Leadership Confessions

What M&M Meetings Can Teach Us About Leadership

Most people know Dr. Sanjay Gupta from his media work as the chief medical correspondent for CNN and a special correspondent for CBS.  He is often called upon to make complex things simple and simple things complex for a global TV audience.  He is also a practicing neurosurgeon, on the faculty of the Emory University School of Medicine (operating Mondays and every other Friday) and in addition to his two best-selling books of health advice, he can add one more thing to his CV: successful novelist.  

Dr. Gupta has just penned his first novel, set at  fictional Chelsea General, where doctors meet for a weekly morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings.  Drawn from his own notes over 20 years of attending these sessions, he wanted people to realize that doctors need to step back and analyze their own mistakes in order to not make them again.  In a recent interview about the book in Macleans, Dr. Gupta notes the following:

"Medicine moves forward because people learn form their mistakes, that that means that mistakes happen.  But the worst crime of all would be that it continues to happen because no one learned from it.  What I am always struck by is when something has gone wrong and when everyone sort of knows that a mistake has happened but hardly ever does anyone really have a completely candid meeting, not to be punitive, but to hold each other accountable and to say `Look, can we all agree that this was a mistake?  And can we all figure out a way not to let that happen again?'  I think that if we did that, if we applied what we know as surgeons and from M&M's to all sorts of different facets of our society, I just think things would run so much better, and there wouldn't be so much dabbling around the edges with regard to these issues" (Interview, Macleans, Apr 23, 2012, p. 16).

Oftentimes organizations and leaders move with such speed and such a focus on the future, they don't have time for assessment (more on that in another post and forthcoming article).  But the real tragedy occurs when, for fear of looking weak or admitting to doing something foolish or letting others know that they made the wrong call, a leader avoids accountability altogether.  

Avoiding medical malpractice lawsuits is understandable and I am certainly not advocating making the contents of your M&M meetings public knowledge or hanging someone out to dry for an innocent mistake.  What I am advocating, however, is that I believe it is one of the primary jobs of a leader to ensure that they take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of those whom they lead.  If they never present at or worse, never call an M&M meeting, they will miss the learning that can only come with you dissect the cadaver - both metaphorically and sometimes, even physically. 

Navigating the Rapids: A Conversation About the [sometimes choppy] waters of Evangelical Anabaptism

Since the 1970s, Mennonite Brethren have claimed the unusual title of evangelical Anabaptists. Through the decades, we’ve found ways to blend two broad theological streams into one current of church ministry and life. Herald editor Laura Kalmar had an email conversation with Brad Sumner, pastor of Jericho Ridge Community Church in Langley, B.C., and Gil Dueck, instructor in theology at Bethany College in Hepburn, Saskatchewan, to discuss the joys and challenges of our Mennonite Brethren “dual identity.”

For some readers, the terms “evangelical” and “Anabaptist” may be unfamiliar. How would you define them? 

Brad: Part of the challenge we face as evangelical Anabaptists is the fluidity of both terms. Each one brings with it a weight of history stretching back more than a century, as well as a vibrant global conversation that has implications far beyond the borders of our nation. Having said that, I see “evangelical” drawing meaning from the four priorities suggested by British Baptist historian David Bebbington: “conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress upon the sacrifice of Christ on the cross.” 

Anabaptism tends toward a specific subset of core convictions. As historian Harold Bender explains, it includes things like “discipleship, the church as a voluntary and separated brotherhood, and love and nonresistance in all relationships.”   

Gil: I see the term “evangelical” as consensus (mostly among conservative Protestants) around a high view of the Bible, an emphasis on conversion and individual piety, and a concern for mission and evangelism. Of course, none of these emphases are unique to evangelicalism – it’s the combination that is distinctive. Yet, there’s such an incredible range of perspectives that claim to be evangelical, I sometimes wonder if the term is useful.  

I see “Anabaptist” as an approach to the Christian faith that has historically emphasized following Jesus, love of enemies, voluntary and disciplined church membership, and a tendency toward separation from the wider culture. More recently, the word has taken on a few other connotations, due in part to contemporary writers like Stuart Murray (The Naked Anabaptist). This newer strain of Anabaptism tends to be associated with commitments to peace, social justice, and environmental concerns as contemporary expressions of discipleship.  

