel in a church. My opinion is that there is a breakpoint (and I don’t think it’s a static number, like 873 or 4,207) in a church’s life when it would be more spiritually profitable for that church to undergo “mitosis” (hey — it’s a Greek word, so it must be good) (and it would be used as opposed to “split”, because what I’m thinking of here is more like reproduction than division and contention) and create a sister body rather than build a new worship center the size of the Compaq center.
But to see that — and to finally agree with that — we have to see church and discipleship as something other than incorporated religious practice and polity.
By distinctly do we mean solely spiritual? If that is the case our fingers get in the way of spiritual typing.
We do things, spiritual things that overlap with the secular but as Frank noted the objective is different; thereby making them spiritual. Eating bacon is distinctly spiritual if done in faith. (1 Cor 10:31)
al sends
Bro. Andy
I as a leader, spriritually, I am on my knees asking God to help me bear fruit from His Spirit and to infuse the people I shepherd with a filling of His Spirit so that He may be glorified and the Kingdom grow. Before I was a pastor, I was a manager and did the same thing. From this I saw God do great things in the lives of those around me.
I don’t know if there should be anything distinctly different, but if a Christian is in the work place and does not allow his/her heart to be guided by God, they are missing out on the great blessing of seeing God supernaturally work in the circumstances and lives of those around them.
Thank you for your time and I hope the Lord continues to bless your ministry and life.
Bro. Robin
Hoo-boy: I disagree that knowing the source and the object of my leadership is not inherently “doing”. In business, unless you know (for example) that you are in the pizza business with the objective of making enough money to pay for your kids’ college and/or buy a really boss house on 40-square, you can’t be doing anything right — it is impossible. In church, if you are in business to sell pizzas and get a nice house, I don’t think I have to expand on why that’s bad — and why one would be doing nothing right.
What is perhaps less obvious, however, is that there is a false distinction if we think that “spiritual” does not mean “incarnational”. The fundamental example of this is Christ. He was holy and sinless spiritually, but presented it to the world incarnationally and not merely propositionally or theoretically. We know He was such a thing because He demonstrated such a thing.
So for example, to be willing to invest authority in others at the expense of one’s own prestige or direct authority is servant-minded. To bank on trust rather than fear or retribution is loving and merciful. To gather a multitude of counselors is … well, it’s Prov 11. Those are three categorically-”doing” things which are expressly spiritual but are not airy-fairy ideas: they are incarnational expressions of spiritual truth.
And let me conclude by saying this: I am here engaging the idea that there is nothing distinctively spiritual about leadership. This is not about whether I think Pastor Andy is anything other than a well-received pastor of his church. This is about the notion that leadership as it ought to be expressed in the church is primarily spiritual — meaning that its ends and means are of the Spirit of God.
Thanks for reading, and God bless you.
Frank – Thanks man! I appreciate the kind words. You da man!
Andy – You are asking “What is distinctly spiritual about the kind of leadership you do?” You have really challenged me with this question. I don’t know if it’s right or not but I keep coming back to the fact there is nothing distinctly spiritual about my leadership. Christ expects for us all, as Christians, (whether in church leadership or in secular leadership) to lead people to an intimate relationship with Christ. He has commanded us all to go and make disciples. He told us that we all will be His witnesses. He has told us that we all need to love one another, pray for one another, share and carry one another’s burdens, etc. We are told to serve one another. I hesitate to say that anything I do is distinctly more spiritual than what Frank does at Dayspring or Kingdom Bound. I don’t want to be elevated or on a pedestal. In fact, I believe Frank has more potential to make an impact then what I do. I want to be among the people as Jesus was and to lead by example. Sure our responsibilities may be different but leadership is not about responsibilities or whether our name has CEO, pastor, leader, DR. behind it. Leadership is about influence – we all, pastoral or laity, have the ability to influence people to know Jesus and to make Him known. Well, I don’t know if this is making sense but this is what I am wrestling with.
Rick – first of all we need to be clear that no one is trying to say Andy is not a spiritual leader. The whole point of the post was to engage in this discussion. Second – no we are not to be on a pedastal – Christ himself said he came to serve.
But – Scripture itself points to a unique calling and equipping for the task of overseer. The key roles for the overseer(s) is that of teaching/preaching – this is something we DO. An Intense focus on prayer – this is something we should DO more and have more time to do than one whose time is not fully devoted to being an overseer. The responsibility for church discipline is something we DO. This doesn’t mean that prayer, teaching, and discipline rests are soley spiritual activities reserved for overseers. But, it is a matter of degrees.
