Would you expect such a business to run smoothly, keep a firm focus, and make a steady profit? Would you ever imagine that “musical chairs” could prove an effective way for a group of people to manage a company?

Yet this is precisely the model we (often) adopt among groups of elders. We recognize (however reluctantly) that someone has to lead the leaders: there are agendas to set, after all … meetings to schedule … cats to herd. Yet we approach the issue of “leading the leaders” with great concern.  We are suspicious of anything that smacks of preferential treatment and favoritism—even among ourselves (perhaps especially among ourselves). There is an unstated fear that one elder, if permitted to lead other elders in their deliberations, might prove too influential, too partial and prejudiced for the welfare of the church.

So, instead of addressing this leadership role theologically, we default to an egalitarian ideal. We could ask questions like, “Which of us has God best equipped to lead us in effective discussion and decision making?” “Who among us has the spiritual gift of ‘administration’”? “Are there one or two of our number whom God has granted special and extensive experience in leading meetings and helping groups function?”

But the solution we most often employ is democratic rather than theological. “All elders have the right and responsibility to wear the mantle of chairman. It is only fair that each elder takes his turn in this role. We need to pass the Chairman role around among ourselves regularly and frequently. Let’s assign leadership alphabetically, on a rotating basis, meeting-by-meeting or month-by-month. In this group of equals, ‘fairness’ is the governing priority for assigning the leadership role.”

I understand why elders move in this direction. As Americans, we are bred to appreciate egalitarian ideals. As disciples, we trust humility (that keeps us at the foot of the leadership table) more than a confidence in the calling and gifting of God (that might draw us to the head of the table). As progeny of the American Restoration Movement, we find the whole question of the Spirit’s gifts and calling immensely troubling. And, as broken human beings, there is enough pride in us all to covet our own turn in the chief seat—whether or not we can make effective use of it once we are seated there.

We’ve heard the horror stories of ‘chairmen gone wild.’ We know the importance of checks and balances to any system of power—political or spiritual. Given a choice between the rock of inefficiency and the hard-place of abuse of power, we’d prefer to flounder on the rock thank-you-very-much.

However, let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the cost of this egalitarian stance is anything but exorbitant. Loss of focus and consistency. Vacillation of leadership style. Disparities in leadership skills and effectiveness. Confusing hand-offs. Dropped balls. Failure to follow through. Agendas with changing priorities. Different meeting rules and divergent meeting management. Uncertain decisions. Unclear communications.

When leadership of the elder group is passed (sequentially and regularly) to different men—with different personalities and preferences … with varying levels of leadership skills and experiences … influenced by diverse constituencies and sensibilities … with assorted understandings of and commitments to the stated goals and directions of the church—the result can be nothing other than confusion and ambiguity and ineffectiveness.

The Necessity of a Leader for the Leaders

First, let’s be clear about the need for a role like ‘chairman of the elders.’

If elderships are to avoid the amoebae-like gropings of any collection of leader-less people, someone must be willing (and the group must allow that person) to provide direction, boundaries, and disciplines.  There is a need for such leadership before meetings: scheduling, setting an agenda (esp., planning meetings with the vision/mission of the church in mind), determining the number and priority of discussion items, rounding up the information/people that will allow for good decision-making. There is a need for leadership during the meeting: working through the agenda in a disciplined way, limiting discussion, keeping the conversation focused, quashing detours, encouraging participation by all, discouraging over-participation by the few, ensuring that discussion draws to a timely and decisive conclusion. And there is a need for leadership after the meeting: follow up, holding people accountable for assigned tasks, communicating with impacted people and ministries, evaluating decisions, keeping an eye on the horizon for new opportunities or challenges (to name just a few!).

I’ve know elder groups who believed they could do all this through some sort of loose consensus—without resorting to any formal leadership role at all.  “We’ll just figure this out as we go along.” These elders were fooling themselves. And the results were awful.

Most elder groups, however, admit the need for some kind of leadership role among themselves. But they effectively undercut that role with their egalitarian ideals—ignoring the reality that few of their number are actually gifted and skilled to provide this kind of leadership, and (as a result) asking people who have neither the time, talent, or temperament to assume this leading role on a regular basis. But it gets worse. Not only do we habitually have the wrong people doing this important job; we make sure that no one person (wrong or right!) has a chance to do the job for long enough to be effective. We keep the tenure of “chairman” so abbreviated, there is no possibility of developing momentum, a working rhythm, and good meeting habits. Even when someone suited to the task fills this role, he doesn’t have enough time to shape an effective group process. “Oops! It’s the end of the month! Let’s see who’s up next in the rotation!”