Do you think people in our church pews find these terms helpful? Do labels even matter anymore?

Gil: Among my students, there’s little recognition of either word. Many of them have little interest in, or patience for denominational labels – they prefer a “big-tent” approach to Christian identity. The challenge is to introduce terms like “evangelical” and “Anabaptist” in ways that enable students to think well about the real and significant differences that do exist between Christians, while avoiding the conflict that created “denomination fatigue” in the first place.  

On a personal level, I am sometimes a bit hesitant when I’m asked to identify with these labels because I never quite know what people think they refer to. Many associate “evangelical” with certain stock images of American fundamentalism that I don’t want to endorse. Conversely, I think some associate “Anabaptist” with a brand of social activism that’s indistinguishable from progressive liberal democratic sensibilities. Both terms are vulnerable to serious and persistent distortions.  

Yet, I believe that Anabaptism is a term worth spending the energy in clarifying. At times, I fear that just when many outside the church are becoming open to the Anabaptist perspective, we as MBs are walking away from it. In a secular, post-Christian context like ours, I think Anabaptism offers a way forward that evangelicism – with all its historical and political baggage – does not.

Brad: The reality is both terms are muddled or diluted in the minds of many people. There’s no “pure” strain of Canadian evangelicalism that hasn’t been influenced – both for good and ill – by our friends to the south, or by our heritage from across the Atlantic. Alternatively, the term “Anabaptist” has been highlighted recently by popular authors like Brian McLaren and Jim Belcher. 

But both writers seem to be dealing with a superficial caricature of Anabaptism. In that sense, they’re reflective of many people I encounter who claim aspects of evangelicalism or Anabaptism convenient to their own personal experiences and agendas, without acknowledging the messier parts of our cultural history and theological development.  

Canadian MBs are like a couple who gets married and learns they’ll have to pull out different strands from each of their families of origin to produce a new set of traditions and practices to define who they are. As a denomination, I think we’re still in the process of doing that. It’s a profoundly healthy and vibrant conversation!    

We hear talk about how evangelicals are only interested in getting people to pray the “sinner’s prayer,” and Anabaptists are only interested in social justice. Are the two terms really such polar opposites? Or are there areas of overlap – a beautiful synergy between the two?

Brad: Fundamentally, I don’t believe our dual identity is a deficit, or a case of conflicted or warring dispositions.  Rather, I think it’s a fusion of the whole church taking the whole gospel for the whole person to the whole world. It positions us uniquely in our largely post-Christian world to engage in mission like never before.

Gil: One of the major problems with our terminology is the way it sets up false tensions – the whole evangelism vs. social justice debate, for example. The idea that these are mutually exclusive practices is simply foreign to the Bible. 

This is where I’m increasingly encouraged in my work with young adults. There’s little awareness of this debate among the younger generation, and very little interest in it when it is described. For them, Jesus was committed to both – calling people to personal faith in him, as well as responding with compassion to the needs he encountered. Perhaps those who find the separation of these things bizarre are demonstrating an evangelical Anabaptist approach without even knowing it.

So what does it look like – practically – to be evangelical Anabaptists? How does our identity contribute to our mission in the world?

Gil: This is a tough question, mainly because it seems to be a rare thing to find a person or community that offers a uniquely evangelical Anabaptist approach to mission. The two “sides” often get played off against each other. Either you’re passionate about winning souls for Christ or you’re interested in meeting physical needs and alleviating suffering.  We’re so prone to filter things through the “left-right” spectrum, we can hardly conceive of the possibilitythere might be other ways of seeing things. To me, mission is one of the crucial areas in which evangelical and Anabaptist perspectives need each other.

Brad: In terms of practical outworking, I think of my friends who are dual citizens. The positive element of any shared identity is always the ease of movement it creates, and the capacity to identify with a multiplicity of cultural environments. For Mennonite Brethren, this means we can be comfortable in both Canadian evangelical as well as global Anabaptist families. 

