In a recent article, Dr. David Gunn, president of Regular Baptist Press, stated . . .

“This [congregational church government] can be messy sometimes, but as Jeff Straub cogently argues, it is the New Testament pattern. And one of the many benefits of responsibly implementing congregational church polity is that it mitigates the cultivation of corruption and heavy-handed leadership practices among officers of the church. When power is shared, it becomes much more difficult for a single person or small group of people to abuse that power toward unsanctified ends. And that, in turn, tends to decrease the chances of ministry collapse.” [1]

Pastors, deacons, ministry leaders, and staff need to . . . .

√ Go ‘Over-board’ To Be ‘Above-board’

√  Above-Board Is Why “The Church”

♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦

If you want to observe a ministry or local church lose employees, membership, workers, volunteers, faculty . . .

Be Less Than Above-Board!

If you want to develop a reputation as an unhealthy ministry or institution, college, or local church . . . .

Be Less Than Above-Board!

If you want to create, aggravate, and/or perpetuate discord in a ministry or local church setting . . . .

Be Less, Far Less Than Above-Board!

♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦

√  Above-Board Endorses & Appreciates Light:

Being genuinely “Above-Board” requires humility.  It requires a level of humility as well as a reasonable degree of self-awareness that realizes that. . . .

• not all we say and do
• not all we say about what we say and do, nor
• not all the why of what we say and do is why we say and do,

. . . . reflects the reality of the situation!

That is why “Transparency” is so vital to ministry and local church decisions and action.

Transparency involves . . . .

• an open airing of the details — what was said and done
• bringing in others from outside of the situation
• an objective evaluation and evaluators
• an opportunity and place for questions and answers
• feedback from those who do not have a dog in the fight
• an opportunity to explain, support, and/or clarify
• “the church”

. . . . Because too often we do not have “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”  We may have “our truth,” or our sincerely believed perceptions, which may or may not reflect the reality of a situation!  We may even have deceived ourselfs and subconsciously know that we fudged on the facts! [2]

Because all of us are not suspicious enough of our thinking, our perceptions, our recall, and our accounting of the details and facts, that there must be a willingness to examine our own hearts, thinking, motives, words, and compulsions to avoid self-deception, and thereby the deceiving of others,

That is exactly why genuine congregational church government promotes an honest level of transparency.

That is why, when dealing with sinful behavior, the Scriptures say . . . . “tell it to the church . . . . neglect to hear the church.”

Because both sides involved in a disagreement may see and recall the details and facts differently.  “The church” is brought into it to discern, as best as they are able as a diverse body of fellow believers, as to what is the actual “truth” of the matter.

Because “the church” is composed of individuals who are not party to the offense.  In fact, how twisted the thinking that would argue that those who are party to a dispute can adjudicate it.   The fact that “the church” is a “disinterested party” to the issue gives the church body legitimacy.

Because “the church” is composed of a wide variety of individuals — with varied experiences, with different thinking, with a variety of temperaments, friends with and not, related and unrelated to, older and younger, male and female, sympathetic and detached, etc.

Because when “the church” comes to agreement — to act or not to act accordingly —  it gives legitimacy to the fairness and equity of the process.  An individual’s decision or a “select group” only leaves the church in the dark about that decision.  “The church” fellowship as a whole is called upon to hear, arrive at, and support a corporate-body decision.

Because when “the church” hears the details and “facts,” misinformation, rumors, and gossip is quelled.  “The church” fellowship understands, as fully as they can, as to what has actually taken place, versus what is said to have taken place.

“ABOVE BOARD”

. . . . ought to be the words that mark deliberation, decisions, actions, procedures, church discipline, policy changes, discussion, committee considerations, voting, constitutional changes, discussions, analysis, examination, et al.

♦♦♦♦♦

Pastors, deacons, ministry leaders, and staff need to . . . .

√ Go ‘Over-board’ To Be ‘Above-board’

√  Above-Board Is Why “The Church”

♦♦♦♦♦

The #1 Way
To Blow Up A Ministry . . .
Play Games!
[3]

♦♦♦♦♦

Trust
“the church”
to make good and godly decisions
when they have the right information,
when they hear and know the facts!

Other Information & Links:

1. David Gunn: https://baptistbulletin.org/the-baptist-bulletin-magazine/preventing-ministry-collapse/

2. Psalm 15:2 — “He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.”

3. Part of that “game-playing” is nuanced words and answers, and/or parsing words, to give the impression that what is being said reflects what actually happened!

