The Maxwellian Leadership Model Origins

Oftentimes in the church, I hear the phrase, “Leadership is Influence.” “Leadership is Influence” is a distinctive of the “Maxwellian Leadership” model that has been so pervasive in the church, especially the Wesleyan Church, by our own John Maxwell. Both Kevin Myers and Dan Reiland, extraordinary leaders and thinkers in their own right, are strong supporters and communicators of the Maxwellian model, as are many of our current district and denominational leaders. It is a good model, but I don’t believe it to be a Biblical model, despite being supported by Biblical leaders.

Based on my research and best educated guesses, here’s how the Maxwellian model came to be and how that phrase came to hold such significance. We know that in 1968, the merger between the Pilgrim Holiness and the Wesleyan Methodist church occurred forming what we know as The Wesleyan Church and Fishers, Indiana became the headquarters.

The Greatest generation, the generation that had fought in WWII, was now firmly entrenched in the leadership. There was still some of the Silent Generation, but the Greatest’s were seen as the future and the ones who would hold the standard until the Boomers were mature enough to take over.

Since the end of the Great Depression and WW1, the Silent’s had revolutionized the business world. They brought the structure and discipline they had learned in the war, into the boardroom. It was brutal, ruthless and took no prisoners when it came to creating and establishing market control and dominance. By the time the Greatest came into power,

But that didn’t sit well with everyone. In particular, there was a Silent named Robert K. Greenleaf who worked for AT&T who started teaching an unpopular ideology that “the organization existed for the person as much as the person existed for the organization.” This positional statement lead to the formation of the “Servant Leadership” organizational model.

The Servant Leadership model was then co-opted into the Church world and began to gain traction. Silent’s began actively recruiting Greatest’s who had business backgrounds to lead church and eventually placed them in positions of denominational leadership. Still, talking while leadership traits were encouraged, talking about leadership in the church was not.

Maxwell changed all of that. Maxwell, one of the first Baby Boomers to really have substantial influence in the Church, recognized early on in his ministry that in order for him to connect better with the business leaders and people in his congregation, he needed to discover ways to develop his own leadership abilities.

Now, this part I have no actual evidence of, but based on what I’ve read in Maxwell and in Greenleaf, there’s a high probability that Maxwell, in seeking to develop himself, was exposed to Greenleaf’s servant leadership model early on. Greenleaf was from Indiana and visited and spoke there regularly, Wesleyan Headquarters was in Indiana, and we know Maxwell served as a pastor in Indiana. It’s not much of a stretch to see the probability of Maxwell being influenced by Greenleaf. And to take it one step further, If you read Greenleaf’s book, “Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness”, it’s relatively easy to see Greenleaf’s fingerprints in the various teachings and writings of Maxwell. Simply put, there are far too many similar concepts, theories, and practices for it to be a coincidence.

Regardless, Maxwell’s now intentionally developing his personal leadership skills, which was a new idea to pastors who were only focused on developing their Bible skills. When Orval Butcher retired from Skyline, Maxwell brought those leadership skills with him and began teaching what he had been learning in staff meetings. Those staff meetings were recorded on cassette tape and somehow got leaked to pastors outside the church. Once pastors heard about this, they began calling and asking for these tapes and Maxwell, recognizing an opportunity to share his knowledge for a fee, began selling subscriptions to what became Injoy, which is now known as Equip. (Fun fact, when I was just starting out in ministry, I was told that I needed to listen to these Injoy tapes so that I could learn how to be a “real” pastor) :).

From here, most of us know Maxwell’s trajectory. He left Skyline with the sincere belief that his ministry was teaching leadership to pastors and Christian Business people. He’s gone on to become the foremost Christian leadership expert in the world.

Everyone in ministry today has, in some part, been influenced by Maxwell’s commitment and dedication to teaching leadership principles. We should all be aware and extraordinarily grateful for Maxwell’s willingness to be used by God to forever change the landscape and expectations of what it means to be a pastor and to pastor a church.

But your original question is, “Is there a better way to think of leadership?” And the answer is absolutely yes. The Maxwellian model opened the eyes of many to the need for Christian Leadership, however, few have actually explored a Biblical understanding of leadership. That’s not a criticism of pastors, but rather the reality that we are influenced by our personal experiences and the experiences of those around us. And if those around us have experiences based in the Maxwellian model of leadership, well then it’s highly likely that’s where our experiences will be based out of as well.

And that, in my opinion, is the problem that the Church and pastors are running into. Far too many of us have embraced a Maxwellian model of Leadership or a co-opted Servant Leadership model designed for business and incorrectly, and perhaps inappropriately, applied it to the systems and processes of the church.

The unintended result being that the church now looks and operates more like an Organization where success is defined by numbers and growth rather than the Organism that God created it to be where success is defined by the transformational power of Jesus and the life-giving attributes of those who follow Jesus to the communities and individuals around them.

