The February 18, 2008 issue of Newsweek includes a fascinating article about Tim Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. It is worth a read.

What Tim Keller has done in New York is a superb study in good missiology applied to reach thoughtful, urban professionals with a gospel that is a combination of “orthodox Christianity, challenging preaching, with an emphasis on social justice and community service.” The article goes with the following description of Tim:

“Like so many New Yorkers Keller is a misfit. He’s a megachurch pastor who doesn’t like megachurches. He’s an orthodox Christian who believes in evolution. He emulates the puritan preacher Jonathan Edwards and loves a good restaurant. he’s an evangelist who relishes the power of doubt. New York is the perfect home for such an idiosyncratic Christian.”

Richard Farson, author of Management of the Absurd and The Innovation Paradox writes the following about how to evaluate complaints and whining within an organization:

“The paradox is that improvement in human affairs leads not to satisfaction but to discontent, albeit a higher-order discontent than might have existed before. This is what historians have labeled the theory of rising expectations. It fuels the fires of revolution and change because it creates a discrepancy between what people have and what they now see is possible to have. That discrepancy is the source of discontent and the engine for change.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow had an interesting way of describing this phenomenon as it applied to the health of organizations. He advised managers to listen not for the presence or absence of complaints, but rather to what people were complaining about—that is, the quality or level of the complaint. He called them “grumbles.” In the least healthy organizations, Maslow said, you can expect to hear low-order grumbles – complaints about working conditions, about what he called “deficiency needs.” For example: “It’s too hot in here.” Or, “I don’t get paid enough.”

In a healthier organization, Maslow said, there would be high-order grumbles – complaints that extend beyond the self to more altruistic concerns for self or society.

There is the absurdity. Only in an organization where people are in on things and where their talents are being utilized would it occur to someone to complain about those higher-order issues. What this means to the manager is that improvement does not bring contentment but its opposite.

Absurd as it seems, the way to judge your effectiveness is to assess the quality of the discontent you engender, the ability to produce movement from low-order discontent to high-order discontent. Easing the dress codes raises expectations for further change, and they now want more informal days, looser codes, clearer policies. Pity the poor manager who can’t imagine how a well-intended action led to such grousing. The paradox of rising expectations helps us better understand why it is on the best campuses that there is the most restlessness and demand for change.”

A quote passed on from Bobby Clinton this week stimulated some thought:

“When the church was on the move and both the Roman and Jewish leaders were opposing it, someone had to make quick, Spirit-led decisions. And we can only imagine the kinds of issues that could have splintered this frail organization when the church leaped over its cultural boundaries to include Samaritans and Gentiles. Because Peter was a leader whose ego could endure the threat of disagreement and challenge he was not afraid to act. He was not careless, but he was not afraid to move, and under his leadership the church got things done. Peter was a leader who made decisions that mattered.”—from Handbook to Leadership-Leadership in the Image of God, by Boa, Buzzell and Perkins (pg. 14)

I’ve worked and led some strong leaders over the years. Sometimes they are referred to as leaders who lead “hard.” I believe there is a desperate need for such men and women throughout the contemporary Christian movement, but all too often we seem to want to beat out of these people the very characteristics that make them effective. That’s understandable because some of us have been bruised by such people. So we live in a time where collaborative leadership, buy-in, ownership, and facilitation are the prevailing values. Peter, Paul, or Moses probably wouldn’t fare to well.

When I’ve recruited or assumed responsibility for people with strong personalities, (Enneagram #8, ENTJ, High-D, Type-A people), there are several non-negotiables that I particularly look for if I am to coach, mentor or supervise them:

1. Character – Do they have integrity? When push comes to shove, will they do the right thing?

2. Teachability – Can they follow, genuinely submitting to to the leadership of others? Do they have the posture of a learner? Can they be corrected or do they behave like the stubborn fool that Proverbs repeatedly warns us about?

3. Emotional health – How great is their need for affirmation and validation? Are their emotional needs such that they will they suck me and others dry looking for approval? Will they demand strokes which no one can ever adequately provide and in reality, only God can give?