Think of what it would mean for our meetings if:

1. we identified the elder best suited to lead the group effectively, an elder of character and kingdom consciousness …
2. we invited and gave permission to that elder to do the leadership work essential to the group’s effective functioning, and …
3. we then allowed his leadership a long enough time-frame for him (and us) to hit a stride, develop a rhythm, and fall into some habits encouraging effectiveness.

Characteristics of a good chairman

Effective leadership depends on charactered and spiritually-gifted leaders. Deciding to appoint and empower a ‘leader of the leaders’ is a good idea, but only if the elder group is able to identify the right leader.

As you consider your fellow elders and discuss who God might be calling to play this leadership role, there are a few characteristics that should shape your deliberations:

1. This person should be someone who has the gift of “administration” (or—in some translations—the gift of “leadership.” See Romans 12:8). Whatever this gift involves, surely it permits an elder to “direct the affairs of the church well” (1Ti 5:17) and to “manage God’s household” (Tit 1:7).
2. The right person would be spiritually mature and experienced. His leadership would be permeated by a deep sense of the purposes of God and the leading of the Holy Spirit and the mission of God’s people.
3. He would be strong enough (in personality, vision, and maturity) to facilitate an effective meeting even when diverse and strongly held opinions are voiced.
4. He should be thoroughly familiar with the history of the church and with the leadership history of the elders: past decisions, policies, church governance documents, etc.. He should know the vision and mission of the church by heart and be passionately committed to pursuing that vision.
5. He should be able to draw out responses from everyone at the table in a way that organically leads to consensus among the participants … or makes clear the fundamental divide that faces the group.
6. He should be savvy enough to know when it is time for elders to stop discussing and make a decision. He should know when a decision is arrived at by consensus or when a formal vote is required. He should also be wise enough not to force a decision but to understand the importance of “tabling” an item for later prayer, discussion, and resolution.
7. He should be able to follow up on decisions, communicate with people and ministries who are impacted by those decisions, and hold people accountable for responsibilities delegated to them by the elders.
8. This person must be able to avoid favoritism, opinionated stances, and partiality in any form. He must be willing to treat his fellow elders with absolute respect and fairness. He must consider himself the servant of the elders (in particular) and the church (in general).
9. He should be willing to resist an elder (or any other party) who may be pushing a personal agenda or bias. Just as he himself avoids partiality and dogmatism, so he is committed to protecting his fellow elders and their decision-making process from the partiality and dogmatism of others.
10. He should be a person who values the team as a functioning unit, believes in their collective wisdom above his own, and refuses to exercise undue influence in the decision-making process.
11. He should be willing and able to devote the time required (in and out of meetings) to meet his leadership responsibilities effectively.

Finding such a leader, entrusting him with spiritual authority, empowering him to lead the rest of the elder group, submitting to and supporting his leadership as an elder group, and giving him enough time in this leadership role to encourage good meeting habits, is challenging. There will be dangers and difficulties involved.

But the alternative is even more difficult and dangerous. The absence of leadership is every bit as harmful as the abuse of leadership. But whereas allowing someone to exercise strong leadership may result in an abuse of power, not allowing someone to lead will certainly result in confused, ambiguous, and meandering leadership—if something “confused, ambiguous, and meandering” can be called leadership at all.

Most elders I know get stuck on occasion in the tension between the singular and the plural.

So much of the important work of a shepherd is done by the individual elder: comforting, counseling, mentoring, teaching, investing in the lives of others, praying, seeking God’s will.

And yet there is a necessary plural component to the work of shepherds. Shepherds run in packs! And some of their work must be done together, as a team: overseeing, visioning, making decisions affecting the church as a whole, taking disciplinary actions, etc.

A Theology of Group Leadership

In the New Testament, church leadership seems to take two distinct forms.

When churches were forming in the first century, there was usually a singular leader (the “missionary”) who taught, converted, trained, and matured an initial generation of disciples. Think of Philip’s work in Samaria, or Barnabas in Antioch, or Paul in Philippi and Corinth and Thessalonike.[1] (Nor was this just apostolic leadership, by the way—a leadership exception granted only to those who belonged to Jesus’ inner circle. Timothy seems to exercise this kind of leadership for the church in Ephesus as does Titus in Crete and Silas in the Macedonian churches.)

In time, however, solitary leadership gave way to group leadership, the missionary moving on, leaving behind a clutch of elders appointed to “oversee” the church. You can see this transition from singular to plural leadership evidenced in Paul’s appointment of elders for the churches of Asia Minor (Ac 14:23) and in his instructions to Timothy and Titus that the time had come for the appointment of elders in their respective churches.

