Friday, June 30, 2006
Weekend Reads: God's Potters, by Jackson Carroll
Jackson Carroll's 270-plus-page volume is not a book you'll be able to finish in a weekend--unless you spend a good portion of your weekend in an armchair with your feet propped up. Fat chance. However, I found myself fascinated by the charts and stats offered by this Pulpit & Pew researcher--charts and stats that paint an intriguing picture of the changing face of church ministry. Consider how the way pastors spend their time has changed in the last 70-plus years: In 1934, pastors spent a total of 22.5 hours in sermon prep. 8.5 in 1954 and 10.3 in 2001. Worship leadership (e.g. weddings, funerals, etc.) has declined from 16.6 hours in 1934 to 4.9. Most interestingly, civic and community involvement has dropped from 4 hours in 1934 to 1.8 hours. Overall, the average work week for pastors was 75.7 hours in 1934 and 50.8 in 2001. As Carroll notes, today's clergy seem to be more balanced in establishing boundaries and managing time. However, a pastor's work week is still longer than that of other managers and professionals, who average 42 hours a week.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
False Advertising?
The staff and congregation at the United Pentecostal Church of Harvey, Ill., are convinced you'll like their church--so convinced that they offered $25 to the first 75 visitors who showed up at each of their Sunday morning services. This is not the first time this has been done, and--as the Chicago Tribune article notes--other churches have lured attendees with gas cards, cash and tickets to movies and comedy shows. It's easy to criticize these "tactics," but are they far removed from the advertisements of churches that promise free Starbucks and Krispy Kremes--or even "relevant, practical sermons," "exciting children's ministry" and "upbeat contemporary music"? Ministry is definitely about compelling people to come--and taste and see--that God is good. But do we compel them with what they want or what they need? I'm not sure what I think of all this, but here are two questions I have:
- Is this false advertising? In other words, does this methodology suggest to unbelievers that God and the church are merely another option at the spiritual smorgasbord of postmodern American culture--when in reality, it is the only option?
- Is it "bait and switch"? In other words, does this methodology give people the impression that church is "all about you," but then (once they join) we attempt to convince them that they exist for the glory of God and the service of His Kingdom?
Thursday, June 22, 2006
"Feed" on Us
If you've not yet discovered the beauty of RSS, today's your day. For users of Firefox, download the nifty Wizz RSS plug-in, which allows you to watch a bunch of blogs with minimal surfing. Once you've installed the plug-in, just drag the feed (such as the 
on our site) into the WizzRSS window. Everytime a blog you're watching is updated, the new post will be marked with a little green dot. Posts you've already read will be marked with a red dot, saving you valuable surfing time.Also, click on the BlogFlux MapStats icon
to see who in the world is reading The Ministry Report--literally!Podcast Back Online
After some technical difficulties, the June 1 installment of the Ministry Today podcast is back up and running. In it we talk with Bill Weise about his new book 23 Minutes in HellWednesday, June 21, 2006
The iGod Generation
We're excited about the second issue of Ministry Today that will be in many of your mailboxes shortly. In it we explore the "iGod Generation," a new breed of culturally-connected Christians and ask the question, Are these music/movie/TV-lovin' followers of Christ compromising their faith in the process of engaging culture? Also, look for an an article on pastoral attrition, a group of preachers who do sermon prep as a team and some thought-provoking research on teen spirituality from the Barna Group. If you aren't a subscriber, what are you waiting for?Tuesday, June 20, 2006
[Un]Healthy Relationships?
Last month the Tampa Tribune ran a story on a local megachurch pastor's infomercial for Omega XL fatty acid pills. Apparently, the pastor was on the verge of a vascular disaster several years ago when his physician recommended the $50-a-bottle pills. Now an avid evangelist for the product, the pastor receives $5 for every bottle sold through his infomercial.
The Tribune article focused primarily on the financial implications of pastoral product endorsements. (Apparently, this pastor stands in a long line of such partnerships: In the '30s, radio evangelist John Brinkley advocated the implantation of goat glands to enhance male virility.) But what about the spiritual implications? Although diminished with the effects of 21st-century cynicism (some would say, because of such "crass commercialization"), pastors still wield intangible spiritual power over the lives of those they lead.