4. Spiritual Vitality – Can they hear from God? If so, are they responsive to the Spirit and the Word and going ever deeper in dependence upon Jesus? Is there evidence that their rough edges are being refined in the process of submission to God’s sanctifying rule?

It’s naive to mistake strong, decisive leadership for authoritarian, top-down leadership. If servant leadership, thoroughly biblical in nature, can be exercised effectively through a person like Peter, there is hope for many others. We shouldn’t shy from recruiting and sponsoring strong personalities into roles of responsibility just because they can be a handful. At the same time, I’m not interested in putting myself in a relational cusinart, trying to help someone who is out of touch with who they really are and exhibits some of the disqualifiers above. They key, as we see demonstrated in how Jesus dealt with the likes of Peter, was knowing the difference.

It’s about 3:30 on a gray, cold, overcast London afternoon. I’m sitting in a very uncomfortable, rickety wooden pew at the back of the church of St. Mary Woolnoth.

I’m the only one in the building. Only a few lights are on in a magnificent bronze chandelier that occupies the center of the room. It’s musty, dank and has that old building smell. It’s actually a little spooky

However, St. Mary Wolnoth occupies one of the most prominent sites of any church in London. It stands at the junction of Lombard and King William streets, under the shadow of the Bank of England and a stone’s throw away from the historic site of the London Exchange.

A church building has been on this site since 1191 and the structure in which I am sitting is the fourth iteration. The second was built in 1438, the third by the famous Christopher Wren (architect of St. Paul’s cathedral) in 1674, and the last by Nicholas Hawksmoor in 1727. It’s a majestic example of English baroque architecture.

But what is most gripping is to imagine what happened here in centuries past. From 1779-1807, the rector was John Newton, the author of Amazing Grace. From the pulpit that rises above me, he preached vehemently against the evils of the slave trade and encouraged others such as William Wilberforce who led the battle for the abolition of slavery in the British empire. Also, Claudius Buchanan, who launched significant missionary efforts to India was inspired by Newton in this place as was Hannah Moore, the writer, social reformer and philanthropist, and others.

Newton was buried here in 1807. On my left is a marble plaque that carries the following epitaph which Newton himself wrote:

JOHN NEWTON
Once an infidel and libertine
A servant of slaves in Africa,
Was, by the rich mercy
of our Lord and Savour
JESUS CHRIST
restored, pardoned, and
appointed to preach
the Gospel which he had
long laboured to destroy.

And now this building is a musty relic. Pretty much forgotten. Thousands of people pass by its doors every day here in the heart of London’s financial district, oblivious to what momentous, world transforming convictions had their genesis within these walls.

If only stones could talk.

John Newton and his memorial plaque at St. Mary’s

“If you really want to keep your kids safe, middle-class, responsible people, keep them away from the gospels which will radicalize them. Don’t expose them to Jesus unless you want them to be martyrs.” —Alan Hirsch to CRM staff, August, 2007

I see all too often: parents who want their children to have enough Christianity to be respectable but don’t want their offspring to go overboard and become too committed.

Where this “enough but not too much” attitude may show up blatantly is when the son or daughter makes the jump into vocational ministry, particularly a missionary calling, and they have to raise financial support. Then the fat can hit the proverbial fan!

“I don’t want you begging for money!”
“Don’t ask our friends to support you”
“What are you going to do about retirement?”
“Can you really live off of that?”
“Do you really think this is a good way to use all that education we paid for?”
“You mean you may move overseas? When will we ever see the grandkids?”

Somehow the real Jesus who makes statements like Luke 9:23 gets lost in the well-meaning but mis-directed scramble to protect and preserve those whom we love from a God we do not really trust:

“If any person would come after me, they must deny themselves, take up their cross daily, and follow me.”

As much as we may want to sanitize it, the cross is still a cross.

It’s hard to quantify. Hard to describe. It simply happens whenever we gather together a group of folks serving with CRM from anywhere around the world. There is a unmistakable sense of something that permeates such gatherings.

