An Employment Agency in Heaven?

An Employment Agency In Heaven?

What do you do when you are out of a job?

You apply for unemployment compensation.

You read the want ads.

You pound the pavements.

You follow up tips from friends.

You cut back on the frills.

You don’t eat as much meat.

You get your shoes half-soled—again.

You try not to let the kids know you’re worried.

Maybe you pray. Why not?

The paycheck seems far removed from God—until it’s gone. But the Bible says God was there all the time. Note this from the Book of Acts: “But [God] has always given proof of himself by the good things he does … he gives you food and fills your hearts with happiness” (14:17, TEV).

God cares. He is pleased when his children ask for jobs. “Lord, help me to trust you when I’m out of work. Send me the job I need. Thank you.”

Ideas

Graham in Moscow: What Did He Really Say?

Graham In Moscow: What Did He Really Say?

Billy Graham presented the claims of Christ to many who had never heard before and might never hear again.

What many hoped would be the climax to the life of an evangelist devoted to preaching the gospel has threatened instead to end in tragic rejection by friend and foe alike. Scarcely had Billy Graham arrived in Moscow last month when the quiet warnings of some people rapidly crescendoed to a roar of disapproval. Never before in all his career has the evangelist faced such condemnation from the American press and from evangelical leaders.

Of course, the jury is not yet in with the final word. But in the continuing furor, two quite different questions must be examined: (1) Should Graham have gone to Moscow; and (2) Did he betray his own cause by things he said or omitted saying while there?

These two questions are intertwined. If making this trip of necessity required such a betrayal, then the answer to the first question is: No, Graham should not have gone.

The evidence, however, does not warrant linking betrayal with his going. Many religious leaders—members of the National Council of Churches, extreme theological liberals, mainline liberals, Southern Baptists (President Bailey Smith, for example), independents, and parachurch leaders (such as Bill Bright)—have all at one time or another visited the Soviet Union. Many church leaders attended the same conference on nuclear war.

In the past, no one has objected to others undertaking such trips. We must conclude, therefore, that there was nothing inherently wrong or unwise about Billy Graham’s visit to Moscow. Given Graham’s goals, his priorities, and the promises made to him, we are convinced he chose rightly. Any evangelical with similar goals, priorities, and promises would have—and should have—made the same decision.

But what were his goals? And what assurances did he secure from the Soviets before he went?

First of all, Graham did not go blindly or naively. He realized he would be used. In one interview, he said: “I knew there were risks involved in this mission. I knew I risked being misunderstood and even exploited, but I considered the risk worth taking.”

Graham’S Goals

1. He wanted to preach the gospel publicly at the nuclear conference, at the Orthodox cathedral, at the Baptist church, and privately to Soviet political officials and church leaders.

This he was able to accomplish. In each of these places, Graham presented the claims of Christ to many who had never before heard them and might well never hear again.

2. He wished to plead the case for religious freedom in private meetings with high Soviet officials.

Graham was assured that he would have opportunity to plead the case for the “Siberian Six,” the unregistered evangelicals, the registered evangelical churches, and for freedom of religion in general. This request was honored. He did in fact plead their case in private, and the results are yet to be seen. While direct confrontation has sometimes been effective, it is not the only way to move the Soviets to action. It would seem the act of charity and of wisdom to allow Billy Graham to attempt nonconfrontational, behind-the-scenes diplomacy in an effort to win some relief for the people of Russia who are being persecuted for their religious convictions and practices.

Before he finally decided to make the trip, Graham consulted many world leaders: individuals who are highly knowledgeable about Soviet affairs—including such people as Henry Kissinger, the Pope, scholars, diplomats, and many evangelicals. Their advice, overwhelmingly, was that quiet, nonconfrontational diplomacy would be far more likely to secure concessions for the persecuted in that land than direct confrontation and mass-media exposure.

3. He wanted to warn of the tragic consequences of nuclear buildup and the armament race.

More and more, Graham has become convinced of the horror of nuclear warfare. He sincerely hoped to do something dramatic to bring the world to its senses so that tens of millions—perhaps hundreds of millions—will not be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. He is not a pacifist. He is not even a nuclear pacifist. He did not argue for any unilateral renunciation of nuclear weapons. Rather, he warned of dire consequences to come if the nations continue their current nuclear buildup and prolong indefinitely the arms race. He called for a negotiated reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear armaments and other weapons of mass destruction. Such disarmament would have to be by mutual agreement, and carried out with adequate means of verification. It is a sane, feasible, and very necessary approach to the present arms race. It would protect the innocent, yet it would hold out possibilities for great relief to our entire planet, and especially the tax-burdened peoples of Russia, Western Europe, and the United States.

4. He hoped to be permitted eventually to hold preaching missions in large cities throughout the Soviet Union.

Right from the first, this goal did not loom as large for Graham as it did in the public news media. Yet, he is convinced that Soviet leaders are open to the possibility of such a mission. He is still convinced that there is at least a fifty-fifty chance that he will be able to do this. Though Graham is aware that there would be great risk in such an evangelistic tour, he also knows that so far his public and private messages have not been censored. He also knows that many Soviet religious leaders wish such a mission.

Certainly these are worthy goals. No fair-minded person—let alone any evangelical Christian—could object to them.

The Cost To Graham

But what price did Billy Graham pay to achieve his goals? Was the cost too great, as his critics claim? To gain his ends, did he have to sell his soul? Or, more accurately, did he have to compromise his own integrity as a Christian, as a man who loves justice and freedom, as one who prizes religious freedom above life itself, and who wishes to be a loyal American? What was the price tag for Graham?

He was free to preach his gospel message; he did not have to deny his own precious conviction of freedom. Undoubtedly it was assumed by both sides that he would not make open and public denunciations of Soviet policies, including its repression of political and religious freedoms.

But Graham was not silent about political and religious freedom. In private, he pled the case for the Siberian Six and for the 150 imprisoned pastors. In his public address, he boldly called upon the nations of the world to uphold rigorously the Helsinki agreements. He pled especially for full freedom of religious worship and practice, for without freedom and justice there will be no peace: genuine justice is the foundation for peace. (See the full text of Graham’s speech, beginning on page 20.) His one concession on this occasion was not to single out specially, and bluntly condemn, the Soviet Union for its lack of religious freedom.

All of this Graham clearly understood. Yet he thought he could accomplish more through quiet diplomacy and public preaching of the gospel than by openly denouncing the Soviet government for lack of religious freedom. Was that price too great? Billy Graham thought not. We agree. But the decision of others will depend on the relative values each assigns, on the one hand, to preaching the gospel, to quiet behind-the-scenes diplomacy on behalf of freedom, and to the necessity of warning against nuclear war and the armament race, and, on the other hand, to the opportunity to speak out publicly in condemnation of Soviet violations of political and religious freedom.

It should not surprise us that many people disagreed with Graham. One leading newsman, who reacted strongly against Graham, denounced him bitterly: “Graham was a dupe—a fool. Mouthing the gospel to Soviet leadership and privately urging them to act contrary to their basic convictions was an utter waste of time. Of course, he could preach his gospel and tell them in private to relax their restrictions against religion. But do you think Graham will convert those Communists or move them to lower their tyrannic grip? Of course not. Graham was a fool to think so. He was duped by them to fit into their propaganda and their Marxist program for nothing in return.”

That criticism sums it all up. But Billy Graham believes that God can and does use the frail human preaching of the gospel to transform people. It is not his business to preach the gospel only to likely candidates, but rather to every human creature. Moreover, Graham manages his life and ministry by the long look. The gospel is a time bomb. Working quietly through it, the Spirit of God can overturn nations and civilizations. The first Christians rarely mentioned slavery, the rights of women, the gladiatorial shows, and direct governmental involvement in moral rottenness. In time, though, the dynamite of the gospel penetrated the Roman empire and its tyranny.

Was Graham Right?

The question of whether Graham did the right thing in going to Moscow depends on how highly a person values the proclamation and the power of the gospel. Only time and eternity will reveal the full answer. But at this point we are not prepared to condemn him.

