C J back at the helm

Hmmm .....

Priorities for the year ahead: an update from the new Board

The new Sovereign Grace Ministries Board of Directors met this Wednesday. We devoted most of our time to getting an update and overview of the state of SGM and established two immediate priorities for the coming year.

First, we decided to create a polity committee to consist of two members of the Board, two members of the Leadership Team (including C.J. Mahaney, who will chair the committee), and at least three Sovereign Grace pastors not on the Board. This committee will pick up the work that has already been done on polity and develop it to give better definition to the ministry, to how SGM as a ministry relates to pastors and their churches, and to policies and procedures for making decisions and selecting leaders. We are tasking this committee to solicit a broad range of views within SGM regarding how we are governed and how we define our connections between churches and the ministry. Once the committee’s work is done, they will submit it to the Board for review, amendment, and approval. The resulting governance and our partnership agreements will then be presented to Sovereign Grace pastors for their review. We decided, at least for the present, not to set a deadline for the committee’s work to be completed but do want this to be a top priority for our development as a ministry.

Second, we expect to receive the Ambassadors of Reconciliation report in the coming two weeks. We plan to begin discussing the report on a retreat in Louisville April 9 & 10 and then to make plans for responding.

This Board will operate differently from the interim Board. We will not involve ourselves in day-to-day ministry decisions and communication. Our priorities are appointment and evaluation of the Leadership Team, broad evaluation and strategy for the ministry, advising the Leadership Team on key concerns, and providing accountability to the Leadership Team regarding doctrine, finances, and governance. Our primary interactions, therefore, will be with Leadership Team members and others who can inform us about the ministry and counsel us regarding decisions.

It is customary to end messages like this asking for prayer, but this request is more than customary. This new Board is aware of the significant responsibilities we carry for the future of SGM. Please pray for us and more importantly, please pray for this family of local churches and your own local church so that we can—individually and connected together—plant and build local churches that proclaim the gospel and bring praise to our Lord.

Big Day of Change in SGM

So new change of surroundings for returned President C J and a new Board too. "Constant change is indeed here to stay" (as C J always liked to say). As I have learned in work emails - it's always good to highlight key points of note for those who don't have time or inclination to read the details.

• C J and Jeff Purswell have "asked to have their names removed from consideration".

• Dave Harvey has "become convinced that Board membership is an unwise commitment right now".

It should be noted that "the Board" (a strange business term that I among others have struggled to place in a biblical context of ANY Christian leadership) is distinct from "the Leadership Team" (at present I'm not sure who they are - apart from guessing it involves C J). So I guess we continue to wait and watch and pray.

Here's the details;

An update from the Board

Dear pastors,

Thank you for bearing with us in patience as we have finalized details for the upcoming Board transition. We appreciate your encouragement, input, and prayers that have played such a significant role for us over the last several months.

This letter is to explain to you the significant changes in leadership structure that are represented in the new Board we hope to install in March, and to solicit your involvement in the process. For a quick reference, we’ve also included at the end of this document a table comparing the old and proposed configurations.

This represents the next step in our polity and leadership refinements that have been in process for the past couple of years. Before we get to the specifics of this step, we want to clarify a few preliminary points. As we’ve stated at the conference and in our various polity meetings, we continue to affirm and celebrate our existence together as a family of churches. Although this letter speaks in terms of “the Board,” that is simply a functional term for the governing body of Sovereign Grace Ministries and not an abandonment of biblical principle. Based upon the precedent of the New Testament, SGM is an expression of extra-local ministry that is connected to local churches, emerging out of local churches, endorsed by local churches, and working with local churches, with the goal of planting churches and serving those churches as they grow toward maturity. As such (and as will be noted further below), participants in the new Board will comprise both men serving extra-locally as well as elders of churches partnering with SGM.

Thus, we will maintain our historical commitment to the pervasive biblical pattern of gifted men leading the church in its mission—planting churches, nurturing churches, and uniting churches in a common mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:39-40; 18:27-28; 1 Cor. 16:10-12; Phil. 2:19-30; Col 1:7-8, 4:12; Titus 1:5; et al). The inclusion of church elders on the board will also honor the biblical precedent of local elders partnering with extra-local workers in leadership and mission (e.g., Acts 13:1-3; 15:6).


1. Function of the Board

As noted above, the Board is the governing body of SGM. As such, it is not intended to be involved in the day-to-day affairs of the ministry, which are the purview of the Leadership Team (the president and other senior staff selected by the Board). Rather, it provides oversight and accountability for the organization. For example, the Board:
• Determines the vision and values for the ministry
• Sets priorities and conducts annual performance reviews for the president, and holds the authority to hire/fire him
• Provides financial and legal oversight for the ministry, ensuring an appropriate level of transparency, approving annual budgets, and setting policy
• Defines the Statement of Faith—changes to which will also require a vote of ordained SGM pastors when our polity is revised
Although these are not new responsibilities for the Board, our hope is that they receive more concentrated attention now that the Board (as a governing body) will be distinct from the Leadership Team.

Because of the unique season we are in, this new Board also has a number of special responsibilities awaiting it:
• Finalizing SGM’s polity—something that will likely include a subcommittee of pastors from SGM churches who are not Board members (this will include the development of a book of church order, a defined grievance policy, etc)
• Evaluating recommendations from AOR’s Group Reconciliation report
• Evaluating recommendations from the panels that evaluated Brent Detwiler’s allegations
• Installing a replacement for C.J. Mahaney as president
As we have communicated before, the interim Board’s role was not to finalize polity but to evaluate the charges against C.J. With the seating of a new board, these other important priorities can move forward.


2. Nomination process

SGM’s by-laws provide that the Board of Directors shall make subsequent appointments to the Board. Both in the appointment process for and the composition of the new Board, we are changing how this has been done historically. Given the interim status of this Board and pending finalization of our polity, however, we had to be careful not to set precedents that unduly obligated the future Board, which can further modify this process in light of the ongoing polity refinements in the future. One significant change we believed was important to make immediately was to provide a process for ordained SGM pastors to have input about nominees before they are confirmed. We will explain that affirmation process later in this letter.

The first step in seating the new Board was for the interim Board to nominate a list of men for membership. All of these men individually must meet certain criteria we established. Each man:
1. Is an ordained elder in an SGM church with at least five years of pastoral experience, or a member of the SGM leadership team
2. Has been endorsed to us by his local team for his leadership, wisdom, and character, especially his ability to work well in plurality
3. Possesses a proven grasp of biblical, systematic, and practical theology as well as biblical ethics, and a proven ability to reason biblically and to apply scripture to varied circumstances
4. Has a distinctive gift of leadership, especially the capacity to think strategically and solve problems
5. Has a proven commitment to and passion for SGM’s mission to plant and care for local churches
6. Is in agreement with SGM’s statement of faith and membership agreement with local churches
Other significant changes to the Board include group criteria we set: an expanded roster of at least nine men, at least half of whom are SGM church elders rather than primarily SGM staff (to avoid the dynamics of an insider Board). This change provides a broader perspective, a deeper pool of wisdom, a greater connection with and accountability to churches, and clears the primary obstacle SGM has to joining the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. (There are other measures meant to help SGM benefit from accountability to local churches that we expect will be reflected in the new Partnership Agreement. These include providing recourse for elders in the form of a grievance policy, the requirement that changes in the Statement of Faith be voted on by ordained elders, and the requirement that SGM executive staff serve on the staff of a local church.)

The men below have been nominated for Board membership and have been affirmed by their local teams for the role.
1. Al Pino
2. Craig Cabaniss
3. Ian McConnell
4. John Loftness
5. Ken Mellinger
6. Mickey Connolly
7. Paul Buckley
8. Phil Sasser
9. Ron Boomsma
Short bios of these men are included in the feedback form we created for the affirmation process.

Some of you are surely wondering why C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, and Jeff Purswell aren’t on the list. C.J. and Jeff were both unanimously nominated for the Board but asked to have their names removed from consideration. Both thought they would be able to better serve SGM at present if they were able to specialize in particular areas of their calling. Dave Harvey was also unanimously nominated for Board membership, but after considering the demands of the last eight months, the emergence of some family matters, and the care and counsel of his local eldership, Dave became convinced that Board membership was an unwise commitment right now. This does not mean the Board will not include full-time SGM staff in the future. The Board may nominate new Board members at their discretion and in keeping with the needs of leadership. As with the nominees at hand, new nominations will be submitted to SGM elders for affirmation.

