Churchweb

In the last 10 years we pastors have heard from a variety of voices that our churches needs to have great websites. Well, I think it started out that we just needed to have a website. That gave rise to a whole raft of awful looking websites that would have made Miss Pacman proud. So then the call came for good websites. Along the way it was pointed out that our websites were static and uncool. We were left with the impression that it needed to be interactive with up to date content. Now I'm getting calls telling me that, for a monthly sum, I can be provided with a product that will be like Facebook for just my church.

My current opinion (I reserve the right to change my mind) is that church websites should provide basic information about your church and leave it at that. I want my church website to be a place where people can get the information they need and nothing more. It shouldn't be ugly but I would even be pretty lenient with that.

I figure that if the online lives of the people in my church revolve around my church website we have a problem. If you want to use a Facebook like product for your church why not just use Facebook? I suppose some may use safety as the reason but my inclination is that it has more to do with power and control. It also supports the refuge theology so prevalent in churches today.

So I prefer the people in my church to get a life and be salt and light in a world that needs it. If they need info on some church activity then visit my church website. If visitors need information about us, have at it. Other than that I'm just not going to waste my time.

Church

As a pastor I get to listen to people and read about church all the time. I hear they are to be biotic, organic, purpose driven, lay led, lead pastor led, governed, administered, community, house, small, medium, large, mega – and that’s before turning around to look at my bookcase to add even more adjectives to the list. Nothing excites me more than getting into a rousing discussion about this. (Can you hear my sarcasm?)

On the other hand, Jesus mentions church 3 times in two different instances. I think Pascal gets credit for saying, “God made man in His image, and man returned the favor.” Maybe we have done the same thing with the church by creating an institution that was never intended.

I understand that the Bible has a lot to say about church in passages that aren’t quoting Jesus. I also do believe that church is a valuable and worthy thing. But I believe that the church of our creation has done, and is doing, incredible harm to both followers of Jesus and the commission to make even more followers of Jesus.

The problem is that we make the church the center of a spiritual life instead of Jesus. Jesus followers are told by their church to invite non-believers to church. Some of these people will enjoy church and will eventually join the club. They will start hanging out with a lot of good people which will cause them to improve their behavior too. They will do more good things and less bad things and before you know it they too will be inviting people to church.

This strategy works. Huge churches have developed using precisely this strategy. The lives of large numbers of people have been changed. And a few have even developed a relationship with Jesus.

What we are actually told to do is make followers of Jesus. Of course church plays a part in that but the focus is supposed to be on Jesus. I know it may seem like I’m nit-picking but this is a case where first-things-first really matters.

I’m a fan of the Detroit Lions football team. I like communing with other Lion’s fans. We suffer a lot and misery really does love company. We like talking, complaining, spreading rumors about, and analyzing the Lions.

In a small town not too far from here I see a bunch of motorcycles parked outside a little bar. They aren’t part of some hard core biker gang. They’re just ordinary people with a passion for motorcycles. If I had a bike I would probably join them. I don’t drink but there is something about being around people who are in love with the same thing you are. It’s encouraging, uplifting, educational, and gives us a sense of belonging.

Maybe that’s the way it is supposed to be with the church. Maybe it is supposed to be a bunch of people who gather together, NOT because someone invited them, NOT because the church sign had a pithy little saying that convicted them, and NOT because the worship team rocks and the pastor is a great communicator. Maybe church is supposed to be that place where people who have fallen in love with Jesus gather to hang out, tell stories, learn, encourage, and commune with each other.

When we put the church first it’s like inviting someone to join us because our club house is cool and not because of who Jesus is. I think it would be better to simply tell people about Jesus and know that as they fall in love with Him they too will seek out other Jesus lovers to hang out with.

World Cup Robbery

As my surname implies, I have Dutch heritage so I was rooting for the Dutch in the World Cup final versus Spain. Alas, the Dutch faltered and fell to a late Spain goal, in extra time, leaving the Dutch as runners-up once again. But I have no doubt that in the days ahead there will be much complaining in the Dutch press about the referee.

In my view a football referee is different than most other sports in that their overall goal is that there is an overall fairness in the game, and not that all the rules were followed to the letter. The rules were designed to achieve that overall goal but they don't always do that. But that is fodder for another post altogether. In this game I would give the referee a C- grade from a technical perspective and a B+ from a human perspective.

