Bravely standing beside your invitee

For the first time in a almost two decades I'm now in a position to invite someone to a church where I have absolutely no leadership impact.

I'm not on staff...
I don't preach...
I don't lead the service...
I don't even give the bible reading.

Thus, if I invited someone to church I'd now get to stand beside them.

I think this is far more intimidating.

For, now, they could hear me sing.
Now I could get a better read on their body language.
Now I could have questions directly asked to me in real time.
Now I can hear them sigh or see them glance at their watch.
Now they could see and hear me cringe.

People who invite others, especially those unfamiliar with church, are a lot braver than those in church leadership often realise.

Why?

Because their self-consciousness is rawly on display.
Because what their faith's about is put in the hands of those up the front.
Because the central thing in their life is thrown open and all they can do is pray for the best.

The freedom of only having one service

It seems to me, before the fad of mid-to-late-afternoon-family-services arose, everyone wanted to have two church services on a Sunday morning (with one catering to the older/classic/traditional crowd and the other more family-friendly/contemporary/progressive demographic).

But, having worked in multiple churches with services back-to-back, there's a freedom which is lost with dual services.

First of all, you isolate your congregation by demographic or preference. With the lack of exposure to the "others" form of worship then our preferences only gets further entrenched. This makes combined services a delicate tension to navigate. 

Second, the earlier service is hampered by the start time of the following service. To a vast extent, things cannot go over time. No matter what God might be doing, the initial congregation needs to be vacated by a certain timeframe. No matter how powerful the sermon, how important the announcement or how inspirational the pray is, time will always triumph.

Third, this time restraint also apples to anyone participating in the later service. In the early service, musical and tech prep can be far more relaxed. This, often, isn't an option before the subsequent services. If nothing else, this adds more stress and makes the attractiveness of helping in these areas less.

Fourth, this is incredablly taxing on the minister/preacher. Even if they aren't your typical introvert-minister, then "being on" for 4 hours straight can be quite taxing. Add to this their lack of preparation between services and time-squeeze to "run through" the people they need to speak with or who only "want a moment" of their time.

Although most churches who have dual services won't change, I wonder how often they consider the cost of putting one service immediately after another.

The danger of an open invitation

"Who wants to come up the front and do a bible reading?"
"Who can pitch in to help with morning tea at mother's group. We will take anyone."

Invitations like the above shouldn't happen regularly in churches.

Why?

First of all, hopefully you're more organised.

Secondly, I'd hope you're far more discerning.

This discernment matters if you value the culture of your church, the importance of leadership and the security of those you minister to.

For, if you toss out the open invitation then you lose a series of important filters.

You lose the ability to filter out those who are inappropriate.
You lose the ability to filter out those who you don't want.
You lose the ability to redirect those better suited elsewhere or totally unsuitable for the task you need done.

For some, the avenue for people to freely volunteer is a worthy gamble.
Personally, I think it's a risk which can be easily avoided and could horribly backfire.

How does our sex talk sound to the outsider?

During my time in youth ministry I delivered my sex spiel (if you want to look it up then just search for it), or at least snippets of it, many times. I think it was one of the better talks I gave.

Additionally, as one who has been invoked with churches for two decades, I've heard a lot of talks, sermons, presentations and seminars on sex, sexuality, dating and relationships.

But, I wonder how our conversations surrounding sex would be viewed through different ears or base of knowledge.

What would a secular psychologist think?
What would a relationship or school counsellor think?
How do they sound in the ears of a hardcore feminist?
Or someone who is gay?
Or someone who has a child who is homosexual?
Or a teen who is brand new to the Christian message on sexuality?

Ultimately, many of the truths Christians share about sex, and many other topics, only connect with a mind and heart changed by Jesus (even if I think my sex spiel goes beyond that).

But, I wonder if those who speak on controversial topics from a Christian perspective run their talks through the filter of the outsider.

How your conscience and crying child are similar

As the father of two kids, I've experienced a lot of toddler tantrums.

