Tom the PSate

No, it isn't a bad spelling of some cuss word or other derogatory phrase. It happens to be the result of my APEST test and I have to say I have mixed emotions about it. The actual results are: Prophetic 25, Shepherd 19, Apostolic 15, teaching 12, Evangelism 7. According to the results my primary ministry leadership styles are prophetic and shepherd. the other three are secondary with evangelistic being a distant last.

Here's the same thing as a graph.



My mixed emotion comes from the surprise I had with prophetic coming in first. I figured the shepherd would be there and I knew that evangelism would be last. I think the surprise had more to do with definitions.

I have always accepted the definition of a prophet as one who foretells the future and calls people to repentance. I never worried too much about the former since most of prophecy in the Bible isn't of that kind anyway and I've thought of myself as very good at the latter. In fact I kind of stink at it.

The assessment that gets printed with the results kind of leads in another direction. Among the characteristics it lists for a prophetic leader are things like: Questions what has become normative, Disturbs common thinking and practices, agitates for positive change, Comfortable dismantling for future victory. I'm not sure I'm always positive or good at these but I do feel at home with them.

The key to this information is to understand it in terms of my leadership but also to make sure I surround myself with people who have other strengths, especially an evangelist or two.

Final thoughts:

1. One more assessment to add to the mountain of assessments I've taken.
2. If you have an idea that you want me to shoot down just let me know.
3. Books by Hirsch and Frost are pretty good.
4. Worth the $10 but can't some rich guy pay them so they can offer it free?

Politically Correct or Loathsome Indifference

A strange thing happened on Wednesday. I was making my normal rounds around the net checking in on the days news. It just so happens that I go CNN's headlines first to see if there is anything of interest and then move on to the BBC to see what they have going. I was surprised on Wednesday to see a headline on the BBC regarding a US mob death. I hadn't seen anything on CNN so I figured something must have happened somewhere else in the world. I was surprised then to find that the incident occurred just outside of Austin, Texas.

Apparently a man was driving his car through a parking lot that had a summer festival going on nearby. He hit a girl and knocked her to the ground. His passenger got out to check on her (minor injuries) and was set upon by a mob (accounts say from 2 to 20 people, if that counts for a mob.) He was left lying on the ground and was pronounced dead at a hospital a short time later.

I kept checking CNN figuring they would have a more complete report and was surprised when it didn't show up until much later in the day. It also disappeared rather quickly while the BBC has done a follow up story. On top of that it seems that very few people that I talked to in the days since had even heard about it so it must not have been very prominent in other media either.

Some have accused the media of not wanting to report the story because the festival happened to be the Juneteenth festival which marks the freeing of the American slaves. Apparently the "mob" was black while the victim was Hispanic though police have said that race was not a factor.

Today I'm left wondering what really happened. Either the media didn't give this much coverage for politically correct reasons or our society has reached a point where a mob beating a person to death isn't that big of a deal. Either way I'm appalled and feel sad for the victim's family. I wish I could tell them that I took note of their loss and I'm praying for them.

Artisanal Church

Bill McKibben wrote an article in the current issue of Books & Culture on French Bread. He describes the movement of bread making from small bakers to industrial giants and states that beer would be the US equivalent.

We went from hundreds of artisanal brewers to just a few dozen giant producers. This resulted in a uniform, hygienic and cheaper product. But many connoisseurs would claim that a lot of flavor was lost in the process. Not being a beer drinker myself I'll have to take their word for it but I have noticed the rise of the micro-breweries in the last decade or two. In fact I regularly hear advertisements on the radio for a local brand called WarBird.

It seems like most conferences I go to on church are conscious of this loss of flavor in church terms too. They are quick to tell you that it is the principles and not the programs that make a church successful. They say you have to adapt it to your own context. They say that but I often wonder how much they really mean it.

I think I like the concept of an artisanal church. It evokes in me visions of great care in selecting and mixing of the ingredients. I see a mix of not only science but also art in the craft. I imagine a loving connection between the craftsmen and the product, so much so that authenticity is the bottom line rather than profit. It reminds me of similar thoughts brought to mind after reading Wendell Berry about working the ground as a farmer.

I suppose there is a lot to be said for the product produced by those industrial giants. I know there are things they can do that an artisan can't simply due to size. But my bent is toward the artisan and if I were a beer drinker I think that's where I would be found. That also happens to be where I'll be as a preacher and I think that's O.K.

Visionary Leaders

Consensus Leadership has been around for awhile. Some say it's on its way out while others think it is here to stay. I think it is one of those things that sounds good but give me a visionary leader any day.

My problem with consensus leadership is that the destination of your organization is limited to the experiences of a majority, or at least a healthy portion, of its members. On the other hand, a visionary leader can take an organization to a place beyond the wildest dreams of its members. She really leads rather than just facilitates.

The reason a visionary leader can do that is because that is exactly what she is tasked to do. She is supposed to spend time exploring possibilities outside of the institution's environment. It is impossible to do that with a large number of people. Sure the leader still has to sell that dream and win support for it, but that is an entirely different matter.

I think consensus leadership is especially bad for churches and I think it explains why churches tend to change so slowly. Most ideas come from what was done in the past or what Uncle Fred's church is doing. It is just too hard to build consensus about something that no one has ever seen before. It takes a visionary leader to get you there.

Consensus leadership, despite what proponents say to the contrary, also reinforces a "keep everyone happy at all cost" attitude. If you disagree with the consensus you are supposed to agree to go along with the consensus for a given period of time to see if it works. The understanding is that you'll be a good soldier and when the consensus idea doesn't work they'll come back to revisit your idea. In church that usually means you have someone doing their best to make sure the consensus idea fails so they are forced to go back to their idea.

The problem with a visionary leader is that her idea is scary, risky, uncomfortable and maybe downright dangerous. But hey, might as well go out with a bang, don't you think?

Home Turf

There are times when I get very focused on our worship service because I think there is so much riding on it. I want visitors to leave wanting more. I hope they find it inspiring and that it helps them encounter God. But then I'm reminded of what so many writers have said about the need for churches to quit trying to attract people to church and instead take the church to them. Unfortunately that's easier said than done.

I like my little corner of the world because I know it. I know where the dangerous parts are and there are few surprises. My world seems in balance. I can take sure steps here because everything is so familiar.

It is not like that when I leave my home turf. I feel a sense of unease because I don't know my way around or understand everything I encounter. It's uncomfortable precisely because it is all foreign to me. I'd rather be on my home turf.

I think that is the way it is with most churches. We stick with our home turf because it is comfortable. We can attract people to our church but most of them seem to come from other churches or at least they are people who are familiar with, and therefore comfortable with, our turf. But that leaves a huge segment of our population out of the picture. They live on different turf and they feel the same way about our turf as we do about theirs. My guess is that this is more than 50% of the population though I have nothing to back up that claim.

So here we are, each on our own turf. We feel uncomfortable on their turf and they feel the same way about ours. The only way to bridge the gap is for one of us to endure the agony of leaving home turf. I think Jesus makes it clear that we are the ones who should make the move. That means instead of trying to attracting them into crossing the bridge we need to go to them. Unfortunately most of us don't have the guts to do that.