Elders were intended to have a wider ministry than the important but personal work of mentoring, counseling, and maturing. In the New Testament, it is evident that elders as a group had a leadership role to play in their churches. They laid hands on budding ministers[2] and gave their collective blessing to mission efforts.[3] They met to discuss and decide matters important to the health and growth of the church.[4] They received and distributed funds donated for the ministries of the church.[5] They welcomed delegations from other churches (being viewed as authoritative arbiters of controversial issues), heard and responded to reports, made decisions and wrote letters addressing questions of theology and policy.[6]

This leadership role for elders is underscored in the New Testament by the descriptions given of the work of elders. In addition to the personal pastoral role of caring for individual sheep, there was a collective pastoral role involving the care of the flock as a whole. Elders are called “overseers” of the church,[7] a role and responsibility granted by “the Holy Spirit.”[8] They “manage God’s household” and “direct the affairs of the church.”[9] As “shepherds of the church,” they “watch over the flock” and “guard” against attacks on the body of believers.[10] Singly and together, they have a duty to promote and protect the core doctrines of the church.[11] As Peter tells his fellow elders, the church is “under your care.”[12]

While the New Testament never uses the word “eldership,” it clearly teaches that elders have a group function, that their leadership flows out of their mutual calling and conjoined work. It was the Jerusalem elders (together with the Apostles) who determined a policy about Gentiles that would shape the future witness and growth of the world-wide church. It was the Ephesian elders, called together by Paul, who were admonished—in their collective capacity—to “keep watch.”[13] When Paul reminds Timothy of a leadership action taken by the elders as a whole (they “laid their hands on you” and conferred Timothy’s ministry gifts), he uses a word meaning “body of elders” or “elders as a group” and implies that there are things elders do together that transcend what they can do singly.[14]

In a word, elders in the New Testament church met. And when they did, important leadership functions flowed from their time together.

Were there times when New Testament shepherds moved independently among the flock to offer care and encouragement and training to individual sheep? Certainly. But there were also times when New Testament shepherds gathered at the gate of the sheep pen to discuss the health of the flock and the pastures of tomorrow and the challenges of coming winter.

If churches of Christ experience problems with elder-leadership, it is not because such leadership is illegitimate or because “real leadership can’t happen by committee.” There is simply too much evidence in Scripture that (at least in the first century) church leadership was shared leadership. Rather, I would suggest that our difficulties arise from two related issues:

1. We have allowed elder-leadership to become exclusive, limiting legitimate leadership—authoritative leadership—to elders alone. As a future article will argue, there are other voices required at the leadership table if effective church leadership is to emerge.
2. The second issue bearing on the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of communal leadership in our churches, however, is the simple fact that we don’t practice the necessary habits that make group leadership function. We don’t develop the attitudes and skills that allow a group of elders to lead with vigor and vision.

Skills for Shepherding

There are two distinct skill sets required for effective eldering—one skill set for the singular work of a shepherd and one for the plural work of shepherds. They are related to each other. And, in some sense, they are dependent on each other. But they are not the same.

Considerable time and ink have been invested in thinking about the personal qualities that equip someone to serve as a shepherd: character, compassion, conviction, etc..[15] These individual attributes and competencies are necessary to be an effective shepherd (singular).

But there is also a skill set—a distinct skill set—that equips elders to serve together, as a group, in cooperative leadership: skills related to focus, efficiency, big-picture-perspectives, decision-making, follow-up, accountability, conflict-management, group-discernment, and deference to the greater wisdom of the group (to name but a few). These group competencies are necessary to being effective as a team of leaders.

And it is precisely these group competencies we too often lack. We don’t know what they are. We don’t appreciate how critical they are to effective elder functioning. And, as a consequence, we don’t practice these competencies intentionally, deliberately, and vigilantly.

The result is elders’ meetings that limp and meander and dissolve in a fog of spiritual uncertainty. In these trying times, those are the kinds of elders’ meetings we (and our churches) can no longer afford.

An Observation

Have you noticed that, just as the singular and plural skill sets we’ve been talking about are distinct yet related, so also the singular and plural effectiveness of elders is related—and intimately dependent on the other.

When shepherds do not function well singly (getting on with their personal pastoral work), that impacts the manner in which they function together. When these ineffective elders gather as a group, they start focusing on peripheral matters … lose a sense of urgency about their flock … are inordinately influenced by a minority of vocal members … fail to manage conflict … start thinking the meetings are the work, etc. We can’t do the work of shepherds when frustrated about the way we (personally) are failing to shepherd.

The converse is also true. When shepherds do not function well in concert, the functioning of individual shepherds is almost always impacted. We lose our pastoral touch. We find it difficult to feel confidence God is working through our individual shepherding when we lack confidence he is working through our group. Many of us find it difficult to function as a shepherd when we get frustrated about the way we function (or fail to do so) as shepherds.

Which means that elders don’t have the luxury of giving up on the way they meet, abandoning hope in finding collective effectiveness, and retreating into their individual role of caring for God’s people. Not if the church is to be healthy and equipped … not if we want the Body as a whole to thrive.