They are sought out for advice in dating, finances, marriage, child rearing, emotional health and so on. Their opinions are considered informed by biblical reflection and prayer, not merely commercial interest or cold rationality. Simply put, a pastor's counsel is trusted for spiritual reasons--reasons that transcend common sense for some people. Consider recent Ponzi schemes launched by church leaders who used their spiritual influence for financial gain and hoodwinked reasonably intelligent believers with promises of "kingdom increase" and "divine overflow."
Regardless of the purity of one's motives, it would seem that the use of spiritual influence for commercial purposes ultimately cheapens the public perception of the pastoral role and weakens prophetic influence in the public sector (particularly on issues in which a biblically-informed voice is so desperately needed, such as abortion, gay marriage, poverty and the environment).
Without a clear distinction, the pastor's voice becomes merely another plea for attention among the countless other voices hawking their wares and pushing their agendas--as easy to tune out as a Geico commercial.
Matt Green
editor, Ministry Today
The Tribune article focused primarily on the financial implications of pastoral product endorsements. (Apparently, this pastor stands in a long line of such partnerships: In the '30s, radio evangelist John Brinkley advocated the implantation of goat glands to enhance male virility.) But what about the spiritual implications? Although diminished with the effects of 21st-century cynicism (some would say, because of such "crass commercialization"), pastors still wield intangible spiritual power over the lives of those they lead.
They are sought out for advice in dating, finances, marriage, child rearing, emotional health and so on. Their opinions are considered informed by biblical reflection and prayer, not merely commercial interest or cold rationality. Simply put, a pastor's counsel is trusted for spiritual reasons--reasons that transcend common sense for some people. Consider recent Ponzi schemes launched by church leaders who used their spiritual influence for financial gain and hoodwinked reasonably intelligent believers with promises of "kingdom increase" and "divine overflow."
Regardless of the purity of one's motives, it would seem that the use of spiritual influence for commercial purposes ultimately cheapens the public perception of the pastoral role and weakens prophetic influence in the public sector (particularly on issues in which a biblically-informed voice is so desperately needed, such as abortion, gay marriage, poverty and the environment).
Without a clear distinction, the pastor's voice becomes merely another plea for attention among the countless other voices hawking their wares and pushing their agendas--as easy to tune out as a Geico commercial.
Matt Green
editor, Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Weigh in with your comments by clicking the pencil below.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
A Tale of Two Tithers
Phil is rich--philthy rich according to some. His contracting business provides more than enough money for him, his wife and his two children. In fact, he just bought a second home in the Florida Keys, along with a jet ski and his and her Jeeps. Phil is also a tither--and then some. Last year he was pushing 12 percent when tax time came around. Phil's happy, his pastor's happy and--lucky for Phil--there's plenty left over for the finer things in life.
Beth's not so lucky. A single mother, she's made some poor choices in life, and she's been the victim of poor choices on the part of others. After rededicating her life to Christ, she was recently introduced to the practice of tithing. Sometimes, before taking the offering, her pastor has one of the board members give a testimony of how God has blessed him and his family for tithing. She was particularly impressed when he recounted how he recently nailed a great deal on a beach house in the Keys. But for Beth, five percent is about all she can squeeze out of her budget for a tithe. She's been told that a tithe is 10 percent and that, "if she would just trust God," he would make the other 90 percent stretch. Maybe someday she'll be in better financial straits. In the meantime, she finds herself frequently asking God's forgiveness for "robbing Him." She hopes He understands.
The story may seem farfetched to some, but it reveals a question many of us would rather not discuss: In the context of materialistic American life, is 10 percent enough? Or, is it even a number that should be used as a standard in a church in which welfare recipients mingle with financiers. For some, the tithe gives the implicit right to spend 90 percent of one's money however one sees fit--as long as God gets His due. While the Old Testament is clear in its expectation that God's people give merely a tenth of their firstfruits, the New Testament's expectations seem far greater: Jesus castigates those who are conscientious about tithing but neglect the "weightier" things of the law, He suggests that His followers consider the prospect of complete asset liquidation and the Acts church practices radical communalism.
