I not only use all the brains that I have, but all that I can borrow.

"What is a committee? A group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary."

"Committee - a group of men who keep minutes and waste hours."

Xvxn though my typxwritxr is an old modxl, it works quitx wxll xxcxpt for onx kxy. Xvxn though thxrx arx 46 kxys that work wxll xnough, just onx not working makxs all thx diffxrxncx in lxgibility, corrxctnxss, and xffxctivxnxss. Somxtimxs it sxxms that our group is somxwhat likx my typxwritxr, not all thx kxys function propxrly. You think, "I am only onx pxrson. Thxy don't nxxd mx. I can slack and it won't makx much diffxrxncx." But, you sxx, Christ has madx us diffxrxntly. Xach of us is uniqux, and xach of us is rxquirxd. It is writtxn, "God has arrangxd thx parts in thx Body, xvxry onx of thxm, just as Hx wantxd thxm to bx." And also, "Thx wholx body, joinxd and hxld togxthxr by xvxry supporting ligamxnt, grows and builds itsxlf up in lovx as xach part doxs its work." So thx nxxt timx you think you arx only onx pxrson and that your xffort is not nxxdxd, rxmxmbxr my old typxwritxr and say to yoursxlf, "I am a kxy pxrson madx by God for a purposx and am nxxdxd vxry much."

Give each letter of the alphabet a number, a=1, b=2, etc. If you add up the letters of the alphabet in the word "Attitude" this is the result: A = 1 T = 20 T = 20 I = 9 T = 20 U = 21 D = 4 E = 5 ----- Attitude is 100%

At one point during a game, the coach said to one of his young players, "Do you understand what cooperation is and what a teamwork is all about?" The little boy nodded in the affirmative. "Do you understand that what really matters is not whether we win or lose, but that we play together as a team?" The little boy nodded yes. "Good," the coach continued. "And, when a strike is called, or you're thrown out at first, you don't argue, curse, attack the umpire with a bat, or throw dirt in the opposing team members face. Do you understand all that?" Again the little boy nodded, "Well, sure, coach. That's what you taught us." "Good," said the coach. "Now, please go over there and explain all that to your mother."

If you've ever lived where there are cicadas, you know that these extremely noisy insects make the most racket when it's blistering hot. How do they keep cool while remaining so active in the hot sun? The secret is that cicadas sweat. These finger-long, winged insects have pores through which they secrete a watery liquid derived from the tree sap they drink. While they sing (by vibrating ridged membranes against their bodies), they sweat profusely, thus dissipating the heat of their efforts. Those efforts result in the loudest sounds made by any insect. In Missouri in the summer of 1999, the din reached 85 decibels at some locations, louder than a large diesel truck at full power. Outdoor cafes had to close because the noise was too much for the customers.

Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox, March 4, 2001: Retaining Key Staff: What High-Tech Employees Say versus What They Do Summary: Never listen to what people say in response to a survey: asking high-tech employees what will keep them in their jobs provides very different answers than the factors that actually drive retention. Getting and keeping good people is one of the greatest problems facing Internet companies. Even with the latest slump in the industry, we still face negative unemployment among people who understand the Internet. We have all seen the clueless ads looking for Java programmers with ten years' experience. Indeed, those ads started appearing back when not even James Gosling would have qualified. The real issue is not so much number of years as it is amount of insight and skills which translate into real experience. In the human interface field experience is largely driven by the number and diversity of user tests somebody has observed. Some usability professionals run a test per week; others may only get exposure to real people a few times per year. Assume that you have succeeded in hiring an excellent staff. How to keep it? At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2001, Dr. David Finegold from the University of Southern California presented an interesting study of employee retention in high-tech companies. The most important finding in the study was that what employees say will keep them in the company is quite different from those factors that actually determine whether they quit. We have seen similar findings in many other studies of very different issues, which is why I always caution against believing what people say in response to a survey. Never listen to what people say. Instead look at what they do. What employees say is important for making them stay at their current company: Work/life balance Job security Financial rewards Professional career satisfaction Degree of influence over own work These all sound very important, right? Well, that's not what makes highly valued employees stay in the high-tech companies in the study. After running a multiple regression analysis, Dr. Finegold found that there was no positive effect of work/life balance on the retention of staff. People may say that they like to spend time with their family, but giving them such time doesn't make them stay with the company. Self-reported surveys are always a weak source of data, but people's responses are particularly unreliable when it comes to sensitive issues or questions where certain answers are deemed more socially acceptable than others. Pay for individual performance (typically salary and bonuses) did not score highly as a way of keeping employees, except for men under 30. The only type of financial rewards that increased retention for any other group was rewards based on over-all company performance (typically stock options). Interestingly, having a viable and well-communicated strategy for success was important for making employees identify with the company but did not make them stay with the company. The top three factors in retaining staff were: career advancement financial rewards based on company performance innovation and risk The high score for innovation and risk may be a peculiarity of high-tech professionals, but if those are the types of people you want to keep, you have to give them bleeding-edge assignments.