There is a kind of energy and passion about our shared calling that works as a mystical bond. Even when we may not have seen one another for months or perhaps years, there is an intensity that pervades the relationships and things quickly go deep. As one person commented this past week in Vancouver, “You can see it in their eyes …” There is a quality and contagiousness that is tangible, a commitment to the pursuit of God and his kingdom agenda. These are people with whom one is invariably drawn to do life and ministry, to love, fight, laugh and perhaps die with.

Underlying it and perhaps the real reason behind it all is simply the supernatural anointing of God. The Triune God has for reasons beyond my understanding chosen to rest his hand of blessing and his supernatural presence on these people. It’s what the old-timey saints called “divine unction.” And it is an umbrella of spiritual reality and power that has permeated this outfit since 1985.

May it never lift. May it never cease. May it only grow and deepen so that the name of God may be renowned among the nations.

Saw the movie 300 recently …dark, bloody and violent as well as historically inaccurate.

But there was one leadership lesson that it vividly illustrates: Victory is never won by the multitudes. It is only ensured by the few.

As Robert Coleman so aptly writes when applying this principle to the realm of the spiritual:

“The principle of selectivity and concentration is engraved in the universe, and will bring results no matter who practices it, whether the church believes it or not …. A few people so dedicated in time will shake the world for God. Victory is never won by the multitudes.”

“Effective leaders view leadership selection and development as a priority function.” – J. Robert Clinton

I was asked recently by a person with whom I enjoy a mentoring relationship why I spent time with another person in such a relationship. In other words; “What did I see in that other person? Why would I invest in that relationship?”

Afterwards, I sat down and tried to capture in writing my answer to that question more thoroughly than I have in the past. It’s an answer honed by my experience and by my own personal sense of calling from God.

So at the risk of being labeled “elitist” and perhaps being too transparent about my own philosophy of ministry, here’s the list of what I look for in people with whom I will go deep in relationships and/or mentor:

Spiritually Alive: They are enamored with Jesus and willing to follow him no matter what. They evidence a palatable spiritual hunger and thirst for the Spirit of God to flow through their lives. They are consumed by love for Christ and what it means to be his Kingdom followers in all areas of life.

Teachable: They are responsive and teachable. They display good followership which I believe to be an unconditional prerequisite for good leadership. They don’t have all the answers and are not contentious or argumentative. They are not in theological cement.

Passionate: I am not interested in motivating the unmotivated. I can help steer a moving horse but I’m not going to invest the limited time I have left in life trying to get an obstinate horse off its rump. I want to see passion for much of the same values and vision for which God has captured my own life.

Character: I am drawn to people of unquestioned character. When push comes to shove, they will default to doing the right thing.

Apostolic Gifting: There are indications that they are apostolically gifted. There is a holy discontent with the way things are and they want to be agents of change. They are flexible, adaptable, and mobile. They are catalytic and evidence an entrepreneurial drive by wanting to create and start new things. They want to pioneer and to create.

Servants: I’m not interested in investing my life in self-absorbed people who struggle to get beyond themselves. I’m looking for individuals who are “other oriented” and willing to sacrifice for the needs of those around them.

Thoughtful: I work best with those who can be intellectually engaged and stimulated. There is great curiosity and they can think for themselves. I resonate with people who are comfortable in the world of ideas yet who also are compelled to see those ideas worked out in real life so change is the result. I am not drawn to theory for theory’s sake.

Culturally Savvy: I gravitate toward those who can read a culture and know how to adapt, whether it’s their own culture or one into which they parachute. There is a winsomeness about them. They are contagious. They attract others because of the depth of their character, their spirituality, and their love of people.

Leadership Gifting: They have clear leadership giftedness. I look for those who will have a reproductive influence in the lives of others.

Sense of Calling: I desire to invest in people who, because of the way God has gifted them, have a sense of calling to vocational ministry. This is not to say that I do not value other callings, only that I believe that God has asked me to focus with the limited resources and energy that I posses on people who are headed in that direction. This is not elitist. I am certainly willing to help scores of people figure this out, but that smaller circle that gets my time and attention are those where this question has some sense of finality.

Chemistry: I want to relate to those individuals with whom I have a personal sense of chemistry. They like me and I like them. We want to hang out together. We enjoy each other’s company. There is a genuine and growing sense of love and appreciation.