We have been called out and equipped to do these things to a greater degree than the business man. Not that he cannot pray a great deal – but would you not say that we should be spending more time in the word, praying, etc. then the one who is not called to leadership in the local church.
The scripture states that the “elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.”
These tasks of ruling well and preaching and teaching are spiritual tasks. I don’t know how preaching and teaching can be truly effective without being spiritual. The word of God is the living word of God. It is not like teaching a static historical document. If this is approached as anyone can do this without being uniquely called and gifted by the Spirit – then what are we doing. The power of God is not neccessary.
I have preached many a sermon in my own power and those messages are not spiritual – and they stink.
Another beef I have is that suggesting that leadership in the church does have a spiritual componant is that I am against the mega church. I have never said I am against a mega-church. I am against pragmatism supercedeing Scripture in our practice. We can not truly embrace orthodoxy wihtout embracing orhtopraxy. Many mega-churches accomplish both.
John Piper writes:
The life-giving preacher is a man of God, whose heart is ever athirst for God, whose soul is ever following hard after God, whose eye is single to God, and in whom by the power of God’s Spirit the flesh and the world have been crucified and his ministry is like the generous flood of a life-giving river.”
Boy – I am not there – but may God’s Spirit give me a burning desire to get there.
One more note – Spiritual gifting is distinctly spiritual. Any leadership to the body the employs one’s spiritual gifting is distinctly spiritual as those gifts were given directly for the benefit of the body of Christ.
This is good.
By the way. I agree with the guy that commented on the optimal size of a local church. I tell pastors all the time, “Nobody likes big churches but the preacher.” That’s why we are bulding new campuses around the city and giving them distinct names and identities. In addition, we just planted our nineth church. I’m all for multiplication.
Back to the question…the distinctly spiritual question… It’s a bad question to begin with. I should have asked the interviewer to clarify what he meant. But if I had done that, we would have never had this conversation.
I think everything I do as a believer has a spiritual component and spiritual implications. So it is hard for me to come up with anything that is distinctly spiritual.
We’ve probably beat this horse to death. But I still don’t think Jesus would have talked very much about sheep if he had shown up in our culture. But I’ve been wrong before…acuatlly a lot. Got any ideas about a modern parallel to the first century shepherd? Nobody seems to like my CEO idea.
Not to be sarcastic, but do we need a “modern” analogy? The sheep/shepherd metaphor was given to the writers of Scripture long before the first-century.
This is good!
Andy, Thanks for clarifying. I do think everything has a spiritual component. Everything must be done to glorify God. Thinking over your question about a modern parallel to the first century shepherd I really like the parallel of a coach. Maybe it is because the Heat just won! But I like the ideas of a shepherd as the one who leads, provides/ nurtures, protects, and equips. I think you can see these in a really good coach. I also love the team aspect. Just throwing one out there to get the party started!
Aaron
I contemplated Stuart’s question before coming bcak this afternoon, and I think we don’t need to over-analyze what Pastor Andy said here. I think his meaning is that the metaphor — which is rich, and requires a lot of unpacking and cultural contextualizing — is not short-hand. Saying the pastor ought to be a CEO is short-hand for something, and it falls a little short. And I appreciate the pastor considering that the exchange was less than it could have been.
That’s a big statement to make to a bunch of strangers, and it speaks well of the heart of the man who says it. God be willing that we are all that self-conscious of our limitations.
Andy, It’s good to connect with you again after many years. Tad, I appreciate the conversation very much. The respectful tone of it all is very appealing to me.
I do think Jesus lived relating to parallel kingdoms. So do we. We have citizenship in both but draw our life from the Kingdom of God. One, it seems to me, is more relationally oriented [God's Kingdom] and the other more performance oriented. [The world Kingdon.] Neither of these is more real than the other, just different. Since we’re kingdom kids living in both worlds [of one and in the other] we are to be concerned with being real or authentic in whichever realm we are functioning. The battle isn’t perhaps “spiritual’ as opposed to “secular” as much as it is being real, using truth, relational skills, in fact, all of life, to present redeemed reality every moment.
This would mean my riding a motorcycle is my unique life, preaching sermons is my unique life, fishing at my favorite lake is my unique life and working in the marketplace or attending my church is my unique life. Add to that my marriage, reading the Bible, etc.,and “All things are mine ” as Paul said to the Corinthians, so enjoy.
I am afraid we create a two tier view of life [spiritual/secular] that may rob us of reality if we’re not careful. And maybe a true leader is annointed by God’s Spirit to equip the Body for life in both realms of reality neither being more spiritual than the other but both being real life. I realize that “faith” opens the one kingdom and the “five senses” open the other, but, we experience all of it. Just a thought which may not make a lot of sense to anyone but me.