Fortunately, each set of skills (the singular and the plural) can be developed and honed. Shepherds can learn to function more effectively in both the personal and the collective spheres. This series of articles addresses the work of elders as a group—how they meet. Can elders become more effective in doing their collaborative work? Absolutely. Can they make their meetings more intentional, goal-oriented, kingdom-honoring, life-changing, and soul-satisfying? Without question.

I believe in the importance of effective elder leadership. I believe such leadership requires meeting together confidently and competently. And I believe that powerful, visionary, Spirit-led elders’ meetings are possible and—in fact—long overdue.

Do you?

[1] Certainly there were “missionary teams” in the New Testament (like Paul and Barnabas, or Paul and Timothy and Silas). But even in these cases there was usually a clear leader who shouldered most of the teaching and directional responsibility. Consider Luke’s name order when mentioning Barnabas and Saul (Ac 11:26, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7)  so long as Barnabas seems to be the primary leader … and then his reversing of that order (Paul and Barnabas—Ac 13:42, 43, 46, 50; 14:1, 3, 20, 23, 35, 36) once Paul took up the mantle of leadership. And Paul was clearly leading the churches he founded with Timothy, Silas, and Luke.

[2] 1Ti 4:14

[3] See Ac 13:1 (although elders are not specifically mentioned in this passage); Ac 15:6; 21:18ff

[4] Ac 15:2, 4, 6; 16:4; 20:17ff

[5] Ac 11:30

[6] Ac 15:4, 22-23

[7] Php 1:1; 1Ti 3:1, 2; Tit 1:7

[8] Ac 20:28

[9] Tit 1:7; 1Ti 5:17

[10] Ac 20:28, 31; 1Pe 5:2;

[11] Ac 20:30; Tit 1:9

[12] 1Pe 5:2

[13] Indeed, Paul exhorts the Ephesian elders collectively to guard against those of their own number who, in their individual capacity as shepherds, would “draw away disciples” for personal purposes. (See Ac 20:30)

[14] 1Ti 4:14

[15] Possessing a quality or attribute does not necessarily ensure that individual elders have the skills to shepherd. Many shepherds lack the kind of interpersonal, relational skills that contribute to effective shepherding: knowing how to mentor others, for example; practicing the habits that grow people into Christ’s image; being competent to recognize and encourage spiritual gifts. We need to keep encouraging the development of such skills in people who are charactered for shepherding but not always competent to shepherd.

I love their charactered ways and pastoral hearts and concern for the Kingdom. I love their commitment to Christ and His church. I love the way they give themselves to the people God has placed under their care.

I love elders.

It’s elders’ meetings I find difficult.

As someone who has attended his fair share of elders’ meetings (and seen his fair share of ‘meeting dysfunction’), I have good reason to harbor serious reservations about the ways elders conduct themselves when they gather around the conference table.

I’ve endured meetings that would never end … meetings squandered on matters that didn’t matter … meetings that meandered from one topic to another without any apparent method to the madness … meetings that were short on prayer and long on hand-wringing … meetings that suffered from the worst excesses of “group think” and poor assumptions and bad information … meetings that ended in the whimper of inconclusiveness … meetings that left everyone in the room frustrated, agitated, and irritated.

Take elders (who individually are compassionate, wise, spiritual, visionary, and Christ-like) and let them herd … and something perplexing happens. The sum of the whole doesn’t add up to the spiritual worth of each part. There is (too often) a diminishment of effectiveness rather than an augmentation of it.

“Why?” is the question that haunts me. You might expect that elders meetings would function like nuclear fission—pack enough high-spirit, high-energy disciples into the same room and something explosive should happen. Instead, sad experience teaches us that, when elders come together, they are more likely to sputter than reach critical mass.

This below-expectations-reality has led some churches, many ministers, and not-a-few shepherds to abandon all hope that a group of elders could ever function as an effective decision-making, vision-casting, direction-setting, momentum-producing core of the church. You’ve heard the pronouncements:

1. “Let shepherds care for sheep, but keep them out of conference rooms!”
2. “We need a staff-driven leadership model, not a committee of part-time amateurs!”
3. Question: “How many elders does it take to change a light bulb?” Answer: “Change‽”

As you will discover (if you continue to read this series of blogs), I’m in heated agreement with many of these sentiments. Yes, the first priority of shepherds should be the care and feeding of sheep, not meetings. Yes, ministry staff must be given a significant place at the leadership table. And, yes, many elderships struggle with managing change and the discomfort/conflict it often engenders.