Perhaps it's time to consider a "graduated tithe", such as Ron Sider describes in his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. With a graduated tithe, a family tithes 10 percent of its base needed income (usually the poverty level). For any income above that base, a family would give a gradually higher percentage. Some, like Rick Warren, may eventually find themselves blessed to the extent that they are "reverse tithing"--giving 90 percent and keeping 10.
Of course, church leaders should avoid presenting these stewardship strategies as a legalistic command for those whom God has blessed financially. But maybe it's time we considered the possibility that God might be just as concerned with how we spend the 90 percent He lets us keep as He is with what we do with the 10 percent He requires as a tithe.
Matt Green
editor, Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Weigh in with your comments by clicking the pencil below.
Beth's not so lucky. A single mother, she's made some poor choices in life, and she's been the victim of poor choices on the part of others. After rededicating her life to Christ, she was recently introduced to the practice of tithing. Sometimes, before taking the offering, her pastor has one of the board members give a testimony of how God has blessed him and his family for tithing. She was particularly impressed when he recounted how he recently nailed a great deal on a beach house in the Keys. But for Beth, five percent is about all she can squeeze out of her budget for a tithe. She's been told that a tithe is 10 percent and that, "if she would just trust God," he would make the other 90 percent stretch. Maybe someday she'll be in better financial straits. In the meantime, she finds herself frequently asking God's forgiveness for "robbing Him." She hopes He understands.
The story may seem farfetched to some, but it reveals a question many of us would rather not discuss: In the context of materialistic American life, is 10 percent enough? Or, is it even a number that should be used as a standard in a church in which welfare recipients mingle with financiers. For some, the tithe gives the implicit right to spend 90 percent of one's money however one sees fit--as long as God gets His due. While the Old Testament is clear in its expectation that God's people give merely a tenth of their firstfruits, the New Testament's expectations seem far greater: Jesus castigates those who are conscientious about tithing but neglect the "weightier" things of the law, He suggests that His followers consider the prospect of complete asset liquidation and the Acts church practices radical communalism.
Perhaps it's time to consider a "graduated tithe", such as Ron Sider describes in his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger. With a graduated tithe, a family tithes 10 percent of its base needed income (usually the poverty level). For any income above that base, a family would give a gradually higher percentage. Some, like Rick Warren, may eventually find themselves blessed to the extent that they are "reverse tithing"--giving 90 percent and keeping 10.
Of course, church leaders should avoid presenting these stewardship strategies as a legalistic command for those whom God has blessed financially. But maybe it's time we considered the possibility that God might be just as concerned with how we spend the 90 percent He lets us keep as He is with what we do with the 10 percent He requires as a tithe.
Matt Green
editor, Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Weigh in with your comments by clicking the pencil below.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
The 'Devil' Made Them Do It?
Sometimes what looks like satanic opposition may just be God's way of getting us to think outside the box. Greg Surratt's story (as told by his brother, Geoff) of the impetus behind Seacoast Church's move to a multi-site model is a good example of this. In The Multi-Site Revolution, Surratt explains how, in 2001, the church was considering building a larger facility to accommodate its rapid growth. Unfortunately, local officials objected to a church building "twice the size of Wal-Mart" in their community. Residents even launched a "Not in My Backyard" campaign to thwart the new building program. Surratt and his team went back to the drawing board and, after a tour of several U.S. congregations, decided to launch a multi-site model of ministry rather than build a new facility. Three years later, the church had doubled in size (to 3,000 more than the capacity of the building they hoped to build). On Easter Sunday 2005, Seacoast held 23 services in nine locations with 11,000 people. I've heard similar stories of public opposition to new church buildings in which the ending wasn't quite so pretty. In fact, some of those stories include church members picketing the city courthouse during zoning meetings, "binding" the evil spirits at work in the city commissioner and making promises of election-day retribution. Thankfully, Surratt and his team didn't go in this direction. Instead, they allowed God to use opposition to refocus their vision.