But neither explains the totality of who we are. A dual citizen has something unique to share with each of their “home” cultures: the gift of perspective. As Mennonite Brethren, this sense of duality, if leveraged properly, could allow us to make a stronger critique of some of our own cultural and historical blind spots. It might also allow us to see more clearly the possibilities for future ministry effectiveness that carry less of the hurts, habits, and hang-ups of both our “home” cultures.  

So, the first call is for a deeper level of self-awareness. If we don’t know who we are, we’ll have difficulty inviting people to join us on a journey of discipleship.

Our churches look so different from each other! Why is that? Is there anything we hold in common? For example, if I visited both Willingdon Church in Vancouver and Lendrum MB Church in Edmonton, I may think they belonged to two separate denominations.

Brad: Because of our unique histories and geographies and leadership influences, each local church will manifest a different element of our evangelical Anabaptist DNA. But this lack of homogeneity isn’t a bad thing. After all, my children certainly don’t look, sound, think, or act alike, even though they’re part of the same family. We’re bound together by a commitment to our values and sense of mission. Part of this commitment involves making time for face-to-face relationships, as well as believing the best about each other.    

Gil: I, too, have noted the incredible diversity that exists among our churches. This diversity begs the question: What actually is it that holds these congregations together? Shared history? The relationships that exist within the denomination? The ministries or programs we collectively support?   

It would be hard to make the case that all MBs rally around the evangelical Anabaptist flag at a theological level. I’m sure there are a number of MBs who value the “creative tension” represented by these two terms – who believe these two ideals need each other in order to correct potential imbalances inherent within the other. 

But in my experience, there are also many MBs who prioritize one of the two terms, while patiently (or impatiently!) tolerating the other. As Brad said, our diversity isn’t a bad thing. But we can’t impose unity where it doesn’t exist. If the goal is unity within diversity, we have to figure out where that unity lies.

Not many other denominations have a dual identity. With that in mind, where have we succeeded and what mistakes have we made?

Brad: We’ve made the common Canadian mistake of defining ourselves but what we are not as opposed to who we are. We’ve drunk deeply from other streams of tradition and practice without critical reflection on the unintended consequences of unfiltered adoption.

We’ve also seen profound benefits! God has allowed us significant witness and mission in many parts of our country, and a voice that can speak with respect on many issues. Here in Langley, for example, MB churches work comfortably with the Salvation Army on issues of homelessness, and with mainline churches on hospital chaplaincy. 

My perception is that many of our MB churches across the country share a sense of partnership with other Christians to reach their city and our nation for Christ.  In Vancouver, our church planting network functions as a key resource and collegial hub for other denominations. In Ontario, some of our new church plants are intentionally interdenominational. 

Perhaps this is our unique strength: our history and experience as “dual citizens” have given us the opportunity to lead with humility, to partner with a gracious spirit, and to resource and support where the Spirit is at work in other parts of the Anabaptist and 
evangelical worlds.    

Gil: The danger of a dual or “blended” identity is that we may lose a sense of connection to what actually produced that identity. And because one half of our identity is the massive entity called (mainly American) evangelicalism, we’re at risk of borrowing so heavily from these influences that the Anabaptist half of our identity gets diluted. Perhaps the old moniker “MB=Mostly Baptist” is closer to the truth than we care to admit. 

As our executive director, Willy Reimer, observed at the recent study conference, we’re sometimes too influenced by north-south relationships and not enough by east-west relationships.  

Despite these challenges, we’ve seen many successes. Our dual identity has definitely pushed us into wider circles of influence than would have been possible otherwise. We’re a community that demonstrates a remarkable ability to form partnerships across the denominational spectrum. This is, no doubt, part of our evangelical heritage since evangelicalism isn’t a denomination, but a coalition focused on cooperative efforts in mission. This has been one of the main benefits of our blended identity – we’ve been forced out of our historical isolationism and into a posture of cooperation with other Christian communities

What Old Tomorrow Can Teach us Today about the Lost Art of Consensus Building

This week I spent an afternoon with a wise friend discussing, amongst other things, leadership styles and principles.  One aspect of our conversation centred around what skill set leaders need in today's cultural climate.  Obviously there's a multiplicity of answers but a few tend to dominate the contemporary conversation: public presence, communication abilities, and the ability to get things done.  