The Hand of God: Ultimately, I am looking for people on whom the hand of God rests. It’s that unquantifiable quality of God’s anointing where the holy has indiscriminately blown on a life and the result is a sense of supernatural unction. It is the reason Jesus appears to have agonized over the calling of the 12 in the gospels. Even for him, the master selector, it was a divine process where the Father made the choices in the final analysis.

The Oscars are tonight.

Coincidentally, Patty and I watched one of my all-time favorites today ..A Man for All Seasons. It is a timeless story of conscience, integrity and intrigue as Sir Thomas More opposes Henry VIII’s decision to divorce his first wife, Catherine, in order to marry Anne Boleyn, wife #2 (out of a total of six), an opposition that eventually costs Sir Thomas his head.

The film was awarded Best Picture in 1966 and Paul Scofield, who played Sir Thomas More, won the Best Actor Oscar. The film also won Academy Awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Costume design and Best Director. Besides Scofield, it starred Orson Wells (Bishop Wolsey) and Robert Shaw (Henry VIII).

Mel Gibson was so impressed by Paul Scofield’s performance in this film that he compared appearing alongside him in Hamlet to being “thrown into the ring with Mike Tyson.” Another huge fan of Scofield’s performance as More was John Wayne, who once called it the best performance he had ever seen.

“God is personal, but never private. Restricting God to private space was the great heresy of twentieth-century American evangelicalism.

Denying the public God is a denial of biblical faith itself, a rejection of the prophets, the apostles, and Jesus himself. Exclusively private faith degenerates into a narrow religion, excessively preoccupied with individual and sexual morality while almost oblivious to the biblical demands for public justice.

We have been buffeted by private spiritualities that have no connection to public life and a secular politics showing disdain for religion or even spiritual concerns. That leaves spirituality without social consequences and a politics with no soul.”
—Jim Wallis in God’s Politics

I was in college in the early 70s as the university world was being rolled by Vietnam protests and the great social upheavals of the 60s. On the religious scene, issues such as racism, civil rights, social justice, poverty, war and peace were pretty much owned by the left which embraced these causes with great passion but who had given up, for the most part, on the historical Jesus and his reality or relevance in the present. Despite wonderful counter-cultural expressions such as the Jesus Movement, conservative evangelicalism was essentially paralyzed and impotent. All most could do was circle the spiritual wagons and hope the storm would pass.

It was during this time of chaos that I was introduced to Sojourners and Jim Wallis. It was like a drink of cool water in a blazing hot cultural desert. I couldn’t believe that such a magazine, or a community, existed. It combined biblical fidelity with a powerful social/cultural critique that was neither morally selective like the right nor spiritually anemic like the left.

Thirty years later, that same voice has emerged with new relevance and spiritual authority. Wallis’ book—God’s Politics —is a refreshing, comprehensive primer on a holistic, biblical gospel applied to present day American society and politics. It’s one of those books that I read and wonder, “This has the ring of truth. Why are so few who name the name of Christ in the public square saying these things? And why are so few in the Church listening?”

While there are times when his objectivity can get a little carried away by his Anabaptist bias, Wallace’s book is one of the best critiques of our present political context and how followers of Jesus can and must engage.

“God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It” (Jim Wallis)

“Church Growth” has gotten a bad rap!

Several years ago I was at a large conference in Denver sponsored by Leadership Network. In front of hundreds of leaders from around the nation, a leading evangelical figure lashed out at “church growth” and characterized it as the fountainhead of all that was wrong with the present-day Church in North America.

I approached him personally afterwards and asked him where in the writings of Donald McGavran—the “father” of the Church Growth Movement—would I find any of the the things he so aggressively castigated. And which aspect of the field of missiology, of which “church growth” theory has played an integral part, would he find anything close to what he was pummeling. He responded with a blank stare.

“Church growth” have become in recent years a grab-all punching bag for anyone who wants to take shots at the church that is, particularly the mega, number-crunching, market oriented, shallow, seeker-sensitive, institutional forms of Christianity that the Protestant movement in the Western world has deemed to be paradigms of “success.”