Monday March 12 11:33 AM ET Deadly Flies Kill Six Lions in Famed Park DAR ES SALAAM (Reuters) - Swarms of vicious bloodsucking flies have killed at least six lions in Tanzania's world famous wildlife park, the Ngorongoro crater, conservation officials said Monday. The lions died after they were repeatedly bitten by flies known as ``stomoxys,'' said Nim Shallua, acting conservationist at the Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority in northern Tanzania. ``The flies bite the lions and then keep biting their wounds, inflicting a lot of pain and traumatizing them. The lions are dying of trauma,'' Shallua told Reuters. The flies usually appear after extreme changes in weather, Shallua said. The Ngorongoro crater boasts an array of over 20,000 wild animals, including elephants, leopards, buffalo, zebras, warthogs and wildebeests. The fly attacks are the latest in a series of mishaps that have struck the animal population. Since last May, some 323 buffaloes, 193 wildebeest, 69 zebras, three hartebeest and three hippopotami have died of a mysterious disease suspected to be east coast fever. In the same period, another five rhinos died of a disease suspected to be ``babesiosis'' caused by ticks.

The executive pastor must be a funnel, not a filter.

The executive pastor must take the shots because it preserves the church. It's almost impossible for someone to go to First Assembly in North Little Rock and have a problem with Alton Garrison. They can not like me and still feel good about Alton.

Good Team=>Common Goal + Communication

My friend Bill Hybels has taught me the importance of helping teams develop a strategy for talking about tough issues without damaging the people involved. The following are phrases that have evolved out of the Willow Creek leadership teams. You will find several you can use on your team. I also hope you will develop some key phrases for your own use. "Language That Preserves Community" When you hear an idea that sounds crazy at first, say "Help me understand." This keeps the focus on the idea without making a premature judgment about the validity of the idea. It also keeps us from making light of what another person really believes will be helpful. When someone is being dogmatic about an issue, say "Can I push back on that a little bit?" This phrase reminds everyone that all ideas are open to discussion, and that it isn't fair to the team to shut down the discussion. When presenting a big risk or a radical idea, say "Give me an umbrella of mercy here." In other words, "Don't laugh out loud." An idea deserves to be heard without immediately shooting it out of the sky. When there's a general uneasiness in the meeting, say "There's an elephant in the room." We've all been in those meetings where we sensed some tension and everyone pretended it wasn't there. This phrase gives permission to acknowledge that tension, which then opens the door to address and resolve it. When someone is whining, blaming, or rehashing the obvious, say "Can we get on the solution side of this problem?" I'm always amazed at people who think that seeing a problem that is obvious to everyone is some kind of gift. Once the problem has been identified, the only discussions worth pursuing are those that can lead to resolving the problem. When you need to speak hard truth, say "With your permission, I'd like to give you the last ten percent." This phrase is built on the premise that the first ninety percent of what we need to tell one another is easy. It is the last ten percent that is usually left unsaid because it is so hard to say. Asking for permission to share the hard part puts the responsibility for growth on the shoulders of the person who will receive the last ten percent. They then have the option of receiving it, or saying, "Now is not a good time for me emotionally. Can we do it another time?" Either way, everyone knows there is unfinished business, and healthy relationships are strengthened as we "speak the truth in love" to one another. After a difficult meeting, say "Are we alright with each other?" We've all been in situations where we got a little too passionate about an issue, or phrased responses in ways that were too strong, and inadvertently wounded people around us. This phrase reminds us that relationships are primary. To reach every one of our goals and lose our friendships in the process would be a hollow victory. Caring about the answer to this question insures we all reach the goal line together. This article is used by permission from Dr. John C. Maxwell's free monthly e-newsletter 'Leadership Wired' available at www.INJOY.com.