We have instituted a three-year term for Board members. The Board may renew the participation of a member when his term expires, but the renewal will be subject to the affirmation process described below. To avoid a situation in which all nine men are up for renewal or replacement at the same time, the initial slate of men will have staggered terms—three men with two-year terms, three men with three-year terms, and three men with four-year terms. Those terms will be assigned to nominees by the Board once the affirmation process is complete.

This new Board process represents a significant change from the way any SGM board has been formed in the past. We believe that these changes—a larger board, the inclusion of more SGM church elders, a majority non-SGM staff, explicit Board qualifications, approval of Board nominees by their local team, and particularly the affirmation of Board nominees by SGM church elders—will provide us a strong group of gifted men to provide wise and biblical leadership for our future together.


3. Affirmation process

We are submitting these nominees to all ordained elders in SGM churches with the request that they communicate to us their affirmation or concerns for each nominee. Feedback should be based upon the stated qualifications for Board membership.

The interim Board will review and discuss the feedback we receive on each man (recusing the nominees where applicable). If the affirmation process makes it clear that a particular nominee does not meet the stated qualifications, we will find an alternate nominee. If any of you men has questions concerning the feedback we receive on a particular nominee, we will be happy to handle that over the phone.

If you are an ordained SGM pastor, please use the online feedback form to submit your affirmation or concerns. We request that this be done by the end of the day on Wednesday, March 7. Before doing so, you may wish to review the summary of changes (PDF) represented in the new Board structure.

We are encouraged about these changes and believe they will strengthen both our governance and our partnership as we pursue our mission together. We appreciate the feedback we have received from many of you, which has helped to inform the shaping of this process. We never tire of thanking you for your partnership in the gospel, which we trust will only strengthen and prosper in the days ahead.

The SGM Board

C J Moves Church Membership ... Again.

I scarcely know how to pass comment on these swiftly moving events anymore. Other than to say my profound respect for Josh Harris and the people of CLC continues to increase. Are you allowed to "transfer" your membership just because you hit difficulties with your current one? Would I have been allowed to "transfer" my membership say to Christchurch Newport just because of my difficulties with the church in Bristol? Or is that a privilege reserved for the President-returned? I don't know. It doesn't help with the confusion in my mind regarding church life at present. But here it is:

Below is a message sent to Covenant Life Church members today:

———————-

Dear Members of Covenant Life,

We are writing to update you regarding another important moment in the events of the last eight months.

Last month when his leave of absence as President of Sovereign Grace Ministries ended, C.J. Mahaney wrote the elders of Covenant Life informing us of his decision to transfer his membership to Solid Rock Church. At that time we told C.J. that the elders would like to meet with him and discuss several concerns that we had for him, as well as hear his questions and concerns for us.

This past Friday, Grant, Josh and Robin met with C.J. along with two members of the Sovereign Grace Board and had an honest conversation. We began by asking C.J. to share his concerns and disagreements with our leadership over the past eight months, and then we shared our concerns and questions for some of his actions and statements during that same time. We felt the Lord gave grace for everyone to speak forthrightly and listen to each other. We believe this meeting was an important step, though it confirmed that we have different perspectives on what has unfolded since last July.

Having had the opportunity to meet with C.J., we have agreed, with sadness, to accept and support his membership transfer. C.J. has communicated to us that he no longer thinks the formal mediation he requested last fall is needed (this mediation was going to be led by Ted Kober and was to address differences C.J. had with the pastors’ public leadership in response to the release of Brent Detwiler’s documents). We are grateful that we’ve been able to talk together, and we expect there will be further dialogue. Because we understand there will be questions on these matters, we have scheduled another “Coffee and Questions” night for [Time & Date Edited]. We’ve created a simple form to allow you to submit your questions in advance of the meeting.

C.J. has communicated his love and appreciation for Covenant Life and that he believes God is leading him into a new season of pastoral ministry. C.J. has told us that his time at Solid Rock will be brief as he plans to plant a new church in another state later this year. Details of those plans will be announced by Sovereign Grace in the coming months.

We pray God’s blessing on C.J. and his family. We will always be grateful for his service to this church.

If you want to talk further about this, we hope you can come to the “Coffee and Questions” night on [Date], and as always, feel free to contact your pastor.

Sincerely,

The pastors of Covenant Life

"Slander" and it's Punishment

One of the more chilling statements made in C J Mahaney's "Coming Home" speech at the recent SGM conference was this promise;

I think the days ahead are going to require more discernment as it relates to the identification of slander and the influence of slander in our churches. I think the days ahead are going to require courage on the part of pastors and when necessary publicly identify those who are divisive

Like their enthusiastic use of the word "excommunication", I think we MUST persist in calling such leaders to account for their use of the word "slander". These words are significant because they give power to the leaders to discipline the SGM members and "publicly identify" (name and shame" anyone who may express disagreement with the leaders! This is simply wrong!

What does the word "slander" mean? Here are a few dictionary definitions;

" ... is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed".

Key words; "implied to be factual". And "usually a requirement that this claim be false".

"In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, not specific enough to verify and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images".

Publicly stated. And false. And often; "Not specific enough to verify". The Brent Detweiler documents have been MORE than specific. In the case of Brent Detweiler vs C J Mahaney - he has repeatedly pleaded with the SGM Board to PROVE that his claims are false. They haven't done so. Furthermore if there was ANY suggestion that Brent's claims were false - do the SGM Board not have enough finances behind them to pursue a "cease and desist" claim through the courts - which there is also no hint of them doing so?

Brent posted some email exchanges with the leadership of Crossway. Apparently they are STILL resolute on "excommunicating him" - as per instructions by C J Mahaney. He mailed them and pleaded with them to reconsider. But in true SGM resolve - Mickey Connolly (for more on him - see his interview with C J Mahaney and his fawning over Mahaney's "humble" example) emailed back and said;

"Brent,

We have heard and considered your appeal but continue to believe we stand on firm biblical ground to proceed".

This so reminded me of the absolute no budging attitude of the SGM leaders in my case. It scared me silly how utterly inflexible they are. Where is the attitude that Paul the apostle COMMANDS in Galatians;

"He who is sin - such a one should be restored gently".

Gentle? No attitude can be further from what I see in some of SGM. And what I find even more hypocritical is that Mickey Connolly was the selected SGM Board Member to introduce the Ambassadors of Reconciliation seminar at the conference.

What occurs to me is this - what do non-Christians think of this behaviour? What non-Christians in their right minds are going to what to join a church under leadership like Mickey Connolly or C J Mahaney - knowing that any hint of divisiveness and they could be excommunicated and have their lives ruined at the whim of a pastor? Amusingly enough who describe themselves as a church "enjoying His grace". What grace?!

I find it even more incredible I believed the SGM Board member in the UK who assured me that the "legalistic authoritarian" men had left SGM with Brent Detweiler and I believed the flagship church in the UK was truly one of grace and compassion and openness.

I still believe passionately in His Church - because He said He would build His church and the gates of hell would not stand against it! But I am struggling to keep believing in the future of SGM.

Church Membership: Any Exemptions?

The SGM story continues to evolve in it's bumpy manner.

I think one of the difficulties here is that the Word of God does not lay down specific instructions for every event that the church may meet. Rather it lays down guidelines - but just as importantly the Holy Spirit has fallen upon His church and inspires, guides, empowers and prompts the servant ministries that the risen Christ has given. Word and Spirit are both needed to stave off disaster!

The SGM family (especially those at Covenant Life Church) seem to be incredibly upset by the decision that C J Mahaney made to not continue attending CLC but instead go to his friend Mark Dever's church nearby in Washington. Here's a comment from the SGM blog from an CLC member;

Jeff:

Andrew, CJ is a member of CLC, and part of the membership agreement states that you will regularly attend YOUR church. I can understand if you wanted to go to a Sunday night meeting at another church, but to leave the church you are a member of to attend another church full time is against the membership agreement. CJ is supposedly bound by the same agreement as the other members of the church. If not, please explain why. If the pastors agreed to him leaving CLC and attending another church then they should have asked for him to resign his membership at CLC. No partiality, no "unique circumstances". CJ is as accountable to Josh as I am. If he doesn't like the way Josh is handling the situation then he is free to leave and move his membership elsewhere, just as his sons have. I am really growing weary of the doublespeak coming out of SGM. Let CJ stand or fall on the system he has created over the last 30 plus years.

The "unique situation" that SGM's Director of Comms refers to is the fact that C J has made this decision by himself (although with "support" from the SGM Board). What is clear in the comments is the issue here is one of authority.

