arieljvan.com

After the repeated mention Spiritual Leadership got on Steve McCoy’s blog, I decided I’d better give Oswald Sanders‘ book a shot. I’m happy I did. Stuffed with references to heroic missionaries and Christian leaders of the 20^th century, the book is a shotgun approach to the topic of leadership that does a good job showing as well as telling. Originally a series of talks, Spiritual Leadership is not a systematic book, but Sanders is thorough enough in his approach that you don’t feel there are gaps in what he says.

Highlights of Spiritual Leadership include chapters on the leadership paradigms of Paul and Peter, as well as Christ, and two catch-all chapters (”Essential Qualities of Leadership”) that are surprisingly hard-hitting for a list approach. In addition, I like the way Sanders repeatedly hits the nature of Christian leadership as a counter-intuitive servant profession shaped by self-sacrifice.

At the same time, Sanders definitely avoided any tendency to come across as overly grim and dogmatic, including “Humor” in his list of essential qualities. Leaders should “control and cultivate” humor, “a great asset and invaluable lubricant” in missional living (65, 66). He scored big points with me there, as at this fairly amateur stage of my life, I’ve already met way too many Christians who at some point forgot how to laugh at themselves.

If there’s any criticism I could level at this book, it would come in the form of what’s essentially a small side note. Occasionally, Sanders will make a pronouncement that would have benefited from more nuance, like when he says, “Some workers prefer to administer; others want to love people. Only the latter are leaders” (113). In reality, the typical servant-leader needs to both love people and administer-am I right? But in a book that was transcribed from live talks, stuff like this is minor.

Originally published in 1967, Spiritual Leadership is a refreshing and challenging book that has the added benefit of being written from a mid-20^th-century perspective that doesn’t align perfectly with ours. You won’t hear many of the current buzzwords, and some of Sanders’ exhortations come across as counter-cultural, which, in my opinion, is a nice change-up.

*** Three of three stars, highly recommended.

Here’s the next installment in the Church Planting w/ Small Groups series.

________See also Intro, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 & Part 4, & Part 5_______

Multiply leaders and small groups regularly.

If a weakness of small groups is their tendency to become inward-focused, the contrasting strength is the potential to give participants numerous opportunities for discipleship and growth. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of leadership development, where the very nature of multiplying small groups promotes the rapid development of new church leaders.

Not everyone can effectively lead a small group, but believers with leadership gifts should be identified and empowered, intentionally given authority within specified boundaries while an established leader maintains responsibility for the ministry.[1] Small groups provide an ideal workshop for the development of emerging leaders-which has been identified as a vital contributing element in the survival of church plants. A study conducted by the North American Mission Board discovered that, “Of those church planters that provided leadership training to church members, 79 percent of their churches survived compared to only 59 percent of church plants survived among those who did not provide leadership.”[2]

While this factor isn’t exclusive to the small group context, small groups certainly do provide opportunities for hands-on involvement in an array of leadership roles: Teaching, mentoring, facilitation, discipleship, prayer–there are few aspects of ministry that don’t surface in the small group microcosm.

[2] Research Reflection: How Many Church Plants Really Survive-and Why?, 3.

In Water from a Deep Well, Gerald Sittser makes the following suggestion:

Never before has the church had such opportunities for influence. The biggest problem it faces is its own complacency and worldliness. Here church leaders must take charge, not by doing more but by doing less. They must surrender all desire for political, economic, social and cultural influence in larger society to devote their energies to enabling the church to become a community of belonging. Church leaders are called to serve the church; the church in turn is called to serve the world. (emphasis mine)

I agree with the main drift of Sittser’s thought here. Leaders in today’s churches will usually be better served by slowing down to speed up, cutting programs and expenditures in order to do a few things well. In the sentence I italicized, I don’t think many people would question Sittzer’s first two entries–political and economic influence. In fact, decrying Christian Republicanism (equating Christianity with Conservative values) and Corporate Christianity (running the church for profit, like a business, with the lead pastor as CEO) is commonplace these days, and rightly so.

However, there’s currently a groundswell of interest in the church exerting cultural and social influence. Consider the social/cultural agendas of guys like Donald Miller and Shane Claiborne, the popularity of Relevant Magazine (and various similar publications), and books like Andy Crouch’s Culture Making. Renewing culture and transforming society are rallying cries in many circles right now–and I’m usually one of the guys yelling.

I think the church does have a mandate to live in such a way that there’s an outward ripple effect. But Sittser’s comment, which I hope he elaborates on, does make me pause. Twenty years from now, will people be shaking their heads at the way the Western church became obsessed with becoming new monastics and finger painters for Jesus? Kind of like the way we shake our heads now at the way an earlier generation became obsessed with politics and successful business models?

We need to remember that whatever effects an honest Christian life has on the surrounding people and culture, our primary job is spiritual transformation. Love and service are the hallmarks of Christian community. To the extent that that job description is embraced, new artistry and social justice will emerge. Jesus changes lives and heals sinners before he transforms society and stirs creative juices.

An anemic artistic subculture and the lack of involvement in social causes are signs of a deficient church. But the New Testament doesn’t equate vibrant Christianity with a Web 2.0 Renaissance or New Urbanism. We have to be careful not to make secondary effects like Art and Activism the primary goal.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

N.T. Wright makes the point that all God’s people are called to pray but apostolic leaders more so than the rest. He derives this from the passage in Acts where Peter, James, John, etc., appointed new leaders so that they, the apostles, could devote themselves to prayer and the teaching of God’s word.

This makes perfect sense. It’s an almost glaringly obvious assumption, like connecting two dots when they are the only ones on the page, they are gigantic, and they and are framed by flashing neon arrows. Blink, blink, blink: Apostles devote themselves to prayer -> That means prayer is a huge priority.

These days, church planters are often described in apostolic terms, as the dudes who will start new movements of people toward Jesus by preaching (and praying) in regions where the gospel previously made as much sense as a Burger King breakfast commercial.

This is sort of disquieting for a guy whose best prayer often seems to be, “GOD HELP US!”

Nevertheless, I am trying to work prayer into my life more, similar to the way you work chalk into your palms to get a better grip on your climbing surface, or spray Stickum Grip Spray on your hands so that you can throw down a really sick dunk. Prayer has a great deal to do with our ability to navigate reality accurately and find traction–conversing with God has this calming, gracious, strengthening effect.

Not to mention that, should he want to, God can answer our petitions with dramatic and immediate results, such as when he allowed KU to win the national championship.

So when I hit a patch of silence, I let it be for awhile and pray, rather than immediately blasting Shai Linne or Josh Ritter. Lindsay and I are taking a running start at praying together every night, and while we don’t have an unbroken record by any means, praying together has been immediately healthy and good. I also think it increases the likelihood that we’ll make out.

Ultimately, I’m trying to become a man who is open and sensitive to God’s spirit, aware of what’s going on in my heart–as opposed to an ignorant and cocky dude. For anyone called to plant a church, this seems like a biblical mandate.

Paraphrased from a Leadership class I’m taking that’s been a good learning experience as opposed to an ironic one:

Leaders should be Sunday morning types a little crazy and abandoned, putting it all on the line.

A few suggestions for leaders aiming to grow in craziness: espresso, make-it-take-it basketball, bridge jumping.