The second and equally crucial question concerns what Graham said in Moscow. Did he, in the give-and-take with the press, inadvertently and foolishly betray his own cause and the cause of freedom? In short, did he play his hand properly and adroitly at every point during his six days in Russia?

Billy Graham would be the last person to claim infallibility for himself. Reflecting upon the outcry that greeted him on his return, he commented: “I am an evangelist—not an expert in church-state relations in the Soviet Union. I regret that some of the statements I made regarding my visit to the Soviet Union were misconstrued and misinterpreted by the media. I care deeply about the plight and suffering of believers everywhere in the world where religious freedoms are restricted, including the Soviet Union. I sincerely regret any public statements which I made that might seem to indicate otherwise.”

But we insist that the record be set straight. By taking Graham’s words out of the context in which they were spoken and placing them in an alien context of their own concerns, some news people, consciously or even unconsciously, falsified many of Graham’s statements. They thus wrongly pictured him as betraying his own deepest convictions.

For example, Graham never advocated a U.S. retreat before Russian aggression. He warned of the awful consequences of the nuclear arms race and called for mutual, negotiated, verifiable disarmament. Likewise he did not ignore publicly the issue of political, social, and religious freedom. Rather, in a most pointed manner, and in a most public way, he called the nations of the world to justice and freedom. He did so in a manner that all understood to be a rebuke of Soviet failures in this regard.

He got no applause when he made this point at the Soviet congress. He was met with only a stony silence. Nor did he declare in answer to direct questions that Russia is a land of religious freedom. He conceded instead—something that implied the opposite—that there was more freedom there than he had thought before going, and more than in today’s China, though it is not like the United States. And it is hardly an affirmation of approval to state that a political leader is not so bad as Hitler.

Neither did Graham say there is more religious freedom in Russia than in Great Britain. In a context not of religious freedom but of church-state structures, he pointed out that Britain, unlike Russia or the United States, has a state church of which the queen is the titular head. When someone called to his attention how his words had been interpreted, his response was: “Ridiculous! There is no comparison between the religious freedom in Britain and that in Soviet Russia.”

One of the most disturbing comments recorded in the news was Graham’s statement, “I have seen no religious persecution during my stay in Russia.” Out of context this sounded like a blanket endorsement of religious freedom in Russia. Yet Graham’s answer was a reply to a very explicit question: “Have you personally witnessed any religious persecution while you have been here?” Graham later expressed deep regret that he had not cited the Siberian Six. He added: “I recognize that there is a difference between religious fervor, which is great in the Soviet Union, and religious freedom, which is severely restricted. The Soviet Union is an officially atheistic state, and many believers pay a price to follow Christ.”

The same can be said for his point that a Christian ought to work hard, be a better citizen, and obey his government. Scripture says all of this. But Graham himself has acknowledged that if he had the chance to do it over again, he would not have referred to these biblical truths in a context where they were liable to be interpreted far beyond what the Scripture passages really mean.

All of us can remember times when we should have said more about something, or less, or even differently. But we who sit on the sidelines in this classic struggle should be the last to condemn Billy Graham for lack of foresight in offhand comments to one or more newsmen. We should judge him on the basis of his stated goals and the main thrust of his formal messages. An ocean voyage does not make a missionary, and we should not expect a trip to Moscow to make an instant diplomat. After all, Billy Graham is an evangelist.

An even more obvious lesson to be learned from the news coverage of Graham’s trip to Moscow is that evangelicals dare not trust the secular news media’s coverage of religious news (see News, pp. 46–48, for further illustrations of the dilemma this poses). On the basis of initial reports, many evangelicals were dismayed at what they believed Graham said. Others became angry and violently attacked Graham for betraying the persecuted people of Russia. Among evangelical leaders, Jerry Falwell and Charles Colson stood out for their temperate response. Perhaps their own experiences with a press not careful to get things straight have taught them to be more understanding.

Finally, those of us who believe the gospel of Jesus Christ is the dynamite of God, able to blast away sin and the sinful structures of an unjust society, may indeed regret any slips and the unfortunate infelicities of unplanned spontaneous comments. But we rejoice at the opportunity to preach the gospel—actual and potential—with the hope that the power of the gospel can change the hearts of men, as well as the evil structures of even a Communist society.

Eutychus and His Kin: June 18, 1982

Eutychus

Go to Camp!

Parents are beginning to panic at the thought of a long, hot summer with children who have “nothing to do.” The camping business has become sophisticated and specialized, no longer merely offering “Camp Heep-Fun” on beautiful Lake Frigid with swimming, sailing, softball, and spaghetti. The new breed of camp offers three hours of computer instruction a day, wrestling, judo and kung fu, ballet, tie-dying, and electronic games. Even with these exotic offerings, parents may expect some emotional regression after Junior has been at camp for several days. The independent 10-year-old may become a wet noodle snivelling over the phone, “Come and get me!” Above all else, camp directors fear this.

They also fear, according to a recent poll, that: bed wetting is becoming a contagious disease; a plague will break out; the cook will quit; the cook won’t quit; parents will come before “parents day”; or the campers will decide “they have more fun at Camp Whoopee.”

Letters home are a major headache because the wrong letters could close the camp. Many well-run camps now give campers a letter home with blanks for them to fill in:

Dear _______1,

I’m having a wonderful time at camp. What I like best is _______2. The food is really good, especially the _______3. Yesterday we went for a hike and saw _______4. My counselor’s name is _______5. S/he is good at _______6, and wants to become _______7. Please send _______8. Write and tell them I don’t have to _______9. I won the _______10 contest. I need money for _______11. Don’t forget to _______12.

A camper I know filled it in this way: 1. Mom, Dad and Sybil; 2. electronic games; 3. pancakes; 4. people swimming naked; 5. Tom; 6. jumping; 7. a ballet dancer; 8. my comic books; 9. memorize verses; 10. pretty-leaves collection; 11. calomine lotion; 13. feed Sybil two mice a day.

George

In spite of the trauma experienced by everyone, there is still nothing quite like a summer at Camp Heep-Fun. It’s the stuff of memories. Go to camp!

EUTYCHUS XI

Long-needed Dissent

“School Prayers: A Common Danger” [May 7] was a long-needed bit of dissent. The basic flaw with “voluntary” school prayer is the same as the problem with the old forced prayers. You can’t really make anyone pray; you can only make him or her say the words.

It is strange that many of the same Christians who want schools to encourage kids to pray often insist sex education is too personal for classrooms. After seeing what so many schools have done with sex education, why trust them with prayer?

JAMES D. DAVIS

Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

True Article

I am writing in response to the article Diet, Discipline, and Discipleship [News, April 9].

Both the 3D program and the Community of Jesus have been the gift of God to my life and calling. I count myself greatly privileged and blessed to have received so much of the love and life of Jesus Christ through these two Christian ministries.

REV. ROBERT SHANNON

Suffern Presbyterian Church

Suffern, New York

When I read your article on the Community of Jesus, my heart hit rock bottom as I relived the terrible experiences my son had in that school. It has taken him several years to sort out his feelings, his faith, and his life generally.

Christians today are involving themselves in all kinds of groups. We get such questions as: Is it Christian? Am I involved in something cultic? There are also the Christians who look for educational alternatives for their children (as we did), and then become involved in an experience that wounds a life, and takes time to heal. Some Christian parents worry about the influence of secular public schools on their children. They need to be concerned about some schools that bear the name of Christian.

MRS. LUCIE A. MILNE

Dorchester, Ontario, Canada

Is There a Middle Ground?

I was delighted to see the article “Hidden Agenda Behind the Evolutionist/Creationist Debate” [April 23]. Dr. Olson touches on every major facet of the controversy and bears strong testimony to a perspective that is consistent with a regard for both authentic science and authentic evangelical, biblical, Christian faith.

RICHARD H. BUBE

Journal of the American

Scientific Affiliation

Stanford, Calif.