I explained my idea of loyalty. "When we were debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty means executing the decision as if it were your own. This particular emperor expected to be told when he was naked. He did not care to freeze to death in his own ignorance. "If you think something is wrong, speak up," I told them. "I'd rather hear about it sooner than later. Bad news isn't wine. It doesn't improve with age."

Contrary to popular myth, great teams are not characterized by an absence of conflict. On the contrary, in my experience, one of the most reliable indicators of a team that is continually learning is the visible conflict of ideas. In great teams, conflict becomes productive. … On the other hand, in mediocre teams, one of two conditions usually surround conflict. Either, there is an appearance of no conflict on the surface, or there is rigid polarization. In the "smooth surface" teams, members believe that they must supress their conflicting views in order to maintain the team--if each person spoke her or his mind, the team would be torn apart by irreconcilable differences. The polarized team is one where managers "speak out," but conflicting views are deeply entrenched. Everyone knows where everyone else stands, and there is little movement.

Wayne Cordeiro Senior Pastor New Hope Christian Fellowship Honolulu, HI 1. Equipping team leaders is not about creating or making leaders but rather about releasing people's dreams about what they can be and do for God. 2. Leading teams involves a commitment to make "lateral moves" natural. If members of your team are in a place that's not a fit ... PROMOTE them laterally to another role or another team that is a better match with God's design in their life. 3. Team goals and success are not about "getting across the line first" but rather about how many people the team brings with them. 4. The team leader is not called to be a JUDGE of character but rather a COACH of character. Mike Slaughter Senior Pastor Ginghamsburg Church Tipp City, OH 1. The 90's model of team leadership was focused on methodologies driven by business models. The rising models are focused on the character and soul of leadership. 2. Core of team leadership has moved beyond speed and information to spirit and wisdom. 3. The first purpose of team leaders is to demonstrate the presence of the rule of God. 4. Leaders of teams need coaches/ trainers that are selected based on "contagious spirit," integrity, gifts, ability to influence and replicate the church's DNA. 5. Team leaders are inspired, informed, empowered and engaged. George Barna Barna Research Group Barna 2001 Seminar Ventura, CA Team-based leadership is superior to individual-based leadership because it: 1. is biblical. 2. eliminates the leader as super-hero model. 3. models true community. 4. reduces stress among leaders. 5. benefits from synergy. 6. increases innovation. 7. facilitates joy through service. 8. frees people to use their gifts as God intended. 9. allows numerical growth without centralization. 10. reduces the church's dependence upon the Senior Pastor.

DOING CHURCH AS A TEAM Last week, prior to the Large Church Team forums, Leadership Training Network held a briefing for equipping church teams. For two days, church teams shared their experiences and further explored the philosophy, structure and leadership challenges of being an equipping church. One of the resources for the briefing was Wayne Cordeiro, senior pastor of the 6,500-member New Hope Christian Fellowship O'ahu in Honolulu, Hawaii. Cordeiro and New Hope have become known for their approach to leadership and ministry multiplication using the fractal model to create and deploy teams. According to Cordeiro, Ephesians 4 is not just a suggestion of an equipping church but a mandate from God; pastors have a responsibility to equip the people for ministry rather than do the ministry. A key first step is to identify leaders already resident in the church. Then, in order for them to reach their full maturity in Christ, they must be involved; they must have an opportunity to be released in ministry. New Hope uses a process called DESIGN to help people discover their gifts, talents and areas of service. D is for desire or passion; E for experience; S is for spiritual gifts; I is for individual style or temperament; G is for growth in Christ; and, N is for natural abilities. Fractals are simply repeating patterns in organic matters. New Hope uses a six-step process of developing new ministry teams: STEP 1 is to draw a circle that will encompass the responsibilities of the ministry. STEP 2 is to divide the circle into four equal quadrants. In the "crosshairs" of the circle, write the purpose, goal or objective of the ministry. STEP 3 involves identifying the four essential elements of the ministry that describe its purpose. For example, New Hope's church purpose is evangelism, education, equipping and extension. STEP 4 is to determine what gift mix and talents are required for the leader in each of the four areas. STEP 5 is to identify leaders for each of the areas. STEP 6 is to enlist them. "A leader will always be measured by what others do because of what he has done. When we talk about teams, it is not a buzzword or some new thing. It doesn't start with a program but with the heart...the goal is to equip others through which the Gospel will be proclaimed," says Cordeiro.