• Who Decided That?
• What In World Are They Doing?
• This Is Getting Out Of Hand! Where Are The Adults In The Room?
• I’m Out Of Here!
• Who Came up With That Bright Idea?
• Time To Find A Different Church!

♦♦♦♦♦

These, and many other comments and mental responses, are all too typical when a church is on the brink of pastoral ineffectiveness — or worse. The decisions and actions of leadership are no longer acceptable to more and more members — or staff.  

Leadership has lost the confidence of its members and friends because the decisions and actions are becoming more and more unrelatable and inexplicable!  This reality is witnessed over and over in ministries and local churches.

I have often repeated to individuals, who are upset at what is happening at their local church, this list of five of the typical dynamics operating behind the decisions and actions in a ministry or a local church. . . . 

• Ideology
• Inapitude In Administration
• Inadequate Business Sense
• A Terrible Work-ethic
• A Self-inflicted Limitation Of Options

♦♦♦♦♦

Ideology:  One of the dynamics which often drives decisions and actions is theological ideology. The ideology, a set of doctrines shared by other members of the theological world, guides the ministry leader or pastor’s decisions and/or actions.

Whether it be a denominational ideology (i.e. about the infant baptist / the sacraments), or an adopted theological ideology (i.e. Calvinism / the gifts of the Spirit), or a present popular trend (i.e. the trumpeted benefit of small groups / chiasms), or a secular political adherence (i.e. a politically conservative devotion / MAGA), it is a set of beliefs that accompany that ideology that is pushing and driving some of the decisions and actions.

Inapitude In Administration: Sometimes, poor decisions and actions are due to the lack of administrative ability. This-or-that leader is a weak-to-terrible administrator.  

• They are naive and do not know how the various parts and pieces of the ministry operate. They are not curious enough to learn and understand that area and/or how this-or-that part of the ministry or staff works.
• They do not have the temperament to hold people accountable. They dislike confrontation and/or upsetting others on the staff.
• They are innocently aloof from what is actually happening in the ministry or local church. They stay in their area of ministry and allow others to freely (with little oversight )operate in theirs.
• They are willingly ignorant because they do not want to know or understand. Because to know is also to be held responsible.
• They unwisely delegate because they do not like the administrative side of leadership — “Let someone else on the staff address this-or-that!”
• Or the “Peter Principle” may be operating. [1] They were promoted to an administrative position of which they are ill-suited.

Inadequate Business Sense: Sometimes, poor decisions and actions are due to the lack of business sense. It is not easy to operate any business. Ask and small business owner. Sometimes a business owner is great at their “craft,” but terrible at running the business. What do they do? They hire an accountant or business-minded individual who can make the business side operate wisely and effectively!

Without the ability to understand how to work through the financial challenges and/or how to arrive at good business decisions, weak and bad decisions begin to pile up, and often close down a business.

A Terrible Work Ethic:  A shaky or awful work ethic can also be what stands behind the decisions and actions of ministry. The leader is lazy and makes self-serving decisions, decisions that are not in the best interest of the ministry or local church, but are in their best interest. The decisions don’t make the ministry stronger, and in fact, it may even weaken it. Nevertheless, with or without the consent of the membership, changes are made, actions are announced, and/or others are persuaded to support various decisions because of a lazy spirit.

Do all you can to detect laziness before you hire. There is a reason that the book of Proverbs highlights the sluggard/slothful! Never hire a lazy leader, they will not only fail to work hard for the effective development of the ministry, but they will accept the same lack of energy from those they supervise!

A Self-inflicted Limitation Of Options:  When poor decisions follow poor decisions, follow poor decisions, the options increasingly become more and more limited. Some bad decisions and actions are the result of previous bad choices. It is just that good decisions and actions are no longer viable (or even thought of) because those options have been eliminated. They have been eradicated by the previous bad decision.

The ministry leader or pastor finds himself making another bad decision, or taking another flimsy action, because they no longer have many or any other choice.

1. The Peter Principle simply stated is that, sooner or later, given time and opportunity, everyone will be promoted to a level of incompetence.  Throw in pride, arrogance, over-confidence, and/or a terrible lack of self-awareness, and you have a perfect storm brewing!