I have been concerned for some time about the untoward influence the “scientific creationists” have had on evangelicals. Their aggressive salesmanship has resulted in scientific creationism becoming orthodox doctrine in many conservative evangelical circles. This bears the bitterest fruit in the Christian school movement where scientific creationism is the litmus test for hiring science faculty and establishing curriculum. In this technological age, Christian young people cannot receive defective science education.

JAMES C. PARKS

Millersville, Pa.

You need a clearer definition of “creationist.” My dictionary preserves the essence of the word and dispels the overly restrictive formulation. Were the orderly arrangements obvious in physical and biological science derived by random processes in conformity with the properties intrinsic to matter and energy? Or were they derived by the input of order and design from a source outside the cosmos? Let’s keep the theological baggage attached to creationist theory to a minimum.

STEVEN A. AUSTIN

Institute for Creation Research

El Cajon, Calif.

Neither evolution nor creation can be proved by the scientific method (hypothesis empirically verified via repeated experiments). One’s conclusion regarding the question of origins is largely based on basic assumptions (God vs. no God, supernatural possible vs. supernatural impossible, etc.). Thus, the evolutionary theory is no more “scientific” than the creation theory—both are out of the realm of strict scientific investigation.

REV. ROBERT E. LOGAN

Community Baptist Church

Alta Loma, Calif.

Many scientists and theologians who are evangelicals attempt to come up with a compromise between evolutionary science and the Bible. Your editorial note and publication of the Marsden, but especially the Olson, article only encourage the development of a compromise position and raise questions about the validity of the Genesis record on origins.

ROBERT E. LANDERS

Westfield, N. J.

Let’s Get to the Root

Parents should be notified when their children receive birth control devices, even as they are notified whenever they receive any sort of medical treatment [News, April 23]. But parental notification deals simply with the effects, and not the root cause, of the problem. The cause is our popular sexual attitudes and practices, which reduce sex from communion of life and love within marriage to mutual masturbation and a means of voyeuristic gratification.

HAVEN B. Gow

Arlington Heights, Ill.

Process Theology or Philosophy?

Being trained in analytic philosophy, I must respond to “The Relativity Blitz and Process Philosophy” [April 23]. There are a number of analytic philosophers who are not antimetaphysics, the most notable being Alvin Plantinga. I perceive process philosophy as a minor branch that is weak and declining, not increasing. Process theology may be a trickle-down effect of process philosophy and, as such, is a real hazard to be faced. We must still be diligent in our apologetics. For such a purpose I believe analytic philosophy can be a valuable tool.

JOHN WILLIAM UNGER

Houston, Tex.

Wrong Fight?

Your editorial “Of Evolution and Creation and the Space Between” [May 7] prompts a suggestion that this debate may be the wrong fight.

Perhaps humans came from a billion-year evolution, perhaps from recent fiat creation. In either case, Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected to redeem mankind. Our salvation depends on his sacrifice; our faith rests on the historical witness to his life. Neither of these is affected by our biological antecedents (if any).

DEL COON

Midland, Mich.

Whose Responsibility?

Count me as one evangelical Christian who takes strong exception to the Coalition for Better Television’s call to boycott NBC and RCA [Editorial, April 23].

It is up to us, not NBC, to disinfect our own minds, to guide our children’s TV-viewing habits, and to turn the set off. It is up to us, not RCA, to convince others that there is more to life than rotting in front of the tube. It is up to us, not any secular institution, to spread Christian values.

MICHAEL LOPEZ

Wheaton, Ill.

Editor’s Note from June 18, 1982

Some issues are like that! We were all ready to go to press with this one—some articles had already been sent to the printer, and even the editorial was ready to go. Then, one by one, our nicely laid plans began to disintegrate.

First, public interest over Billy Graham’s trip to Moscow was rising. Evangelicals were deeply concerned about potential dangers as well as the unbelievable opportunities. So we asked Billy if we might run his entire speech at the nuclear arms conference.

Then we remembered that this month marks the tenth anniversary of the Watergate break-in. But anniversaries can’t be shoved around at will; you have to take them when they come. And Chuck Colson could do an article for us. So another reshuffle devastated our layout.

And then Cameron Townsend died. We were going to run Philip Yancey’s article on Townsend later, but decided we would rather join the heavenly party (in absentia) now and rejoice with them at the homegoing of this dear saint and missionary statesman. If this was God’s timing, we figured we had better adjust to it.

Finally, the press coverage of Billy Graham’s Moscow trip made us angry enough to toss out the beautiful editorial on which I had worked so long and hard, and we sought instead to set the record straight.

You would never recognize the June-issue-that-used-to-be. Besides the regular columns, all you would find are the China articles and Congressman Dannemeyer’s call for “honesty in government.” It is important to remind ourselves on national holidays like July 4 that moral integrity lies at the foundation of Christian patriotism. We do not love “our country right or wrong.” We love it so much we want to do all we can to make it right. And in a nation like the United States, there is much we can do—like informing ourselves about candidates for public office and registering to vote.

We think you will find the articles on China absolutely fascinating. Mao Zedong and the “Gang of Four” turn out to be the most effective evangelists for the gospel in human history. How’s that for an exciting twist in the story of humankind?

Pastors

Training Volunteers

Terry C. Muck

A Leadership Survey

Many churches would like to have structured leadership training programs. Here are some recommendations from LEADERSHIP readers on how to get started.

“Church members really don’t know how to be good church members. They gripe when they should pray. They criticize when they should learn. They nit-pick everything to death. I wish someone would write a training manual on how to be a good church member.”

So wrote one of the 172 respondents to a LEADERSHIP reader survey on training lay leadership. Many expressed similar frustrations. Almost 70 percent said they see a need for a structured training program but don’t have one because they don’t have the time, feel unqualified to train, or simply don’t know how to go about it.

The frustration is particularly acute, because many expressed admiration for training programs run by other churches or secular organizations. One pastor wrote: “I know good training works. A cable television company conducted an eight-week course for some of our members on how to operate television equipment and script a program. Most of the people trained are still producing programs. And they learned it all by meeting once a week for two hours.”

Many respondents sounded this note. Most envied the 30 percent who said they had structured training in their churches. “I wish churches with good training programs would tell us how to do it,” said a southern Ohio pastor.

In answer to that request, here are the six most frequent recommendations from church leaders who are successfully training or being trained. They won’t solve your training problem overnight, or even in a year. But they may spark your thinking and get you on the right track.

Recognize that Training Is Hard Work

Those who do have training programs don’t sugar-coat what’s required: plenty of time, hard work, and patience.

When asked, “What is the single most difficult obstacle you’ve encountered in your training program?” the most frequent response was “not enough time.”

Successful trainers recognize that fully training people takes many hours spread over a long period. Robert Coleman, professor of evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary and author of The Master Plan of Evangelism, noted in a recent interview that “life changing relationships don’t take place in the classroom, though they may begin there. To get next to someone, I have to find a more relaxed setting.”

A survey respondent agreed: “Small groups have had a good effect on my life, but I’ve found no real leadership training takes place in them. It’s great fun to get close to other group members, but the impartation of vision takes one-on-one contact.”

The prospect of many hours of one-on-one time with trainees makes many trainers reluctant even to begin. A solution to that, say our readers, is to go into the training process expecting a long haul:

“For three years before my coming, this congregation had ‘grown’ from 250 to 110. The leaders of the congregation had escaped to better churches. Those few leaders who remained had tucked into a tight camp of circled wagons. It has taken two long, hard years of loving and affirming to gain an elementary level of trust with them. But slowly and surely, good things are starting to emerge.”

“Slowly and surely” could be the theme song of leadership training. It’s reminiscent of an old Peanuts cartoon strip that shows Woodstock and Snoopy on the top of his doghouse. Snoopy is saying, “What are you doing here? You’re supposed to be out somewhere sitting on a branch chirping. That’s your job. People expect to hear birds chirping when they wake up in the morning.”

So Woodstock goes off to the top of a shrub and belts out one lonely “Chirp!” Then he comes back.