Keep you eye open for the Sep/Oct issue of Ministry Today, in which we explore the challenges and opportunities of multi-site ministry.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Heretics @ Home?
Are house churches really more vulnerable to false doctrine?
Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.
My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.
Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.
Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.
Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?
No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Click the pencil below to post your comments. To weed out spam (not to suppress dissent), comments are moderated and sometimes edited for length. They will appear shortly after posting.
Since George Barna released Revolution last fall, nearly everyone has weighed in on his controversial vision of the future that sees 70 percent of the church worshipping in non-traditional settings such as house churches within the next 20 years.
My "favorite" argument against the house church movement popped up (again) in a recent article in the Washington Post, where it is suggested that house churches are more vulnerable to heresy, because they lack the accountability of established churches and denominations. I'm not sure what's weirder about this argument--that it is made by Americans, that it is made by Protestants or that it is made by people clearly aware of the current religious milieu.
Why? Well, let's start with the "America" issue. This nation was founded on a belief in the superiority of limited government, on the contention that "we the people" must keep government accountable through the democratic process. Although far from being a "biblical form of government," democracy reflects the biblical principle that a lot of power in the hands of a few sinners can lead nowhere good. This same egalitarian notion is at the heart of the house church movement. It's the conviction that doctrine (like political power) should not be preserved by an ecclesiastical elite. It must be articulated, taught, transmitted and understood by the laity.
Next, we are Protestants, aren't we? The Reformation was a movement of doctrinal purification that emerged from the decay of institutional heresy. Apparently the strong "leadership" of generations of popes, bishops and priests was inadequate to protect the church from doctrines and practices so bizarre they would be considered downright cultish by today's standards. An indulgence anyone? In fact, as many would argue, the leaders were the ones who concocted these abberations to begin with! It was when the exclusive right to interpret the Word of God was pried from the grasp of clergy that the laity discovered that they had been duped. Then, like now, the church is not in need of more leaders, it's in need of more readers--believers who will embrace the responsibility of their own spiritual health and stop subcontracting it to paid clergy. However flawed, the house church movement is one attempt to correct this imbalance.
Finally, even a cursory observation of our largest religious institutions would indicate that size and structure have no bearing on orthodoxy. Some of our largest denominations are still making up their mind about whether they should ordain gays. The pastors of some of our largest churches don't even crack open the Bible when they preach. And yet some of us are worried about the theological pitfalls faced by devout believers exploring the Scriptures and worshipping in the privacy of their own home?
No, house churches are the least likely seedbeds of heresy. In fact, they are the natural offspring of the Reformation's cry: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda ("The church reformed and always to be reformed"). As with any renewal movement, there will be pockets of excess and room for correction. For instance, in the coming years, the house church movement will have to tackle challenges of elitism, leadership, accountability and--of course--heresy. But like the rest of the Body, they won't be facing these alone (see Matt. 18:20).
Matt Green, editor
Ministry Today
Agree? Disagree? Click the pencil below to post your comments. To weed out spam (not to suppress dissent), comments are moderated and sometimes edited for length. They will appear shortly after posting.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Ray & the Secret Service
Evangelist Ray Comfort's $1 million tract got him in trouble with the U.S. Secret Service last Thursday. Apparently some prankster tried to deposit the bill in his bank account--in spite of the fact that the front of the bill states, "This note is not legal tender," "Thou Shalt Not Steal," "Department of Eternal Affairs" and includes the Web site www.WayOfTheMasterRadio.com and a picture of Grover Cleveland, a president who has not appeared on any bill. I don't even think there is a $1 million bill, is there? In a note to supporters, Ray says: "Today (Friday, June 2nd) the Secret Service seized a large supply of our Million Dollar Bill tracts from The Great News Network in Texas. They told them that someone in North Carolina tried to deposit one in their bank, and that if they didn't give up their supply, they would arrest them. Then they said they are going to seize our supply in California. If you want Million Dollar bill tracts, you had better order them pronto." Knowing Ray, before this fiasco is over, someone in the Secret Service is going to get saved. Check out our Ministry Today cover story on Ray in the Jan/Feb 2005 issue.