When you hear you child cry the first few times it breaks you up inside.
It becomes soul-destroying when you can't get your precious little bub to stop wailing.

But, as you get older, you begin to become more immune to the crying of your offspring.
You become immune to the immediacy of its noise.

Sure, you still hear the crying, but you get better at either tolerating it or tuning it out alltogether.

In this way, your crying child and your conscience are similar.

You hear both.
Over time, the cutting edge of your conscience, like the early-life crying, can become dulled.
With pre longed exposure, you build up a tolerance to its nudging or can outright ignore it.

I wonder, when it comes to our conscience convicting us of wrongdoing, do we sometime know that if we just endure and rebel long enough, then the voice of our conscience can be drowned out or silenced outright.

How do you handle small group mutes?

It's every small group/bible study leaders nightmare.

No. One. Talks.

Under numerous circumstances, your group can become a pack of mutes - 
A group of year 7 boys who haven't developed the ability/vocabulary to share more than a grunt or fart jokes...
A group of year 9 girls who are in the middle of the latest "crisis" in their "social group"...
A newly formed bible study group...
A bunch of introverts...
Perhaps your usually talkative group have all had a hard week at work/a stressful week at uni/a tough week at school...

When this happens, what do you do? 

To some extent, this quietness may just be a characteristic of some groups and is nothing to be really concerned about.

For some members of a group, they will be fully engaged/thinking internally, yet outwardly quiet. This might have to be something which you'll just have to deal with.

In some cases, it may be a result of group dynamics, where primarily the extroverts talk, or at least get their responses/opinions in first.

No matter what the cause, what do you do if you're the poor soul trying to direct the group of mono-syllabic members?

First, you can just make sure they write down their answer, aware if it will be shared or remain private.

Second, you could give the group notice that you're going to give them all 30 seconds to think about their answer before you want them to reply. This may give the introverts a chance to get a word in.

Third, you could have the members pair off and either share their collective answers or the best part of the response from the other person.

Fourth, you could ask what they would add to the answer they heard in a small group.

Fifth, with or without advanced notice, you could call on people by name to give input. This is dangerous if the group is always quiet, but effective if it's an unusually quiet week for a group of regular chatterboxes.

Sixth, you could ask the members to give responses that they think those they know might give, like their friend or family. This gives the additional advantage that they can share their own answer, but under the guise that it's from "someone else."

My gay-and-in-ministry questions?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not gay. And I'm no longer in vocational ministry.

I wonder, for those who are gay, or... if you view sexuality as fluid... become/come out as gay during their ministry tenure, how does the situation work?

I'll admit, a large slice of the answer depends on your denominations stance on homosexuality and/or gay marriage. But, if your church is, at least, open to the possibility of gay ministry agents, how is the situation handled?

Do you volunteer the information during your initial interview?
Do you tell someone when they offer you the position?
Do you only mention your sexual preference to the senior minister?
Is the information open to only those in leadership positions such as fellow staff members or the church council?
If you're in a youth ministry context, do you tell your leadership team? 
If so, when do you tell new recruits?

Is the equation changed if you're in a relationship?
Do you mention your partner up the front of church, or if you do, are they gender neutral?

What happens if your relationship progresses towards, if your civil laws allow, marriage?
With your relationship inevitably becoming public, if not already, are you forced to announce your status? 
Is the engagement announcement to your partner considered too late for some? 
Do you even announce the engagement before the church like many heterosexual couples would?

What happens if someone comes out/begins to identify as gay whilst in a ministry placement?
Do they need to announce it?
Again, if so, who does it need to be told to and when?

I imagine these, and many, many, other questions restrict a lot of gay Christians from entering ministry.

As a heterosexual, these are questions which I don't even need to, really, wrestle with.

Ministry of being the thermometer

Excited.
Engaged.
Bored.
Spaced out.

Anyone who's at the front of a group, no matter what context, if they want to serve those they are communicating with well, must be a good thermometer.