Snoopy responds: “You only chirped once. You can’t brighten someone’s day with one chirp!” So Woodstock heads back to the shrub and belts out about six more “Chirps!”

When Woodstock returns, Snoopy smiles and says, “There, now! Didn’t that give you a feeling of real satisfaction? The bad news is you’re supposed to do that every morning for the rest of your life!” At which Woodstock faints and falls off the doghouse.

It takes time to impart a vision that is really a part of yourself. There’s no short cut to implanting within another person the message that now is the time to do the work of the kingdom. In the end, people are not attracted by a system but by a teacher who personifies a cause and is willing to sacrifice his self-interest.

Be Sensitive to Training Resistance

The second most frequently voiced obstacle mentioned in our survey was lack of volunteer motivation.

However, is that the real trouble? Sometimes what appears to be resistance is nothing more than the trainees’ inability to express themselves.

Management researcher Craig Rice has found that creative people often present their ideas poorly, assuming that their intrinsic merit will be instantly recognized. The problem is exacerbated when the trainer of a group is himself a good communicator and takes those skills for granted. When pastors are trainers, they often assume quiet or verbally immature trainees aren’t trying, when in fact they may be among the most creative in the group.

Overcoming this problem takes patient probing. People bottle up their creativity for many reasons. In a recent address, University of Chicago professor Martin Marty suggested these: guilt, unconfessed sin, doubt, fear, pride, and not knowing God’s will. The pastoral response is to work through these road-blocks and free people to be creative producers.

Many lay leaders do resist training, however. One survey respondent noted his biggest problem was “the deacons’ unwillingness to be teachable. My deacons would rather fight with each other than learn to work together. They would rather hide behind a facade of spirituality.”

Many others resist training because the work required seems undemanding or because they think common sense, maturity, and life experience are all a volunteer needs. One pastor wrote that his elders “look upon training as an ‘Are you kidding?’ proposition. Filling the position is the important thing.”

Our respondents made it pretty clear that giving up is not the proper response to training resistance. One recommended re-evaluating teaching style, taking to heart the old adage that “to know how to suggest is the art of teaching.”

Another suggested that tracing the root of resistance helps deal with it: “I always ask four questions of those in my training group:

“Why are you willing to serve the church in this way?” The answer indicates the trainee’s purity of motive.

“What improvement would you have made in the last job you did for the church?” This answer will indicate creativity.

“What did you like most about the last job you did for the church and why?” The reasons are more important than the answer.

“Describe the best person who worked for or with you.” This will show ability to understand and relate to people.

“After getting the answers to these questions, I have a better idea of how and why this person will resist training programs.”

Also keep in mind that we’ll never overcome some resistance. In that case, we must be willing to work with many trainees and trust the percentages to produce a few very good ones. One pastor wrote, “The biggest problem is finding people who are excited about learning leadership and getting them to desire the necessary training. The only way it’s worked for me is to continually try to do it, and when you hit on someone who is committed, go with it.”

Finally, persistence pays off. “Many of our men expressed hesitation about a written test over material we covered in our deacons’ training class. One of the most reluctant was a seventy-two-year-old, still very alert and energetic but who had not taken a written test since college days. I spent ten or twelve hours with him privately reviewing the material. He did well on the test and has since said he is a better servant of the Lord because of the experience. Most of the other men said similar things.”

Understand Lay Inferiority

One of the biggest hurdles in training lay leaders is an ingrained feeling of inferiority among laymen. An Oregon pastor writes, “Laymen have lived for years under the teaching that the real work of the church is done by the professional clergy; they do the ministry while the laity sits and watches. There’s a terrible lay inferiority complex.”

This feeling has created a mystique around church work so that laymen accomplished in other areas of life are sometimes reluctant to transfer those skills to the church setting. Douglas Johnson in his book, The Care and Feeding of Volunteers, makes this observation:

“Volunteers often feel inadequate to deal with church situations. Even though they may be experienced teachers, business persons, or technicians in the non-church world, they know that in the church things are done differently. How differently and why are two unknown quantities for most volunteers. They need all the support and briefing about church work in general and a particular assignment as available.”

To cope with these reluctant feelings, our respondents recommended majoring on in-service training, easing workers into positions of responsibility:

“At our church, lay leader training is primarily in-service training. My particular benefit from lay leader training has been the development of confidence and sense of self-worth.”

A pastor says: “I find more and more that once laymen reach an elementary level of spiritual maturity, the best training is doing the ministry. They need to be given courage and confidence they can do it.”

Turning a segment of ministry over to laymen, however, takes a certain amount of pastoral security. It unleashes a tremendous force in the church, and a pastor’s initial reaction might be to feel threatened. As one reader observed, “A neighboring pastor who got his lay people really activated in positions of leadership found that they used their new power to run him out.”

An unusual occurrence, but it does point up a danger. Spiritually immature Christians may take advantage of a pastor willing to share his weaknesses. But we’re called not to serve our self-interested leadership but a God who commands us to prepare men and women to do ministry.

Tailor Training Programs

One message came through loud and clear in the surveys: training programs must be tailored to fit the unique needs of each church:

• “In twelve years of ministry, I’ve found that very few written training materials fit perfectly in any situation. Each local church must modify the material to fit its needs—or develop its own style of leadership training.”

• ” ‘Canned’ programs save time but rarely meet the unique needs of each congregation.”

Volunteers come to training sessions with their own qualities and attitudes. Like snowflakes, no two are the same. And they may change as the training program progresses. Robert Coleman suggests they’re like a family: “There are basic things children need to learn, but the sequence has to be geared to the individuality of each person.”

Each church has its personality also, and pastors were quick to point out these differences on their surveys:

• “Much recent training material assumes that lay leaders are readers and react well to the written word. Few lay leaders in our church do. However, they do respond well to workshops and hands-on experiences. So that’s what we do.”

• “My congregation is a business-executive group who face international business problems daily. If I don’t challenge them, they’ll lose interest very quickly.”

• “Materials I’ve seen assume that your church has members who exercise leadership in secular fields. I’m in a black church where that’s not necessarily true. I need materials based on nonhierarchical leadership models.”

There’s no hard-and-fast content to a training program. It can include private study or group lectures. It can be long or short. It can take place at home, in the parsonage, or at church. The secret is to fit the program to the people.

Our readers suggested three ways to tailor training:

1. Know your ultimate purpose before starting training. Don’t tell everyone entering the program that they will become department heads. Screen trainees carefully, trying to anticipate where they’ll fit in best. “My fear is that a person passing through a formal training program will assume it qualifies him for leadership. Not all volunteer training is leadership training.”

2. Determine the right time for training. Nothing is quite as self-defeating as getting a group of volunteers trained and excited … and then not using them. And in other situations, little training is needed: “Most of our men are already highly qualified and self-starters. Therefore formal training is not a great priority right now.”

3. Find the right pace. Don’t lock yourself into firm deadlines for completion. Make a natural transition. from training classes to on-the-job training. Be willing to slow down and go more deeply into material of particular interest. Rushing trainees creates anxiety.

Challenge Volunteers

People who decide to give their time are not happy wasting it once they arrive. In fact, fully challenging those who volunteer leads to an increase in the number of volunteers, not a decrease. In our survey, the most frequently suggested way to challenge volunteers was to make sure they saw their task as part of the larger ministry of the church.

One person quoted an article he had read recently: “There is a great difference between being a cutter of stones and a builder of cathedrals, but it is only in vision and perspective. We must instill the larger vision of the church in our volunteers.”

Another noted, “I feel the main problem faced by many churches is that lay leaders are not taught the real purpose of their position.”

Another need strongly communicated by readers was observance of simple management practice: describe the job in detail, outline what’s expected of each volunteer, and then hold each one accountable for completing the task. This last step in itself makes volunteers view their tasks as important.