But these have not always been the dominate leadership traits, and perhaps looking to the past might provide some insight on a foudnational skill set for leaders today who work in fractured or volutneer-driven environments: the lost art of consensus building.  

Take, for example, Sir John A. Macdonald.  In 1885, he was bound and determined to see one of his projects, the Canadian Pacific Railway, move forward.  There was only one problem - no one supported him in this dream.  Not his finance minister, not his caucus, not the opposition.  And to make matters worse, CPR president George Stephen came knocking on Ottawa's door again asking for a government bail-out as the incomplete railway teetered towards bankruptcy.  Listen as author Christopher Moore describes the skill set brilliantly executed as the CPR story unfolds:

 

Macdonald knew the stakes. “The day the CPR busts, the government busts the day after,” one of his advisers put it succinctly. The money had to be found. If 1885 were 2012, that would have ended the crisis. Macdonald was the dominating political figure of his day and his re-elected government held a big majority. If Macdonald favoured the bailout, surely all he had to do was put the cheque in the mail. Isn’t that what a stable national majority government leader does?

 Instead, for another six months, Old Tomorrow kept Stephen waiting while the railroad lurched toward bankruptcy. The problem was Macdonald’s caucus and cabinet had deserted him. They could not stomach throwing more money at the railroad. Cabinet colleagues said letting the company fail was better politics than saving it. Backbenchers from the Maritimes and Quebec demanded something in exchange: help for their own pet railroads. His own finance minister, Leonard Tilley, thought the government could scoop up the assets of the bankrupt CPR and finish the job itself. In short, Macdonald led a majority government but lacked the parliamentary votes for a bailout.

Macdonald did not discipline his dissident ministers of 1885. The colossus of Canadian politics did not drive skeptical backbenchers out of politics as a modern leader would. Macdonald lived by the rules of 19th-century Canadian Parliaments: a leader answered to caucus, not the other way round. If a prime minister could not assemble a majority of his own MPs behind him on an issue, he accommodated.

That ability to accommodate certainly contributed to his reputation as Canada’s “nation maker,” as Richard Gwyn brilliantly portrayed him. But perhaps Macdonald’s greatest skill was as a majority maker. In a recent Historica-Dominion Institute project to promote the celebration of “John A. Day,” we suggested that what kept Macdonald at the top during his extraordinary career was rarely the authority of single-minded vision. More often, it was his uncanny ability to pull together majorities in the House when none seemed to exist." (Maclenas, Jan 23, 2012, page 25)

For those in church leadership, this situation will ring all too familiar.  There are boards, councils, deacons and various other volunteer groups to work with and under and for.  There are staff members sometimes with competing visions or strategies who need to be brought towards alignment.  Most contemporary leaders will default to using their positional authority to "get things done".  But not Old Tomorrow (John A's nickname).  He was patient and worked tirelessly at building consensus and helping people move towards alignment and vision through relationships and not coercion.  

And his railway project?  Well, the CPR was left unsure of it's fate until that May.  "Then came the Metis resistance on the South Saskatchewan, and it was the unfinished railroad that rushed troops to the West. Suddenly the CPR could do no wrong. Caucus came around, and the votes were there. The last spike was driven six months later. John A. Macdonald looked like a genius. Again." (ibid).  

What leadership challenge are you facing?  Perhaps rushing towards action instead of taking time to build a strong consensus may win you this battle, but you might loose the war.  Seems like Old Tomorrow just may have a powerful lesson for us still today.  

Do You Exercise Your Idea Muscle?

In 1975, after a year of intensely hard creative work, a young electrical engineer Steven Sasson was ready presented his new invention.  As history tells is "the device was huge, ugly, and took 23 seconds to record an image with a resolution of only 0.01 megapixels.  When Sasson finally showed the  gadget to his bosses, they were dumbfounded. 'Why would anyone ever want to view his or her pictures on TV?' they wondered, as he wrote in a blog post decades later.  Sasson earned a patent for his trouble but otherwise his project was forgotten." (from "I Want to be in Pictures" by Farhad Manjoo, FastCompany, Dec 2011/Jan 2012).  