Unlike the Dutch teams that finished runners-up in the past, this team was dramatically outclassed by Spain in terms of talent. With that in mind the Dutch had an easily identifiable game plan. 1) Play aggressively and disrupt Spain's excellent possession game. 2) Hold Spain scoreless. 3) Secure the win via the counter attack, a set piece, or penalties if necessary. To their credit, they succeeded to a large degree at disrupting Spain's possession and nearly succeeded in the other two points.

The referee had an interesting match as he set a record for cards given in a World Cup Final. He did miss a few calls that the Dutch are justified in complaining about. I still don't know how he missed the deflection off the wall just prior to Spain's goal.

But despite those complaints the Dutch should feel fortunate that they did not receive even harsher penalties. De Young should have seen a straight Red card for a vicious foul on Alonso in the first half. They also could have had several other players sent off for a second yellow much earlier than Heitinga received in the extra time period. All things considered, if the Dutch had won it would have had to be considered highway robbery.

It is one thing to play aggressive soccer but the Dutch resorted to thuggery. Instead of playing for a fair win they played with the hope that they could cheat and get away with it. In football, where finals often produce low scoring, it is all too easy to get away with that strategy. It is up to the referee to make sure that it doesn't work. And while he did give out a high number of cards, he almost didn't do enough, thus the low technical grade. As much as I hate to say it, it is a good thing Spain won. Had the Dutch won with that strategy it would have been adopted by many more teams than normally would use it going forward.

I give the referee a higher score from a human perspective because it is hard to give that many cards in a game. It is very hard to give a red card in a World Cup final. He also had to deal with a lot of angry and emotional players on both sides. It is one thing to deal with those situations as they arise but it is twice as hard to keep those encounters with players from affecting your perspective in the rest of the match. He seemed to do well at keeping his focus.

One final thought on the coaching in the final. Spain's coach, del Bosque, waited to long to bring on Fabregas. I also think he should started Navas instead of Pedro. He was probably thinking that Navas would take up space that Ramos usually uses to get forward but Pedro just didn't play well. As for Van Marwijk, his strategy almost worked. He probably should have used someone else besides Van Persie up front because he did very little. I haven't heard the explanation yet but I think he made a crucial mistake substituting Van Bronckhorst. I understand the move because he is old, the game was in extra time, and Navas' speed was causing him problems. But Braafheid is not of the same class or experience and the goal did come from the left side of defense. On the goal I wonder if Braafheid was a little too high, allowing Fabregas a clear lane to pass to Iniesta.

So the best team, who played the best, won the game. That's the way it is supposed to be. But I don't have to like it.

The World Cup And Money

As a big soccer fan and former college player and coach I haven't been as productive the last few weeks since the World Cup is on. I'll start by saying that I don't care why you hate soccer and what is wrong with the sport. And I don't care if you ever watch a soccer game in your life. I have no desire to convert you into a fan. I will only say that for those of you trying to be soccer evangelist you should give it up. You won't argue anyone into being a fan. And for those of you who want to argue that soccer isn't a sport or that it is boring, get over it. It's a foolish argument. I understand that you don't get it and I can't help it that you don't understand why others do. Your argument is just as old and stale as you believe ours to be so just walk away and we'll agree to leave each other alone.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way let's get on to talking about money. After the USA was knocked out of the tournament there was a sparkling moment of analysis by Jurgen Klinsmann. It was jaw droppingly astute and I hope it gets picked up by the suits in US Soccer.

Klinsmann was an accomplished forward in the 1990's and won the World Cup with Germany in 1990 and the European Championship in '96. He took over as coach of the German national team and took a very young team to a third place finish in 2006. They were considered overachievers and they played a bright, positive style that was a change from the deliberate and methodical style of the traditional German teams. He has divided his time between the US and Germany for many years. Before current US coach Bob Bradley was hired Klinsmann was considered. The rumors were that he and the US Soccer Federation could not agree on how the National Team was structured so they went separate ways.

In a sort of aside at the end of the broadcast, Klinsmann was asked where he thought the US needed to go from here. He basically said that the US needed to change how soccer develops and hope to produce quality players by 2022 when the US has a good chance of hosting the tournament again. I can't quote him directly but here is what I understood him to mean.