In reality, Church Growth—as defined and taught by Donald A. McGavran—is far from what has been popularized in North America. This school of study and practice has been one of the most important and influential missiological forces in the latter half of the 20th century, particularly in the developing world. Today, unbeknownst to most, such missiology is a major underpinning of those movements around the globe that are cutting new ground for the Christian movement in unreached people groups and among the major blocks that remain resistant to the good news of Jesus, i.e., other major world religions, the secular, and the animistic. In many ways, the emerging church in the West applies and lives out the missiological insights articulated by McGavran several generations earlier.

In his seminal works, The Bridges of God and later Understanding Church, McGavran provided groundbreaking insights and a framework to understand the redemptive purposes of God. Such understanding has stood the test of time and culture. Granted, there are refinements that that years have brought, such as a clearer differentiation between church and kingdom, but on the whole, the seminal theory that McGavran advanced—based on his 30 years of field work in India—continues to ring true today.

Eddie Gibbs, who hold the McGavran chair of Church Growth at Fuller Theological Seminary, put it this way:

“Unfortunately, as the Church Growth movement became popular in North America, it focused on technique, and we lost sight of the profound insights of Donald McGavran.

His early writing was pushing people out of their secure mission stations to build the bridges of God into the society around them and to sensitively birth faith communities within their cultural context …

My hope is that the Church Growth movement is still to come into its own. The Americanization of it corrupted it, but McGavran is still right! He was a child of his age, and he got some things wrong. He defined mission too narrowly, and he too closely identified church and kingdom. But he grasped this idea that you’ve got to be a movement, to be on the move. And he understood the need to think in terms of sociological maps, not just geographical ones.”

At the Edgewater Hotel in Chicago in 1923, nine of the most successful businessmen in the United States gathered for a meeting. If these nine had combined their resources and assets, they would have controlled more money than the U.S. Treasury. In the meeting were:

1 – The head of the largest monopoly in the nation.
2 – The most successful speculator on Wall Street.
3 – The president of the largest independent steel company.
4 – The president of the largest utility company.
5 – The president of the largest gas company.
6 – The greatest wheat speculator in the United States.
7 – The president of the New York Stock Exchange.
8 – The president of the Bank of International Settlements.
9 – A member of the President’s cabinet.

Twenty-five years later … Where were these men?

1 – Ivan Krueger, head of the greatest monopoly, died a suicide.
2 – Jesse Livermore, the most successful speculator on Wall Street, died a suicide.
3 – Charles Schwab, president of the largest independent steel company, died in bankruptcy and lived on borrowed money for five years before his death.
4 – Samuel Insull, the president of the greatest utility company, died a fugitive from the law and penniless in a foreign land.
5 – Howard Hopson, the president of the largest gas company, went insane.
6 – Arthur Cotton, the greatest wheat speculator, died abroad, bankrupt.
7 – Richard Whitney, the president of the New York Stock Exchange, was released from Sing Sing Penitentiary.
8 – Leon Fraser, the president of the Bank of International Settlements, died a suicide.
9 – Albert Fall, the member of the President’s cabinet, was pardoned so that he could die at home.

Sobering.

“Stockpile treasure in heaven, where it’s safe from moth and rust and burglars. It’s obvious, isn’t it? The place where your treasure is, is the place you will most want to be, and end up being. ” Matthew 6:20-21

“Our education system disqualifies people for honest work.

““When a subject becomes totally obsolete, we make it a required course.”

“The schoolmaster since time immemorial has believed that the ass is an organ of learning. The longer you sit, the more you learn.”

“Harvard, to me, combines the worst of German academic arrogance with bad American theological seminary habits.”

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed people can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

— Anthropologist Margaret Mead

“Courage is not something to be gauged in a poll or located in a focus group. No advisor can spin it. No historian can backdate it. In the age-old context between popularity and principle, only those willing to lose for their convictions are deserving of posterity’s approval.”