That said, I suspect the primary problem has less to do with the legitimacy of elder leadership, or some kind of “inherent inefficacy” with elderships per se, and more to do with a widespread lack of appreciation for how elders should function as a group. If there really is such a thing as “elder leadership” for churches, it can only be leadership by a plurality of shepherds called by God to “manage God’s household” (Titus 1:7). The bottom line is that, if shepherds are going to lead, they have to meet. They need time together to pray, dream, discuss, seek, wrestle, develop consensus, hear opposing viewpoints, weigh consequences, make decisions, and plan.

But “time together” is not synonymous with “time well spent.” Just because elders gather regularly around a conference table with the desire to provide leadership for the church doesn’t mean that leadership actually results … at least, not effective leadership.

And therein lies the problem. Let me state it boldly: many elders don’t know how to meet. They don’t understand the necessary context for effective meetings … they don’t cultivate the group dynamics that result in rewarding meetings … they don’t value their meetings sufficiently or envision what God could be doing through their time together … and they lack the skills required to meet well.

Perhaps you think I’m being overly critical. Maybe your experience of elders’ meetings is distinctly different from mine. It could be that you are quite pleased with the efficiency and productivity of the elders’ meetings you attend. If so, wonderful! This series of articles is—obviously—not for you.

But if my experience has been yours … if you are convinced that elders could (and should) lead in more vigorous and visionary ways … if you agree that, for the most part, elders do not practice good meeting habits, I encourage you to read the following series.

I’ll begin with an introductory handful of articles that will set a context for effective elder leadership: articles on vision, relationship, attitude, and (a little) theology. Then I’ll outline “Ten Keys to Effective Elders’ Meetings”—including the importance of someone leading the leaders, the importance of ‘meeting disciplines,’ and the power of strategic prayer.

I’ll say it again: I love elders.

But sometimes “love” means saying: “Sorry. We can do better. And here are few suggestions, offered in love and respect, to help us become more effective leaders.”

In fact, we have already been practicing this model for ministry as a church: acts of compassion and benevolence leading to meaningful relationships that have provided a context for testimony about God’s goodness so that God’s transforming work is fostered the lives of others (and ourselves!). We’ve seen a cup of water become friendship. We’ve watched friendship lead to witness. And we’ve all rejoice when testimony results in faith and transformation.

The model does not suggest something different from what we are doing presently. It simply proposes that we interact with our community in more intentional and deliberate ways. It asks us to “begin with the end in mind.”

Christians are compassionate people because Christ was compassionate. He healed and fed and comforted without condition or “strings attached.” When we take care of people and their needs, we are doing the work of Christ. Food …clothes … shelter … help in all its varied forms. We become “Christ Into” when we notice hurting people and move to their aid and assistance.

While we offer assistance without condition or requirement, we hope and watch for opportunities to build relationship. Not everyone we feed and clothe wants a relationship with us. But some do. Some are hungry for something more substantial than a handout. And we want to be ready, willing, and eager to open our lives to them … to invite them into our hearts and homes. This “sharing of ourselves” will require more of us than an open wallet or the surplus of our pantries and closets. It will require us to share our time, our affections, and our privacy. It calls us to love people more deeply by offering ourselves, not just our things. But this “extra mile,” we believe, is the call of God on those who are his people.

It is loving relationship that sets the context for our testimony to God’s goodness. Effective witness happens in the context of authentic relationship. Billboards on the side of the road, pamphlets and postcards, gospel meetings are forms of evangelistic witness. But they are impersonal and rarely productive without a backdrop of loving interaction. Sadly, the church has grown so timid about testimony that friendship hardly ever flowers into testimony. We don’t want to impose. We fear discomfort or (horrors!) rejection. As your shepherds, we intend to move in a different direction: encouraging bold witness to those we love. Not everyone will appreciate that testimony … fewer will accept it and embrace it. But how tragic if the people around us never hear a testimony from us, never have the chance to reject or believe.

Compassion leads to relationship. Relationship sets the stage for testimony. Where this occurs, we are convinced God can act to transform people.

As God’s people, if not very careful, we can grow cynical about the possibility of change. Temptations never really lose their power. Addictions continue to enslave. Old wounds don’t truly heal. Personalities won’t mellow. Priorities, once set, remain fixed and immovable.

But such cynicism is an effective denial of the God we serve. Christianity is about the possibility of change. Transformation can—and will—happen in willing hearts. The most traumatized and deeply scarred, the most failed and flawed, can experience life-altering transformation. We’ve experienced as much in our own lives. And we should expect it in the lives of others. When faith meets God’s Spirit, change is always the result. As God’s people, we must believe in that possibility and offer the hope of transformation to others.

This “model for community ministry” prescribes a course for our interactions with the world. Where there is need, we offer compassionate service. Where there is willingness, we offer more—ourselves. Where relationship develops, we find the courage to testify. And when testimony is spoken, we step back and anticipate the power of God to transform. At each stage of this model, we will be tempted to stop: to allow compassion to be enough (for instance) … to fail to move from friendship to witness. But we must resist this temptation—in our lives and in the ministries of this church. If we are to make an effective difference in our world, we must be committed to see things through to God’s “end”—broken people transformed into his image by the power of his Spirit.