Dr. Dan Reeves is a part of our Editors Board and has been since the beginning. He has been a long time church consultant as well as a leader in convening an annual council on ecclesiology. He recently sent me a great paper that has lots of practical impact. Now I will say that a lot of the practical materials are at the end of the paper that is not here in this space today. But as this series continues you will read the great practical insights over time. Throughout the series he will highlight some real life examples of churches applying a similar idea. For now, enjoy the background thinking Dan has done for us. "Repositioning Paul's Missionary Band in a Postmodern World: A Case for Culture-bridging, Missional Teams as the Heart and Soul of the 21st Century Church." Part One (of a four part series) Paul's Missionary Band serves as an excellent biblical metaphor for 21st century ministry. When combined with leading edge postmodern congregational laboratories, its radical themes provide the potential to: + Eliminate institutionalism + Avoid burnout among staff and lay leaders + Drop the casualty rate among missional teams from 95% to 0 + Ignore the bell curve statistics and entropic principles (which insist upon the inevitability of a cooling pattern), create sustainability in health and growth patterns and perpetuate congregational life + Double or triple the amount of real front line ministry for the same cost (the stewardship advantage) Here are some immediate reasons we can depend upon the PMB approach as an appropriate framework for postmodern, multicultural ministry. + Paul's missionary team thrived on the kind of culture shifting turbulence that we are experiencing in this new millennium. + Paul's missionary band was cross-cultural from day one. + The spread of the first century church was more missional than institutional. + The band employed teams and leadership principles appropriate to our postmodern setting. + Their characteristics have been present in all the great historical movements of Christian revival and growth from Paul to McGavran. I believe that in the study of Paul's missionary journeys, several important points are often overlooked. These points center on the crucial issues of selection, training and strategy. a. Paul's selection. In Acts 11 we see that it was Barnabas who recruited Paul to join the missionary team ministering to the new Gentile churches in Antioch of Syria. As the initiating team leader, Barnabas was the one who spiritually discerned the potential of Paul and recognized his aptitude to reach those outside the Jerusalem world. Because of this talent for sensing and releasing gifts, Barnabas was able to link Paul to a highly appropriate pioneer mission. The role of Barnabas has been undervalued in most commentaries. His leadership was critical in the team's development and outcomes. Without the spirit-filled discernment of Barnabas, there would not have been the rapid multiplication of churches through Paul's leadership. The tendency of most leadership development studies is to focus on the second or third generation leader, without recognizing the importance of the one who initially saw the potential and then acted upon those instincts. Notice the progression. A naturally gifted man, Paul was selected by an astute and committed leader, Barnabas. The foresight and the trust modeled by Barnabas are two critical selection requirements that leadership demands. Paul then adopted this same pattern that he observed in the ministry of Barnabas. He learned quickly to discern and trust leaders, and to let go of them early. I see a quite different pattern in churches where I minister. Repeatedly I hear pastors tell me that none of their new converts, and very few of their volunteers are ready to assume leadership. This results in both lack of growth and internal tension. The underlying cause is the resistance of most pastors to give over their position to those who appear to them to be backward and untutored. b. Paul's training. The way in which Paul's training was conducted is also overlooked. As Dean Gilliland points out, Paul did not train anyone for ministry. He trained them in ministry. Paul's apprenticing style was learning by doing. He believed that Christians could best learn while serving. Matriculation took place at baptism, with appointment to ministry following almost immediately, even while engaged in the first courses of study. They were not only to be instructed, but were to teach as well, beginning with the first day after their conversion (Rom.15: 14, Phil 1:5, Col. 3:16). Our tendency is to insist upon a sequence which delays participation in ministry until there has been what we perceive to be, sufficient, supervised learning. We over prepare and under empower. The greatest gift we can give newly formed missional teams is the right to think out and act out the Christian life for them. c. Paul's strategy. Most studies of Paul's missionary journeys do not emphasize the structural pattern that was established by this pioneer team. In Acts 13:2 we read, "As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." This pioneer team, engaged in what Wagner describes as the Cyprus and Cyrene Mission, was called to separate itself from the rest of the church for a special mission. Ralph Winter uses the term sodality to describe these legitimate specialized teams. The other, more "normal" redemptive structure in Paul's day was the local synagogue. As Barnabas and Paul were sent out they built upon the familiar structure of the Jewish proselytizing bands Jesus referred to in Mt. 23:15, which functioned apart from the local synagogues. According to Winter the very fabric of the Christian movement will be torn apart if either the warp or the woof does not play its essential purpose. The warps are the longitudinal, vertical or modality structures, whereas the woofs are the lateral, horizontal or sodalic structures. Groups with membership restrictions such as age, gender, or disciplinary standards are sodalities; those that are non-restrictive and that in principle desire to include everyone, are modalities. There are several characteristics of Paul's missionary strategy which illustrate the advantages of sodalities: + Their ability to attract the unchurched and to incorporate new Christians is undeniably superior to the ability of modal structures. + Although their existence has created tension for churches throughout the ages, they are not an aberration, but a complementary, biblical vehicle for reaching non-Christians. + Missional teams should be allowed as much autonomy to design and complete their calling as church polity will permit. Bureaucratic restrictions and effective mission are incompatible. The strategy