Paul Burleson
Andy – I agree that living incarnationally requries a spiritual componant to every aspect of life.
The CEO analagy can work, depending on the leadership model of the CEO. I find it interesting that many leadership books are loaded with spiritual principles: Leadership Challenge, Good to Great, and others.
To dig deeper into Leadership issues I reccommend the following reads:
Brothers, We Are Not Professionals by John Piper
Spiritual Leadership by J. Oswald Sanders
The Ascent of a Leader by Bill Thrall (Great Book!)
The Top Ten Mistakes Leaders Make by Hanz Finzel (a personal favorite)
The Reformed Pastor by Richard Baxter (Very Challenging for Pastors)
There are others, but these are great! I also give props to Andy for Visioneering – a great book on vision, also one of my favorites.
Paul:
Thanks for stopping in! That is great insight,and I totally agree. You may have said it better than any of us…or at least conntected some of the dots.
Another great book that discusses the isse of the sacred/secular split is Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy. This book is awesome! I definietly believe that our lives should be seamless…
Frank,
I didn’t mean to over-analyze, and I didn’t miss his point.
But if the CEO analogy falls woefully short, why should we expend our energy trying to come up with a better one? Has not a better one already been given to us by the Spirit through the writers of Scripture and through Jesus Himself? If our leadership concepts and church structures don’t fit the shepherd/sheep metaphor anymore, do we need a better metahpor? Or should we take a long, hard look at our leadership concepts and church structures?
I mean absolutely NO disrespect to Andy with my comments. I’m really just thinking out loud. And the more I think, the more I think I agree with Tad’s commnets on service and servant-leadership.
Stuart:
I wasn’t trying to backhand you, bro. I was pointing out that I thought about posting this question and thought better of it for a reason, and then I posted the reason.
If you’re good, I’m good. If not, I apologize.
Stuart:
I was really saying that I considered your question and then considered that Andy didn’t mean it as deeply as I was thinking about it. No backhand was intended to be waved in your direction.
peace
Frank,
I did misunderstand what you meant by, “I contemplated Stuart’s question…” but even in my misunderstanding, I didn’t take any offense. I guess my first line did seem kind of defensive, but I didn’t really intend for it to be. We’re cool.
Hi,
If I may, I’d like to comment on the CEO idea.
I can think of a lot of reasons why the CEO analogy would fail, just to list a few… personal recognition, monetary gain, making something of himself, misstreats/overworks employees, cares more for the product then the employees, looks at size of company as apposed to well being of employees, the job is about the company and the product as apposed to the employees.
The shepherd sheep model works because the shepherd only focus is the sheep and the care of them, because they are his. MOST CEOs care more about the “company” and it’s monetary value as apposed to the people who make up the company.
So our culture has actually defined CEO in a bad term. IF the CEOs business was all about the employee then sure, I could see it working. But, our corporate culture has not defined the CEO and companies as such, CEO’s are defined as selfish, self-centered people who have no other focus than company monetary size (other then a few exceptions).
And then again, I could be wrong.
Wow this is a great discussion! It is always great to evaluate how you view things. The quote that Tad used is very powerful, “We can lead others only as far along the road as we ourselves have traveled. Merely pointing the way is not enough. If we are not walking, no one can be following, and we are not leading anyone.” If what Tad is doing isn’t distinctively spiritual how is that going to improve the spiritual depth of the flock, team, organization, or whatever we decide to call it. There is a problem with people today that separate secular and sacred. In Pearcy’s Total Truth she tackle’s that problem. She talks about how many people today believe that the secular has more to offer because that is based in the realm of science instead of religion. I think that the spiritual leader needs to be praying, reading scripture, fasting, and other spiritual disciplines to be the spiritual leader. They need to model for their congregation how to have a deeper faith. I do believe that leaders need to be constantly evaluating their technique and applying ideas from other great leaders whether they are in a church or in the secular realm. I do believe that by helping our local business leaders to have a complete Biblical worldview that it will help their witness and that God will bless them. This would need to be done by a spiritual leader that has blazed the trail and equipped them to understand that whatever it is that they are doing is not for the company’s bottom line but for God’s glory.
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11 NASB)
Much of the CEO/shepherd conversation really is a conversation about the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture.
Are the words of Scripture clear? Are they sufficient to communicate the truth that God means us to have? Or do they need ‘update’ as the Jesus Seminar tells us? And if we can improve upon the words of Scripture to make them more relevant to today’s audience by changing ’shepherd’ to ‘CEO’ then what stops us from going the way of the PCUSA and changing the name of the Trinity to be more relevant, naming God as “Compassionate Mother, Beloved Child and Life-Giving Womb”?