A Healthy Reminder
From A Great Preacher & Teacher Of The Bible

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Preaching & Preachers
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

Secondly, our methods must always be consistent and compatible with our message, and not contradict it. This again is a most important point at this present time. There are men who are quite sincere and genuine and honest, and whose motive is undoubtedly good, and whose concern is to bring people to salvation. But this so runs away with them that in their desire to make contact with the people and to make it easy for them to believe the message, they do things which I suggest often contradict that very message. The moment the method contradicts the message it has become bad. Let us have elasticity, but never to the point of contradicting your message.

This is not only true in terms of biblical principles but it is even proved to be right in practice. What always amazes me about these people who are so concerned w^ith modern methods is their pathetic psychological ignorance; they do not seem to know human nature. The fact is that the world expects us to be different; and this idea that you can win the world by showing that after all you are very similar to it, with scarcely any difference at all, or but a very slight one, is basically wrong not only theologically but even psychologically.

Let me illustrate what I mean by a well-known example. At the end of the First World War there was in England a famous clergyman who was known as * Woodbine Willie’. Why was he called * Woodbine Willie’ ? The explanation is that he had been a chaplain in the army and had been a very great success in that capacity. His success he attributed to the fact—and many agreed with him in this—that he mixed with the men in the trenches in a familiar manner. He smoked with them, and in particular he smoked their cheap brand of cigarette known as *Wild Woodbine’ commonly called * Woodbines’. In pre1914 days you could buy five such cigarettes for a penny. Now this cheap type of cigarette was not the brand of cigarette that an officer generally smoked, but the ordinary soldier did. So this man, whose name was Studdert-Kennedy, [1] in order to put the men at ease, and in order to facilitate his work as chaplain smoked ‘Woodbines’, hence the name * Woodbine Willie’. Not only that, he noticed also that most of the men could not speak without swearing, so he did the same. It was not that he wanted to swear, but he held the view that if you w^ant to win men you have to use their language and you have to be like them in every respect. All this certainly made him a popular figure—there is no doubt about that. After the end of the Second World War he used to go round the country teaching this and urging that preachers must do this; and many tried to do so and began to do so. But the verdict of history on this was that it was a complete failure, a temporary *stunt* or ‘gimmick’ that achieved notoriety for a while but soon entirely disappeared from the thinking of the Church. But it had a great temporary vogue.

From the standpoint of the New Testament it was based on a complete fallacy. Our Lord attracted sinners because He was different. They drew near to Him because they felt that there was something different about Him. That poor sinful woman of whom we read in Luke 7 did not draw near to the Pharisees and wash their feet with her tears, and wipe them with the hair of her head. No, but she sensed something in our Lord—His purity. His holiness. His love—and so she drew near to Him. It was His essential difference that attracted her. And the world always expects us to be different. This idea that you are going to win people to the Christian faith by showing them that after all you are remarkably like them, is theologically and psychologically a profound blunder.

This same principle has a further application at the present time. There are foolish Protestants who seem to think that the way to win Roman Catholics is to show them there is practically no difference between us, whereas the converted Roman Catholic will always tell you that what appealed to him was the contrast. ‘Action and reaction are equal and opposite.’ The modern idea is wrong psychologically as well as theologically.

What makes this to be inevitably the case is that the subject matter with which we are dealing is so different. In this realm we are dealing with God, and our knowledge of God, and our relationship to God. So ever3rthing here must be *under God* and must be done *with reverence and godly fear. We do not decide this; we are not in charge and in control. It is God. It is His service, and He has to be approached Vith reverence and with godly fear, because our God is a consuming fire’.

Furthermore, light entertainment, easy familiarity and jocularity are not compatible with a realisation of the seriousness of the condition of the souls of all men by nature, the fact that they are lost and in danger of eternal perdition, and their consequent need of salvation. Not only that, such methods cannot bring out the Truth; and our business is to preach the Truth. These methods may affect people psychologically and in other respects, and they may lead to *decisions’; but our object is not merely to get decisions, it is to bring people to a knowledge of the Truth. And beyond this, we must never give the impression that all that is needed is for people to make a little adjustment in their thinking and ideas and behaviour; that is to militate against our message. Our message is that every man *must be born again*, and that whatever may happen to him short of that is of no value whatsoever from the standpoint of his relationship to God. The New Testament teaching is that the unbeliever is all wrong. It is not merely his ideas of art or drama that are wrong; everything about him is wrong. His particular views are wrong because his whole view is wrong, because he himself is wrong. The rule is, *Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these (other) things shall be added unto you’. If you put your emphasis on these *other things’ instead of on ‘seeking first the kingdom of God’ you are doomed to failure, and you are doing despite to the message that has been committed to you.

1. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Studdert_Kennedy

I recently found out that my senior pastor’s sermons are mostly plagiarized material from sermoncentral.com. He doesn’t just use a line here or there. He uses sermon outlines and dozens of paragraphs. And he doesn’t cite anything or anyone, but acts as if it is all his own. What should I do?

Ben, California

♦♦♦♦♦

Every so often, the candor of a writer & pastor speaks rather loudly and lucidly.  Such candid comments are often dismissed when coming from lay members who address pastoral wrong-doing  — They are “sowing discord among the brethren.” [1]

Such is the case in a recent article written by a pastor about “sermonic plagiarism.”  It was a response to “Ask A Question.” and reprinted.  The article is a rather revealing commentary on pastoral misconduct and what to expect when you address it!

Every so often, the reality of what one suspects and expects when calling out pastoral misconduct is frankly addressed and unsheltered — may be unwitting.

While I disagree with some of the advice (see points 1, 2, 3 below) about confronting “sermonic plagiarism,” the article is an unexpected and free-spoken commentary on what to expect when addressing the wrong-doing of leadership.

The writer’s commentary on local church ministries and pastors may be unintentional blunt, since it is often unacknowledged when spoken by lay members.  Few writers are willing to be so plain-spoken about pastors, leaders, elders, and church officials.

♦♦♦♦♦

Let me address some of the “answer points” made in the article . . . .
(The quotations can be read in their full context with this link)

. . . . . 

√ “I think you are free to start by confronting him privately (see Matt. 18:15). But I also think you are free to speak with one of the other pastors first. . . Whether or not you begin by going to him privately or not,”

Apparently, it has been now deemed discretionary to personally confront wrong-doers, at least when it comes to sermonic plagiarism.  It appears that personal confrontation is no longer the first and necessary advice, at least in this scenario!  You are now welcome to talk to others before speaking to him and finding out the facts (which is finally the writer’s advice in point number three).

√ “Whether or not you begin by going to him privately or not, you eventually need to go to the other pastors.  Hopefully, he’ll want to do that. But even if he resists, you should.”

I understand, “if he resists.”

But if it is resolved — confessed and repented — you should still talk to others, regardless of the resolution.

Even if there is what is deemed a “consistent pattern” (which is another whole issue), it’s unrecoverable!  Alert others about the wrong-doing of which they have no clear or direct knowledge?  Spread the knowledge of the sin, not cover the sin.

That’s a new biblical principle.

Let’s apply that principle to other areas of ministry wrong-doing.

√  “In your conversation with him and with them, give him the benefit of the doubt and start with questions.”

This is the writer’s number three point! It is remarkable (worth remarking) that the article would not start with assessing the nature of wrong-doing. It should have been the first stated step and the first step argued in the article. The first step that ought to come to mind is, find out the facts — what, why, how often, how honestly repentant.

You are dealing with a pastor’s whole life, his family, and the families of others in the church!

√ “I hate to say this, but expect initial resistance or at least excuse-making. If he has been doing this for a time, his heart has become a little hard, and his first response may not be his best and final response. Give it prayer and a little time. If he is guilty, hopefully he’ll soften.”

This might be the most candid and revealing part of the writer’s advice.

• expect initial resistance
• a little hard
• hopefully
• he’ll soften
• if he resists you
• the other pastors circle the wagons around him and say that you’re making mountains out of molehills.
• maybe they even threaten your job.
• confronting both the senior pastor and/or the elders
• assuming he and they still resist
• [be] certain the evidence clearly points to pastoral lying and stealing.

What a commentary on what to expect!

You are not saying that this advice is aimed at what you believe to be the expected or typical scenario and pastoral response to confrontation — are you?

Surely, your advice is for the irregular, the anomaly, the few, and far between exceptions.

√ “ If there has been a consistent pattern of this, I do think he should permanently step down.”

There are no personal steps to recovery other than resigning and leaving the ministry, at least for a meaningful period of time — when it comes to sermonic plagiarism.