of Paul and Barnabas was quite different from the normal, modality strategy at the Church of Jerusalem. The intricate relationship between Barnabas and Paul proved itself not only in their rapid formation of reproducing Christian communities, but also in the delicate communication with Jerusalem. Barnabas was the encourager. Whenever Barnabas found a person or a cause needing to be encouraged, he supplied all that he could. Paul on the other hand, consistently created a stir wherever he went. According to F.F. Bruce, when Paul left for Tarsus after his 15 days in Jerusalem, they probably breathed a sigh of relief. He had been a thorn in their flesh in his persecuting days. They were to learn that Paul the Christian could also be a disturbing presence. Trouble was liable to break out every time he visited Jerusalem. This is what missional team leaders typically do. They make things happen, and they create tensions. They also need someone like Barnabas to go before and after them. Another example of this divine partnership in action was the critical selection of Barnabas during the investigation of the rapid growth of the churches at Antioch, recorded in Acts 11:21-23. Since the leaders of the Jerusalem church exercised supervision and control over the spread of the gospel into adjacent territories, had someone other than Barnabas been selected a quite different outcome might have occurred. There were probably some who suspected wild syncretism, since the forward movement at Antioch presented features which some members of the church of Jerusalem would have found deeply disturbing. But through the lens of Barnabas they accepted these strange developments. Barnabas, the encourager, found much cause for satisfaction. And now for the footnotes for those that love to see the sources. 1. For a technical profile of Barnabas, see Laura Raab and Bobby Clinton, Barnabas, Encouraging Exhorter: A Study in Mentoring (Barnabas Resources, Pasadena, 1985). 2. Dean S. Gilliland, Pauline Theology and Mission Practice, (Wipf and Stock, Eugene, 1998), 91, 214-216. 3. Peter Wagner, Lighting the World: A New Look at Acts - Bringing the Gospel to Every Nation and Every People, (Regal, Ventura, 1995), 96-98. 4. Ralph Winter, Warp and the Woof (William Carey, Pasadena, 1970), 3-4, 55. 5. F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1978), 94. 6. Bruce, 167-8. Our friend Dan Reeves is back for a second installment of his analysis of Paul's Missionary Band and how it can be applied to our context. He wrote to me saying: "Got some great responses from part one." I know that this helps Dan improve his work. Dan is primarily a church consultant now but has served as a missionary, teacher as well as other roles in the past. He is one of the founding members of our Church Champions Editors Board. Now this is a rather long article but the first time I saw it, it was 44 pages. So this is the condensed version. Repositioning Paul's Missionary Band in a Postmodern World: A Case for Culture-bridging, Missional Teams as the Heart and Soul of the 21st Century Church. Part Two (of a four part series) In section one of this series I introduced some of the radical themes of Paul's selection, training and strategy that are appropriate for postmodern, multicultural ministry. In this second section I will describe additional features of Paul's initial missionary band, and then cite examples of other "sodalities" in the redemptive history of Christianity. Paul's Missionary Band serves as an excellent biblical metaphor for 21st century ministry because the playing fields in America have changed from mono-cultural to cross-cultural and there are thousands of new tribes that are spiritually hungry. Unfortunately, these new barbarians are finding answers elsewhere because the church is often seen as an irrelevant farce, confused, dysfunctional, divided, bogged down in introspection and institutionalism. The PMB framework provides a solution that is rooted in the beginnings of Christianity, that builds on the ancient foundations of the church, but provides both message and metaphor for the future church. As we look at Paul's missionary band we see the first example of practical missiology and cross cultural team ministry in the New Testament, and the missionary means of implementing the Great Commission. I believe we need to develop a whole new skill set for the next generation of church leaders, because in a rapidly changing world where cultural shifts are taking place seamlessly, there is enormous confusion and ignorance about both church and mission in this new setting. We are relying on training and programs designed for a modern setting. We don't realize that in this postmodern world we need to be cross-cultural rather than mono-cultural and more missional than institutional. Paul and Barnabas model the corrective skill sets in Scripture. Their approach relied upon practical missiology and relational teamwork to reach the Gentiles. The skills and patterns of the original missionary band are also observed in the various waves of missionary bands throughout history. I believe it is time to reinforce our ecclesiological foundations by introducing practical missiology and by learning from our biblical and historical origins to become a catalytic force once again. Only by understanding practical missiology, that is how we contextualize ministry, form effective cross-cultural teams and address issues as a team in a particular context, can we effectively reach 21st century postmoderns. Consider these additional features of Paul's initial missionary band: + Barnabas and Paul both had cross-cultural experience, and were able to form an indigenous ministry to the Hellenistic world. They provide the first manual in practical missiology. They formed a particular team to reach persons in a particular context. + They complemented and completed each other as the key persons within a team-sized entourage. They recognized what the other person brought and valued the other person. They modeled giftedness, trust, healthy relationships, and Christian community. + They were led by and in tune with the Holy Spirit. They believed in God's sufficiency no matter what the circumstances. + Barnabas was willing to allow Paul to lead the team. He was a model of how leadership succession is supposed to work in the church. + Barnabas went on to mentor others on teams, notably Mark. Paul, because of his own giftedness, did not perceive Mark the same way. Barnabas again saw what Paul could not see, and served as a strategic link and mentor. Every team needs these strategic links and mentors if they are to reproduce. + Paul covered a great deal of territory. He and his team did not stay so long in one place as to