Namely - who covers C J? He is not a pastor. He is a member of CLC. Therefore technically (as Brent Detweiler has consistently argued) C J is under the authority of the Covenant Life pastors. However he does not seem to be acting as though he appreciates that authority and is responding to their guidance and advice. Does the "President and Chairman" then have any form of accountability?

Who knows the right answer - and indeed who has the clout to make C J Mahaney do what they feel is best? He doesn't seem to be a chap who responds well to correction and advice if he doesn't want to do it. I do think the issue here is consistency and justice. Namely;

If an ordinary member of an SGM church was in trouble of some sort (we all agree Mahaney is not under disciplinary action) then would they have the freedom to go to another non-SGM church for a bit if they felt like it?

All my SGM friends are very clear (and my experience matches this). If you miss one Sunday you may get away with it but if you start missing regular Sundays then you will be called to account as to your whereabouts. So if SGM members can't get away with this - then should C J?

The Buck Stops Here

A few SGM-related thoughts.

In the NHS the highest paid individuals are the Chief Executive, the Board and the consultants. Why? Because they have to carry the responsibility for the well-being of patients. It's often said that the CEO is the one most likely to lose their job in the NHS.

So I don't have a great amount of pity for C J Mahaney. I suspect he is the highest-paid individual in SGM (and that pay hasn't stopped during his 'leave of absence' - unlike Brent Detweiler who faced bankruptcy when his SGM-Board salary was stopped abruptly). He has massive royalties I am sure from his books - including of course, the tome teaching on "Humility" - irony. He is/was the President and he is responsible for the salary he takes. Don't like the heat C J? Take that youth pastor job you kept saying you wanted so badly.

The pity and heartache I have is for in particular Josh Harris but also for the people in SGM. The pressure that Josh Harris must have been under when this blew - and still is - as the man trained up by C J (and reportedly tipped as C J's successor for head of SGM when he retires at 60 - I wonder if that's still the case). Josh took a very bold stance many people felt - honestly admitting his sermon after this on "The Father's Discipline" - stating that God was "spanking SGM". Huge amounts of people in SGM feel he's right - aside from the SGM Board and C J himself clearly.

So in a transcript I was sent from the last Covenant Life Members Meeting I was staggered - to say the least - to read that the reason that C J is going to his friend Mark Dever's church during this leave, is because of the statements that Josh made apparently putting C J in a difficult position. Poor C J! And even better - C J gets to have an "independent mediator" when this is all over - to patch things up with Josh and the CLC pastors who have so upset him. What?! Did the vast amounts of people (myself included) who got kicked out of our SGM churches get to go to the churches of our friends while we were being excommunicated? Did we get paid-for mediators to patch things up? No! We had to take the first step ourselves and go and meet these pastors to achieve the reconciliation we felt God wanted of us.

I must be honest.

C J seems to me to be angry and upset that he has been confronted by the monster authoritarian system he has created. Even his fans (Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan et al) admit there are "issues" in SGM polity - which Josh Harris is seeking bravely to address. C J admits honestly he is "proud" but yet seems to stop short of the issues that it has caused. The heartache and pain for his church. As I understand it - he is still a member of Covenant Life Church and thus under the elders (including Harris). However the increasing number of members of CLC commenting on the various blogs make it clear - CJ isn't regularly seen at CLC and doesn't participate in church life.

I think we must be honest - and leave aside the discussions of Matthew 18, Brent Detweiler and the documents. Because it is a grey area.

The key issue here for me is the hurting people in SGM looking to their leaders for care. The Board seem ridiculously desperate to protect and validate C J as soon as they can manage without public outrage. The so-called "independent panel" hired and paid seem made up of C J fans. The question has got to be - where is the glory to God in this? What does the world think?More importantly what does God think?

C J - you can't cope with the expectation and pressure? Get out of the firing line. Retire. Resign. Give it to Josh Harris who can admit he's got it wrong and is trying. I think anyone can accept honesty and transparency. What we don't like and don't tolerate is someone who takes a fat salary and should take responsibility whining "like a teenager" (Dave Harvey's term for CJ). It's like my consultant surgeon blaming me for mucking up my treatment and care.

As Harry Truman said - "The buck stops here!". Claim leadership of a denomination? You must take the fall when it goes wrong. You don't get "free passes" in the real world! Bad luck C J - you wanted to be head boss? You got it! And the answer isn't to be found by hiding in the church of your mate.

Qualified for the Ministry?

Over the last couple of days a number of various blogs have raised the whole issue of what qualifies or disqualifies a minister of the Gospel - and it's been useful to consider the whole issue. I guess in a way this is a "blog-spot";

1. Phil Johnson of the "Pyromaniacs" has written a devastating critique of the danger of charismatic theology. His rationale (or lack of) is not Scripture but anecdotes on Paul Cain and his moral fall. According to Johnson - Cain's moral fall disqualifies not only Cain as a prophet but indeed charismatic theology. I am writing a response to Phil Johnson because I think this requires a longer answer.

2. Dave Harvey of SGM has blogged again reflecting on the independent panel assessment declaring C J Mahaney fit for ministry. The whole question seems to be whether C J was right to step down before declared fit or unfit - and the question as to whether the sins of pride, arrogance, legalism, blackmail and so on disqualify him - the panel think not.

3. Brent Detweiler has blogged a good post considering the SGM situation from his point of view. He rightly and acutely points out that we are not quite sure what C J has really confessed to - so how can we know whether that disqualifies him or not?

It is an important question. Dave Harvey uses the words; "public scandal" - and seems to think that the involvement of a public scandal would be the deciding factor. So therefore from Harvey's logic - we could assume that sexual or moral and financial failure (money, sex) would be the contributing factor. But what occurs to me is where they get this justification from. Scripture?

I've been discussing this issue with Pete Day and he noted some other well-known leaders and some of their sins of humanity. He said a good point regarding Johnson and Harvey's "logic";

Would he say that the whole of Martin Luther's ministry should be invalidated because of his hatred of Jews? Or indeed the whole reformation????

Would he say that Calvin's ministry should be invalidated because of his alleged consent to the burning of heretics?? Or indeed the whole of Calvinism????

Would he say that Paul's ministry should be invalidated because of his bust up with Barnabas???? Or indeed all of his epistles????

Dr John Stott - A Man of God

I was saddened yet glad for him to hear that Dr John Stott went into the Presence of His Lord this morning. He was one of my greatest evangelical heroes and I was fortunate enough to have met him twice at his home church of All Souls Langham Place - I also heard him preach a number of times and his succinct wonderful exposition made a tremendous impact on my learning.

His ministry was indeed international and I am sure that his funeral will be one of the best attended celebrations seen in London! For those who haven't heard him preach, here is a video of Dr Stott preaching at Keswick a few years ago;

The Resurgence Interview: Mark Driscoll with Terry Virgo

I must admit the friendship between Mark Driscoll and Terry Virgo was not one I was especially thrilled with - given my caution with Driscoll's rather chavinistic brand of ministry. However Terry Virgo is a man of God I trust implicitly and if he sees something in Mark Driscoll, then I'd hate to miss out on that. That being said - it wasn't enough to make me sit down and start listening to Mark Driscoll's preaching (I wouldn't go that far).

But when Terry posted this interview between him and Mark I felt this would be a good place to start. Many know I have a deep love for the interview format. I think you can learn far more from interviews than many lectures or sermons because you are capturing the man of God or woman of God in a spontaneous conversation. Here's the transcript I typed up - the video is below;

Mark Driscoll (M.D): Thinking of leaders, particularly younger leaders and emerging leaders - people who are starting in ministry voluntarily or vocationally, what would you say about the ministry of the Holy Spirit to lead the leader? In the classic sense so much of Christian teaching on leadership really borrows from secular practices on how to be a good leader. And there are some good things to be learned in God's common grace. But very little is written about being "led" by the Holy Spirit so you are then able to lead God's people in the things of God. Could you talk a little bit about what it means to be a "Spirit-filled leader" or a "Spirit-led" leader?

Terry Virgo (T.V): I would put together the grace emphasis I guess with the enjoyment of God's love. So for myself I have always tried to engage with the Spirit.

M.D: What does that look like in real life? You know for the average Bible college guy who's up in his head. What does that look like?