Finally, challenging volunteers doesn’t mean obfuscating the task. The job should be described in simple and manageable terms. One survey respondent related the following story:

Rufus Jones, for many years a professor of philosophy at Haverford College, and a man of deep spiritual commitment, returned home after studying in Europe and attended the local Quaker meeting. When he felt moved by the Spirit to speak, Jones shared what was a very erudite discourse. When he finished, there was a silence, and then an elderly lady commented, “I know in the Bible Jesus tells us to feed his sheep. He even tells us to feed his lambs.” She paused, “But nowhere can I recall that he tells us to feed his giraffes.”

An occasional sin of the clergy is to talk at a level only a seminary graduate can understand. Some things require technical or scholarly language, but infatuation with our own words and ideas confuses and frustrates volunteers.

Recognize the Limitations of Training

Even the most successful and optimistic of the survey respondents warned against hoping for too much. A Chinese proverb warns: “Teachers open the door. You enter by yourself.”

When we asked for a description of a particularly outstanding training experience, one man wrote, “I can’t say we’ve had any outstanding sessions—nor any real duds.” Probably that’s a fairly common experience with training. It happens without much drama.

It may even be that training in your church is not necessary at this time. One realistic pastor wrote: “In proposing training of our office bearers, I find it difficult to push simply because I do not have a good program that I am convinced will prove of value to them. It’s hard to ask them to give up another evening away from their families for something that may not be beneficial.” Motivation on the part of potential trainees is often a limitation. Many of the best potential church leaders become so involved with non-church careers they don’t prioritize for church involvement. Often those who do have time don’t have the skills. The secret to handling this, though, is perception. God can use even failure to accomplish his purposes.

J. Richard Peck, in an article “A Little Failure Goes a Long Way,” tells this story:

“Cecil Lampert was my inspiration. He was the poorest runner on the cross-country team. But he always kept me going. Cecil consisted of some wired-together skin and bones, and he huffed along as if each step would be his last. But he never quit.

“As I suffered along the miles, it wasn’t the opposition ahead nor the team members beside me that kept my legs moving. It was an occasional backward glance at Cecil, who kept plodding on. “He always sounded exhausted, and by contrast I felt fairly zippy. What’s more, my ego just wouldn’t permit me to finish behind generally-last-place Cecil.

“I never thanked my skinny friend for his inspiration, but in truth I would have quit several races if it had not been for his dogging presence.”

What we need in the ministry is a few more Cecils to keep us going. We too seldom hear about pastors who fail but keep huffing along.

Jesus certainly recognized this principle. He selected ordinary men to be his disciples. And they made plenty of mistakes. But they ended up spreading the gospel of Christ across the breadth of the known world.

Pastors

Thoughts on Motivating Volunteers

Robert E. Cook

Getting people to volunteer is one thing. Motivating them is another …

Robert E. Cook is executive vice president of the Illinois Association of Realtors. He’s responsible for matters affecting the fifty-seven real estate boards in Illinois and their 33,000 members.

Bob is also an active church layman and past chairman of the governor’s Prayer Breakfast Committee in Illinois. He has also served as president of the Wheaton College Alumni Association.

Much of Bob’s success with the Illinois Association of Realtors depends on work done by volunteers who serve on committees. Following are some lessons he has learned about working with volunteers.

There’s a difference between manipulation and motivation. Although the best real estate agents don’t manipulate people, some do. Manipulation means you’re inducing people to act on insufficient evidence; you’re getting them to buy mink coats they can’t afford and eat chocolate mousse they don’t need. On the other hand, motivation means you’re suggesting people buy houses they can afford and that fit their needs, or, in the case of the pastors, make commitments to Sunday school programs that will help kids. Match the volunteers you call with the job you have in mind. Don’t necessarily look for the born leaders to take the big jobs. That’s the easiest way to do it, and it will be effective for a short term. Born leaders are likely to be successful, corporate leaders who already work twelve to fifteen hours a day. Jesus called fishermen, laborers, common people. He spent time with them, he worked with them. When Jesus withdrew from earth, he left behind ordinary people—little people filled with the Holy Spirit—to establish the Christian church.

Many leaders fall into the trap of relying too heavily on the ten percent of the people that are initially willing; most volunteer organizations can operate quite nicely with ten percent. However, two things make this a dubious practice. First, you run the risk of overworking the willing ten percent—you run them until they burn out. Second, you aren’t developing the capabilities of the entire organization. Since spiritual development often accompanies involvement in the programs of the church, the patient training and encouragement of reluctant parishioners is basic to (a) the building of a cadre of capable leaders and (b) the improved quality of the spiritual life in the congregation.

Getting people to accept a volunteer position is easy; inspiring them to do the work is difficult. One way to accomplish this is to discover their real needs and then show them how execution of their task will help satisfy these needs.

Expect resistance. I can recall our initial attempts to introduce the Multiple Listing Service to our members. The most successful real estate offices complained that the MLS would equalize business, allowing weaker offices to feed on the strong offices’ talents because strong offices get more listings than weak offices.

We tried to show our members that the MLS served the best interests of clients. It speeded up the sale of houses by having several agents work on a house instead of just one—even though agents might lose half a commission once in a while. Since so many more houses were moved in a shorter period of time they ended up making more money anyway.

Church leaders should show volunteers how hard work can lead to spiritual growth. The more time a parishioner spends on a church project the better he will feel about himself, his church, and his contribution to it. It’s like prayer—the more time you spend in daily prayer the more productive the rest of your time will be. If you can show how faithful, diligent work will deepen their spiritual lives, they’ll be much more inclined to keep at it.

Many young pastors fall into the trap of trying to do things too quickly, and when they see things aren’t going to happen as fast as they like, they push their people too hard. This eventually surfaces as a form of criticism. Criticism guarantees that volunteers will do even less. It’s a downward spiral that starts with the first word: young pastor criticizes, worker does less, job doesn’t get done, worker is embarrassed, worker vows never to take another church job again. The proper way to deal with a volunteer who’s fallen down on the job (and make no mistake, it’s the hard way for the leader) is to pitch in and help him do the job right. This might mean extra work now, but it will pay dividends later. Because the volunteer wasn’t stabbed in the back or shot down even when he deserved a kick in the pants, you’ve made a good friend of that worker, and he is likely to work harder on the next assignment.

Success is a great trainer. If you can create a feeling of accomplishment in volunteers, they’ll be eager for more involvement. For example, in our business the biggest hurdle is closing the sale. The reason it’s tough is that the time for it is usually right after the client has raised all kinds of objections to the house. As a trainer I try and stay very close to our sales people through their first few closings. I make sure they realize that clients often raise objections just for the sake of doing so, to show they’re alert, aware. They are often the most ready to say yes as soon as they’ve raised their objections.

I’ve found Christian witnessing has similar dynamics. People need to raise questions, but that doesn’t mean they won’t say yes to the Lord. Let them talk; answer their questions if you can; and if you can’t, admit it. But then in as confident and positive a tone as possible, ask for a commitment.

I stay with my people through a few successful closures so they get that feel of warmth that goes with a sale. It’s very motivating.

Someone who is in the position of motivating volunteers has to be able to take pride in seeing other people shine. In my business the president of our organization takes the credit for the work I do all year long. I’ve learned to accept that. In fact, I look on my year as being successful if the president is greeted with thundering applause at the final installation banquet when he takes his bow and everybody says he did a fantastic job. In a private sense, I feel that applause is for me.

I realize that in order to become good at motivating people I have to work at motivating myself. It’s no different for Christian leaders. A good preacher knows he has to work at it; a good motivator has to develop motivational skills. A person who realizes that the reason people don’t volunteer for tasks in the church is not only because they are sinners but also because most leaders are bad motivators has taken an important step toward resolving the “volunteer problem.” When the church leadership gets better at motivating people, the volunteers will be there.

I think there are several very concrete steps church leaders can take in improving their motivational skills. The first is to identify the needs of the people we wish to motivate. In the real estate business we don’t try to sell a $100,000 house to someone who can only afford a $65,000 house. Similarly, why try to motivate church volunteers to staff programs that no one needs? Find out what kind of programs the people in the church need and you’ll find people to staff those programs.