Our Father All-Merciful!
Don’t abandon your own long-suffering Russia
In her present daze,
In her woundedness,
Impoverishment,
And confusion of spirit.
Lord Omnipotent!
Don’t let, don’t let her be cut short,
To no longer be.
So many forthright hearts
And so many talents
You have lodged among Russians.
Do not let them perish or sink into darkness
Without having served in your name.
Ot of the depths of Calamity
Save your disordered people.

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

In my experience, anyone who leads has several “levers” through which they can exert influence in an organization. There is nothing particularly spiritual inherent in these as leadership tools. But spirituality makes a profound difference in HOW they are used.

1. Money – The spending of money is never morally neutral. A budget conveys values and priorities. The power to steer where resources are applied is a critical prerogative that a wise leader should not abdicate nor allow to wander far from his attention.

2. Recruiting – Whom we hire speaks volumes. In ministry, I believe the character, giftedness, passion and spiritual maturity of those we choose and draw close to us does more than anything else to determine the essential DNA of any organization.

3. Promoting – Eyes are always on who is sponsored into greater responsibility and who is tapped for what roles and positions of trust.

4. Public Persona and the Flow of Information – Communication is a powerful leadership tool whether it be written, spoken or visual. Even when aimed at audiences outside the organization, the boomerang effect can be enormous.

5. Evaluation Criteria – How we critique performance and results can exercise a huge effect on behavior. Such criteria translates what we believe and what we value into concrete action and accountability.

These five “levers” may all sound crass and even Machiavellian. But these are the realities of human relationships and are true whether found in government, business, families or religious movements. In the ministry realm, these are actually the means through which spiritual authority can be exercised and the blessing of God can flow. Conversely, they can be means through which abuse is perpetuated.

Anyone who is honest will find this to be true and can identify such levers of influence if they look closely at the life of any leader in any era, whether it is Mother Teresa, John Calvin, Martin Luther King, or Billy Graham.

“If you want to make enemies, try to change something.” —Woodrow Wilson,

“It is not merely that changes in our world demand new responses from us. The very foundations of society have changed.” —Craig Van Gelder

“A church which pitches its tents without constantly looking out for new horizons, which does not continually strike camp, is being untrue to its calling… (we must) play down our longing for certainty, accept what is risky, and live by improvisation and experiment.” —Hans Kung

“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” —Alvin Toffler

“Uncertainty is the only thing to be sure of.”—Anthony Muh

“If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.” —General Eric Shinseki

“If things seem under control, you’re just not going fast enough.” —Mario Andretti

“It is generally much easier to kill an organization than change it substantially.” —Kevin Kelly

“There will be more confusion in the business world in the next decade than in any decade in history. And the current pace of change will only accelerate. —Steve Case

At the turn of the century, TIME magazine ran an article on “Managing to be the Best …The century’s smartest bosses have influence beyond their companies.” These observations stood out:

“Do these four share common traits other than their leadership and superb business acumen? (the four are Coke’s Robert Goizueta, GE’s Jack Welch, GM’s Alfred Sloan, and Panasonic’s Konosuke Matsushita). Yes.

They were curious folks and hence lifelong learners. And they paid attention to people, realizing that the potential of any enterprise hinged on giving subordinates the maximum opportunity to succeed. Even in the 21st century, these characteristics will still be required of great managers.”

“Followers want comfort, stability, and solutions from their leaders, but that’s babysitting. Real leaders ask hard questions and knock people out of their comfort zones and then manage the resulting distress.”

Ronald Heifetz and Donald Laurie in “The Work of Leadership,” – Harvard Business Review

Sam Rayburn, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives:

“You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you, unless you know how to follow.”

Os Guiness in “The Call”:

“Curiously, the twentieth century, which began with some of the strongest leaders in all history – some good like Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, many bad like Lenin and Stalin – ended with a weak style of leadership codependent on followership: the leader as panderer.”

Journalist/Historian Garry Wills:

“...followers may be considered a hazy and not very estimable lot – people to be dominated or served, mesmerized or flattered. We have thousands of books on leadership, none on followership … The ideal seems to be a world in which everyone is a leader … Talk about the nobility of leaders, the need for them, our reliance on them, raises the clear suspicion that followers are not so noble, not needed – that there is something demeaning about being a follower.”