T.V: Yes I can only illustrate that from my own experience. I am in the Word each day - I am saying "Lord this is Your Word - I want You to speak to me". So I am looking to feed on the Word. At the moment I am using the Murray M'Cheyne reading plan - that is a recent thing for me over the last 3 years. I think it's good to switch around from the way you read the Bible. But then I am looking to Him to fellowship with Him and talk to Him. I sing to Him - I enjoy fellowshipping with Him so I am looking to sing to Him. I sing songs, I sing in tongues, I sing expecting and enjoying God being with me. It's out of that celebration of His kindness and His love that very often leads me to the Cross again and the wonder of who He is and the phenomenal thing that He has done for us.

Then I find myself beginning to ask and pray for things. So I felt from an early age, Lloyd-Jones's emphasis on prayer really influenced me - and other guys - so yes, praying with the energy of the Spirit. Paul says; "Praying in the Spirit" and sometimes you are praying about something. And I read Don Carson once said; "Pray yourself into prayer" - it is a Puritan quote actually and sometimes you are praying and your brain is going everywhere and then other times you find a caring that you didn't know - and you find yourself going; "Hey - there's more in me" and I believe it is the Holy Spirit making you care more about something and that stirs my faith! I think "Hey - God cares about this more than I do".

You want to fellowship with the energy - you feel God is kicking in, in your heart. I find other times fellowshipping in the Spirit can be more in the corporate group. Sometimes there have been visions, prophecies and things that we feel God has been sharing and they have influenced decisions we've made. Rather like Paul who wanted to go north and the Spirit forbade him, he wanted to go another way and then there was that Macedonian call. It seems to me that the Spirit was showing him which way to go. Over the years as a movement we have gathered guys to pray a lot. Three times a year in the UK we gather all our leaders for two days of prayer and fasting.

M.D: So many people for two days of prayer and fasting!

T.V: Well the first time we did it, there was about 20. And last time 750. So three times a year it has just grown and it is all because I mis-read a Scripture that says; "Three times a year you shall gather your men" and it says; "They shall not come empty-handed". And I read; "You shall come empty-handed". And I thought; "What's empty-handed? No agenda. No food". And some guys have never forgiven me! So we gather for two days and we fast and we pray for two hours and break for an hour and pray for two hours and break for an hour and pray for two hours and break for an hour. These days we hire a big church and all go out to different hotels and then come back again the next morning and again we pray and break and we worship. We pray for different things we are doing - maybe there's a crisis in a nation, we pray for India or we may pray for famine in Kenya. So we corporately pray. Sometimes small numbers and sometimes "Korean-style" in big numbers as we think of it.

Sometimes someone will come and lead us from the front and sometimes we will pray in twos or threes. So over many years now we have prayed together corporately. Then that goes back out into the churches and church plants - teach your people to pray. Believe for buildings, believe for new elders to be raised up. So prayer has been quite a big emphasis in my life probably from my early pastor and my early influences. And when I felt led to put down secular work - I actually felt the call was to have more time to pray. So prayer has always been a personal emphasis in my life. But at the beginning it was a bit condemnation-driven and I felt God released me from that and now I enjoy it and still feel I want to pray.

M.D: Yes when I was talking with Joel and said; "So what do you remember about growing up with your dad when he took over the church in Brighton?". He said; "I remember often my dad sitting in the other room singing and praying". He said; "My dad sings and prays through everything!". That stuck with him. Then I was talking to one of the younger worship leaders and I said; "What's your favourite part of being in that Newfrontiers church?" and he said; "Oh the mid-week prayer meeting! That is the best thing of all because we just sing and pray and sing and pray. That's where we hear God speak to us and guide us and where He's leading us. You don't want to miss the prayer meeting".

In the States that's something quite frankly you wouldn't hear a lot - I am a Reformed, Bible-teaching evangelical who says; "In the Holy Spirit" in my prayer times but that's about it. Why do you think those two don't come together as often as they should?

T.V: I guess it's been who we have been for a long time and I guess it's easy to be impressed by management skills and I don't despise planning - but I think you can put all your eggs in that basket. I want to be confident in God and I know the big breakthroughs have been faith issues. There have been times when we have been refused - "No you cannot have this building - no you can't do this or that" and there's no way that you can plan through that. You have to believe God and pray though it - and it's been exciting to be honest over decades to see God do amazing things for us through prayer. I think we have a heritage in the UK when reading men like Hudson-Taylor who said; "I want to move men to God through prayer alone" and you read these biographies of great men. I used to commute to London an hour every day and I used to devour biographies - especially praying missionary guys. A man called J O Fraser who worked in China and his exploits through prayer. He said; "I want to be like a businessman who has found a line that really works" and he said; "Prayer really works" - and that really grabbed me and I thought; "I want to be like that".

M.D: Do you "like" God?

T.V: I love God! I love worship! It sounds awfully pious when you are asked; "What do you enjoy?" but it is true - I enjoy being with God. I enjoy being with the saints when worshipping. I love the Lord!

M.D: Do you think that's the key to prayer? If you like God and enjoy God then prayer is what happens?

T.V: Yes I suppose I don't think of prayer as much in that way but when I am trying to engage with God.

M.D: When I have worshipped with you and your people, they like God. A lot of places I go to - they believe in God but I'm not sure they "like" Him. They can get a little stiff and unhappy and dull but when there is a people who like God and believe in Him then there is a joy there and a unity and the people tend not to gravitate towards legalism and the leaders don't need to become heavy-handed because that is not the spirit.

T.V: A combination of believing the grace of God - for me, when I really believed that I was accepted and saved - I then learned that I was free but you had to do this and had to do that and pray more and I thought "Am I accepted or am I accepted if I do all these things?" and then it dawned on me; "I am accepted!" and it was like getting born again! They said after the resurrection; "They could not believe for joy" - and that was the way it was with me - I thought this is amazing! That has transformed my life to know grace is so free!

The Holy Spirit and enjoyment of the Presence of God and you combine those two and it is electric! It gives us purpose on a world mission to glorify Jesus - Lord we want to glorify You - we are about a serious work and I find that is a really dynamic mixture!".

Rob Rufus on Transitioning a Church From Law to Grace

Rob Rufus at the "Increasing Glory" Conference in South Africa on the cost of transitioning a church from law into grace;

"No church will transition out of a mixture of law and grace into full grace unless the eldership team have a revolutionary renewing of their minds. That’s what it needed for me. And when you are going through the process you have to factor in rejection, accused of saying things that you haven’t said, you have to factor in maybe losing some of your closest friends but if you are captured by divine approval and not by man’s approval – then you will be a true leader in the house of God".

What a cost - but how worth it!

Rob Rufus Speaks to Church Leaders!

I'm in the middle of transcribing one of Rob Rufus's sessions in South Africa at the "Increasing Glory 2009" conference. I love nothing more than when he gets angry and lays into legalists. It thrills me beyond words - is that wrong!? I think a lifetime of legalism makes you so glad when someone is brave enough to stand up and confront wrong-doing.

Anyhow - Rob said this to church leaders;

"Stop bullying, managing and controlling God's people. We do not have a right to have authority in the church unless the authority we have is liberating, grace, fatherly, fond, affectionate and kind. We will use our ministries to to build people up - not use people to build our ministries".

He went on;

"Too many church leaders have an addiction worse than cocaine - it is to the approval of man".

Many church leaders would proudly claim they are prepared to make unpopular decisions that upset their congregations. One well-known US so-called apostle was heard to say that he was sick and tired of being told he should keep people happy - he said he was there to upset and be unpopular. But Rob Rufus went on to point out that actually - the approval that many church leaders so desperately cling to is the leadership hierarchies in their movements or church families or denominations.

Question - would church leaders be prepared to stand up and defend their congregations even if it meant going against their regional apostle?

I remember being subjected to corporal discipline in the church school when I was a child. I had a conversation quite recently with someone who asked if I resented being hit by a school teacher. I thought about it and answered that it wasn't the actual physical striking I resented. What I resented was the refusal of my parents to even consider listening to my side of events. The fact I was a child meant that I had to be wrong and the school teachers always right.

I think the same applies in church families. Surely there is nothing more discouraging and hurtful than someone who has allegedly been put in charge of your soul and yet refuses to believe you first and hear you out before making judgements. Oh for more church leaders that do indeed have a liberating, kind, gracious, fond love to their leadership! Thank God there are leaders out there like that. The photo shows two of my favourites - the Morrises and the Rufus's!

Ern Baxter in "Voice of Healing" Magazine!!