But the mad quest for relevance is inherently false. I’ve never been a shepherd, but I can understand what a shepherd is and what he does. Even at the time of Jesus, many of His hearers were never shepherds, but they were fishermen or tax-collectors, or people with a myriad of other jobs, yet they could understand the simplicity of Jesus’ illustration. And any small child or CEO can understand the illustration of a shepherd as well with the slightest bit of explanation. If the Holy Spirit chose to reveal Christ as a shepherd, then it is our duty, not to adapt the word “shepherd” to our modern context, but to help our hearers adapt their thinking to the biblical context. It’s less ‘cool’, but it’s not that difficult and it honors the life-giving Word of God.
“The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want.” (Psalm 23:1 NASB)
I do not see a need to “update” scripture, but I have no problem using modern parables to communicate fundamental biblical truths.
Several points -
1. If the bible is true, should we not preach it?
2. If the bible uses a particular method (parabale/aka anecdotes) should we not use the same methods?
I use an english language bible – it is translated and phrased for my easy of understanding. Should I stick with only original language bibles?
What is wrong with using a modern parable to communicate a biblical truth?
There is a difference between changing scripture (bad) and using a parable to illustrate scripture (good)
Andrew:
I think your disagreement here is of the right kind but at the wrong volume. I have read a little bit of Andy Stanley, and I don’t think we should be ready to toss him to the wolves, so to speak, over perspicuity. I would agree that the metahor of the Shepherd is a fine one, and is the Scriptural one, and gives us plenty of stuff to think about regardinging the leadership of the church, and in and of itself is sufficient.
I also think that most people have never considered the use of the shepherd imagery in the Bible completely, and may not today be equipped to do it. For example, we all sort of sleep through the 23rd psalm when it is presented to us. But when David wrote that and then the Jews used it as Scripture for 1000 years or whatever, their view of this passage is that God is their shepherd. When Jesus breaks out with the “I am the sheep gate; I am the Good Shepherd”, the Jews heard him say, “I am God” — because of their understanding of the 23rd Psalm.
The other side of the story is this: I live in rural Arkansas. We know from barnyard animals, and I even know a guy who owns sheep — an honest-to-mike Shepherd. But I grew up in NY — urban, upstate NY — and I can tell you first-hand that telling what a shepherd is like and then telling me that this is also what God is like was an exercise in creating a fiction to create a metaphor. I (as the example) would have to take your word for it that a shepherd does so-and-so, and then use that theoretical knowledge to try to “get” your point that Jesus is like a shepherd to us. In a lot of ways telling me Jesus is like a good shepherd was about as effective as telling me “Jesus is like Adam Warlock”. Who is Adam Warlock? Why should I care? And this relates to Jesus how?
I have sympathy for the idea that while Scripture says things clearly, people need to be prepared to receive what Scripture says and it is a pastor’s job to do that. Is Pastor Andy’s search for a new metaphor a scrapping of sola Scriptura? I dunno: is updating the English translation of the Bible from KJV to ESV or NASB a scrapping of sola Scriptura? I don’t think so, and I hop you don’t, either.
I’d also like to add that Frank Martens is a troublemaker.
Jesus didn’t say he was a shepherd. He said he was a “good” one.
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.” (John 10:11 NASB)
There are good coaches, mentors, CEOs, bosses, etc. And there are bad ones. By the way, shepherds were business men… Think about that for a moment. They sold, sheared and sacrificed their sheep. The sheep were a means to an end. Shepherding was and is a business. But I dont’ think any of that had anything to do with the point Jesus was making. I’m sure you dont’ either.
I realize this discussion is freaking some people out. I’m certainly not trying to marginalize the authority of Scripture.
For the record, I’m far more freaked out that Andy Stanley reads my pastor’s blog.
I knew Tad was good — I had not idea he was actually that good.
Andy – this should not freak anyone out – this is an important discussion. Most pastors, including myself at many points, struggle with the issue of pragmatism. To have a conversation like this helps us all come to balance. Many of our viewpoints come with much baggage, its often times difficult to separate truth from "my" truth. This conversation helps us understand the different viewpoints and hopefully helps us bring a more authentic approach to our view of the Scriptures. While the Scriptures are perfect, the interpreters are not. We must sharpen one another in order to be as biblical as possible.
The problem I see is not in discussions such as this, but in those leaders who are unwilling to grapple with truth. They are gripped by tradition more than by Christ. Thanks for joining us.
Hey guys…I will be posting a new thought today. Andy – I would love your insight into that post as well.