become institutionalized. + Paul learned from Barnabas to empower people early, and he continued this practice. They planted churches that became quickly autonomous and that continued to reproduce other Christian communities. + They developed new leaders by taking them into real ministry settings. They expected people to rise to the challenge. Leaders were developed in the midst of challenging circumstances. Not all of their young disciples survived. But the best leaders emerged. + They were able to secure authority from Jerusalem when it was necessary, by presenting their church planting approach in ways that were perceived as favorable and appropriate. They modeled how sodalities can be highly autonomous; yet work in effective partnership with modalities for a greater purpose. + They developed an overall effective strategy, which drew upon the history and credibility of Barnabas. When the discerning gifts of Barnabas were creatively blended to the catalytic gifts of Paul, an explosive, cross-cultural movement was launched. Summary of original team: Paul's missionary band was formed as a cross-cultural team. The story is as much about Barnabas as Paul. Together, they interacted with the more institutional, established church, in a creative and healthy manner. Because their team was both mobile and frontline, it avoided the inevitable tendency to lapse into institutionalism. Examples of later sodality teams: The practical characteristics of Paul's missionary team have been present in all the great historical movements of Christian revival and growth from Paul to McGavran. Additional strategic clues for reaching postmodern barbarians can be discovered in the unfolding interplay of sodalities and modalities following the first century. a. Celtic Christianity. Perhaps the most impressive example is seen in Celtic Christianity from the fifth to the eighth centuries. Here we can observe repeatedly the same kind of misunderstandings that Paul and Barnabas faced at the Council of Jerusalem, based upon the difference in perspectives between sodalities and modalities. Latourette, for example, cites the irritation by the local bishops in Ireland and all throughout the Alpine valley when encountering one of Patrick's missionary bands, referred to as the Irish peregrini. Their faith and lifestyle simply did not fit into the bishop's diocesan pattern. Patrick's centers of learning were unique in that their monks migrated to distant countries. They formed missionary groups both to reach pagan populations and to elevate the morals of the nominal Christian populations near whom they settled. The apostolic teams sent out by Patrick, beginning in the fifth century, closely resembled Paul's missionary band in the manner in which they engaged barbarians in both conversation and in ministry. The Celtic achievements as a movement were astonishing. As Hunter's study substantiates, Patrick's bands multiplied mission-sending monastic communities, which continued to send teams into settlements to multiply churches so that within two or three generations all of Ireland had become substantially Christian. Celtic monastic communities became the strategic "mission stations" from which apostolic bands reached the "barbarians" of Scotland, and much of England, and much of Western Europe. Ultimately, what caused their disappearance in the two centuries following the Synod of Witby in 664 was the control of the Roman way over the Celtic way. The Romans were more conservative. They insisted upon cultural uniformity rather than allow for shifts in methodology. Celtic Christianity adapted to the people's culture. The Romans wanted Roman cultural forms imposed upon all churches and people. b. Waldo through Wesley. A few examples of missionary teams can be observed after the 9th century, such as the Frenchman Peter Waldo. The Poor Men of Lyon, initiated by Waldo multiplied discipleship communities rapidly through Spain, Italy, Germany and Bohemia at the end of the 12th century. John Wesley further developed the Pauline pattern of reproducing Christian communities during the mid-18th century Evangelical Revival in England and the United States. c. Carey. It was not until 1793, when William Carey and a colleague sailed for India to initiate the first undertaking of the Baptist Missionary Society, that rapid cross cultural missionary activity returned to the level of the Celtic teams of the fifth and six centuries, or to Paul's first century missionary band. Carey, after the greatest of effort and patience in persuading the non-conformist Baptist that a new structure was necessary for mission, settled in Serampore, a Danish possession near Calcutta. His "Serampore Trio" translated and printed the Bible into several languages and founded a school for the training of Indian Christians. As Winter points out, Carey was not the only pioneer who encountered resistance in launching a structure for mission. Indeed all down through history, structures for mission have, by and large been greeted with great reluctance by church governments, and have generally required the additional impulse of Pietism, Wesleyanism or revivalism. Somehow the older and more settled a denomination, the more likely the church government itself is going to be fully occupied merely with the task of staying on top of things. d. McGavran. If William Carey can be credited with rediscovering the advantages of Paul's missionary band, Donald McGavran must be recognized for taking the strategic insights to the next logical level. As early as the 1950's, McGavran's investigation of indigenous strategies and people movements clearly confirmed the upside of sodalities. In the tradition of Paul and Barnabas, McGavran also made things happen, and at the same time created tensions. He rocked the boat in India as field secretary; questioning whether schools and hospitals had taken up so much energy and money that evangelism had been forgotten. And he later rocked the boat in numerous speeches and articles challenging both the priorities and the structures of the conciliar movement. In part three, I will cite contemporary examples and describe how Paul's missionary team approach can be adapted to effectively reach the emerging barbarian tribes. (Notes 1. Ralph Winter, Warp and the Woof (William Carey, Pasadena, 1970), 32-33 2. Kenneth Scott Latourette, History of the Christian Movement (Eyre and Spottiswoode, London, 1954), 332-333, 1033 3. George Hunter, The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can Reach The West Again, (Abingdon, Nashville, 2000), 35, 41. 4. Donald McGavran, Bridges of God (Friendship Press, New York, 1955), and The Conciliar-Evangelical Debate: The Crucial Documents (William Carey, Pasadena, 1977).))