Every speaker, presenter, host, chairperson & MC must be able to gauge the mood of the room and, if need be, change things up in order to keep connected with their audience.

This is a must when dealing with children and youth.
This is essential when leading a bible study.
This is vital when preaching.
This would serve your people tremendously well during a church service.

Every leader needs to hone their antenna of room discernment, or employ someone else who'll give them a helpful nudge, or their level of engagement/buy-in from the group will always be reduced.

What the trigger apology shows

I can't imagine what it's like to struggle with an issue so much, or have something so traumatic in your past, that you can be adversely affected by what you might read or see.

Of course, as a society we're now far more aware about these dangers and, wisely and sensitively, give trigger warnings if something is going to delve into a potentially traumatic topic.

The worst thing that can happen, and something that's annoyed me multiple times already during my fresh university studies, is when there's a trigger apology.

This is when, after encountering a potentially traumatic topic, the person speaking apologizes if this has bothered someone listening.

The reason this troubles me is that it shows an awareness of the topic of triggers and, all too often, is nonchalantly brushed off.

Quite frankly, it's not good enough.

Anyone who is speaking in front of a group of people should know if their content might be disturbing to some.

To give a trigger apology shows that you knew, but probably didn't care enough about your audience to give them an appropriate warning of what was coming.

The perfect-churchgoer killer

With university cranking up and my general absence from vocational ministry, my creative ecclesiastical juices now tend to go to my three-times-per-week Facebook devotional, Tiny Bible Bits, instead of here (if you're not following it on Facebook then you should check it out).

Yesterday I posted something which I thought was pretty good.

1 Corinthians 1:8 - We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself.

We smile at church. A lot.
Sometimes these smiles are fake.

When asked how our week was we reply that it was good.
No matter how bad our week has been.

Churchgoers have a habit of donning their everything-is-fine mask when they enter a church service.
Even if they are in pain...
Even if they feel heartbroken...
Even if their family has been fighting all morning...
Even if they feel like their life is falling apart...

Paul doesn't do this.
Paul shares his troubles with the church in Corinth.

Do you do the same?
Do you share your problems, or pretend that everything's always perfect?
Would you rather others remain uninformed about your sufferings?

Although it's not easy, it's only through sharing our struggles that we can be appropriately supported and begin to tear down the illusion that everyone at church has it all together.

Where's God's mummy?

As my eldest grows, I find us having more indepth conversations about God.

Five year olds have interesting theology.

Very. Concrete. Theology.

So, it should have come as no surprise when I was asked about baby Jesus God's mummy.

It makes perfect sense...
There's a Father... 
There's a baby...
Thus, in the mind of a child, there must be a mummy.

To be honest, the Trinity would be so much easier to explain if this were the case.

Instead, I had to remind Miss 5 that Jesus wasn't always a baby (which she still struggles with) and, being God as a human, He didn't need a mummy as we think of them...
But, here name was Mary.

The lesson? I don't think I'll be writing a kids theology book anytime soon.

Should you say how hard something is going to be?

What we're going to do next will be tough/tricky/hard...

Every so often you'll hear the above sentence in a church service or during a ministry activity.

But, I wonder, should you tell people that the next task will be difficult?
Does it help or hinder the chances of the activity running effectively?

Personally, I cringe every time I hear this phrase.

The reason?

The phrase hangs upon its conclusion...

If the person ends the phrase with "but I think you can do it..." Or "but I believe in you..." Then the entire complexion of the instructions change.

Now they are not near impossible obstacles, instead, now you are presented an opportunity.  

Far too many leaders in churches are too pesimistic when it comes to the capabilities of those within and outside of the churches walls, especially the young.

More often than not, people will raise to the task you set them. The worst thing you can do is send the message that you don't think the congregation will be able to rise to the challenge.

Giving God the out

Pray big prayers.
Pray bold prayers.
Pray for miracles.
Pray for healing.
Pray for God to restore.
Pray for growth.
Pray for dramatic movements of God.

