Should the code be the minister’s middle name?

There’s a lot of things at a church which require codes. 

Security systems.
Access doors.
Computers.
Door locks.

It’s not unusual that the code on some of these devices will be set by a minister.

But, I wonder about the wisdom of a minister setting the code to something with personal significance for them.

It doesn’t matter if it’s their birthday, middle name or childhood pet.

What happens if the church is then stuck with this code?

As nice as it may be for the minister to type “fluffy123” to gain access to the church computer, reminiscing about the kitten they had as an eight year old, I expect that the charm will be lost on the next minister.

Sure, most passwords can be easily reset, but for some things, like security systems, it may not be such an easy process.

Furthermore, should a new minister be expected to reset passwords in order to not remember the first mobile number of their predecessor?

I admit, this isn’t the biggest transgression going around in Christendom, but these personal encodings may well expose shortsightedness because a minister wanted to be cute or memorable.

Surely a mixture of the suburb, church name, postcode or last digits of the phone number are better, longer-lasting, options for churches.

Can you judge worship moves like a dance floor?

After many years of trolling nightclubs, alongside wisdom ”discovered” through reading magazines, I’ve learned that it’s generally accepted that the degree of proficiency someone shows on the dance floor is matched in the bedroom.

The better the rhythm on the dance floor, the better the rhythm between the sheets.

I wonder, can a similar comparison be made in worship?

I know. It’s not right. It’s not PC. It’s fairly inappropriate. It’s not a question you ask out loud.

But, is it valid?

Does the way someone engages and moves in worship equate in a similar way someone moves on a dance floor?

In reality, no one will probably know. No one, most likely, would ever attain a valid sample size across various denominations and worship styles to accurately know.

But, the question does raise one query...

Do, in general, Pentecostals expect to have better sex than Anglicans/Baptist/Conservatives due to their more expressive worship style?

Is church growth the norm?

I grew up in the third largest Christian denomination in Australia.
I worked in the same denomination, for over a decade, across four churches.
Additionally, I’ve regularly attended three other churches over two denominations.

My first church had a children’s and youth ministry which grew for around a decade, but nothing which I would consider explosive.

I’ve never been in a church which has had sustained growth of their primary congregation.

I wonder, is this normal?

I suspect, for many western christians, the answer would be the affirmative.

No matter the publicity which megachurches receive, these are not the norm.

The norm is... stagnant. Maybe a slow decline.

I wonder what affect this has.

Does it affect the way modern Christians relate to the book of Acts?
Does it affect the way western Christians respond to churches which are growing?

The best name for a young adult ministry

Even though I’m no longer in vocational youth ministry I’m still a member of a number of youth ministry related Facebook groups. 

Usually they throw up the same topics every day. Game ideas. Sermon ideas. Funny videos. Requests for prayer (usually when someone is going to preach at “big church”). Advice about difficult situations.

One thing which I’ve noticed, with the group being quite America-centric, is a title occasionally used for young adult ministries... college and career.

I like it a lot.

I like that this title gives space and value to both options after high school.

This matters because, let’s face it, every young adult won’t go to university. Everyone shouldn’t.

All too often those who don’t go to uni are left out.

Hopefully, if you intentionally include those who are pursuing a career in the ministries name, then it will influence the things you do and speak about.

The one unfortunate thing is that we don’t call higher education in Australia college. 

I have no idea for a title, aside from calling it university and workers, which will have the same impact.

I’m guessing that university and underemployed isn’t an option...

The paid person must be the face of the controversy

Way back in 2010 I wrote a post explaining some of the advantages a ministry receives when it is headed up by a paid employee. 

One important thing I didn’t include was PROTECTION.

Alongside identity and accountability, when navigating decisions which may stir up controversy, the leader must be prepared to provide protection.

Because, with controversy comes confusion and/or pain.

And, if you’re prepared to accept money from a church to lead a ministry then you must be prepared to own the decisions of that ministry.