The device?  You guessed it - a digital camera.  The company that failed to embrace creativity?  You guessed it, the same on that saw it's stock price plummet 60% on a single day in September of this past year: Kodak.  

So what lessons can you and I glean if your New Year's resolution is to become more creative?  Here's a few suggestions:

1. Get comfortable with failure.  Creativity means you are thinking outside the box, which means that the conventional approaches to the issue(s) you are working on changing do not apply.  And uncharted waters are full of jagged rocks.  Take James Dyson as and example (you know, the vacuum guy).  He tried 5,127 prototypes of his bagless vacuum cleaner before succeeding.  That means he "failed" 5,126 times!  If I was him, I would have given up around the 500 mark, which means I would have given up 10 times faster than him.  If you want to be more creative, settle in for a long-ish season of "non-success" and be prepared to hold the line and defend your experiments against the critics.
2. Exercise Your Idea Muscle.  It seems counter-intuitive to link creativity and discipline but listen to the advice of finance columnist James Altucher: Creativity "is not a talent.  It's a learned ability.  The idea muscle, like any other muscle, atrophies in weeks of non-use.  You start ever day with 10 ideas: people I should talk to, businesses I should start, books I should write.  It has to be a solid, doable next step.  You'll come up with nothing but bad ideas for the first month.  Between one and three months, you'll start coming up with good ideas.  After six months, honestly, life should be completely different.  it's not that your ideas are so good.  It's the sheer quantity and the honing of the muscle so you start to know more and more what ones are actionable and good." (Macleans, Jan 9, 2012, p.16-17).
3. Broader Your Horizon.  The challenge with the execs at Kodak is that they saw their world in very narrow terms: they perceived themselves as a film company.  This prevented them from understanding that in more broadly understood terms in the shift towards digital culture, they were actually a well-positioned company that provided pictures and images to people.  If they had been able to realize that (and they still could), they may be able to resurrect themselves from the doldrums of patent trolling.  The take-away here is to think beyond your traditional definitions or constraints.  What would it look like if you thought of yourself not only as a "youth pastor" but as a community advocate?  What would it look like if you thought of yourself not just as a "stay at home mom" but as a person with creative talents and passion to invest in your kids and school?  

Broadening your categories, generating and acting on as many ideas as you can and being increasingly comfortable when most of them bomb can help unleash some new creative ideas that just might change your thinking and your organization in 2012.  even if not organizationally, it might change you personally.  It sure did for Sasson, who ended up being inducted into the Inbventors Hall of Fame in 2011 and recieving a medal of honour from the US President.  It turns out that exercising your little idea muscle just might have the potential to change the world!       

The Privilege and Solemn Duty of Ministry

I was officiating a funeral service today.  It was one of the rare services I do where the deceased was a professing Christian and so I got to preach from Scripture, to pray and to talk about our hope of heaven (I know that likely sounds odd but I usually do community funerals where this isn't the case so anytime this happens its a rare occurrence worth celebrating).  

At the reception that followed, I met an old Baptist pastor.  I'm not sure whether it's their demeanor, their choice of affirmative words for you as the 'young guy' who is now doing what they did for years and years or if it's their choice of suit and tie but you can almost always tell the retired pastor in the crowd.  

We exchanged minsitry stories and he asked how "the work" was going (a phrase that I deeply love because I only hear it used by older Baptist ministers).  Then we headed off to the graveside service.  Upon completion of the final prayer, he offered one of the most sagacious comments on ministry that I've heard in a long time.  He was sitting in the car as we said goodbye, and he nodded towards the casket as it sat ready for internment complete with the beautiful lillys and red roses of the casket spray.  He took a deep breath and said with the gravitas that only a retired Baptist preacher can muster, "it's our privilege and our solemn duty to get people ready for that."  

It was a simple statement but it's power struck me in a fresh way today.  My role as a pastor is indeed that - both a privilege and also a solemn duty.  To rescue the perishing.  To care for the dying.  To begin with the end in mind and to teach and lead in such a way that when the end comes - both for me and for those under my spiritual care, there is a sense of readiness.  This is the privilege and solemn duty of my ministry.  What's yours?        