What do you think?

Pandemic Reflections

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been watching and listening to the people that I interact with on a regular basis and processing how they are coming to terms with the reality of this pandemic.

My pastor friends seem to fall into two distinct categories.

The first category is built from the mindset “Once this inconvenience blows over, it’ll be back to normal for everyone.” Their timeframe is very short, sincerely believing that probably everything will be fine in another 2 weeks or so. Every time they share something, they talk about how much they can’t wait to get back together, how they are going to be running up and down the aisles and hugging and kissing everyone they can. They sincerely resent not being able to meet on a regular basis and they are extraordinarily uncomfortable with online church or any other form of church that may be different then simply coming into the church building, worshiping, listening to the sermon, and then leaving. I often wonder if quietly many of them are whispering to themselves that everything else is heresy…

The second category is built from the mindset “The church will never be the same, the old has gone and the new has come!” Their timeframe is much longer, believing that we will be in shutdown until at least June or July and that nothing will ever be the same again. They’ve adapted quickly to this new paradigm. Many of them are secretly relieved that church is no longer business as usual and they are quietly hoping that some of the “problem” Christians that attend their church will leave for other churches. They are so relieved to be rid of the routine and they are embracing and taking advantage of every single moment in this crisis to reinvent how they think about and do church.

My political friends, both conservatives and liberals, are operating out of an entirely different mindset.

My conservative friends, particularly the Libertarians of the group, are absolutely convinced that this pandemic is a direct result of the Democrats trying to destroy Trump’s chances at reelection and the economy at the same time. They aren’t buying what the news channels or experts are saying, they think the entire pandemic is a scam and they are refusing to change how they live or interact with others. They believe that the experts and reporters are grossly exaggerating the numbers and using the argument that people are actually dying from the Flu and not Covid-19, if it even exists at all. And interestingly enough, they are beginning to resent Trump for what they see as bowing to the pressure.

My liberal friends are taking the pandemic seriously. They are staying home and encouraging others to stay home. They are listening to all the news channels and experts and drawing interesting and convincing arguments about the severity of the pandemic. Like my conservative friends, they don’t believe the experts and reporters are accurately reporting the numbers, instead they believe the numbers are actually much higher then what is being shared because the U.S. responded late and there aren’t enough tests or accurate tests for everyone to be tested. Initially, my liberal friends continued to blame Trump for this pandemic, but interestingly enough, many of them are now quietly praising Trump for how aggressive he has been in responding. They still don’t like or respect him, they still think he’s a barely literate idiot, but they are appreciative that he’s doing what he can do to try and prevent the spread.

And then there are my normal friends.

They have jobs, or used to. Their kids are in school, or used to be. They have offices and co-workers that they went to and saw everyday, or used to. They had some savings, or used to. Their response to this pandemic is to just keep holding on. They are doing everything they can to hold things together. Some bills aren’t going to be paid this month, they know that. Some of them are running short on food, toilet paper, and essentials and they’re trying to figure what to do about that. They are scared and worried, but they are just trying to take things one day at a time, take care of their families, and figure out what to do next.

But my friends that scare me the most are my Christian friends.

The reason for this is because my Christian friends are also my pastor friends, my political friends, and my normal friends. They are intermingled with every group that I’ve written about. Some are pastors convinced this is temporary. Some are pastors convinced everything’s changed. Some are conservatives convinced this is a scam. Some are liberals who are taking this seriously. Some are just normal people trying to make it through another day.

What scares me about some of my Christian friends is this, through their statements and interactions on Facebook, phone calls, and other means, it’s clear that Jesus might be their savior, but Jesus is clearly not Lord of their life. They are the Lord of their life and while they are forever indebted to Jesus for His sacrifice, they’ve never truly made Jesus the Lord of their life. They are still in control of their thoughts, words, and actions, those have never truly been surrendered to Jesus.

Here’s the point I want to make. You cannot call yourself a Christian and not have Jesus as Lord of your life. It’s just not possible. You cannot claim Jesus’s sacrifice and then retain complete control over how you think or respond or act. When you claim the sacrifice, the old person who controlled everything is gone. A new person is created who has agreed to submit to letting Jesus be Lord of their life. You cannot claim to be new and still live like the old – it’s just not possible and people see right through the hypocrisy.

So this is a wakeup call both for me and for others. Who is really Lord of your life? I hope you say Jesus and I hope that the Lord will grant you the wisdom and discernment to move away from the things you are attempting to control and serve Him faithfully and without question.

To Dream Audaciously

I’ve been thinking about what it means to dream audaciously. This comes, in part, out of a conversation that I had with an individual regarding a mindset of 1950’s or 2050’s when it comes to the church. This individual’s argument was that it was audacious to believe that we could do anything now that would be relevant to the church of 2050.