That’s his goal for each of us. And it is his goal for those around us. Let’s share that goal with him.

We have been working long and hard at capturing a “vision” for this church that is faithful to God’s plans and purposes for our church family. Any vision worthy of the name must be broad enough to encompass the wider work God has entrusted to his people.

Every church must “reach up” (to God through worship and holy living), “reach in” (to each other as a spiritual family, fostering intimate relationships and Christ-formed lives), and “reach out” (to the people God has placed within our sphere of influence). No church has the option of picking and choosing from these God-given responsibilities. A church that worships but does not love each other or the world is not the church of Christ. A church that involves itself in compassionate outreach but does not produce holy lives is not being faithful to God’s plan.

Thus, any vision worthy of the church must express an essential tension: it must be broad enough to encompass God’s mandate for his people, yet narrow enough to define a church’s unique calling and capabilities and provide direction for the church’s ministry.

We have expressed our vision for the Fernandina Beach Church of Christ with these words:

Christ Above

Christ Within

Christ Among

Christ Into

Though we will talk at length about this statement in the future (and what it means for our congregation), there are a few introductory ideas we would emphasize. First, note that our primary focus, as a church, is on Christ. We are a body of believers shaped by Christ; by his personality and priorities … by his attitudes and teachings … by his character and calling. Our primary task is not to grow our congregation numerically or build buildings and set budgets or even perpetuate a particular church tradition. It is to incarnate Christ—to embody Christ—in all we say and do and think. The principle question we ask of ourselves is not “what works” or “what are others doing” but “what would Jesus do”? As your shepherds, we want this singular focus on Christ to become the defining characteristic of our congregation.

This statement of vision points us in four directions.

Christ Above reminds us that Jesus is Lord and Savior, that he is God, that he sits enthroned in the Heavenly Realms, that he is working hard and tangibly to fulfill the purposes of his Father, and that he remains the Head of the church. There is a spiritual sphere that exists beyond our physical realities and Jesus Christ has all power and authority in that sphere.

Christ Within affirms that Jesus lives not only in Heavenly Realms but in each of us. He is present with us and in us—a living reality for every believer who has submitted his/her life to Christ. The Holy Spirit is the gift and power of God in the heart of believers: encouraging and equipping us … empowering and transforming us … teaching us what we need to know to accomplish God’s business and testifying with us to God’s goodness.

Christ Among sets the standard of our interaction with one another as God’s people. We recognize in one another the presence of Christ. We treat each other as Christ has treated us. We conduct ourselves within the community of faith in Christ-like ways. Our words, deeds, feelings, and attitudes about our brothers and sisters in Christ are determined by Christ.

Christ Into helps us recall that Jesus loves the world. He devoted his life to loving and serving lost and broken people. In similar ways, our lives must demonstrate a sacrificial commitment to the people outside our church-walls. “Go into all the world” is not just good advice; it is Christ’s mandate for all those who claim to be his true people.

Although this statement of vision helps to “focus” our congregation on the essential elements of our life together (Christ and his Lordship, presence, love, and sacrifice), it still remains “general” in the sense that it doesn’t prescribe the means and methods we intend to use as we honor Christ. What does this commitment to Jesus mean in terms of the Fernandina Beach Church … at the present time … given our context and opportunities? Becoming the church of Christ (in fact as well as in name) is an “elephant”—a huge and daunting task. Where do we begin?

We, as your Shepherds, are committed to establishing “annual themes” for the Fernandina Beach Church of Christ that will allow us to “eat the elephant one bite at a time.” We will not become the church God wants all at once or overnight. But we can become more like the church God wants by taking specific, intentional, faithful “bites” to pursue his purposes for our life together. These annual themes are an attempt to break down the general call of God on the church by focusing on specific ways God is calling our congregation to do his work … specific opportunities God is making available for us here and now.

The “bite” we propose to chew on during 2012 involves Christ Into: a plan for engaging more fully with our community and the people around us.