Even if there is what is deemed a “consistent pattern” (which is another whole discussion), it’s deemed as unrecoverable when only you and the pastor have personally discussed and addressed it!

Does “consistent pattern” include all areas of sermonic preparation and presentation? That might be a very precarious road when it comes to pastors using ideas, materials, illustrations, outlines, points, quips, stories, wording, et al.

√ “even if there are voices in the congregation that want to smother everything over with words of forgiveness.”

Yes, the acknowledged and candid reality is that others will want to cover it up because relationships rule far more often than principle.

√ “Should your senior pastor and/or his staff respond by downplaying sin or covering it over, I fear the rot at the top will slowly trickle down into the life of the congregation in all sorts of unseen ways in the years to come. It will not be a healthy church.”

Again, this must be advice for the anomalies.  Pastors, staff, elders don’t downplay or cover up wrong-doing.  And surely, the use of the word “rot” is an over-reach, hyperbole, extreme word usage to describe a church leadership situation. –( tongue in cheek).

No, covering, downplaying, slowly trickles down, unseen ways, rot-toxic really happens.

. . . . .

A rather revealing assessment of what happens when ministry leaders, pastors, elders, deacons, staff, officials, board members engage in wrong-doing, and someone tries to address it.

At the end . . . .
You may get stabbed, and the wrong-doer claims that he is the one bleeding! [2]

1. No, the discord may be because of the wrong-doing/wrong-doers.

2. That quip is not mine!  It is a modified quip, but there was no attribution —

— https://jeffstraub.net/sermongate-should-i-preach-another-mans-sermon/

Unfortunately, Christian schools are not exempt from this reality!  

There are ministries and Christian schools across the United States that pay disparate wages(and benefits) depending on whether one is . . . .

• single or married,
• a first or second income provider,
• male or female,
• “connected” or unknown,
• a relative or commoners,  and/or
• deemed important or unimportant.[1]

While some ministries and Christian schools do not violate the law, they may still be unethical or immoral.  Merely because laws contain loopholes and/or plausible “disparity justifications” that are tolerated, [2] such does not exempt ministries and Christian schools from legitimate and harsh criticism regarding their financial dealings with their employees!

• A fair day’s work for a fair day’s wages
• Equal pay for equal work
• “Whatsoever things are honest”
• Without partiality

. . . . are the standards of what is just and right, in the sight of God and in the sight of men!

Some ministries and Christian schools do violate the law — knowingly and unknowingly.  They ought to be brought to the attention of the local “Hour & Wage” department.

Some ought to be brought to mediation or court to repay those lost back wages . . .

  BECAUSE it’s “wage theft!”

[3]

♦♦♦♦♦. ♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦

“Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields,
which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth:
and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.”
— James 5:4 —

1.  Some ministries purposefully avoid delineating, providing, or publishing salary scales based on experience and degrees.  Others provide no payroll slips, which would clarify what is actually being deducted.  Some salaries are virtually negotiated at hiring and depend on what is accepted by this-or-that employee — “What can we get away with.”  Yet, others withhold employment contracts to make it easy to dismiss and/or replace (but for other sinister reasons).  Some ministries purposefully fire or do not rehire employees if a “cheaper one” can be found.

All too often, if you want to understand how corrupt the decisions and actions can be, FOLLOW the money trail in the world and in ministry!

2.  “We pay more to this teacher because of the importance we place on having male teachers in this position.” It’s called “Plausible-Deniability.”

2. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?zx=qa0u2plikqw#inbox/FMfcgzGkZZvDGFnpSvjhlbbrtxmqpWXz

The article headlines this statement . . . .

“Bryson DeChambeau threw everyone under the bus,
never holding himself accountable for his wayward shots.”

Yes, golf is far different from ministry in at least one way.    As the article goes on to say — “It’s the golfer vs. the. course.”

“Professional golf is the ultimate individual sport. It’s the golfer vs. the course — with a little help from technology-tested clubs that players are paid handsomely to promote. . . . . Since each club in a player’s bag has been tested repeatedly, the fault lies with the swing alone if the golfer hits a wayward shot. A single stroke can mean the difference between victory and failing to make the cut.”

Golf is an individual sport.  Ministry involves a team and the attendance of many members and friends.  It also operates on the volunteerism of a wide variety of a good number of people.