Second, work very hard at trying to discover what people are really saying when they say they don’t want to volunteer for a particular job. Are they objecting to the job? Are they objecting to the person who would be their leader in that job? Or are they objecting because they don’t have time to do the job?

When someone looks at a house I’m trying to sell and says they don’t want to buy it because the paint is peeling off the walls in the living room, I look very hard to find another reason behind that objection. They know, and I know, that it only costs about $50 to repaint a room. Chances are that if they are objecting to the paint peeling off the walls, there’s a larger objection that may be unconscious even to themselves. Usually if you let people talk enough and don’t overreact to the initial objections, the true objection will eventually become clear.

When you discover what the real objection is, then you can do something to meet that objection. And that means you’ve recruited another volunteer.

Pastors

The Pastor as Volunteer

James D. Berkley

The Possibilities and Pitfalls of Serving Outside Your Church

Nine o’clock on a warm May evening found me cruising our little town in a police car. With a loaded shotgun racked in place in front of me and a cautiously friendly officer beside me, my first shift as the volunteer police chaplain was passing uneventfully.

The radio interrupted our conversation: “6-L-ll, we have a report of a 594 at the Mexican Deli.” Expecting something big, I asked, “What’s that?” “Not much. Just malicious mischief.”

It was not hard to determine the guilty party at the deli, but the officer soon found more excitement than he expected. When an arrest became necessary, an unruly crowd grew menacing. While I watched, a girl called me a “narc” and then proceeded to inform me that “Narcs should be burned!”

Tremendous, I thought. I’ve just been threatened.

In a moment the same girl grabbed the officer, who was struggling to handcuff her friend, and I decided that maybe I should become involved. I removed her hand from the officer. She delivered a roundhouse slap across my face. Great. Now I’ve just been hit. What’s next?

Fortunately, a siren was next, announcing the arrival of a back-up officer and dispersing the crowd.

In a few minutes we were on our way to the jail with a steady stream of threats and profanity emanating from our prisoner in the back seat. While gingerly trying to realign my jaw, the question leaped to my mind, What am I doing here?

The same question must be posed by the scoutmaster sloshing about his tent in a rainstorm and the hot-line listener dragged out of bed at 3:30 A.M. by a despondent alcoholic. Why did I get myself into this?

Why Have an Outside Ministry?

In the ensuing three years as a police chaplain, I have come across at least four answers:

• First, there’s altruism. Our world brims with unmet needs. Tears flow everywhere, and handkerchiefs are scarce. We all know of the tremendous needs within our congregations, but they remain only the tip of the iceberg. So many human needs are never bathed in the light of stained-glass windows. They swell in the harsh, neon-lighted streets, and will remain there. Even though they will not come knocking at our doors, the human problems and needs in the world cry out for our attention.

The same officer who rescued us the night I was slapped unloaded his anger and frustration for three hours one night as I rode and listened to him. He has never come to my church office and probably never will, but in that cruiser on a slow evening I ministered by listening. Police officers bear a tremendous load of stress. This man said, “I’m about ready to explode. You know, you’re about the only person I can talk to.” Needs like this tell me one reason I bother with an outside ministry. Needs like this, multiplied by the millions, shout for others interested in volunteer ministries.

• A second reason for outside ministries involves theology. A favorite cartoon of mine shows a wizened old preacher in the pulpit of a magnificent church. One parishioner whispers to another, “I’m afraid Rev. Rogers doesn’t harmonize with the edifice.” Pastors have been categorized. We belong in the church, where, hopefully, we harmonize. Sometimes we are allowed into selected parlors for tea, but we certainly should stay out of the “real world.” In some ways we pastors have built this image ourselves, and as long as we stay within our own parochial confines, we contribute to its preservation.

Churches often cherish the opinion that their pastor is their “hired gun” to work for them. Although it is true that a pastor’s primary responsibility is to the body that supports him, they do not own his every moment. He has a wider ministry. Churches can learn to respect that ministry even when it is not directed toward them.

“What in the world were you doing in a police car last night?” If I have heard that once, I have heard it a hundred times. Being a police chaplain has provided me a great opportunity to burst people’s stereotypes of ministers. What in the world am I doing? I am ministering in Christ’s name in the world; that’s what I’m doing.

I once approached the fire chief about the possibility of joining the volunteer fire department. I could sense his uneasiness. Finally he said gently, “You can get really dirty fighting fires, and it’s a dangerous business.” In other words, surely a minister wouldn’t consider getting dirty or being in danger. He now sees a different model of the ministry as I hold a flashlight while he administers first aid at a midnight freeway accident.

• A third reason for outside ministry boils down to pragmatism: I like the results. First, I gain contacts. In my previous ministry I remained thoroughly entrenched in what has been called the evangelical ghetto. I hardly knew a soul who was not already a Christian. Things have changed. I now spend six to ten hours a week primarily with non-Christians through my service club and my police work. Although I cannot claim streams of them joining my church, I can point to a couple of youth advisors who came solely because of my visibility as police chaplain. Outside ministries give me the opportunity for witness that I never had before, along with exposure to the community. In breaking out of the evangelical ghetto, I find myself more in the mainstream of community life, not hidden away on the sanctified fringes.

Pragmatic me also likes the education I have gained in the community. My town at 3:00 A.M. is a different place than at noon. By being involved in something not at all related to the church, I get a wholly new perspective on my community.

• A fourth answer to the original question remains important: it’s fun! I often ride on patrol on Sunday nights. Sunday afternoon may find me wrung out, but when I put on my uniform and get out on the streets, I am a different person. This is not more work; this is fun. If it ever becomes a consistent drudgery, I had better get out. Unless it is something interesting and fun, outside ministry is more of a drain than a boon.

I do not intend to make such service appear all joy. Sometimes I encounter problems that make my church ministry look like a piece of cake. Sometimes my shifts leave me emotionally and physically drained, but there is a difference. This outside work broadens me. It regularly provides great diversion, sometimes genuine excitement, and very often some humor. David Lloyd George said it better than I: “With me, a change of trouble is as good as a vacation.” This different kind of ministry may use many of the same skills and training that my parish ministry uses, but it remains different enough to provide diversity in my life. For this reason, I benefit from it as I would from a hobby. Why do outside ministry? Do it because of the needs out there, because of the proactive ministry it models, because of the contacts and education it provides, and because it is fun. But with so many reasons for ministry outside our own churches, perhaps a few cautions are due.

What Are the Drawbacks?

The time we carve from our schedules for outside ministries has to come from somewhere. Something will suffer—or at least be rearranged—if we will make good on our desire to broaden our ministry.

How easy it is to neglect our churches. You, too, can probably reel off the names of pastors who neglect their churches to pursue some other interest. Perhaps their parish ministry is slumping a little anyway, and so their swing into presbytery office or a teaching role or a political cause becomes all the more rewarding. At least in these arenas they receive some strokes. But their churches suffer from neglect. I know a pastor so involved with art that his church is withering on the vine.

Outside ministry cannot be pursued at the expense of the parish. We should not give our heart to another love. Outside ministry is secondary—a supplement to our major efforts in the parish. If not, it will return to us in misunderstandings. “How can you have time to ride in those police cars when you’ve never visited my mother?” We are wise to keep our bases covered before we play the field.

Neglect of our families is appallingly easy. What does your calendar look like? Does it allow any time for your spouse or your children? When did you last play with your kids? If we gulp at these questions, the idea of taking on another ministry is preposterous. If expanded ministry will only come at the expense of my family, the price is too great. No one else can be husband to my wife and father to my children, so I had better do it.

However, this does not mean that I forget the idea of broadening my ministry. It only means that I must plan it wisely. Some outside ministries involve one’s family. Coaching a child’s team, enjoying a music ministry together, campaigning for a cause as a family, and team-teaching with your spouse all provide opportunities to work together. Other ministries can be worked around one’s family. Most of my police patrol occurs after my young children are tucked in bed.

We find the time to do those things most important to us. With careful planning, outside ministries need not adversely affect one’s family.