1. Enhancing current ministries: How can we as a church become more involved and effective in reaching our community through the ministries that we currently support?
2. Establishing new ministries: What opportunities presently exist for better serving our community? What needs are present? In what new ways can we build relationships with our neighbors, testify to the goodness of God, and foster transformation in the lives of those around us? How are we (as a church) equipped and called to minister to our neighbors?
3. Building a relationship with Southside Elementary School
   • Discussions with the Principal and school representatives
   • Adopting classrooms/Teacher Aides/Tutoring opportunities
   • Identifying families in distress
   • Teacher appreciation events
   • School clean up/special projects
   • Providing school supplies
4. Establishing Service Center in our building: (explore these possibilities)
   • “Life Skills” classes/seminars
   • Family and Household financial advice
   • Domestic/Child counseling services
   • Neighborhood “Welcome” program
   • “Mom’s Day Out” program
5. Community Events
   • Community-wide BBQ
   • Christmas/Easter/other holiday events for the community
   • “Neighborhood Day” (Sundays where worship services are brief and community events are planned immediately afterwards – clean up, service projects, neighborhood canvassing [to identify needs], prayer walks, etc.)
   • “Meet the Mayor” forum (etc.)
   • “Police Appreciation Day” (?)
6. “Curb Appeal”
   • Identify one block for sprucing, yard projects, etc.
   • One “major” project on a home
   • Two “minor” projects on block homes
7. “Homes for the Homeless” initiative
   • Identify, purchase, and refurbish homes in immediate neighborhood around church
   • Help people to home ownership through incentivizing partnerships

Together, Father-in-Son and Son-in-Father, they watch as the universe expands. A gaseous cloud coalesces and ignites, birthing a baby star. Together, God considers what he has created—cosmos and correction, creation and cure.

And it is good.

Most elders I know are stuck in the tension between.

It is a source of constant fascination to me that so much of the most important work of a shepherd is done on his own: comforting, counseling, mentoring, teaching, investing in the lives of others, praying, seeking God’s will. And yet there is a necessary plural component to the work of a shepherd. Shepherds run in packs! And some of their work must be done together, as a group: overseeing, visioning, decisions affecting the church as a whole, disciplinary actions, etc.

There are two distinct skill sets that make up the singular and plural work of shepherds. They are related to each other. And, in some sense, they are dependent on each other. But they are not the same.

Notice that the traits that qualify someone as a shepherd are primarily personal qualities: character, compassion, conviction … The things that qualify someone to shepherd, however, don’t necessarily ensure they have the skills to shepherd. Many shepherds lack the kind of interpersonal, relational skills that contribute to effective shepherding: knowing how to mentor others, for example; having the skills to grow people into Christ’s image; being competent to recognize and encourage spiritual gifts. These kinds of personal, spiritual competencies are necessary to be an effective shepherd (singular).

Consider the fact, however, that functioning as a group requires a different skill set: focus, efficiency, big-picture-perspectives, decision-making, follow-up, accountability, conflict-management, group-discernment, and deference to the greater wisdom of the group (to name but a few). These kinds of group competencies are necessary to being effective together.

When shepherds do not function well in concert (I don’t mean conflict or pathology, but the kind of system dysfunction—lack of system discipline, inability to reach consensus, etc.—that often plague elderships), the functioning of individual shepherds is almost always impacted. We stop doing the work of a shepherd when we get frustrated about the way we as shepherds don’t work.

The converse is also true. When shepherds do not function well singly (getting on with their personal pastoral work), that impacts the manner in which they function together. They start focusing on peripheral matters … lose a sense of urgency about their flock … are inordinately influenced by a minority of vocal members … fail to manage conflict … start thinking the meetings are the work, etc. We can’t do the work of shepherds when frustrated about the way we (personally) are failing to shepherd.

Fortunately, both sets of skills can be developed. Shepherds can learn to function more effectively. But there are a few requirements:

1. A recognition of the need for development and learning
2. A commitment to develop both individual and group shepherding skills
3. A willingness to distinguish between the two
4. A conviction that God has called you to be a shepherd and that you must get on with that work however dysfunctional the group as a whole may be (you can and must learn to shepherd even if you don’t have all the answers about how to function effectively as a shepherding group)
5. A conviction that God has brought you together as a group and that you must develop the skills to function collectively even if you are frustrated about your lack of skills for effective shepherding personally
6. An openness to asking for help—someone from outside the system who can step in to address shepherding competencies (think of Einstein’s great quote: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”)
7. A deep awareness that all of this is an act of God’s grace … that spiritual equipping  comes from God’s Spirit and is the result of his wisdom and power … and that our highest priority in this matter is being on our knees and opening our hearts.

Around the time of James’ birth, a seed pod dropped from one of Oregon’s towering western red cedars and took root in the loamy soil of the coastal forest. It grew rapidly—as cedars do. By the fall of 1993, the cedar was almost one hundred feet tall and weighed many tons.

Healthy cedars often live for over 1000 years. But cedars have a weakness—their root system. The roots of cedars spread broad rather than run deep. A strong wind … excessive rain … and the roots give way. The tree comes crashing down.

It had rained for a solid week before the fall day James Lane drove along that narrow road lined with majestic cedars. The ground was saturated. And the roots of our cedar could no longer sustain the weight of the tree.

Deep in the earth came a cracking and tearing. The soil around the cedar began to buckle and lift. The tree started to list and then began a slow stately fall.