Nevertheless, there is one common factor that the article highlights and that prevails in both golf and ministry — blame-shifting!  That is the point of the article.  DeChambeau refuses to take responsibility for his mistakes.

“If I can hit it down the middle of the fairway, that’s great,
but with the driver right now, the driver sucks,”

“DeChambeau threw everyone under the bus except himself,
never holding himself accountable for the poor shots. 

“He had pointed the finger at the company and not in his own direction. Once a teammate throws another under the bus, trust disappears, and culture becomes severely infected. We as leaders cannot allow a self-inflicted wound to hurt the program and must implore everyone, including ourselves, to be accountable. Our words to our team after we struggle are crucial. If we lose our poise or place blame elsewhere, our ability to lead diminishes quickly.” [1]

Failing to recognize or acknowledge one’s mistakes or sinful actions will quickly erode both ministry or pastoral credibility, as well as growth.  Many leaders and pastors do not understand this key dynamic in the operation and leadership of a ministry or church —  Once a pastor throws others under the bus, trust disappears, and the culture becomes severely toxic.

The article goes on to state . . . .

“The obstacles we overcome make us stronger and more effective. When faced with a problem, we must be prepared and harness the right words and the right messaging, because, during difficult times, real character reveals itself for all to examine.

DeChambeau can apologize and can regret his words, but only his humble actions moving forward will allow his teammates to regain trust.”

There may be two other differences between golf and ministry.  “Humility” is at a premium when it comes to ministry leaders,  and “trust” is subject to far more damage when it comes to ministries and ministers.

At times, the damage and the lack of humility cause leaders and pastors to conclude it is best to move on to another ministry.  Other times, the attendance continues to precipitously drop to a point where the loyalist finally suggest that option.

What happened?
It was not the mis-hits, but the blaming of the driver! 

Some genuine and honest humility would say . . .

“I stink at some things, AND this is one of them.  Some days we get it right somedays and somedays we get it terribly wrong.  We sin in our words, actions, decision.  We fight a self-serving spirit like all of Go’s people, and sometimes we lost the fight!  We made a terrible decision, responded in a self-serving manner, were stubborn when it was pointed out that we were wrong — sinfully wrong.  We should have, and we didn’t.  We could have, but we wouldn’t.”

That’s true with golf, business, ministry, marriage, and family!  We are all going to disappoint our fans, co-workers, church members, spouse, siblings, children, and parents!  Then we have a “DeChambeau Moment” — a choice to either blame the “club” or take responsibility!

What happened?
A Lack Of Humility
&
A Loss Of Trust

♦♦♦♦♦

What Happened?
It was not the mis-hits, but the blaming of the driver!
They threw everyone under the bus! 

Other Information And Links:

1.  https://thedailycoach.substack.com/p/being-accountable-for-failure

Being Accountable for Failure

Bryson DeChambeau threw everyone under the bus, never holding himself accountable for his wayward shots.

The Daily Coach —

Jul 26, 2021

“Professional golf is the ultimate individual sport. It’s the golfer vs. the course — with a little help from technology-tested clubs that players are paid handsomely to promote.

No golfer does an endorsement deal simply for the sake of it — their livelihood is too important. Since each club in a player’s bag has been tested repeatedly, the fault lies with the swing alone if the golfer hits a wayward shot. A single stroke can mean the difference between victory and failing to make the cut.

“If I can hit it down the middle of the fairway, that’s great, but with the driver right now, the driver sucks,” American golfer Bryson DeChambeau said last week after a disappointing showing at The Open. “It’s not a good face for me, and we’re still trying to figure out how to make it good on the mis-hits. I’m living on the razor’s edge like I’ve told people for a long time.”

DeChambeau threw everyone under the bus except himself, never holding himself accountable for the poor shots. But we all know better, and even DeChambeau when facing the onslaught of criticism backed off his anger toward his Cobra driver.

But the damage was done. He had pointed the finger at the company and not in his own direction. Once a teammate throws another under the bus, trust disappears, and culture becomes severely infected. We as leaders cannot allow a self-inflicted wound to hurt the program and must implore everyone, including ourselves, to be accountable. Our words to our team after we struggle are crucial. If we lose our poise or place blame elsewhere, our ability to lead diminishes quickly.