One’s self may be the easiest to neglect. “Fragmented” often describes life for many of us. As one Christian leader put it: “Everybody wants a piece of my soul.” Ministry outside one’s church can easily degenerate into one more commitment, one more responsibility, one more hook in your flesh. Enough is enough. We all need rest and regeneration. We all need some time for ourselves. So a necessary question is this: Is it good for me? If a given ministry will not be good for you, you can bet that you will not be good for it. Burnt-out, overcommitted workhorses make poor ministers.

Last summer I was approached to run for the school board. After appraising the situation, I decided to give it a go. I thought it would provide an interesting and broadening experience as well as an avenue for service. When the ballots were counted, three people were elected, and I was not one of them. I think I heard God’s voice saying, “Jim, you’re overcommitted.” After the initial sting of defeat, I have not regretted the outcome.

What Are the Possibilities?

The possibilities for ministry outside the church bounds extend to the limit of our imaginations. No list can be adequate, but some suggestions may kindle your ideas. I see three basic categories of outside ministry: church roles, professional roles, and secular roles.

Church roles involve the pastor in church-related ministries, but not within his own congregation. Most denominations and associations expect some sort of work from pastors within their judicatories. The conference youth committee and the district stewardship task force are but two examples. These responsibilities serve the church in other places and may provide a great avenue for growth in a specialized ministry. Such other opportunities as speaking at special events, consulting, and serving as an adjunct professor at a seminary or church college also help serve the church. Writing, directing, and performing in theater arts and music offer further areas of ecclesiastical ministry.

Professional roles include community services that only the clergy may provide. Chaplains of all types fit most readily into this category. Whether it be a police department, a medical facility, a jail, a rescue mission, or a beach, the clergyman is uniquely capable of offering service. Pastors find open doors for ministry as crisis line listeners, hosts on television forums and radio shows, newspaper columnists, reference board members, and as advocates of various political and social causes. With the training and stature they bring, pastors find many unique opportunities for ministry to the community.

Some pastors find their auxiliary ministries in secular roles almost anybody could fill. They minister more as individuals than as pastors. Youth work offers leadership in scouting, 4-H, Big Brothers and Sisters, and athletic coaching. Schools, hospitals, and charitable organizations always need competent board members. Service clubs and service groups seek skilled volunteers. Christian teachers make a great impact in both private and public schools.

You could probably add a lot more ideas to this list. I have been trying to somehow combine skiing and ministry, but the role of chaplain of the slopes just hasn’t proved viable yet.

Funerals and Firing Lines

The other day a man from my service club called to tell me his father died and he wanted me to do the funeral. He is a gruff bear of a man—a man about town, unaccustomed to a pastor’s study. He nervously fidgeted and walked around as we arranged the service.

Following the service, he was a different man. Christian hope had left its mark. Without the relationship we had built through our association in the service club, I doubt I could have done much more than a perfunctory service. I’m glad I escaped my evangelical ghetto to serve him in his time of need.

About a year after I joined the police department, I finished the courses required of a reserve police officer, including firearm training. I was duly invited to join a department shoot, even though I would not carry a weapon on the street. I had a marvelous day and shot nearly a perfect target. Only two expert marksmen bettered me.

When we scored our targets, the patrolmen were amazed: “The preacher can shoot!”

Pop goes the stereotype.

The camaraderie and interesting experiences I have logged as police chaplain make it an enjoyable ministry, a demanding but rewarding complement to my pastoral routines. That is how it should be. Not only do I perform a ministry, but I like it. The type of outside ministry may change for me, but I know this: I will always seek some way to minister apart from the work I do through my church. It makes good sense, it fills real needs, and I enjoy it. God works that way.

Pastors

Meetings That Work

Mason M. Finks

Practical Tips for Efficiency … and Sanity

You have just been appointed (or elected) to lead a church committee. You’re a beginner at this and don’t know where to begin. How can you make this group work? Here are some basic tips from one who has learned through trial and error and wishes to spare you some pain:

Start on Time

Some people are always late—that’s their style. And everyone is delayed occasionally by unforeseen circumstances. Don’t delay the start of the meeting for either person. In announcing the starting time for the meeting, you have contracted with the committee members to begin at that hour. Keep your end of the bargain.

End on Time

Announce not only the starting time but the adjourning time. This keeps the meeting moving and cuts down the frustration people experience because of unrealized expectations. If the session runs longer than expected, we feel the pressure of other commitments impinging on us. If the meeting is shorter than expected, we find ourselves with time that could have been put to productive use if we had known it would be available. Either way, we feel cheated.

Agendas

Print and distribute agendas in advance of the meeting. This encourages committee members to do some homework before they meet.

Making Motions

Formal motions help eliminate confusion. Have the one who makes a motion write it out for the minutes. Keep some half sheets of paper always on hand for this purpose. The secretary can easily add them to the minutes exactly as proposed and passed.

Three Critical Questions

When your committee has made a decision, ask three questions before you move on to the next item:

1. Who is going to implement this decision?

2. What is that person supposed to do?

3. When is the report due?

In the beginning, I found it difficult to remember these questions until it was too late. Finally, in desperation, I wrote them on a large card. At each meeting I chaired, I set the card up in front of me so that I could not miss seeing it. After several meetings, I found I relied less on the reminder card and more on my memory.

Minutes

Every meeting should have a written record. It should be duplicated and distributed to all committee or board members within ten days of the meeting. The minutes will remind committee members of the tasks to be completed before the next meeting, in sufficient time to get the work done. And minutes received at home shortly after the meeting by a member who missed that meeting helps bring him or her on board with the rest of the committee.

Properly written minutes include:

1. A list of persons present, absent, and excused.

2. A list of each item discussed and a brief but accurate description of the final decision and/or motions passed. Include the vote count. It indicates how strongly the committee members felt about the issue.

3. The answers to the three critical questions, Who? What? When?

4. A reminder of the next meeting time, date, and location.

Be a Pusher

One of the most important duties of a chairman is to give direction to the meeting:

1. Keep the group focused on the issue at hand. Look for arguments that are being repeated or discussions that wander into unrelated areas. Suggestion: the making of a specific motion prior to the discussion will help keep everyone to the point.

2. Don’t allow long discussions to develop on issues that can’t be decided at this meeting. For instance, don’t get tied down on issues that require additional research and data before a vote can be taken. If someone suggests it is time to look for a new refrigerator for the church kitchen, assign someone to gather data on refrigerator models for the next meeting. Do it early, before you spend time discussing what you aren’t ready to resolve.

3. Recommend to committee members that ideas be as fully developed as possible when they are presented to your group. For instance, the proposal for a new refrigerator could include the costs of several models, the features or advantages of each, the source of the funding, and the reasons why a new one is needed. Make a copy for each committee member.

This is not intended to be the final word on improving the quality of your meetings. What is included here are some procedures that have worked for me. Maybe they’ll give you some ideas.

Pastors

Noble Volunteer or Humble Slave?

Ben Patterson

Is there any choice about serving the kingdom of God?

“It is hard!”

Those words take on some of the anguished dimensions of our Lord’s “It is finished!” when spoken by a volunteer-seeking pastor. Recruitment is hard—hard enough to make us feel like giving up the ghost sometimes.

The reasons why it is hard have to do with three tensions.

Tension No.1: Is This Church or Kiwanis?

From a human standpoint, the church is a volunteer organization. The rules and dynamics that apply to Girl Scouts and Kiwanis apply here, plus a few others. We have recruiters and recruitees—those who sell the purposes and needs of the organization, and those who listen to the sales pitch. We outline specific tasks and give strokes to those who volunteer their precious time to work. Words and letters of appreciation are essential, or volunteers begin to feel used and unappreciated. After all, they chose to give of their time to help out the church.

But what about God’s standpoint? The church is his kingdom. Volunteer organizations are democracies in which the governed give their consent to the governors, and the consent can be withdrawn whenever the masses wish. Not so in a kingdom. There the governor gives his consent to the governed. A king doesn’t recruit; he decrees.