I’ve thought about his question, and I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that by audacious he was meaning to show a willingness to take surprisingly bold risks to share the gospel message of Jesus with a hurt and broken world.

Perhaps it is a bit audacious, however, I would contend that perhaps we need to be a bit audacious in order to innovate and create.

Jesus was certainly audacious in communicating his disdain for the religious institution of the time while communicating a message of hope and love to the people of the time. That audaciousness sparked a movement that has forever changed humanity.

Certainly Martin Luther was bit audacious in nailing his 95 thesis to the front door of a church. That audaciousness catapulted the people even further into the arms of God.

I’m confident that John Wesley was considered audacious after being thrown out of churches and continuing to preach in the fields. That audaciousness has led the way in defining the significance of disciplining every individual, regardless of race, gender, education, financial position, etc. so that they can become fully devoted followers of Christ.

Certainly in 1950, drive-In revivals were considered audacious by many traditionalists. But from what I understand, many people came to know Jesus because of them.

Bus ministries were audacious in the 70’s. Could you imagine driving a Bright Blue school bus around to various neighborhoods just to bring kids WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS to Sunday School? I can’t, but I’ve heard story after story of how effective those ministries were.

The same goes for the Seeker-Sensitive movement that started in the 80’s and in many cases still existed up until a few weeks ago. To step away from tradition, to abandon the hymns and attempt to create an environment where people actually enjoyed coming, where the musicians were incredibly well-trained, where pastors preached relevant and timely messages that met people where they were and pointed them to Jesus – that is definitely audacious.

And to dream… in the midst of a pandemic… when fear and uncertainty run rampant throughout our culture… to dream and to ask God to help us in this moment of time to take wild and surprisingly bold risks and to rethink the organizational structures of the church and how and why we do things. To do all that now in the midst of this chaos so that in 30 years the gospel message continues to be spread like wildfire through online churches and micro-churches and who knows what else God will inspire His people, and His under-shepherds to create. That is most DEFINITELY audacious!

So my call to all who may listen, is to be audacious! Dream with me and the others about what the church in 2050 will look like and join with us in creating it! It’s worth the risk!

A Theology of Virtual Sacraments

Oftentimes, I have people asking me my opinion on the validity of virtual sacraments. So here’s the foundation of theology of virtual sacraments.

1. Technology is not autonomous.
No matter how sophisticated the technology is, it still has to be programmed by a human being. Everyday I depend on sophisticated bots to collect and gather information from a variety of sources. But I was the one who programmed those bots to search out, identify, qualify, collect, and distribute the desired information.

So what this means is that every time we interact with some entity virtually, regardless of the skin the avatar is using, behind that is a real person. Which means, the conversations and relationships you build with the individual in the game or virtual world has the same value as if someone had come and sat down in your office or home.

To devalue the individual just because of where you first met them, is to devalue the reality that Jesus loves and sacrificed for that person.

2. Communion is adaptable.
At the last Supper, Jesus shared both wine and unleavened bread as a means of communion. And for hundreds of years, that’s how communion was served. But in the 1890’s, a Wesleyan-Methodist pastor by the name of Dr. Thomas Welch created pasteurized grape juice so that those of the Wesleyan-Methodist tradition who are opposed to alcohol could still take part in the sacrament of communion. I’ve seen the communion “wine” presented via water, kool-aid, soda, and beer as a representative of taking part in the blood of Jesus.

I’ve seen the communion bread presented with the wafers, those weird little tick-tak style of bread, actual bread, and most recently gluten-free bread. I’ve even seen pastors use M&M’s, crackers, pretzels, and slices of pizza as a means of consuming the body and remembering Jesus.

What’s important is not the elements, but rather the symbolism of the elements. Remembering the death of Jesus, intentionally choosing to be part of the body of Christ, and the commitment to love and care for the other believers in our own congregation and across the world.

3. Baptism is fluid.
Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River. A river that people used to bath in and clean themselves. A river that people used to wash their clothes in. A Living water that flowed and washed away the impurities.

But today, we baptize in weird, semi-heated bathtubs in our sanctuary. Or we baptized in stock tanks meant for livestock. Occasionally you’ll hear of someone going to a lake or a river to baptize, but that’s rare. Some people just sprinkle water from a container on people.

I’ve heard of some in Africa during long periods of drought, that have baptized with dirt. I’ve heard of others who have used the anointing of oil as a means of baptism. The reality is that if we think that baptism is simply about water, we’re missing what is significant.

What’s significant is the testimony of the believer. The public declaration that they have chosen to abandon the world and have committed to following Jesus. The water is simply a substantive vehicle that physically conveys this public declaration.

4. God doesn’t care.
I can see and understand the animosity of those against this and I can see and understand the affirmation of those for this. However – at the end – I don’t think it really matters to God at all. It matters to us, but not to God.