After a rough outing or a challenging quarter, it’s easy to lose focus, drop our guard and surrender our mental toughness. However, during rough times is when we need those qualities the most. We must demonstrate focus, an ability to withstand criticism, and most of all, mental toughness. The obstacles we overcome make us stronger and more effective. When faced with a problem, we must be prepared and harness the right words and the right messaging, because, during difficult times, real character reveals itself for all to examine.

DeChambeau can apologize and can regret his words, but only his humble actions moving forward will allow his teammates to regain trust.”

. . . . 

After reading an insightful article (link) written by a young lady who lost her father to Covid, I was again reminded that the Christian life is far more complicated than some display they actually understand. Beautifully and genuinely, Shobana Vetrivel disclosed the complexity of Christian living in real-life terms.

Her article is such a contrast to ministry and church leaders who speak to issues in simplistic and/or unsympathetic ways —

• “Worry is a mild form of atheism” — reposted by John Piper

This is an all too common example of simplifying and pontificating in ways that expose the ivory tower mentalities of those who live in a ministry or church bubble — no less in an American church bubble.  Such comments announce how disconnected some pastors are from the complexity of living the Christian life in a broken world.

It might be worth remembering that . . . .

√ The complexity of Christian living might not be obvious until you run into them — When your loved one is seriously ill, in the hospital, and even dies!

√ The details of life experiences are often not immediately visible until you are faced with them — When a son or daughter abandons the direction you have pointed them all their lives.

√ The daily orderliness of Christian living can become far more messy and noisy than you thought while watching others on the sidelines — When ministry leaders, missionaries, and pastors engage in actions and/or make decisions that go against all you understood was taught and believed by them.

√ The Christian life disciplines can be a source of increasing frustration because it isn’t working like you were told or believed it was supposed to work — When praying or reading and holding onto the promises of Scripture, do not seem to be accomplishing anything meaningful.

By the way, Shobana Vetrivel lives in New Delhi, India,
far removed from anything like the American church bubble.

P.S. Reminded of the poem “The Stone” by Gibson

. . . .
I went to break the news to her;
And I could hear my own heart beat
With dread of what my lips might say.
But some poor fool had sped before;
And flinging wide her father’s door,
Had blurted out the news to her,
Had struck her lover dead for her,
Had struck the girl’s heart dead in her,
Had struck life, lifeless, at a word,
And dropped it at her feet:
Then hurried on his witless way,
Scarce knowing she had heard.
. . . . .

. . . . . 

I listen to A LOT of sermons throughout the week.  After listening to one this week, I was alerted once again about an all too common preaching practice — a menacing practice — the dangers of bringing in assumptions, from our personal and cultural perspectives, into a sermon.

Let me exemplify this.

While preaching on the passage typically labeled “David and Bathsheba” in II Samuel 11, some preachers inject their assumptions and/or cultural thinking into their sermon — even into their interpretation of the passage.  It is often stated that Bathsheba was a willing sexual partner and purposefully exposed herself on the rooftop to potentially be seen by King David, if not at least others.  When contacted by King David’s servant, she consented because she was a willing accomplice in the adultery — a sin against her husband and her God.

There is nothing in the passage that states or argues such a viewpoint.  If that was true, the Lord chose not to include it in the Scriptures and/or warrant such an exposition.  It is eisegesis, not exegesis.  A preacher or teacher injects their own thinking into the passage and makes the account teach something that is not the focus of the passage!

If the Lord wanted to teach sexual complicity and responsibility, He could have simply included but a few words or a sentence to make that point.  Bathsheba’s morality or thinking that was behind her response to the servant’s request is not included.  What is included is that she responded to David’s messengers to come to his palace.  What is included in the passage is “he took her” — which does not on its face speak of complicity!

It is possible to bring our own personal or cultural perspectives into the understanding of a passage, and in contrast to that, to not bring in our own cultural perspectives when understanding a passage of Scripture!  That may seem contradictory, but let me try to establish that point.

#1) We can fail to understand how different historical periods are to our present-day.  There was no “Me-Too” movement during Old Testament days, the Gospel period, the Middle ages, or during various ruling empires.  Power was used and abused, and especially towards the poor, the powerless, and women.  Whether Bathsheba had any idea of why such a meeting was requested  — I rather doubt she was told that King David saw you bathing and wanted to know if you would be willing to eat dinner with him tonight. — is unknown because it is unstated.