Even if they aren’t popular with everyone.
Especially if they are decided in partnership with volunteers.

A true leader will be prepared to wear the fallout of a controversial decision they were a part of or they indirectly oversaw. Better yet, they will stand in the place of those who are volunteers so they don’t need to face any blame or criticism.

No matter if it is within a church or community organisation, any body which runs on a base of volunteers, these unpaid people should feel valued enough by the employee (who is in a privileged position) to be protected by them.

For, with the pay check comes the heat of any controversy. 

They should be the face.
They should make the announcement.
They should answer questions.
They should be shouted at online.
They should stare down criticism.
They should hear and acknowledge any pain.

In part, this is why they are paid.

The two things you listen through

Are not your ears... SURPRISE!

The two things which will determines how much attention you pay to someone, especially if they are speaking to you in a setting like a sermon or lecture are your ass and your stomach.

These two have loud voices which will drown out and distract from the one entering through your ears.

Why?

Because if your not comfortable or are hungry, then you’ll stop listening.

Ideally, the person speaking or teaching will have stopped talking before your ass or stomach start to complain.

But, as most are painfully aware, this isn’t always the case.

So, this reality has three consequences for any speaker.

First, the speaker should be mindful of the space they are speaking in. How is the seating? How long could you comfortably be expected to sit?

Second, are you presenting immediately before a meal? Will a lack of sugar effect their levels of concentration?

Finally, this establishes the ideal time to speak. The first session after breakfast. This is the speaker’s prime position for this is where the asses and the stomachs will be their most ready to listen and least likely to distract. 

Standing to give immediate feedback

There’s a lot of ways to evaluate the effectiveness of a sermon. 

One little used way is almost immediately evident.

How did the congregation rise to their feet after the sermon?

We’re they energised?
We’re they stiff from sitting too long?

Depending upon the distance of time between the conclusion of the sermon and the start of the next song, the preacher can almost immediately gauge if they preacher for too long due to the amount of lethargy amongst the people.

When should a minister share about their past?

I’ve had an abortion.
I’ve been sexually assaulted.
I’m married to someone who has mental health challenges.
I’ve been addicted to porn.
My wife and I have endured multiple miscarriages.
I used to be an alcoholic.
One of my children died of SIDS.

Any minister who has gone through any of the above things, and a number of other examples, would be a powerful witness and advocate for those they minister to.

Except... these are the types of things we keep private.

So, when should a minister disclose things from their past which could be powerfully used? Additionally, how should they do so?

I ask because at least one of the things listed above are a part of my past. And, they have been helpful in helping others. I got through them. I can empathise with with someone going through them.

Should a minister bring their past to the surface fairly early on in their ministry placement, in a public setting, so others will be aware and can come forward if they want?

Or, does a minister keep their past close to their chest, only revealing once someone has an event which they can then disclose their connection with?

I don’t know the answer, but disclosure of some of a minister’s skeletons would help remove the ministerial veneer and open up new avenues of ministry.

You must have a plan for the orphans

Change happens.
It is inevitable.
If you’re in leadership then you need to make decisions which effect others.

Any time you decide to change something, the consequences will create orphans.

Some won’t want to adapt to the change.
Others won’t be able to, completely beyond their control, transition to the new paradigm.

However they are made, some will become orphans since they will be left out.

These leftovers of a decision to change - be it a philosophical, geographical or chronological change - must still be catered to.

Why?

Because the orphans of any decision still matter.

Chances are, to some extent, they had buy-in to the activity they were involved in. They had a history. They probably envisaged a future.

Change, even a well-thought-out positive change, rocks the world of the orphans it creates.

And, if there is no plan for those adversely effected, then the message communicated to them is either... 

You don’t matter. 
Or...
There were winners and losers. You’re the later.

So, how is this avoided?

The answer is simple.

Have a plan for the orphans.

Even if that plan is to simply sit down with each person and explain why you reached the decision you did. 

This is far better than just an announcement.

Better yet, actually have an alternative for those orphaned by your change.
This shows that they still matter and there are no losers.

Can your worship be inspired by the hottie beside you?

WARNING: The following thought may be a little controversial. And potentially creepy.

It’s not unusual that someone at the front of church might ask the congregation to look around and use their surrounds to draw inspiration for worship.

My question is...

Can you truely worship, inspired by looking at an attractive attendee of your church service, who is not your spouse?

In theory, the answer should be yes.

You can gaze upon someone attractive and genuinely thank God for their beauty. Just like a waterfall or sunset...

But, is this reality?

When we look at someone whom we find hot, is this where our mind is drawn?

I wonder, do those who give invitations to be inspired, consider the humanity around their congregation and the inspirations they may trigger?

Juggling the band:congregation ratio

The larger the church; the larger the band.

Which comes first?

Does your band expand to fit the congregation or does the congregation grow to match the band?

Furthermore, if the later is true, how large do you risk making a worship band before expected growth appears?

I’ve been in a number of congregations where the band, at times, has equalled  a quarter of those in attendance. In theory, any service with approximately twenty attendees, runs the risk of a significant proportion of band:congregation.

But, what if you have a mid-sized congregation wanting to grow?

Are you comfortable with having ten members of the band for fifty to eighty people? Between a regulation three singers, piano, drums, two guitars and bass, reaching double digits isn’t beyond comprehension.

I wonder, when do you expand, and when do you consider contracting?

With a band of 4-5, when do you expand?
With a band of 8-10, when do you reduce?

Primarily, the answers depend upon the options of musicians available and the musical quality a church leadership is desiring, not warm gobies on stage.

But, surely, a church must have a ratio when they feel that the balance between band and congregation has been thrown out of whack.

2019 Best of...

With the last 12 months involving a wedding, including two receptions - on both sides of the globe, and an increased study load, including a month-long teaching prac, again, 5e amount of blog posts decreased.

But, nonetheless, here are the gems...

Why Youth Minister Sunday hurts not helps (My most read post of the year)

Should you assure people that the game will be on after the service?

If you teach the bible you get the topics

Bi-Cultural ministry questions

What do you do if you don’t like your minister?

How unforgiveness is like a bad case of road rage (I think this was my best post all year)

Link as closely as possible when preaching

The danger of a new building

Who’s prepared to give the REAL sex talk?

How long until sex gets good?

The danger of assuming the next sentence (this is one of the most important ministry principals I’ve ever written about)

Investing instead of caring (this is the most painful post to write since it exposes my largest mistake in ministry)

What to do if your minister doesn’t like you

The simple observation which changed my entire outlook

The messages you send when you cancel a church service

Just like last year, the aim is to blog more next year which, if December is any indication, then it may be an outside chance...

Mental health problems vs challenges

Does someone have a mental health problem or a mental health challenge?

The difference is significant.

With mental health well-and-truely mainstream, the way you refer to someone’s mental health difficulty matters.

A problem is to be fixed. It has a solution. 
A challenge is to be managed. It is to be wrestled with. It is to be balanced.

I see this significance in the classroom when it comes to the way a child with mental health difficulties is catered to.

Problems are obstacles. They defeat you or you overcome them.
Challenges can be worked with and catered to.

Don’t let your church invade the local community event

Over the last few weeks both churches I’m connected with have held or contributed to local community events.

I did not go to either.

Why?

Because I do not live nearby. For both churches I live over 10 minutes away so I’m definitely not a local.

It would be odd if I attended an event for locals since I’m a geographical  outsider.

The danger some churches have, when it comes to local events, is to invade with your wider congregation.

At the core, it all depends on the nature of the event.

Is it an event BY the local community or is it an event FOR the local community.

I shouldn’t be at the later event since it’s not for me.

It’s for the members of the street.
It’s for the members of the suburb.
It’s for the members of the club or association.

On the other hand, if an event is put on by the community, then it is hosted by locals for whomever wishes to attend.

I would be welcome to attend this event.

When a church chooses to involve themselves in an event for their local community, then they should be weary of crashing it with a bunch of ring-ins. sure, they can contribute resources, or even the location, but flooding the quaint event of a few dozen locals with 50 variant congregants would be inappropriate.

At worst, they will negatively change the nature of the event, alienating their neighbours. 

Most probably, those who are there to connect with the local community will stick to themselves and shun those from the church congregation, completely negating any evangelistic undercurrent which the church may be wanting to cultivate.

The messages you send when you cancel a service

As we quickly approach the end of the year, with the crunch of Christmas now in full swing, churches and ministers will be looking ahead to the weeks after the festive season.

To be completely clear, ministers - like everyone else - deserve time off. Holidays, if you’re going to survive in ministry, are an absolute must.

But, for some churches, this absence of staff will result in the cancelation of church services, particularly in the evening. 

On some years, when Christmas and New Years are particularly close to the end of the week, then some adjustment may be more understandable. But, what about this year when the last Sunday of the year is the 29th and the first Sunday the 5th of January?

I wonder if churches are aware of the messages they may be sending if they outright cancel Sunday services.

To start, closing the doors must be advertised to avert people turning up when the service has been cancelled. Is this what you want to be displayed on your church sign? 

Furthermore, with Summer being a time when many people will be travelling and visiting different churches, is a closed door the message you want to send?

At a more concerning level, what does your closed door say to those who may be wanting to investigate Jesus, potentially inspired by Christmas? Is a closed door the evangelistic message you want to send?

The reason which bugs me the most is the message a cancelled service sends to the congregation.

You can’t do it.
We don’t trust you.

Either, those in change don’t think the members of their congregation are capable of running a church service in their absence or they don’t trust that whatever they’re congregation does will be a “good enough” job.

No matter, both are an indictment on those in ministry.

Sure, if your congregation is unusually small, immature in their faith or young, then some caveats can be made.

But, for a congregation in excess of a few dozen members, including mature faith professing adults, then the excuses to cancel are pretty thin.

Do they not also have the Holy Spirit?
Are they not also empowered with Spiritual Gifts?
Does the minister not believe in the priesthood of all believers?

Unfortunately, the question at the forefront of the minister’s mind is this...
Who will do the sermon?

Frankly, this is a small minded question.

First of all, the church service should never be all about and completely dependent upon the minister or other one person.

Second, this question is deeply uncreative. I can think of more than half a dozen options for a church service which don’t revolve around a sermon.

Focus your service around song.
Have a time of expected prayer instead of a sermon.
Do something involving the arts in response to a bible reading.
With the Sunday’s wrapping up the end of the year, do a reflective exercise looking at where God has been at work or looking forward to what you want God to do in the year ahead.
Do a group bible study.
Do a lecto divina reading of a small book of the bible.

If there absolutely must, for some reason, be a sermon then train people up to give one.
Invite someone else you come.
Watch a DVD or YouTube clip.

Whatever is decided, could a minister not plan something while they are gone? In theory, they should be absent for at least four Sundays per year while on holidays. Do they always just shut down the service because the minister is in another suburb?

Finally, these messages are amplified if only the evening service is scrapped.

What does this say to them as a congregation?

That they are less capable?
That they matter less?
That the morning is the only service worthy of having something planned for them?

I realise that I’m going pretty hard on something which many churches won’t give a lot of thought to, but, when a church considers cancelling a Sunday morning church, a lot more concern is given to the “message sent.”

The only three things a baptism requires

Over the last few years I’ve been attending a baptist church and, unsurprisingly, they like to periodically chat about baptism.

As someone who has previously written that I would have, for the sake of employment, undergone a full immersion baptism, I am now firmly of the belief that there’s no other reason I would get baptised again.

I wouldn’t do it to join a church.
Frankly, I’d put up a decent fight before doing it to get a job.

Fortunately, I feel that both the bible and the World Council of Churches are on my side.

But, as I’ve been thinking about baptism, for me, the sacrament only requires three elements.

Confession, publicity and explanation.

Baptism requires the person being baptised, amongst a group of others, to confesses faith in Jesus and the sacrament should be explained by the person doing the baptising (personally, I’d stress the connection Paul makes in Romans 6).

If these three caveats happen, then the amount of water is arbitrary, doubly so if the explanation says that the baptism is primarily symbolic of an inward transformation (which would be confessed!).

Crossing lines of commitment

Behave.

Believe.

Belong.

Some thing that these are the lines of commitment a person travels through, not necessarily in that order, when it comes to faith in Jesus and involvement with a church.

I think, when it comes to lines of commitment, they are... volunteering, praying and singing.

When someone first involves themselves in these activities, which either seem odd to the outsider of the faith or require a degree of sacrifice, then they are crossing a commitment threshold.

It’s the crossing of these invisible doorways which indicate an inward transformation. 

With these markers, amongst others, we can begin to determine their increasing level of comfort and commitment.

What the missing intro to the bible passage reveals about your church

Having paper bibles is a bit old school.

But, I still believe that it is essential that a must church provide them to their congregation.

With this being the case, a church has to do the following...

The contents page is at the front of the bible.
Psalms starts with a silent P.
There’s more than one place to find books named John.
You’ll find the reading on page xx.

If you don’t help your congregation navigate the bible then you’re sending a clear message.

We don’t expect new people.
We don’t want seekers to be involved in what we’re doing.
We don’t care if our congregation can’t use their bibles confidently.

I suspect most churches would be ashamed to say these sentences out loud... yet, with their actions they show themselves as both unwelcoming and missing an evangelistic spirit.

The simple observation which changed my entire outlook

I always sat in the front row for my school photos. This meant that I was a short kid. Even when I was in high school. Especially at an all boys school.

To be honest, puberty didn’t kick in until I was around 17. 

This didn’t help with my dating prospects nor my associated self esteem.

But I remember clearly, one afternoon when I was a young adult - let’s say around 19 - when my youth minister said something which changed my life.

No, it had nothing to do with Jesus.

Instead, he asked how tall I was, guessing that I was around six foot. 
He observed that I was the average height.

In truth, he was wrong on two counts. First of all, the average height for an Australian male is 175.6 cm, or just over 5’9”. Second, he misjudged my height by around an inch. I’m still only five-foot-eleven. 

But, significantly, he said that I wasn’t short.

I had never heard that. Ever.

If anything, being short haunted me.
It defined me.
It was what others had said.
It was what I told myself.

But, now, someone I deeply respected said the opposite.
He said I wasn’t short.

He spoke into the very place of my doubts.
He spoke into the very place of my insecurities.
He spoke against my destructive inner dialogue.

One of the tremendous roles youth groups leads have is to identify areas in the lives of young people and speak positive truths into that place.

The truth was, I was no longer short.

How many teenagers and young adults need to hear that they are not short?
That they are not a loser?
That they are not dumb?
That they have talent?
That they have hope?
That they have a positive future?

This, along with the message of the gospel, can stay with and transform the lives of young people within the groups of a church.

When you MUST advertise the sermon topic

The worst feeling in the world  A slight annoyance must be the feeling you get when hearing a sermon at your church and thinking of an absent person who would greatly benefit from your minister’s words.

Whenever a church knows they are going to do an evangelistic or apologetic  sermon (and every church should know at least a few days ahead of Sunday), and do not inform their congregation, then they are doing themselves and, more importantly, they congregants a disservice.

Why?

Because they rob their people of the opportunity to invite those whom would engage with the topic or are open to hear a clear gospel presentation.

With social media, this is an even greater disservice.

My mind spins when it thinks of all the missed opportunities churches have let slip through their fingers because they are either too shy, disorganised or lack the missional awareness to simply tell people what they can expect on Sunday.