In an odd and tragic intersection, the tree fell right on top of James Lane’s Volkswagen. It crushed the roof of the car. It blew out all four tires. It smashed the frame of the automobile into the pavement below.

When the roof of the Volkswagen collapsed, James Lane’s head was in the way. His neck bent and broke—a classic C-4 injury that left James a quadriplegic.

In the fall of 1993, a tree fell on James Lane. He survived the encounter. But he was never the same again.

The Tree and Saul

In the spring of ad 36, something very similar happened to Saul of Tarsus. He was out riding on a spring day, headed to Damascus, determined to rid the world of every story told about a Nazarene who had been hung from a tree. There was a bright and blinding light … a voice from above … Saul on his face in the dust. In an odd and catastrophic intersection, the tree on which Jesus died ended up falling on Saul.

When his world collapsed, Paul’s heart was in the way. His pride bent and broke—a classic humbling that left him a permanent penitent.

In the spring of ad 36, a tree fell on Saul of Tarsus. He survived the encounter. But he was never the same again.

For it seems to me that God has put us apostles on display at the end of the procession, like those condemned to die in the arena. We have been made a spectacle to the whole universe, to angels as well as to human beings. We are fools for Christ… We are weak… We are dishonored… To this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly.

We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment. (1Cor 4:9-13)

The Tree and Me

I want to be Paul without the tree parts. I like the parts about having visions of God and writing Holy Scripture and exercising apostolic authority. I like the notion of being beloved and respected and obeyed.

Just leave out the tree parts! All that stuff about suffering and pain and doubts. The rejection and ridicule and disrespect. I don’t want to be weak and hungry and persecuted. I don’t want to be treated as the scum of the earth. I certainly don’t want to die!

Oh, I don’t mind a little tree! Bumping into the tree on occasion. Brief encounters causing minor damage. I don’t mind talking about the tree or recommending the tree to others. I just don’t want the tree, the whole tree, and nothing but the tree. Nothing catastrophic … nothing traumatic … nothing that marks me and leaves me changed for the rest of my days.

Perhaps you know just what I mean.

Even poets bravely broach the subject.

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
is also great and would suffice.

Robert Frost, Fire and Ice.

Frost may be right about fire and ice, desire and hatred, the heat of passion and the deadly cold of disdain. The world could end that way. His is just one voice, however; one voice lost in a sea of voices, all shouting opinions and dire warnings about how and when the end will come.

There is no greater divide in visions of the world’s end than the difference between those with a secular perspective and those who stand on faith. Part of what makes us “Christian,” I suggest, is how we understand what happens when time runs out of room.

The secular perspective (always eager to marginalize God and diminish any role he might play in our lives), insists that we were born of chance and will perish by accident. There is no purpose or direction to our lives or to the universe. All is random. Nothing “guides” or “ordains” the path of existence. There will be no final “accounting.” Nature will not judge our actions to determine whether we have wasted our lives or used them wisely. When the world ends—however it ends—that is all it will be: an ending.

People of faith, on the other hand, anticipate a radically different ending to the world, born from a radically different perspective. For believers, this world and everything in it is baptized in purpose. God’s will, God’s plans, God’s reasons stand behind every event, every decision, every person. Nothing is “random” (in the sense of “meaningless”). None of this happens by chance, in a vacuum of significance. God is deeply interested in what goes on in his creation, intensely conscious about everything, taking whatever human beings throw at life and threading it into a greater and wider tapestry that weaves his purposes.

For people of faith, the end of the world is not an ending at all. It is a culmination! It is the fulfillment and completion of all that has gone before. It is the destination towards which the entire universe is traveling. Awaiting us—at the station—is the God who set the train in motion at the beginning. Awaiting us—at the end—is the God who will hold the whole world accountable and bring his eternal purposes to their ultimate climax.

The secular perspective has the world running off a cliff like a herd of horses, confused and uncomprehending, nothing but destruction and chaos on the cliffs below. Faith turns history into an arrow, speeding with preordained precision towards the target of God’s purposes.

For thoughtful Christians, the end of the world isn’t so much about “me” and “my behaviors”—about personal salvation or condemnation—as it is about the purposes of God … what he has planned and anticipated for us since the first moment he put his breath in our lungs and his image in our hearts. As Christians, we look forward to the end of the world as the time when God’s will wins … when the world is set right, just as he intended it to be all along … when Christ’s life and death bear their ultimate fruit and “the kingdom of the world becomes the kingdom of our God and of his Messiah” (Rev 11:15).

I don’t know whether the world will end in fire or ice. I do know that, however it ends, God will be glorified and his purposes will fully blossom. And from that certain knowledge comes a confidence in and eagerness for the end of the world that people without faith cannot muster.

I walk towards the end with a spring in my step.