At present in the USA we pay to play soccer. Almost every participant pays a fee to play. It is rare to see kids playing on there own in a vacant lot. And if you want your child to become a good soccer player you have to pay a lot of money to have them play for a club team. It's expensive and most of the club players come from well-to-do-families. These are the kids who are recruited to play college soccer and who eventually make their way into professional sports.

That's not the way it works in the rest of the world. You've heard of kids playing soccer on the beaches in Brazil and if you've ever been to the third world you've undoubtedly seen kids playing in the streets. In most of Europe they don't have near the emphasis we do on high school and university sports so guys like Klinsmann grew up playing with friends. They were middle class kids who weren't paying to play.

Why does it matter? It is certainly possible for a upper class kid to have the hunger and drive to get good enough to succeed but it seems that poorer kids have a better chance to excel. Klinsmann points to basketball and notes how the streets of the inner city seems to be the main breeding ground for elite NBA talent. Sure, a few rich kids make it but it isn't the norm.

To back it up one only has to look at the fact that in the 20 years since 1990 when we started to take our place once again on the world soccer stage we have yet to produce even one world class soccer player. For those of you who point to Landon Donovan, who many argue is our best player ever, sorry, but no. If he was truly world class the likes of Manchester United, Chelsea, and Arsenal would come calling. And if he was really good he would be playing for Real Madrid or Barcelona.

Those clubs get who they want. This is how it works. They want the best players in the world so they can win because they are global enterprises and they make millions from being famous. Once they identify a target they begin to talk about how they would like that player playing at their club. No matter how much a player might like their current club they are easily convinced that moving would be a good idea. At that point you have a player who wants to move and it just comes down to money. Money talks and every club has there price. I have yet to see a wanted player not end up on a top club. And those clubs aren't targeting Donovan. In fact they have never targeted a US player like that.

Klinsann also pointed to 2022. Countries bid to host the World Cup and the next one up for bid is 2018. The USA is bidding for that one but the consensus is that it will go to Europe. (2014 will be in Brazil) That makes the USA's best chance 2022. Klinsmann believes we need to change our structure now so that we get these middle and lower class kids playing soccer so we have some talent by 2022. By that time we might start seeing some better talent coming along. They'd be young but then we would really have something to move forward with.

I thought Klinsmann had some excellent thoughts. He was looking into the future and he identified a key problem in the development in talent. I also appreciate that he wasn't afraid to address something that could be a politically incorrect topic. Race follows right behind economics and class and Klinsmann knows it. He knows that the the Hispanic and African/American community will end up being a much bigger part of US soccer than they are even now.

Money also sheds light on another interesting issue in the World Cup. Soccer is suffering right now because it doesn't know what to do about technology. There have been several high profile referring errors and the calls for the use of replay or other technology has gotten louder. But it isn't easy for Fifa. Sure they could use technology at the world cup but they don't want to create more of a class problem in soccer.

Just like with players, soccer has always had it roots in poorer nations. Sure Europe has several soccer powers but several poorer nations have excelled. Though Brazil is now considered a developed country it has been winning World Cup trophies for a long time now. Most of the European leagues are flooded with players from poorer countries. It is the accessibility of soccer by the poor that has enabled it to become THE global sport.

Technology is expensive and if Fifa started using replay where would it draw the line? Would the African Nations Cup tournament feel compelled to use it too? I know Sierra Leone couldn't afford that many cameras and the associated equipment so what would they do for home games? Would they be forced to play home games at a neutral site?

Personally, I'm all for instant replays in the World Cup but I understand the argument against it. I also understand the tension between the rich and poor in regards to it.

Fifa is one of those organizations that drive me crazy. On the one hand I think it is one of the most corrupt organizations around and wouldn't put anything past them. They have rules like no government interference in national soccer federations. Can someone explain to me how they know the North Korean federation is independent? But they do have a unique challenge in balancing the complexities of the modern world with a poor constituency. Looks like the US National Team has a lot to figure out too.

Strength

So I read the "Strengths Based Leadership" book. Actually there are about 100 pages of explanation followed by a breakdown of the the 34 themes and the four domains they fall into. The book also includes a code that lets you take a strengths assessment.

My top 5 strengths are Ideation, Learner, Strategic, Futuristic, and Intellection. I won't even try to explain them since even the spellchecker goes nuts on two of them. They all fall in the Strategic Thinking domain. I got nothing in the Executing, Influencing, or Relation Building domains which was a bit of a disappointment for me.