I was thrilled recently to discover probably one of the earliest articles by Ern Baxter. It was in the "Voice of Healing" Magazine that was run by Gordon Lindsey who worked with William Branham. The issue is June 1951 and Ern's article is called; "The Case of Carnal Comparisons". As a historical document it is very prophetic to this day and age right now today. Much of the divisions in the church (I think) are linked to a "I am of Paul - I am of Apollos-syndrome". It's not helped by the kind of teaching that says "I am in the very stead of God". Rather than Ephesians 4 Ministries being seen as "gifts" given to bring the church to maturity we are seeing a restoring of clergy who stand between God and the priesthood of all believers.

The scan of the facsimile is here alongside the transcribed text;

"The Case of Carnal Comparisons"

2 Corinthians 10:12; "For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they measure themselves by themselves and comparing themselves among themselves are not wise".

1 Corinthians 3:4; "For while one saith, I am of Paul, and another of Apollos, are ye not carnal?".

We thank God for such visitations of His power and blessing as are being experienced throughout the world at the present time. Entire cities are being stirred by great revival efforts and in some instances require the erection of special buildings to contain the crowds. The Gospel is the world's only hope and we pray that these great Gospel efforts will continue to enlarge in power and influence until the whole world feels the influence of the Spirit of God. Such moves as we refer to are, in most cases, spearheaded by certain men, obviously God-blessed and God-ordained for the task. It is our duty to pray for such men, that they will be sustained in spirit, soul and body that they might be at their best constantly in this greatest of all battles.

There is, however a great danger in such mighty movements where individuals are catapaulted into places of prominence as leaders. Instead of humbly recognising the hand of God in the whole and the grace of God in equipping men for leadership and thus giving all the glory to God, there is a tendancy to humanly evaluate leaders, and compare and pick and choose favourites. Such an attitude indicates a limited vision. This robs God of His glory, is unfair to the leader and contributes to the party spirit among Christians which God so evidently deplores as indicated in His Word.

Each of these leaders, indeed every minister in the Church of God has some distinctive features which makes him to differ from every other minister and unless the great principle of ministerial oneness is recognised, there exists the constant danger of dividing God's people into as many groups as there are ministers to give them leadership.

"There is no new thing under the sun" and this seems especially true when considered in terms of error and defection among Christians. We can think of no modern system of error or trend of defection in the realm of professed Christian religion that had not appeared at least in germ form in the days of the apostles, and which was not given apostolic treatment in the sacred writings of the New Testament. The subject with which we are dealing received extensive attention from the Apostle Paul in the Corinthian epistles, as well as being referred to in the other epistles. Although the directions given in the Corinthian epistles are intended primarily to meet the local conditions, they nevertheless are applicable on a body-wide scale.

The apostle declares the condition that exists in the Corinthian church by saying, "It hath been declared unto me of you my brethren by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are conventions among you. Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul and I of Apollos and I of Cephas and I of Christ" (1 Corinthians 1;11, 12). There certainly had been a good deal of carnal comparison indulged here. Paul mentions himself first, for a group in the Corinthian church had chosen him as their preferred preacher, quite evidently without any encouragement from him. Paul indicates his sincerity in deploring and attempting to correct this party spirit by placing his name first on the list, and thus being the first to be demoted as a sectarian leader. No doubt the Gentile believers clung to Paul as their leader as against those Jews which preferred Peter with his background.

Then there were those who were followers of Apollos described in the Scriptures as "an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24). Apollos was an Alexandrian Jew, distinguished for literary culture and eloquence and it is probable that the more highly educated among the Corinthian Christians were his perculiar followers. Then there were the Cephasites, the followers of Cephas or Peter. He of course had an apparant priority over the others, being one of the first followers of Jesus. His apostleship was well established, there being no argument as in the case of Paul. He was a "senior minister" and there were those who felt he deserved a superior place and so were quite prepared to battle for his leadership.

Finally Paul mentions the Christ party. This may at first seem strange for we should all be "of Christ". It has been suggested however that "this sect of Christ probably rejected the apostles, and professed to be admirers and followers of the traditional sayings of Jesus. They approved His ethics but rejected the doctrines outlined in the epistles. Possibly the apostle had this group in mind when he wrote; "Henceforth know we no man after the flesh' yea though we have known Christ after the flesh yet now henceforth know we Him no more" (2 Corinthians 5:16).

The apostle counters this condition with three pertinent questions, the first one being; "Is Christ divided?". Of course the answer to this is an emphatic "No!". The body of Christ is one and knows but one head, the risen and glorified Lord Jesus Christ! The one head governs the body, instructing the various members concerning their duty and appointing the various tasks for the individual parts of the body setting up an independent centre of government and control, they must at all times adhere to the authority of the head. The structure of the human body contains the various functions of the body. It has the advantage as the highest part of the body seeing the farthest and thus from it's high place being able to intelligently instruct and direct the action of those members which live on a lower plane and are depending upon the head for direction.

If the body is to function normally, the authority of the head must constantly be recognised. This is true of every member of the body and especially true of those who are ministers in the body. Such ministers may be likened to those parts of the body such as the hands and feet which are most active, and play such a prominent part in the functioning of the body in it's varied activities.

Such members are tempted to think that they are indispensible and thus can set up a new centre of authority. This of course produces confusion.

True ministry gifts are those men ordained by God to minister to His people, are the gifts of the risen Head to the body for it is written; "When He ascended on high, He led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men ... He gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers" (Ephesians 4:8, 11). Such men are God-gifted and appointed. They are not placed in the body to further some division or sect and use their God-give abilities to enlarge a segment of the whole but they are placed in the body for the "perfecting of the saints, for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12).

Their interest is body-wide, they are affectionately disposed towards all God's people, and are obliged by reason of the nature of their calling to seek to build up the whole body of Christ.

No, Christ is not divided! His body is one. There is but one head of the body and that is the risen Christ. Thus, every attempt to promote a group of God's people as a segregated section as opposed to all the rest of the people of God is to work at cross purposes with the divine programme. "Was Paul crucified for you?" is the second question. Who deserves our first loyalty? All our fellow humans, much as we esteem and love them must never come between our undivided loyalty to Christ and His Word.

Many of those who would divide and rend the body of Christ are certainly not prepared to die for anybody and before we take a hand in promoting some injurious division let us remember that those who we are influencing are the purchase of Jesus blood.

The final question of the trio is "Were ye baptised in the name of Paul?". If these party leaders were so important as to create a division among God's people, then why did they take in public confession at their baptism, a place of identification with the Lord Jesus? The argument is overwhelming.

There is no place for the exaltation of human leaders and much harm is done all around when such exaltation is promoted.

The divine ideal is beautiful and we dare not despise it by saying, "It will not work". Let us listen to it humbly as God's pronounced desire for His people - "Now I beseech you brethren by the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ that ye all speak the same thing, and there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement".

When You Find a Perfect Servant of God ... You're Probably In Heaven

I think I've been more worried about the complete and utter silence about the Florida Outpouring than anything else. Terry Virgo's probably one of the most prominent UK leaders who has a blog and he's said nothing yet about it yet (which is odd considering how one of his latest Firstline bemoans how disappointed he is that he hasn't seen revival yet). And the critics!? Remember how potty John Macarthur and Hank Hanegraff went about Toronto? So where - I asked myself - were the opinions on Florida? I think the most dangerous position of all is to be in what Ern Baxter called; "The paralysis of analysis" - essentially pure static because we are too busy and too scared to form an opinion.

Mark Heath provided the first link for me to the torrent of blogs warning that Todd Bentley is the anti-christ and so on. It seems that apparantly Todd Bentley has an angel that speaks to him called "Emma". That name apparantly is the name of some pagan god so it must mean that a demon is controlling Todd Bentley hence everything is bad about Florida? My poor older sister - she is called Emma too ... What is with that?! Can angels not have names? Gabriel? Michael? Lucifer? (I was going to provide some of the links to these posts but I don't think I will bother. You can find them ... if you really want to).

I liked a carefully open but cautious post that Janelle wrote - she is going to go but is wary of the excess and emotionalism. It's wise to be wary. Like her, I've never lived through a revival but I suspect that there will ALWAYS be emotionalism and excess in a revival. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones wisely said;

"There is no problem of discipline in a graveyard; there is no problem very much in a formal church. The problems arise when there is life ... Problems are created by life and by vigour and the problems of the early church were spiritual problems, problems aarising because of the danger of going to excess in the spiritual realm".