#2) Let’s bring in our own cultural perspectives and realize that the rich, powerful, positioned, and protected abuse and use their power the same way even today.  Today, there is the same tendency to assign some level of blame towards the innocent — “She should not have dressed that way if she didn’t want to have someone take advantage of her.”

The point of the passage is David’s actions.  He is the story’s focus, and his actions are confronted by the Lord through Nathan, the prophet.  Nathan held no marital counseling session with David & Bathsheba!  In fact, she was described in Nathan’s story as an innocent ewe lamb.  Nathan could have designed and constructed the parable many other ways that did not include that imagery!

As probably you are, I am often taken back by the assumptions that creep into a sermon but are not founded on the text.    I have attempted to lessen those tendencies by framing such comments with the statement . . . . “Now, if that were me, I might be thinking / responding / remembering / saying / shouting out . . . . ”

Don’t try to save David, or any other man, pastor, missionary, ministry leader, staff member, or church member by improperly injecting assumptions, presumptions, speculation, preconceptions, or theories into an account — biblical or contemporary.

“Don’t vouch for him, pastor!”  Those were but a few of my words to a pastor who has repeatedly gone out on a limb and defended sexual misconduct in the church.  That may be one of the biblical accurate and practical truths that comes out of the passage — a truth too-often unheeded even today!

. . . . 

. . . . 

i.e.
Vouching For David & Blaming Others: “Bathsheba’s beauty and love of pleasing were her snare. Beauty is a great temptation to many women; they are intoxicated with admiration; but O, what dangers lie in this! ”
— https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/baxter_mary/witw/witw21_bathsheba.cfm

As I read various posts and tweets, I am reminded of how unartful in communication, or lacking in humility, people in ministry are.  It is even rather breadth-taking when you read such words that are so marked with self-applause — maybe not — applause is not part of church services as well!

Whatever the cause, a lack of modesty is so obvious when you read such statements from ministry leaders and local church pastors in both large and small venues.

• “I want to thank “The Large Church” for inviting me and the opportunity to preach to hundreds this past weekend!”
• “Join us a “My Baptist Church” this week to hear an exciting message!  . . . . “
• “Just got the first box of my latest published book on growing a church ministry to reach your community.”
• “I had the great opportunity to share the pulpit with Pastor “Well-Known” this week, and it was a blessing!”
• “Another great week at Word of Me Camp with 100’s of young people responding to my message.”
• “Pray for me as I speak to 1000’s of young men and women at this week’s retreat.”
• “Tomorrow, I will be speaking at Historic Baptist Church, in Forth Worth, Texas.  Hope you can join me!”
• “Not that I need the affirmation of men, but I want to thank those who supported me in this decision.”
• “I want to thank the Lord for the most recent award presented to me by the “You Are Good” seminary.”

How about this one . . . .

• “I felt a leading to spend 2 days in silence. During that time, I simply read my Bible and sat in God’s presence. Maybe He was depositing something in me to sustain me over the next two weeks. The Lord prepares us for what he puts us through.” [1]

[Audience Applause At This Point Please]

It is not that all such announcements or information are not warranted. There is a place and a need to rejoice in what the Lord has been and is doing in His plan and program on earth, through situations, circumstances, and people.

Nevertheless, these posts and tweets often expose the obvious reality that it is really about us!  If it was worded in a way that reflected a genuine humility, without an all-too-obvious focus on self, it would speak of a sincere humility and would sound less braggadocio.  But too often, such is not the case.  Instead, their words shout the need for recognition and affirmation.[2]

So often, the point is made that the focus of all Scripture should be on Jesus. From Genesis to Revelation, the story is about Him.  We are not the story.  We are part of His story.  That doesn’t seem to be the reality when it comes to humility in ministry!

May I suggest some wisdom from Solomon . . . .

— Proverbs 27:2 —
“Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; 
a stranger, and not thine own lips.”

It’s an example of what the Scriptures mean when it speaks about “the pride of life.” “The Pride of Life” is knowledge and feeling that we are important and/or have accomplished something. [2]

. . . . .

2. Yes, we are all guilty throughout our ministry.  But some may lack sufficient self-awareness and/or possess a tin-ear about how terrible they actually come across, and thereby stay on that road.

It’s part of “the pride of life,” feeling that we are important and have accomplished something.  It is the reason for most monuments, building titles, hospital wings, endowments, designed & named scholarships, etc.