Unless... 

God has something else in mind...
God has another plan...
God wants us to learn something...
God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours...

It's not uncommon, when praying - especially aloud for someone else - to give God the "out".

It's not unusual to leave the door publicly open for God to do something different, or even the exact opposite, for what we are praying for. 

My question is why...

Are we afraid of personally loosing face if God doesn't deliver? 
Are we afraid of showing that God is somehow being "unfaithful"? 
Are we afraid that others might think that God is uncaring, absent or ignoring our petitions?

I think these are important questions to ponder when we want to publicly give God the "out." 

Do we, in light of God's sovereignty, pray in the wrong order.

Should we put the "disclaimer" that God might not work in the ways we desire BEFORE we ask? 
Would this make a difference to the way we pray and the way our prayers are interpreted by others?

What do you do when Her Majesty or the PM walk through the door?

You know who always make the news for appearing at church services during Christmas and Easter?
The British Royal Family and, to a lesser degree, the top politicians in Australia.

How do churches, especially those preaching, react to these "special guests?"

Do they know in advance?
If so, do they proceed as usual?
If not, do they freak out when HRH appears?

Do they slink away from controversial points?
Or, do they hit controversial topics harder due to the influential ears listening?

Do they ramp up the idea of the sovereignty of God?
Do they go out of their way to especially mention the kingship/lordship of Jesus?

Do they avoid readings which deal with leadership or the government, even if they are, by pure coincidence, in the lectionary?

I've never had, from what I remember, a "celebrity" in attendance when I've preached, nor attended at church with a person of significant influence, but I'd hope that everything would proceed as normal.

Unfortunately, I also doubt that I'd be either a) that self controlled, or b) that strong-willed.

Fighting for your Easter foothold?

Although I'm not longer in vocational ministry, my Facebook feed is still full of updates from those in ministry.

As such, I saw a lot of posts about Easter services, particularly during a picturesque sunrise.

But I'm wondering about the problems this annual tradition can cause...

For, a lot of churches want to do a Easter Sunday sunrise service - which they don't necessarily widely advertise the location of - and there's only a finite amount of east-facing lookouts.

What do you do, especially if you're a new church or this dawn-break service is a new initiative, if your location is already occupied?

Worse still, what do you do - having advertised your service - and you're the second congregation which arrives?

Do you politely ask random people to move on?
Do you combine with another congregation?
Does the newer congregation move aside for the more established service?
Do you scope out the spot the year prior?
Do you mark the location as yours like a New-Year's-Eve-fireworks spot, arriving hours previously?

I can imagine the anxiety a minister of a fledgling church would have pre-dawn whenever someone else approached their lookout, wondering if they'll need to fight for their slice of the Easter Sunday turf.

Dressing for the church nightclub?

Now that I've been at university for the last few months, I've noticed two distinct types of students.

Those who dress down and those who dress up.

Some students, and I would fall more comfortably into this category, dress like they've just rolled out of bed.

Other students look like they're about to hit the nightclub, dressed for a smart-casual (or above) social occasion.

A similar thing plays out in church.

Some attend dressed for comfort - shoes optional.
Others attend dressed for the nightclub - makeup compulsory.

I wonder, is one better than the other?
Do you, at the start, begin quite formal and then progressively slide towards casualness?
If so, is this a good thing?

It could be argued that your dress standard moves due to the relationship with God and the people in the church becoming less of a 'special event that you need to dress up for.'

But, again, is this move in a positive direction?

Ultimately, I'm not going to set a ecclesiastical dress code, nor do I think it would do any good for a church to set one...

But, I think the core issue is the heart of a person.

What/Who are they dressing for?
Who's attention are they trying to draw?

Most tellingly, are they willing to change, to an extent, if the way they dress is a stumbling block for someone else?

Church white-guy privilege

For the vast majority of my Christian life I've been an active part of a denomination which has sort to included minorities and the disempowered - women, the indigenous, homosexuals, refugees, the poor, ect...