Leadership Lessons from the Climbing Gym

This past month, my brother and brother-in-law took me climbing.  They are both avid climbers and so I knew I was in well over my head.  While they worked on technique in a bouldering cave (if you're a climber apparently you know to warm up here -  I needed to be told), I watched and tried to pick up as much as I could.  I knew I was in trouble when they guy asked me if I knew how to belay and I asked for a refresher course and he looked at me as if I was from another planet.  He rolled his eyes almost politely and said in his best non-defensive tone "you either know how to do it or you don't... do you know how to belay?".  I wisely didn't try to fake my way through that one and so I was allowed only to climb for the evening (smart move on my part, right?)

There's a ton of great leadership analogies from a climbing gym and you don't have to dig too deep to find them. Let me test a few with you:

1. Know your skill level and don't try to talk your way past it - Us guys especially are full of false bravado.  We like to talk like we're experts in fields that we know nothing about.  Sometimes we can do this verbally but when we begin to do in in our leadership, we potentially damage not only our credibility as a leader but we also open our organization up to taking on challenges it can not handle.  I've been in a few too many situations where I've promised things on behalf of those around me that we were not able to deliver - and it was a painful fall.  The general rule of leadership should be under-promise and over-deliver.  
2. Take a rest when you need it - I watched some amazing climbs that night.  One guy even went up vertical onto the roof and went feet first onto an amazingly difficult course!  One thing I noted was that he stopped for about 10 minutes at the top of the wall before he went vertical and surveyed the terrain ahead.  His mind was mapping a route and his arms and feet were actually moving as he pictured himself out of the ledge.  But lead climbing is tiring work and so he also took this break to rest his body and his mind for what was coming up (sounds like a good sabbatical, doesn't it?)
3. Ask for help when you need it - At one point, I was up on the wall for my last climb of the night.  I was very tired as we had been climbing for almost 3 hours and my little runners body isn't used to using some of those muscle groups!  I was about 5/8th up the wall and seemed stuck on a particularly difficult combination.  I rested and came off the wall to look at it but nothing was coming to me and I was getting frustrated.  Suddenly from below, I became aware of the guys shouting not only encouragement but also specific advice to me.  They could see things I couldn't see - that I had my left foot on a hold where my right foot should be.  Listening carefully to their encouragement and coaching from below unlocked the route for me and I was able to summit.

For those who have done it before, can you think of any other leadership lessons from rock clmibing?   

Bonhoeffer on Injustice

"The Church's task is not simply to bind the wounds of the victim beneath the wheel, but also to put a spoke in the wheel itself" -Bonhoeffer

What small action might you and I take today to address root issues as opposed to merely symptoms?

Stott's Final Book Imparts Wisdom

John Stott, noted Christian theologian, writer and clergyman, passed away yesterday.  Many fine things by have been written by highly distinguished people in the past 24 hours about his life and legacy and so I will only add to this in very humble measure by re-posting the wisdom I personally gleaned from his final book, which I reviewed for the MB Herald in May of 2010. 

The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of our Calling
John Stott
"Final words almost always have a sense of gravitas to them. So when a pastoral theologian, author, and evangelical heavyweight like John Stott says, “I am laying my pen down for the last time,” one pays close attention to the contents, context, and hard-fought wisdom that will most certainly flow from such a fount.

In his final book, The Radical Disciple: Some Neglected Aspects of our Calling, Stott compiles a list of eight characteristics that ought to mark those who follow Jesus. These include some familiar themes from Christ’s life and ministry, such as nonconformity. Stott urges the church that “over against the challenge of pluralism, we are to be a community of truth, standing up for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. Over against the challenge of materialism, we are to be a community of simplicity and pilgrimage. Over against the challenge of relativism, we are to be a community of obedience. Over against the challenge of narcissism, we are to be a community of love.”

Stott is always pastoral and his gathered insights read like a seasoned mentor passing along salient pieces of time-honoured truth to an eager apprentice. As such, this book will find good traction in a broadly-based catechetical kind of audience – post-Alpha is one example of a group with whom its deep simplicity could be wisely appropriated. 