Russ' article this month is on the very hot topic of board development entitled "Church Board Development: The Next Frontier." Russ comes at this topic fresh from his experience with board members of large churches last week as well as his own experience as a member of a church board. Leadership is a big subject. So much so that it's time to start breaking this monolith into smaller pieces. An area ripe for further understanding is the role of the church board in helping manage transition and change. Our time recently at Leadership Network's Team Forums in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, underscores this point. A good deal of attention has been given to the role of the pastor in this new era. We need to remind ourselves, as Jethro did to his son-in-law Moses, that one person is not meant to carry this load alone. Our observation has been that boards have difficulty with strategic issues. They are constituted, in many cases, to handle legal, policy and key personnel matters. In the church context, governing boards bear some responsibility for the spiritual condition of the congregation. Most individuals serving in this capacity seldom think of their role in this way. I have reviewed a number of books and manuals for church boards over the years. Most, but not all, tend to have one thing in common: Maintaining the status quo. In light of the conditions facing churches today, it appears that some new thinking is needed. We are often asked who should deal with vision, mission, direction, etc. How should this come together? Is there a certain number of people that need to decide? Rather than quantify the process, I prefer to remind people: It's not how many are in the room. It's first a matter of "who" is in the room. Boards to some extent need to be involved in strategic as well as policy issues. Allowing for structural change within a growing church is both strategic and good policy. Ministry has to be worked through the "system" of the church. Therein lies the difficulty. We have good ideas and people to lead them. The road-block is often within the board, policy or procedures. For all the talk about the need for visionary leaders churches also need visionary systems in order for objectives to become reality. This past week has reminded us of the need to bring governing boards more into the leadership loop. Ram Charan, a consultant and the author of Boards at Work, says there is a need to learn what goes on inside the board meeting. Including how to discuss issues. (Something church boards have a hard time doing). "People need to learn how it's done...how to capture the energy of the group. When the dialogue is superb, the collective wisdom of a board is breathtaking and the leader really benefits. No other body delivers such power." The National Association of Corporate Directors offers some questions that overlap into the church boardroom: -What should a good board member receive in terms of information? -How much time should be spent preparing for meetings? -What are the key areas to be addressed? -Where can board members make significant contributions? -What is the board's legal responsibility? Board members need to know what is required of them. This leads to another issue--the division of labor. There are different polities represented in Leadership Network's customer base. Yet, these questions transcend varieties of faith. Another thing to keep in mind when talking about board development is the identity and self worth of the pastor. This may be the biggest barrier of all to expanding leadership development to include governing boards. More than a few will feel threatened by this approach. This does not need to be the case. Building boards has everything to do with developing credible relationships with lay leaders. Relationships are built on trust. You seldom trust people you don't know. It's time for us to get to know one another beyond the superficial levels that now characterize much of our society. Too much is at stake to leave things as they are presently. Pastors have the potential for strong allies in their board chair and executive committee if handled properly. Open and continuous communications are key elements in leading and managing change. A base of support is required for nearly everything a pastor and staff wish to do. As a former board member (and chair) I still believe the shortest distance between two individuals is a straight line. Communication is more than e-mail. We're talking about face-to-face dialogue in between meetings and at times when clarity does not exist. It will be necessary for pastors to see the benefits of board development in order for things to move ahead. Some are already far down this trail. Others have yet to begin the journey. It's time to take a complex subject (leadership) and break it into smaller parts. Board development seems like a good place to begin. Thanks Russ, and give him feedback by writing him an email at rbredholt@aol.com. And send me your best books and resources for working with boards to dave.travis@leadnet.org and we will try and survey and share them with the whole group.