I find it slightly odd that a sincere (I am sure) commentator on Janelle's blog can express "concerns" with healing and manifestations of the Spirit in Lakeland but go on to write that air conditioning is a gift from God. Who are we to decide what is a gift from God and what is not? I feel so deeply that we've got to be very careful here. When does "discernment" become "quenching the Spirit"? What's worse - the crime of "jumping on every spiritual bandwagon" or "resisting every spiritual bandwagon"?! How do we keep the balance? Is it enough to remain "open but cautious" - that all too frequently ends up meaning saying "No!".

It seems to me that the key concern with most people comes down to Todd Bentley himself. In short - he's an offence to some of these "discerners". I can get that. The man is short, ginger-haired and covered in tattoos with a piercing in his lip (and goodness knows where else). But let's be consistent here. Ephesians 4 makes it clear that the ascended Christ gives these people as GIFTS. And they are not perfect - and won't be till we get to heaven. Look back over the Word of God for starters. Let's try to put ourselves in the context of being under the leadership of each of these men in the Bible. What would we have blogged about them then?;

1. Moses. What would it have been like to be in the "Desert Outpouring"? Signs and wonders followed this man! We had to flock to him because he was leading us through the desert to the Promised Land! God had appointed him our leader. But then a whisper goes through the camp - a whisper of concern and discernment. "Did you know that Moses killed a man back in Egypt? He's a MURDERER!". Maybe we can forgive that because it was in the past. Even though believing that God can use someone with a criminal record - what about watching him hit the rock the second time in anger? And hearing the word spread round the camp that he was barred from entering the land. Hmm ...

2. David. What would it have been like to be in the "Israel Outpouring"? Such an exciting, militant time! God raised a shepherd boy up to be king (and imagine particularly if you were there since the time in the Cave ... the old crowd). But then! David commits adultery ... and what's worse murders the husband of the woman he slept with. And then goes on to have another child with the ... woman. Who is his HEIR! Surely that's unforgivable?! How can God call him; "A man after His own heart?!".

3. Elijah. Wow ... the "Prophet Outpouring"!! Signs and wonders and miracles again!! Raisings from the dead - exciting times. And the pinnacle of it all when Elijah's fan club is gathered at the mount to see fire come down from heaven in response to Elijah's prayer! What greater vindication that Elijah was a man of God!? But then Elijah disappears!! And the word begins to spread round the camp that he is a coward - was scared of a WOMAN - and has run to hide. Fear?! From a man that called down fire!? Fear - fire!? It doesn't add up!

4. Peter the apostle. Okay so maybe his beginnings wouldn't be quite to our taste (no theological seminary and a bit of a rough vocabulary) but the fact that Jesus Christ singled him out and said; "You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church" maybe brought him some kudos. But then Jesus Christ called him "Get behind me Satan!". Doesn't that equate to a bit of church discipline? But then even worse the word gets round that under pressure Peter swore under oath he didn't know who Jesus Christ was. He betrayed Jesus Christ. But then even worse when the Holy Spirit had fallen and Jesus had gone back to heaven, it seems that Peter and Paul - the two leading apostles - had a fall-out. Because Peter started behaving like a JEW again?!

5. Paul the apostle. How can we follow a man who just days before his "conversion" was murdering Christians?! He stood by while our beloved Stephen was stoned to death and approved it. And okay if we overlook his dodgy beginings we do admit that he writes some good letters to the churches - very doctrinal and they read well. But why does he have to start talking about his "3rd heaven experiences" and go and not tell those Corinthians to behave?

I'm sure that I will have offended someone - but I hope my point's clear. Even in the Bible no man of God was perfect. So if we don't want to accept that God is using Todd Bentley or Rob Rufus - then WHO is acceptable? C J Mahaney? John Piper? John MacArthur? Okay they may not have tattoos or piercings or dodgily-named angels that we know about but surely they dabble in what Jerry Bridges calls; "Respectable Sins". Mahaney has admitted he is a proud man - yet no one has problems in following his leadership. No one even writes a blog criticising him.

I know the Bible says; "Be not many teachers brethren for theirs is the greater judgement". I always thought (and maybe it does) that the "greater judgement" came from God. Maybe I was wrong and maybe that was the Bible warning that the greater judgement comes from the church. All I am trying to say is in this Christian celebrity-obsessed culture, let's cut these guys a little break. NO ONE is perfect. But despite that the ascended Christ still continues to give apostles, prophets, evangelists and pastor/teachers. Maybe, just maybe God wants to use them - despite not being perfect. I for one am prepared to keep watching Todd Bentley and see what God may be doing with him!

Liberating Leadership

"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ..." (Eph 4v11-13)

This is a passage of scripture which I love so much. When I first studied it properly, it changed my understanding of church. However, I am not here to defend apostles today, Terry Virgo does that far better than I can. Rather I want to write about what leadership is for.

It is a great honour to be posting here on my favourite blog site. I do so at Dan's invitation, and I say at the outset that this is effectively a joint post, reflecting something very much on our hearts. The inspiration came from a comment that Dan made over at SGuncensored (comment 23). He said:

"We are coming close to the crunch of the issue surely? Essentially the issue is - does the Bible teach that church leaders speak for God? And when they do speak do we therefore take their words as God Himself? Surely the answer must be no! If that was the case then
1. Why has the Word of God been given.
2. Why has the Holy Spirit been poured out?
3. Why does the New Testament speak of “you (corporate) are a royal priesthood, a holy nation”?
Please hear me, I’m not saying that Christians leaders are irrelevant! I believe passionately in Ephesians 4 - that such ministry are the gifts of the ascended Christ. But I wonder if we still are retaining a degree of Old Testament Law thinking and haven’t truly grasped that we are ALL a royal priesthood and therefore ALL have the right of access to the manifest Presence of God and can all pray to Him and hear from Him? Surely it’s Old Testament Law thinking to still look to such leaders (one leader - many members) to hear from God?"

Dan's comment really stirred something in my heart about the need to have a correct, New Covenant view of leadership. So after some time sharing on the telephone, we felt it would be helpful to give an overview of what leadership is for, what the leaders are called to, and also what the members of the congregation are called to. So here goes:


The call of leadership

It says "to equip the saints for the work of ministry." That is a high calling; that the members of the flock - all the flock - grow up and are able to minister fruitfully in whatever their gifting is. The leadership is not for the benefit of the leaders, but with the ultimate purpose that the whole body reach maturity in the faith, every one doing their part.

Ephesians 4 gives a vision of leadership that enables every member to be fully released in their gifting, not ministry by the exclusive few.


The call to the body

The ministry of every member is taught throughout Scripture. Here are some examples:

The priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2v5, 9)
So every member is a priest. There is no "priestly class" that has superior access into the presence of God, no-one who has a greater standing before God, no-one whose prayers carry a greater weight before God. Every single believer in the congregation is a priest - equally, with equal right to be in God's awesome presence, equal right to seek His face and to manifest His glory.

Heb 7v27 tells that a priest offered up "sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the people's". Now Jesus has offered the one perfect sacrifice - so there is no more sacrifice for sins - but there is a principle here of priesthood; the priest did not only enter God's presence for himself, but also for the people. In the same way, as priests of the new covenant, not only do we have access into God's presence for our own blessing, but also for the blessing of others. We can enter in and pray for ourselves; we can also enter in and pray for others. Every member is qualified to minister the grace of God for others. We don't need to go and have hands laid on us by the pastor or elders (although they can just as any other member can). We are a body, a kingdom of priests - all of us - with the right to enter in and the authority to minister the grace of God to others.

The prophethood of all believers (Acts 2v17-18)
Here Peter is quoting Joel 2, and it is very clear that every single servant of God should receive the Holy Spirit and thus be enabled to prophesy! Of course, in 1 Cor 12-14, there are clearly those who have the gift of prophecy, as well as other gifts, but the point being made is that every believer has the ability to hear from God, to dream dreams, to see visions. Just as there are evangelists but we are all called to witness, there are those with gifts of healing but we can all pray for the sick, so there are prophets but all have the potential to hear from God.

Hearing from God is not the exclusive realm of leadership. I would hope that leaders lead by example and make it their business to seek His face and to hear His voice for the direction of the fellowship, but God can speak to anyone in the fellowship. It was Moses that cried out "Oh, that all the Lord's people were prophets and that the Lord would put His Spirit upon them" (Num 11v29). Moses had the heart of a true shepherd.

The gifting of all believers (1 Cor 12v7, 1 Peter 1v10)
"Each one" has a gift. The gifts are given "for the profit of all". Attendance at meetings is not the goal of church. A body is living - that means each member is active; gifts are manifesting. If these things are not present, it doesn't matter how large the church is, how dynamic the leadership is, the church itself is missing out of the purpose of God. If the gifts are given to build up the church, then if every member is not functioning, the church is not being built up as God intended.