And if it did matter to God, then I’m not sure I’d want to be in a relationship with God. Because what if I spent my whole life committed to following and serving God, only to have Him disqualify me from being in relationship with Him for eternity just because I took communion with grape juice rather than wine or that I was baptized virtually instead of in a living river like Jesus was? I don’t want to be in a relationship with a God like that and I sincerely doubt anyone else who is serious about their relationship with God would either.

5. You really don’t care either.
I’ll add this one last thought. As a pastor, if someone came to you and said they were saved, baptized, and discipled via an online ministry – are you really going to tell that person that it doesn’t count? That the relationship they have with God is invalidated because they didn’t do it the way you think it should be done?

There’s no way you’d do that. You’d welcome them in with open arms and great them as a brother or sister in Christ. They are family, no matter how they came into the family.

If you did reject them, then I would wonder if you should actually be in ministry at all. Because if we can’t accept that God is going to reach all kinds of people through all kinds of methods – regardless of whether we agree with those methods or not, then it’s probably best to stop being a pastor and take some time to learn what it really means to follow Jesus.

Conversational Church Style

The last church I pastored was a small, well-established church at the end of it’s life. We met in a coffeehouse that had previously been the church building and we engaged in what I called a “conversational service style.” Other’s might classify this as a “dialogical” approach to the weekly gathering.

We had transitioned to this style of service because I had become increasingly convinced that the congregation I served knew about Jesus and the Bible, but they did not know how to talk about Jesus  or biblical concepts. They could listen, absorb, and learn, but they struggled in actually talking about what they were learning.

In all fairness, if you were to ask the members of the congregation, I’m sure that they would deny my assertion, but the reality is that as the pastor leading a group made up primarily of heavily-churched individuals, I recognized the pattern of familiarity had created complacency and recognized there was a need for a different approach to learning how to live and think like Jesus.

Here’s the format we followed:

We gathered at an appointed time on Sunday mornings at 10:00 AM. We were pretty loose with when we started, sometimes we started right on time, other days we spent the first 5-10 minutes just catching up with each other.

Next, we entered into a time of worship singing. Typically this was 3-4 songs. Then the scripture passage for the day was read. Then I presented a 5-10 minute brief synopsis of the scripture referencing culture, timeline, various historical references, etc.

The remainder of the service, the congregation talked about the following questions:

 
1. How would you apply this scripture to your life? (15 mins followed by a brief community discussion about how to apply the scripture.)
2. How would you share this scripture with someone else? (10 mins followed by a brief community discussion about how to share the scripture.)
3. What is something that you need prayer for? (5 mins of sharing prayer requests followed by an additional 5-10 minutes of table prayer, followed by a closing prayer)
 
The results of this approach was varied. For those who were not heavily-churched, they began to grow and learn. I could see how talking about Jesus was helping to build their relationship with Jesus. They may not get the biblical concepts exactly right, but they were trying and learning from each other.

For those who were heavily-churched, this was an incredibly uncomfortable environment. A common complaint was that they just wanted a regular sermon, they didn’t want to have to talk with each other. Because of this, I could see how the conversational environment was a constant irritation to them. They didn’t know how to talk about the Bible that they had heard so much about and because of this, they were unable to see any value in what we were doing.

In the end, this format was terrible for individuals who held onto to the belief that the church was supposed to look and feel a certain way and extraordinary at helping individuals who wanted to actually know and have a relationship with Jesus.

Easy or Hard

At times I get fixated on a theme or concept that I’m wrestling with. For the past couple of days, I’ve been wrestling with this theme of doing hard things versus doing easy things.

When asked the question, “Do you want to do hard things or easy things?” The answer appears to be a no brainer. OF COURSE we want to do the easy thing – it’s EASY. Why wouldn’t we? But then we remember that all of the leadership books tell us to do HARD things and since everyone wants to be a leader, our answer changes from doing the easy things to doing hard things.

I think when we say that we want to do the easy things, we are afraid that will be interpreted as being lazy or selfish, basically we have a lack of initiative or motivation. Conversely, when we say we want to do the hard things, that seems to reinforce the idea that we are selfless in someway and that our motivation is pure.

What if we have this backwards?

What if the easy way is exactly what God wants for us because it forces us to deny our human nature and become fully dependent and trust Him? What if the hard way is actually a manifestation of independence on God and a our desire to work WITH God instead of allowing God to work IN us?

Let me see if I can give you an example:

It would appear HARD to have to go to prison for our faith. But what if that is actually the EASY way because we are forced into a situation where we are fully dependent on God? It seems EASY to not draw attention to ourselves, but what if that is actually the HARD way because it’s not what God wants for us?

What if we have EASY and HARD confused? What if EASY is God’s way – no matter the difficulties we encounter? What if HARD is OUR way – no matter how comfortable that life is?