Hoping the assessment was screwed up I took the results home to my wife to look over. She says the descriptions fit. Oh well.

Looking back on it I guess it does make some sense. I desperately need to get a few executors around me. People that get things done. The assessment says I also need people who can woo people (influencers) and a lot of relationship builders. I have the last two around me but I need executors.

The last time our benevolence association met I presented an idea that would grow us into something that I think would go along way to addressing needs in our community and getting a lot of people using their gifts. I like the idea but I fear there won't be anyone who will step in and make it happen. Now I know why I think that way, because I'm not an executor.

A few years ago I served on an executive team. I ticked off one of the leaders because I suggested an alternative view on something he was pushing. I felt pretty frustrated at the time and dropped off when the next round of elections came up. Now it makes sense because the only thing I was bringing to the table was strategic thinking and that's not what they were looking for. I think they were looking for more influencers and relationship builders who could take what they were selling and promote it among the constituency.

So I guess it makes sense but I don't know where it leaves me. I'm not sure it fits very well with my situation. I think it would have been helpful if I had a few strengths in another domain or two. My first thought was to work on improving in some of the other areas but that goes completely against the premise of the book. Don't waste time on your weaknesses, develop and use your strengths.

Missio 3

Time for my third post on the Missional Leadership Initiative. Let me make a disclaimer that none of what I have quoted here can be taken as 100% accurate. I may have misheard, miss-wrote, taken out of context, misinterpreted, extrapolated, or done any number of misdeeds to what was actually said.

This won't be my notes from our last meeting but I do want to write down a few of the highlights, or at least things that were especially helpful for me.


Reggie talked a lot about moving from one thing to another. He's hooked on it and most of our time together was spent talking about these major shifts. But he threw in a couple of smaller ones that I liked.

"Move from church as a noun to church as a verb." Okay, so that is obvious but then he constructed the sentence, "I church at work," and that kind of rattled around the brain a bit differently. We church, we don't go to church.

"The church doesn't have a mission, the mission has a church." I haven't thought that one through too much yet. It was about not bending God's heart to us, but our heart to God.

Reggie also talked about the siloing we do in our lives. We tend to have a politics silo, academic silo, health silo, church silo, etc. He drew this as vertical columns to represent how we often think this way. Pastors can especially silo their church world. He then erased the church silo and redrew it horizontally, cutting across all the other silos. Again, not exactly a new concept but a refreshing way to look at it for me.

"You don't motivate, you create an environment where people can follow their call." You probably have to do some motivating but we probably spend way too much time on it and neglect creating the environment altogether.


Reggie also threw in some good nuggets on timely topics.

On assessing - "Maturation, not participation. Participation does not mean maturation."

Debriefing - Reggie was big on this. We need to create a culture where our people are debriefed. (And yes, we've heard all the underwear jokes.) It helps us process what we experience and grow through them. We even need to give people an opportunity to debrief after our sermons. "What is the take away?" Learn from Larry King, Oprah, military, first responders.

Programs - So Reggie talks a lot about being people driven versus program driven. The program driven church has even become an archetype. Yet even if we aren't program driven we still have programs. Reggie said, "Think of programs as intentional processes." That's helpful for me. Keeps it from being the goal.

Leadership Development - "We train for tasks instead of movement leadership." I see a lot of potential for thought here. After we train people for all these tasks we promote them to leader. But he says they require different competencies. (Apostolic, entrepreneurial, developers.)

Game Changer - Going missional is a game changer. Therefore it is not incremental. "It's like working on your golf swing to perfect your tennis stroke." This is frightening.


Then there were just a few quotes that I thought were good.

"When did Jesus last change your mind?" I don't have anything to say about this but I love the question. Not sure I like the answer.

"No drive-byes." Every church should have this posted in their board room.

"People don't grow in artificial environments." He was talking about the need to be life-centric.

"You cannot have a missional church without missional people." I understand but where does that leave us?

I don't remember exactly how he said it but he commented on seeker sensitive churches and pointed out that scripture says that God is the seeker. So I guess in that sense we should all be seeker sensitive in our worship.

All in all it was a great time together. I learned a lot but it will take awhile to process it all. Next one is in September but I'll be meeting with my cohort several times in between. And of course, it will take months to get Steve and Dan straightened out on all this stuff. :) Okay, so they're thinking the same.