This is such a challenge to leadership. Are leaders actively nurturing the flock in such a way as to encourage people to exercise their gifts? These needs liberty - yes liberty to make mistakes and to learn, and to grow.

The goal of maturity for all believers (Eph 4v13, Col 1v28-29)
It troubles me when I read of churches where leaders have to be consulted about almost every area of life. As well as giving the leader too much control (Jesus is our Master), such excessive authority stunts growth. When someone is a new Christian, it can be necessary in discipleship to cover very basic issues (in one recent discipleship class, one of my fellow leaders had to explain that it was right to pay bills), but believers grow up. When my children are older I wouldn't dream of telling them that they can't go and live in a particular city or nation; while I might advise them, it is their decision.

It is the Lord's purpose that every believer grows to maturity, knowing what is right, having God's wisdom, dependent upon Him, not upon men. That is not to say leadership becomes irrelevant. Just as parents of grown children will always run to help at times of crisis, so the leader continues to help. But this is not control, this is tending to the wounded soul, loving, listening, praying, advising, encouraging.


What leaders do - God's way

Good leadership will provide an atmosphere where such mature life flourishes. To many leaders such an atmosphere might appear dangerous - with prophets speaking that which may bring direction to the church; with beautiful examples of godliness which change the leader's own walk; with glorious times of worship where everyone is pressing into the glory of God and the leader finds himself standing in awe - his leadership forgotten - because the presence of God is so sweet; where new leaders are emerging, even those to whom the leader will say, "God is raising up you now, it is time for me to move on."

Leadership is not given to stunt growth, but to release growth.

Leadership is not given to mediate between the people and God, but to point people TO the one Mediator and lead them into the fullness and freedom of what He has accomplished once for all.

Leadership is not given to pray on behalf of the people but to teach people the true power of prayer.

Leadership is not given to replace the Holy Spirit but IMPART the Holy Spirit!

Leadership is not given to see, facilitate and accomplish vision but to visualise vision and lead the charge towards the accomplishment of the said vision.

Leadership is not called to never move beyond the Cross but, standing firm on the glorious truth of the Cross, advance forward in freedom and liberty and take the Promised Land.

To quote, Rob Rufus - "I want to build myself into redundancy in this church because that is the purpose of the five-fold ministries - is to equip and train the believers so that we become redundant in the locality." Glorious!

But how?

"Shepherd the church of God, which He purchased with His own blood" (Acts 20v28). Shepherds care, feed, heal and protect, and shepherds know their sheep (John 10v14) - the shepherd is not aloof, but has real relationship with the flock.

From his own example, Paul said, "For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20v27). The leader teaches, from the whole of scripture, not just his favourite doctrines.

"Be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity" (1 Tim 4v12). Leaders should be godly examples - and not in outward conduct - but in love, in speech, in spirit; there is a spirit about the leader (even the presence of the Holy Spirit Himself) which impacts the lives of those in his care - or should.

"Give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine" (1 Tim 4v13). Yes, the scriptures must be read, the truth must be declared, the flock should be lovingly exhorted concerning what is right, sound doctrine is important. Paul tells Timothy later "hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim 1v13). He says that having waxed lyrical about the grace of God shown to him. Thus the true shepherd will lay a foundation of the grace of God. It is grace that heals the wounds of the enemy's accusation and so it must be declared from the rooftops.

"And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance that they may know the truth" (2 Tim 2v24-25). We must be true to scripture - correction is biblical! But how correction is done is very important. It is to be done gently, with patience, with humility. If a leader meets opposition, the first place he should go is before the Lord; he should be searching his heart "is it me, Lord?" But if confrontation is needed, the surely it must come with tenderness and love, with a longing that the person would be set free by the truth. Sometimes the rebuke might have to be sharp (see Titus 1v13), but it is with the aim "that they may be sound in the faith."

"Preach the Word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching" (2 Tim 4v2). The leader is a faithful teacher, not necessarily teaching what is popular, but patiently seeking to convince and challenge, and lovinging stirring up the whole flock to obey the Lord and grow.

"Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfact in Christ Jesus. To this end I also labour, striving according to His working which works in me mightily" (Col 1v28-29). A leader is passionate, longing for the maturity of every person entrusted to his care. That passion is expressed here by words like "labour" and "strive". A leader must strive with His energy, so He must be much in the presence of the Lord, and completely dependent upon Him. So surely he should be passionate in prayer, urgent in preaching and explaining the truth, faithful in serving.

What a high calling!! Yet, there is great encouragement: "...our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3v5-6).


What the body does

Leaders are actually a part of the body, but I am using the term here to describe those in the church who are not leaders, that is, the remainder of the flock. What are the flock called to?

Submit!
Yes it is scriptural, and just because it is abused doesn't mean it can be ignored. Now, when we seek to understand what a scripture means, our interpretation must not contradict other scriptures - if it does then there is something wrong with the interpretation. So submission does not mean blind and silent obedience - it simply cannot given the scriptures above concerning the call of the body. A healthy church is a maturing church and maturing children have a thirst for knowledge and ask questions! So submission does not mean silence!

Submission does mean respect, and it means following the leadership as they lead and pioneer the vision God has given to the church. It means trusting the leadership to make godly decisions, and responding to the lead (unless it is clearly unbiblical or immoral) even if we think "well perhaps that might be better" because we know Jesus is the Chief Shepherd and these are men who will give an account.

It means praying for leaders, forgiving leaders when they get it wrong (because they will as they are fallible), it means talking to leaders rather than simply about leaders.

Submission shows love and honour. Out of such an attitude, submission also means a humble questioning and sharing concerns, suggesting perhaps a different way, seeking greater understanding and sharing prophetic revelation.

And leaders in this atmosphere of trust, who have an ear for the Holy Spirit, will listen for His voice not just in their own meetings, but through the flock aswell.

Seek!
Earnestly and passionately seeking God themselves. Not for the pastor to do all, or to have all the answers. It's already been said that leadership is given, not to pray on behalf of the people but to teach the power of prayer and not to mediate but to point TO the mediator.

Speaking from my experience as a pastor - and I am not having a "go" here at all, just observing - there is a culture in many churches that "I'll ask the pastor to pray for me" or "I'll ask the pastor what to do." Now, of course, the pastor should pray for the flock, and give advice where needed, BUT - every member can seek God for themselves. Every member can hear the voice of God themselves.

Some of this culture may have come from leaders encouraging an unhealthy dependency, and it is time for us to break free. There is only ONE mediator (and that is Jesus, not the pastor). We are all priests - with freedom to come before the throne of grace to find mercy and grace to help in time of need. The veil is torn for us ALL.

Desire!
Earnestly desiring spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophecy (1 Cor 14v1). This is a command, and it is not only given to leaders. Now again, leadership control can quench the use of spiritual gifts - but so can a lack of congregation desire! It is vital that every member sees his or her calling to desire the grace gifts of God -whatever He may give to each one - for the edifying of the body of Christ.

So often it is portrayed that leaders are indispensible. I have learned that is not true - when I was ill and out of action for two months last year, I learned that the fellowship could still mature without me!! But the scripture teaches that in one sense we are all indispensible, or at least all vital to the healthy functioning of the body of Christ - "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling?" (1 Cor 12v17).

We are all responsible for our own desire for these gifts (and for the Giver Himself). Let's not be passive in these things.

Pursue!
Pursue the glory! There is a tragic statement by the children of Israel in Ex 20v19: "You speak with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die!" The people stood at a distance and only Moses went right into the glory.

But we're in the New Covenant now!!! We can all press into the glory of God. We must!! We need the cloud to drench us, the whole of God's people.


In summary

We are a priesthood and prophethood of all believers. We all have a ministry gift and place in the body of Christ. We are all called to maturity. We are all invited into the Most Holy Place. Leaders are called to lead, yes. But - together we make the dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

I passionately believe it is time to break free from old covenant thinking into the glories of the new covenant reality, which is ours through Christ. The book of Hebrews tells us again and again, this is a better covenant, with better promises. The old was the shadow of the reality.

Let's come out of the shadows...

Leadership for What Purpose?