And strokes? Letters of commendation? These are not totally out of place, but neither are they of great importance. With a king and his subjects, it is more like what Jesus said in a parable: “When you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty’ ” (Luke 17:10, RSV). Slaves and subjects do not give to their Lord. They simply take their hands off what was his in the first place.

In my first contact with Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, I was told that an underlying assumption of that ministry was that every Christian has a right to expect obedience to God from every other Christian. Hence, when staff people went on campus to introduce themselves to incoming Christian freshmen, they were unapologetic in their approach. “So you’re a Christian? Wonderful! Now here’s what you can do on this campus to grow in your faith and tell the Good News to others.” The person was addressed not as a potential volunteer but as another person who had sworn allegiance to the King. If anyone was to be apologetic, it would be the recalcitrant student!

One of our great problems is that while the church today functions like a democracy (even in the Episcopal and Roman Catholic traditions), it is really a theocracy. Sam Shoemaker illustrated something of this fact with the story of a near-sighted professor who was an expert in entomology. His office walls were covered with pinned and framed insects. One day his students decided to play a practical joke. They took the body of one bug, the legs of another, and the head of yet another and glued them all together.

The specimen was brought to the professor for identification. “What kind of bug is this?” they asked.

The professor eyed the bug closely and replied, “Gentlemen, this is a humbug!”

Shoemaker drew the analogy to a person whose heart belongs to King Jesus, but whose head is run by the world and hands are run by the devil. The church as a volunteer organization is yet another kind of humbug. This pernicious mixture of democracy/voluntaryism with the kingdom of God has diluted our Lord’s call to commitment. And, if I may mix my metaphors, it has produced hybrid Christians. On the one hand they call themselves slaves of Jesus Christ, and on the other they regard themselves as volunteers who serve the church if they so choose.

Tension No. 2: Am I a Prophet or a Persuader?

This first confusion leads to a second: the role of the pastor. When Alexis de Tocqueville came to America, he was taken aback to discover that everywhere “you meet with a politician where you expected to find a priest.” In a culture where churchgoers see themselves as selecting the leadership, it is only natural that the leaders fall into the mode of persuasion. Consent must be requested, elicited, persuaded from the people. That, in large part, is the role of the politician and the advertising executive.

The vending, huckstering, and peddling we see on the religion page of every Saturday newspaper are the logical consequences of this syllogism. Voluntaryism in the kingdom cannot help but produce persuaders and politicians where there should be prophets and proclaimers. I and just about every other pastor I know resent the recruitment end of our task. It always seems to carry the notion that we must convince people who ought to need no convincing to do a job that is clearly part of what it means to be what they claim to be.

What to do about all of this? Preach. Teach. Pray that the church will be what it ought to be. Mean what you say. Last year we could not get anyone to volunteer to teach Sunday school. Nearly 25 percent of our attenders on Sunday are under the age of twelve. At the baptism and dedication of infants, we Presbyterians always stand and promise together to do everything in our power to nurture the faith of the children God has given us. Those three facts: the percentage of our congregation who needed teaching in the Sunday school, the promises every member makes several times a year to nurture the faith of our children, and the lack of people to volunteer to do just that, made me mad. I told my congregation that unless there were sufficient volunteers by the next Sunday, I would not be in the pulpit that day but rather in the Sunday school teaching my children about Jesus. I meant what I said. They knew it, and we had the teachers we needed before the week was over.

I don’t recommend that you do that, too. And I’m not sure I should have. After I said it, I shuddered inside to think, what if they don’t care to have me in the pulpit? But if you mean what you say, your people will get the message.

Tension No. 3: Shall We Work or Soothe?

Unlike the first two, I do not want to resolve this tension. It is the pull between the church’s task and the church’s nurture. The church has a job to do in the world and within its own walls. The people who are appointed to carry out this mission are themselves also the mission. The very people who are called to care and minister and intercede are in need of care and ministry and intercession. Unlike an army, where the feelings and personal needs of the soldiers are relatively unimportant, the church is a place where these things are crucial. But, as we all know, it is extremely difficult to lead a charge while binding up the wounds of the people who are charging.

That tension is just part of the turf. The Good Shepherd both leads the sheep and lays down his life for the sheep. To try to resolve the tension in favor of task is to invite burnout in the congregation. We must be continually nurturing those who have stepped forth to answer the call of Christ. Likewise, to resolve the tension in favor of nurture is to become a stagnant, narcissistic club instead of a church. We care for the souls of our people not only for their own sakes but also for the sake of the world they are called to go out and serve.

As much as is possible, I believe the twin assignments of nurture and mission should be done side by side. Our elders spend a lot of time together in fellowship. Sometimes when we meet, we feel the pressure to skip an extended time of conversation and prayer, and get on with the “business” before us. It is then that we must be reminded that prayer and personal conversations are also the “business” of the church.

Whenever I think of my struggles over the issue of volunteers in the church, I remember a line from a Kenny Rogers song. He sings about the music man and what a good singer and powerful man he is. “But you surround yourself with people who demand so little of you,” he adds sadly. Once we name the name of Jesus, we cease to be volunteers in the kingdom. We become humble slaves. It is my desire that the church be a place where we surround ourselves with people who will demand much of us and themselves, as together we serve the One who “came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Pastors

What to do with Superman

Carl F. George

For high-achieving volunteers, low expectations can be Kryptonite.

From time to time we see volunteers to whom God has given such magnificent ability that the local church seems too small an arena. It’s not that any local church could not use such a man or woman. But the leadership and long-term members do not always know how to respond to this mega-talent. One of three things usually happens.

• The most common solution is to refuse access to the resources of the church and thus restrict the person’s ministry.

A young staff member was invited to a church and quickly discerned that the young marrieds desperately needed help in managing their relationships and finances. He put together an elective Sunday school class on this theme. Immediately, class attendance jumped to four or five times the size of most other adult classes in the Sunday school. More than two thirds of the class were worship attenders who hadn’t been coming to Sunday school, but the rest were migrants from other classes.

After thirteen weeks or so, the senior pastor simply ordered the staff member to dissolve the class so the Sunday school could be “regularized.” This restored the political balance to normal and made life more tolerable for the older leaders and senior minister. The chance to develop additional talent out of the young-married class was forfeited, however, along with a revitalization of the entire adult Sunday school program. Even the nursery and preschool departments stopped growing as young parents began dropping away.

Consider another case of big talent and small vision: When the chief executive officer of a: corporation attended one of our church growth seminars, he went home to his pastor and said, “I’m ready to make myself available to stimulate the world mission of the church.”

“That’s great!” the pastor responded. “We’ve been looking for someone to become missionary hos-pitality chairman, and this would be ideal for you.”

“Well, what does the job consist of?” asked the CEO. The pastor then outlined the task: opening one’s home throughout the year to house visiting missionary speakers. This would not only give the missionary a chance to be in a home setting but would also relieve the church of motel and food bills.

Unfortunately, the CEO’s very busy schedule did not permit much home entertaining for any reason. His gifts did not include hospitality, so this offer came like a pail of cold water in the face.

Here was a volunteer talent able to plan a strategy for missions and recruitment that could have resulted in lay trips to other countries, the raising of large sums of money for specific mission projects, the design of a denominational approach to missions education, and the call and training of dozens of young people into missionary careers. But since this talent was greatly undervalued, none of that happened.

• A second possible outcome is when the local pastor, realizing the magnitude of talent involved recommends the individual to regional or national levels of the denomination. This person is named to committees, task forces, boards, or other structures in which his or her unique energy and ability can be suitably applied to the church at large.

• But a third option is possible, at least in some congregations. The church can decide to deliberately shape itself in favor of capitalizing on the direction and energy this person brings. In rapidly growing churches we often find several effective individuals who came when the church was much smaller. They were encouraged by the pastors and older members to utilize their gifts within the context of that body. When great fruitfulness came from their ministry, and the church grew, the church leadership kept receiving these people without defensiveness. Their ministries were accepted as a gift of grace, and the resultant growth was applauded.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube