I just finished reading an excellent article my brother sent me from Buildingchurchleaders.com. Jack Hayford titled his work "Why I Don't set Goals." I have always had a natural aversion to goal setting, so I was interested in what this well known man of God had to say.Before I go any further, you need to read it in it's entirety at the following link:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bcl/areas/vision-strategy/articles/090905.html
Go ahead. I'll wait . . .
If you haven't read the article I'm not going to let you read any further- so get going! Besides much of what I say won't make any sense if you don't read it.
So what do you think? I tend to agree with him- even in that is it hard to "buck" the system of setting goals, because they are not totally evil; they do have some good aspects. The problem is (as he says):
"If we reach the goal, we conclude that 'God is blessing.' The next assumption is 'God is in this program,' and before long we are serving the program instead of the Lord himself . . . We [in the church] have a propensity for launching our crusades with righteous intent and then fueling them with carnal energy."
I so agree! Just because something is successful doesn't mean God is in it (not necessarily the reverse either)! Nor does it mean that the ones who put the program in place are doing God's will through it. Nor are they necessarily God's anointed messengers because of that success.
For instance, take the kings of the Old Testament. You have a good king, then a bad one. Then a good one and another bad one- etc, ad infinitum. According to scripture, each one was "placed there by God." Did each one follow God? No. So can we say that because a king got into his place of authority, that God was on his side? I think not- in some cases God actively fought against them! Assuming that every person who attains a leadership position is therefore anointed is not a valid assumption. But there are few people who think they are "doing the wrong thing." They start from the position of righteous intent, but fuel that fire with carnal energy.
Hence my title: Operating in the Natural in a Spiritual Environment.
The church is a Spiritual Environment. Operating in the Natural should not be a part of our manual. The person who operates from the Natural (Carnal) should not have authority over the Spiritual person. The church is not a business and should not be run as such. Yes, we need to move in the business world and we need administrators and business people to help us manage. But the leadership should be those operating from the Spiritual.
What's your take?
[Part 2 tomorrow]
Can You Hear Me?
4 comments:
"The church is not a business and should not be run as such" - a laser beam statement of truth.
Your article link has so much to take in...I printed it off to condense the time.
I need to clarify one point about goals, for it has been critical to our appointment. It is obvious that Mr. Hayford describes these goals in association with the programs/activities/growth/worship of his ministry and congregation. In this realm I agree tremendously.
Attendance numbers, succesful campaigns, these do not evoke the pattern of spiritual movement, of spiritual strength. It is difficult, maybe even damaging to set concrete goals about these matters.
And yet, on the other side of the coin...
Setting goals has been a critical mode of providing structure when there was no structure to be found.
Setting goals has helped accomplish important, phenomenally gigantic ethical problems in a systematic, deliberate, detailed, specific manner.
Setting goals, such as having worship every Sunday and Wednesday, were not haphazard, "gonna get the stats" kind of motives.
They were responses to God's movement, God's guidance, God's activity.
Some goals have provided a sanity, so that there is a posibility of spiritual growth, reliable ministry, regular anticipation.
Setting goals for how many women will be saved this year from our women's ministry and their entire families attending church - that is a tough one to absolutely make happen. It is tough to buck the system of setting goals - they are not evil, but goals can feel like they strangle or survive only to fulfill their own purpose.
Your post is filled with provactive thought tonight. More to read and think about until next time.
I look forward to your posts
Thanx for the props!
Yeah, I'm with you on the need for goal setting in some areas. Not to keep repeating myself, my big issue with goal setting and their accomplishment is what we do with their success or lack thereof.
I've heard way too many people talk of their particular program as if it is God-blessed and therefore God-ordained and therefore THEY are God's answer to all the church's woes (how fortunate we have them on our side).
I don't think success (or it's lack) is a sign of God's blessing. I am not called to be successful, I am called to be faithful.
If we look at Isaiah's calling and life mission, we find God sent him to preach to an ever DEcreasing congregation! "How long, O Lord?" "Until there is but a stump in the land!"
UGH! I'm glad that's not MY calling!
Was Isaiah anointed by God? YES! Was he successful (as we would term it)? No. BUT Isaiah was faithful.
If I can be successful here and there, I will be pleased. But in the end, I want to have proven faithful to my God.
Success isn't found in numbers nor results.
Success is doing what God wants you to do.
This requires on-the-go listening and relationship not just assumption. Not WWJD but "Jesus! What would you have me do?"
'Success' without relationship is dead.
"Without love I am nothing, I profit nothing." "and this is love... that I do what [You direct me to do]" "the greatest of these is love." "Love is the fulfillment of the whole of the Law."
What > Why.
Yep- but isn't it hard to not get all caught up in wanting to be successful? I think sometimes because we want good things (for God and all), we assume God wants us to succeed and it's okay for "US" (for others it might be wrong, but me? Naw I want to succeed for God!).
Post a Comment