Jesus:

“And if you have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who will give you that which is your own.” (Luke 16:12)

Edison’s Muckers crica 1876

“In selecting what he called his ‘Muckers’, he [Thomas Edison] prized curiosity, reasoning, resilience and versatility over specialization …He was a magnet for talent from all over the world. Over time, a team of virtuosos emerged that he entrusted to deliver on his dreams and generously rewarded in return.”

“Edison was one of the boys yet still the authoritative leader. If expectations on his team were at times impossibly high, the atmosphere was informal and freewheeling. The ‘Muckers’ did not work to any rules,’ said Edison, ‘because they were trying to achieve something.’ Announcing momentous success before the solution was even in his view. He stretched his Muckers, creating an astounding esprit de corps in the process.”

God, give me a life surrounded by a growing number of “muckers!”

(Quotes are from Bill Fischer, professor of technology management at IMD, and Andy Boynton, dean of the Carroll School of Management at Boston College).

I’m on a flight to Eastern Europe and browsing through a British magazine with a synopsis of a study on Thomas Edison, the famous American inventor. Several lines have caught my attention:

“Central to Edison’s success was his ‘invention factory’, bringing together great people, constant prototyping and a culture of innovation and enterprise … He believed that, while ‘books show the theory of things, doing a thing itself is what counts.’ He saw failure as part of the inventive process.”

I continue to be amazed at how movements can ossify and institutionalize. Organizational gravity inevitably pulls toward institutionalization. The justifications used by the bean counters, policy makers, and those who must have rules and regulation are legion: “accountability…stewardship…excellence”...can all be admirable labels for clubs that are used to beat innovation and an entrepreneurial spirit out of an organizational culture.

In my experience the only way to keep an edge and a step ahead of the maintainers is to recruit and empower a steady stream of what Edison called “muckers.” They are the trailblazers who simply need running room and someone to believe in them. That’s why recruiting such men and women in the emerging generation is one of my top priorities. I believe nothing has the capacity to bring about as much lasting, transformational change as this. It’s part of my own personal mission statement. Part of that to which God has called me is:

To challenge, recruit, sponsor and empower growing numbers of godly, high potential leaders into apostolic ministry and

To pioneer, nurture and grow apostolic structures which will multiply leadership for the Church in every nation.

Occasionally when I have the opportunity for reflection and time to journal, my thoughts go to leadership and what I have learned. There is nothing necessarily profound about these musings other than the fact that I have found them to be real in my experience and I have the scars to prove it. Perhaps they may prove beneficial for others:

• Any effective leader should expect relational conflict and realize that sometimes such conflicts are not resolvable. The onus on a leader in such circumstances is to do whatever is within his/her ability to make things right and then leave the results to God.

• Good leaders …those exercising spiritual leadership …hear from God and are open and sensitive to confirmation of that word through others

• Many mistakes can be avoided by the wisdom of a multitude of counselors. Proverbs is right!

• Followers can shrewdly exploit a leader’s weaknesses and blackmail him/her to the point of impotence and indecisiveness.

• One of the true test of leading is the ability to persevere and press ahead regardless of the opposition.

• Doing what is right for another person’s welfare may be more important than the relationship itself.

• God must be the one who ultimately vindicates a leader’s decisions and reputation.

How does one choose whom to invest in when it comes to leadership development and training? In my experience, an array of factors influence such selection including:

Faithfulness – I’m not interested in people who are flakes.
Availability – I cannot pursue someone who doesn’t want to be pursued. I’m looking for eager people.
Teachability – It is not my desire to cram a blessing down anyone’s throat.
Giftedness – I cannot make someone into something where God has not provided the raw material.
Chemistry – If I’m going deep with a person, I need to like them and want to spend time with them.
Character – A core commitment to personal integrity is an essential.
Passion – I’m looking for people who burn with zeal for the things of God.

In the final analysis, the choice is not mine. Before he chose the 12, we find Jesus spending a whole night in prayer with the Father. This illustrates not only the critical nature of such decisions, but the ultimate sovereignty of God in dictating the choices.