Part of this is driven by Stott’s chief concern for evangelicals and Anabaptists alike: that 21st-century Christians have, on the whole, experienced “growth without depth.” This leads him to list Christlikeness, maturity, simplicity, and dependence among his eight core characteristics.

In some sections, such as the chapter on creation care, he quotes extensively from extant source materials, such that long-time Stott readers will find nothing new here. In other sections, such as the chapter on balance, he does such excellent work at beginning to plumb the depths of how “we are called to both individual discipleship and corporate fellowship” that I would have loved to hear more on the profoundly simple tensions that form Stott’s portrait of normative Christian living. 

Of particular interest and quality, however, is Stott’s final chapter on how Christians are continually called to discover life through death. Only a senior saint with the weight of glory drawing ever close could offer such insight and hope, and support it with such a significant legacy.

As parting thoughts go, this book will be a rich inheritance for the evangelical community for decades to come."

-Brad Sumner

Are you a Spiritually Malnourished Leader?

Last night I was watching Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition where one of the doctors said  something that shocked me.  As an expert in the field of nutritional science, he indicated that most of the people who are morbidly obese are actually malnourished!  Their bodies are getting overfed but under nourished because they are putting in the wrong kind of nutrients. 

It struck me that in some ways, that is an apt metaphor for the spiritual lives of many in the North American church...  we may look like we are 'full' (overfed?) spiritually on the exterior; we may even look 'healthy', but we may actually be deeply malnourished because we're full of the wrong kind of nutrients. 

Which begs a number of probing quesitons for leaders (particualrly pastoral leaders or those charged with a teaching role)...

1. Have you yourself been spiritually nourished by the content you are teaching or are you just 're-tweeting' someone else's opinion?  Have you wrestled deeply and personally with the text for this Sunday or is it passing through your life to others under-digested? 
2. Where are you getting your personal inputs from?  Some of us are so busy with pastoral work that we come to our teaching under-nourished and therefore we put together messages on Saturday nights or Sunday mornings that come off literally and spiritually as half-baked.  If you are not being spiritually nourished, you can't feed others.  Ask yourself things like:
   - Where and who am I getting my teaching from?  Is there depth and diversity there or is it shallow and not really worth passing on to those in my sphere of influence?  
   - What books am I reading that will provide deep and satisfying spiritual food to those who listen to me teach? 
   - What podcasts am I listening to that grow my capacity as a teacher? 
   - What blogs am I following that enrich me spiritually?
3. Would I know if my own soul was under- or malnourished?  This morning I was reading in I Timothy 4 and the mentor (Paul) says to his mentee (young Timothy) "as you explain these things to the brothers and sisters, you will be a worthy servant of Christ Jesus, one who is nourished by the message of faith and the good teaching which you have followed" (I Timothy 4:6 NLT - emphasis mine).  In other words, you can't help but teach from the things that you yourself are learning. 

So what are you learning these days?  What is your plan for putting high-calibre nutrients into your life so that you are a spiritually healthy person?

Why Pronouns Matter

I'm working my way through "Common Prayer" and enjoying the structured and pleasant way to begin my mornings.  This morning, there was a little proverb, which the authors note was "often quoted by John Perkins, pioneer of Christian community development:

Go to the people .
Live among them.
Learn from them.
Love them.
Start with what they know.
Build on what they have.
But of the best leaders,
when their task is accomplished,
when their work is done...
the people will remark:
"We have done it ourselves." (348)

The language that people use in and of your organization is telling...  Do they use pronouns like "we" or "you" when they talk about worship and service in the life of a congregation?  Does your  community use language of "them" or "us" when it thinks of the community partnerships that your church initiates?  In development work, when you think of what you are working at, do you think "I'm doing this for these people" or "I'm partnering with these people?".  The answer to the question of pronouns is more significant than you think. 

Gathering and developing the use of the right ones in one of the key tools in ethos development that a leader has at her or his disposal.  Wise and well developed leaders know the importance of little words and choose and monitor their use wisely.