As such, on more than a handful of occasions, I've heard someone, or a group of people talk, about how they've felt lesser.

Lesser within society.

Lesser within the church.

They've felt victimised.

They've felt rejected.

They've felt worthless.

They've felt unheard.

They've felt second-class.

I've, basically, never felt that.

Both culture and the church tell me that I'm valuable.

Both culture and the church tell me that I belong.

This is my white-guy privilege.

And, as such, I've never come back from conferences gushing about how I heard about the beauty of being made in God's image or being His child.

There are far fewer conferences that cater to my "needs" or "specific theological issues."

No one is marching the streets for my rights.

Why?

Because I'm white, male, middle class and heterosexual.

At times, there should be an eye-opening announcement which remind those of us who don't have the same requirement for empowerment messages, that this only exists because we already possess much of the power.

Is your ministries' spouse your future killer?

Michael Frost has just done a series of blog posts about The death of suburbia and how this trend away from the traditional "American Dream" lifestyle might affect a church institution so attached to the idea of suburbia.

But I wonder how many ministries are married to something which, if not currently, then inevitably, will hobble or kill it?

How many ministries are so deeply invested in their traditions or structures that they won't be able to change, even if society dictates that it should?

How many churches would never shift their leadership structures or church service order no matter how backwards or outdated they might seem?

How many ministries won't embrace technology in order to communicate their message better or reach a wider audience?

How many ministries won't change the structures or activities which "worked in the past" or "got them to come for the first time?"

Inevitably, every denomination, church, ministry and activity has a set of values and identifying markers. 

The hard question is, are these cherished things the anchors which will eventually drag us down because we couldn't let them go once society demands that we have to move in a fresh direction?

A sliding scale of "meh?"

I've been in thousands of church services. Some quite intimate in number, others amongst a crowd of thousands.

I've also lead or preached at hundreds of church services. Some with only a handful of people, others numbering a few hundred in attendance.

No matter what part I've been playing in a church service (or youth group/event), active or passive, I've departed with a variety of feelings.

At times, God has almost felt tangibly present.
At other times, I've left feeling cold and a dismal failure with the Spirit of God either completely absent, unimpressed or outright displeased.

In these feelings I'm not alone.

Everyone I know who's worked for a church as had these bipolar reflections.

But, I wonder, how dependant are they on the setting?

For, it's far easier to walk away uninspired when your church service has a dozen people and far easier to leave walking-on-a-cloud when the room is packed with people.

Is there a sliding scale of feeling "meh" about a church service or activity?

If so, how do these feelings manifest in a mega-church setting? 
Are they ever really possible?
Do you get so swept up in the largeness of what you're doing that you rarely leave cold?
If this is the case, how does this positive mindset affect you when you step into a smaller-sized service?

The things which will fight against bullying In the mind of a parent

On the first day of school my eldest lost her school hat. 

On. The. First. Day. Ugh.

Thus, until we got a new one, my daughter was the kindy kid with a different hat.

And I had an uneasy feeling...

Would she get picked on due to her hat?

Would she pick up a nickname that would haunt her for life?

Would her ability to make friends be compromised due to her headwear?

Previously, I'd never been too worried about my kids getting bullied.

But, after her first day of school, I was concerned.

Would I have similar feelings if my kids went to a new church or joint a youth group?

Ideally, of course not. No community of God's people has the scourge of bullying.

But, my experience says otherwise.

I've seen kids, no matter what age group, be incredibly mean during church activities.

So, would I be concerned, having dropped off one of my kids, in the church carpark?

I suspect so.

But, there's one difference maker that might calm my nerves.

The culture of the leaders.

Are they welcoming?

Are they diverse?

Are they actively on the lookout for cliques?

Are they teaching on things like inclusiveness, acceptance and the importance of the induvidualness God has made within each person?

If I'm comfortable that the leaders are well-aware and well-skilled when it comes to bullying, then my mind will rest a little easier.