Centuri0n said:
“I think your disagreement here is of the right kind but at the wrong volume.”
-What volume? I haven’t used any exclamation points or all caps.
Centuri0n said:
“I have read a little bit of Andy Stanley, and I don’t think we should be ready to toss him to the wolves,”
-I’ve learned alot from Andy Stanley over the years from the X-treme conferences he spoke at in Gattlinburg, TN and from his speaking on the “Right from the Heart” radio program in Atlanta, GA. This has nothing to do with throwing a minister of God to the wolves, but I write out of a sincere desire to see the revelation of God honored in the specific area of concern I have addressed.
Centuri0n said:
“I live in rural Arkansas. We know from barnyard animals, and I even know a guy who owns sheep — an honest-to-mike Shepherd. But I grew up in NY — urban, upstate NY —”
-But I would like to make the point that when Jesus spoke of being a shepherd to His sheep, He did not choose the illustration of a shepherd based primarily on the experiences of His hearers. In John 21:16, Jesus told Simon Peter, “Shepherd my sheep”. Now, we know that Peter was not a shepherd before following Christ, but rather a fisherman. And yet Jesus does not say, “Be, like a really good fishing-boat captain to the other fishers.” There is a richness in the metaphor that we must understand, where the Bible has consistently named the LORD as our shepherd, Scripture has named us as His sheep, and God’s Word has given the leaders of the church the task of feeding, tending, and shepherding God’s sheep. These particular activities of the good shepherd (among others) are named in the Bible, so our hearers do NOT just have to “take [our] word for” what a shepherd is to be and to do- they must take GOD’S Word for it.
Likewise, when the Apostle was addressing the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28, he said,
“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”
Ephesus at the time of Paul was, “an important political, educational, and commercial center, ranking with Alexandria in Egypt, and Antioch of Pisidia, in southern Asia Minor” [from the 2006 MacArthur Study Bible, NASB, page 1770]. So these urban elders probably would have had as much first-hand experience of shepherds as an individual in New York City would have today.
centuri0n said:
“I dunno: is updating the English translation of the Bible from KJV to ESV or NASB a scrapping of sola Scriptura?”
-The issue of new Bible translations in one sense do not correlate with the issue at hand. We believe that “The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.” (1689 LBC 1:8)
So God inspired, for example the authors of Scripture to write the Greek word “este”, but whether this is translated as “thou art” or as “you (all) are” depends on the rules of grammar at the time of the translation. The translator does not have the freedom, however, to change the subject by translating “este” as “we are”. And, building upon this thought, there is another sense in which the issue of Bible translations do bear upon the matter at hand. Because I hope that we would all agree that a Bible “translation” which sought to update Scripture by translating a word which clearly means “one who takes care of sheep” with the word or phrase “CEO” would be a bad translation.
Andy Stanley said:
“By the way, shepherds were business men… Think about that for a moment. They sold, sheared and sacrificed their sheep. The sheep were a means to an end. Shepherding was and is a business. But I dont’ think any of that had anything to do with the point Jesus was making. I’m sure you dont’ either.”
-Actually, brother, I do think that some of what you have mentioned above does bear upon the point of the biblical illustration of the shepherd and his sheep. As the Bible says,
“Just as it is written, ‘FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED.’” (Romans 8:36 NASB)
This verse makes no sense if we change the inspired metaphor of the shepherd and his sheep for the invented metaphor of the CEO and his employees.
Andrew Lindsey –
You must be right. Sorry to have gotten you worked up.
“worked up”?
Andy – I believe we need to be freaked out. I believe we need to be challenged in the areas you mention.
I was also curious about something. I have been on your website numerous times and find it challenging to find the “staff” page. Maybe I am looking in all the wrong places but if you and your staff are on there – is there a reason why it is difficult to find you? If you’re not – what is the reason?
Rick
Our staff page along with tons of other insider information is available to volunteers and members on northpontleaders.org. But if you visit that sight you will see that you have to have a password to get in.
Andy,
As one who has begged for mentors through the years, how do you acquire the needed skills to be a good leader? I feel I have been mentored by you, John Maxwell, Rick Warren and Bill Hybels through books, tapes and conferences. Is it just a God thing or is there more to it than that?
I don’t think I can answer that in a blog. Especially on a blog sight that doesn’t belong to me. i’ve been accused of blog-jacking in the past. I don’t want to be guilty of that again.
But you ask a great question.
Andy,
I would love to hear your answer. bamabusman@yahoo.com or my blog.
Sorry Tad
Andy – you are welcome to answer…we have a great discussion going…this is the point of this blog…to facilitate discussion on becoming better leaders.
Tad
Thanks Tad!