The whole "Mark Driscoll" has certainly proved profitable for my thinking patterns! Obviously Scott was the first off the mark to write his post; "Mark Driscoll: The reason I'm not going to Brighton 2008". I was determined initially to keep my peace until after Newfrontiers gave more details about themes and seminar titles and other speakers - but the contrast between Driscoll's humour and the Holy Spirit's power became too much and so I wrote; "Humour versus Holy Spirit". I have just added about twenty or so quotes to the "Pentecostal/Charismatic Post-it Notes Blog" and I was amazed at how each quote seemed to be relevant to this whole issue. For example; Andrew Walker in his excellent book; "Restoring the Kingdom" had some interesting insights on Terry Virgo himself;

"Looking at the uniformity of belief and practice within Terry (Virgo's) churches prevents us from being lulled into a false sense that Terry is a soft man. He tends to get what he wants".

Let us not deceive ourselves that blog discussions can always change the affairs of church movements or nations! They are useful for their purpose but there are limits to what they can achieve! So some of these quotes I posted helped me to come up with some questions about the conferences that we go to and the speakers we chase around the country. And believe me - I am the champion speaker-chaser! Just think of this Sunday! These questions may not be relevant for a full-time person in ministry with a large conference budget who can afford to get a wide sweep of the conferences available and the desire to do so. But for me - on a limited budget, with limited time and holiday - these 3 questions are necessary limitations and "grace diets" that I want and must go on.

1. Does the Ministry of the Speaker Add Anything to the Concept of "Grace and Glory" that is otherwise lacking?

Over the last two years I have seen the two glorious strands of Christian life come together. "Grace" - the wonderful, freeing, liberating work that Christ did for us on the Cross and then subsequently victoriously rising from the dead has been brought to life so powerfully for me in the last 2 or 3 years or so. This is mainly thanks to Terry Virgo and his wonderful teaching on "God's Lavish Grace". I always thought that the Cross was just the "entry point" into the Christian life and that was it. Yet Terry Virgo's wonderful grace teaching allowed me to see that the wounds on the Lamb are still fresh.

Yet grace teaching alone without a Kingdom vision surely leaves us in danger of a selfish mentality and an inward perspective which leaves us suspectible to talk of remnants of sin and sinful inner men. Furthermore it can surely lead to dangerous passivity. I have always loved Ern Baxter and his view of the Kingdom of God - particularly his teaching on "The Land". But I only heard snatches of such Kingdom teaching today - mainly from Terry Virgo and from David Devenish. And then along came Rob Rufus! Rob's key sermon for me marrying these two concepts of "Grace and Glory" - was one he preached at CCK in Brighton in July 2007.

So there for me - are the two wonderful glorious concepts and for the first time I saw them married in experience in Hong Kong. What I want to know from other conference speakers I hear is this; what will they add to that? Will they further expose me to the glories of the grace of God? Will they lead me further into the glory cloud of His manifest Presence? If not - can I really spend the money and the time going to that conference for the pleasing of my ears alone?

Ern Baxter said; "The greatest force in evangelicalism is not the gimmicks and all that goes with it in modern evangelicalism ...". Yet Luke Wood wrote; "It is wonderful to have people ... engaging with their culture or in growing massive churches". I must ask - is that really our call? I am not saying there is any glory in delighting in being "uncultural" and singing old hymns with a pipe-organ. But is engaging with culture really our highest call? Growing massive churches? All I know is that God told Rob Rufus;

"Son - you fill buildings with My Presence and My glory and I will fill the buildings with people".

Yes it is great that Mark Driscoll has built a church of thousands very quickly - but can we really attribute that to him or to the grace of God? If we agree it is the grace of God then why then do we need to hear what he says in the possible hope that we too can build churches like him? We are not Mark Driscoll! We do not live in Mars Hill! I don't even live in the USA! Borrowing Mark Driscoll's principles and speaking like him from the pulpit simply CANNOT guarantee the same results as he has accomplished.

2. Will the Ministry of the Speaker impart the Holy Spirit in power to us, so that it is ESSENTIAL that we are there in person - or are the speakers teaching information we can gain equally easily and more cheaply from the CD's?

I remember one of the things Rob Rufus said that made me think so seriously about going to Hong Kong - was that you would not receive the same degree of glory by simply listening to the CD's as you would be being in person in Hong Kong. Up until then I had been looking forward to getting the CD's and hearing what went on. I understand now what he meant. Just so at "Together on a Mission 2006" and "Together on a Mission 2007". It's very hard to explain what it is like sitting in conferences like that to someone who has never been there.

One of the best working definitions of "Apostles" that I have heard was given by David Holden at a Brighton Conference in 2003. The point that most grabbed my attention was this;

"4. To impart the Holy Spirit. This could be introducing people to the baptism in the Holy Spirit, or enabling a church to have fresh encounters of the Holy Spirit. It may also be signs and wonders. Apostolic ministry is far more to do with impartation than administration".

We don't talk much about impartation in Western conferences. I am the most guilty of this! It's a very dizzy thing to come to a conference and know that a brilliant mind like Wayne Grudem, or Don Carson, or John Piper or Sam Storms are going to be there. Those men are all my heroes and I love listening to tapes of them. But the question is this; Impartation or Information?

Personally I am greedy and I want both! There is nothing more thrilling and up-lifting and encouraging that to sit hearing the Word of God expounded with power and feel the Spirit come and settle upon you. I remember this vividly when Terry Virgo was preaching about Gideon at "Let the Nations Be Glad" in 2005. He started to speak about the Spirit "coming upon" Gideon and applied it rightly. I felt dizzy and drunk as I sat there and heard the Word of God opened but the Spirit verifying the Word with power. Just so with Rob Rufus. I refuse to accept that there is some sort of imbalance in Rob Rufus's ministry that needs to be balanced by Mark Driscoll. Why have to choose? Why not both!?

Terry himself said it in 2002!

"It had been my longing that the conference would welcome the Spirit and honour the Word. Why is it so rarely that we are privilidged to experience at the same time the manifestation of the Holy Spirit's power and true respect for the Word of God? How sad that we so often have to put up with a lack of one or the other".

Finally - 3. Is the life example of the leader one I want to follow? Is he a man who walks ahead of me into the glory cloud? Is he a man dancing free by grace or is he bound up with rules and regulations? Will he make me hungry for his intimacy with God?
The observant among you will have noticed that Pete Day has been added as a contributer to this blog - "Life on Wings". The reasons for that is that we are writing a post together on leadership - linked to a comment I left on "SGM ... Uncensored". There are some questions we feel that need to be asked about leadership today and whether it truly is New Testament - and furthermore whether it truly is equipping the Church to be a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

Andrew Walker made some interesting observations about leadership in his book; "Restoring the Kingdom". I think we have to be honest and admit that sometimes Christian leaders are their own worst enemy;

"He is a mature, secure person who does not feel the need to use his apostolic authority to get his own way, ride roughshod over others or make impossible demands on members ... in the fact file I have collected on discipleship abuses, authoritarianism and insecure personalities is a dominant theme".

And again;

"The more insecure leaders were, the more they would invoke heavenly backing for their advice".

My heart is to see Christian leaders released into true freedom themselves - and to be freed from the over-bearing burden that has been placed upon them to act as Old Testament priests and mediate between God and the Church. A burden they should never have to bear! Why are Christians today flocking to their pastors asking for God's will and God's guidance when they are more than able to hear God themselves? Why are Christians today (worst still) going to psychics and mediums because they feel let down by their pastors for getting the guidance and the words from God they seek?

"SGM ... Uncensored" is dealing with a lot of accounts of excess and hurt and sadness - but such excess doesn't take away from the fact that the ministries accounted in Ephesians 4 are GIFTS from the Ascended Christ! And gifts are good. ALL gifts from God are good!

But that being said, leaders do have a responsibility to walk out in front and model a life of intimacy with God. It is common knowledge that we become like the people we spend time with. I'm told that some churches in the UK are very taken with Mark Driscoll's style of preaching and talking - even to the extent of telling smutty stories and jokes during the sermons. So obviously Mark Driscoll is becoming a model whether he likes it or not. But what of his personal walk with God? Has he ever been baptised in the Holy Spirit? Has he ever prophesied or seen visions? Has he encountered the glory of God? I would be interested to know and hear this - probably more than hearing what a macho man he is.

So ... I really do urge you to watch out for this forth-coming post. We really believe that the principles that Rob Rufus has been teaching into so faithfully about the difference between Old and New Covenant need to be applied here in leadership as well. May these posts explore in some what how leaders can be freed by the true lavish grace of God so that the Church can take another step towards becoming the glorious end-time Bride that she is meant to be!