I watched them pour the driveway to our house. The workers laid down steel rods, then as they poured the cement, they pulled the rods up so they would be in the middle of the concrete as it hardened. "What do you need the rods for?" I asked one of the workers. "It makes the concrete stronger. Reinforced concrete." "Yes, I know, but how do the rods make the concrete stronger?" The worker picked up one of the rods. "Look, if you push down on it, it bends real easy." His muscles bulged and the rod bent. "But you couldn't pull it apart. This hunk of rod could pull that truck over there. On the other hand, a piece of concrete is easy to pull apart. But if you push down on it, it won't bend." "So?" "So they've got opposite strengths. The steel is strong when you pull, the concrete is strong when you push. Put them together, and you've got reinforced concrete, which is strong both ways. That's how they make all those big buildings and bridges. Concrete by itself or steel by itself wouldn't be strong enough."

Leadership Lessons from the NBA "Playing for yourself wins trophies, playing for your team wins championships." Tommy Lasorda "...entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." 2 Timothy 2.2 _____________________________________________________ At the conclusion of the 1999-2000 season, the National Basketball Association (USA) named its 1999 Coach of the Year. That honor did not go to the coach that had won the most games; it didn't go to the team with the most marquis players or largest payroll; nor did it go to coach with the longest tenure. It didn't even go to the coach with the most improved record. Remarkably the Red Auerbach Trophy for Coach of the Year honors was given to Doc Rivers, coach of the Orlando Magic. The then 38-year-old coach selected was in his rookie year, coaching his team to a 41 win-41 loss season. Under his leadership despite having the best record in the Eastern Conference the previous year, the Magic failed to make the playoffs. It marked the first time in league history for a coach to win the award without leading his team to the playoffs. But Doc Rivers was selected because under his guidance, the team played far above its expectations and ability. Before Rivers came, Orlando's management launched a massive rebuilding project that began with the trading of four of the five starters from the previous year's team, including All- Star Penny Hardaway. Starting four players who were note even drafted out of college, Coach Rivers worked with the players he had and kept the Magic in contention until the next to last game of the season! All 12 players contributed significant minutes to each game and the Orlando Magic relied on teamwork, hustle, defense and pride to compete on a level far above other's expectations. In examining the leadership style of Coach Rivers, there are at least four lessons he brought to the team that all of us can employ: 1. Set the Bar High Before the season began, Coach Rivers sent every player a Federal Express package that had a single message: "Are you committed?" A second package arrived a few days later with the pronouncement: "We are going to be the best defensive team in the NBA." Successful leaders set high expectations regardless of what the organization or church thinks about itself. Leaders are not satisfied with mediocrity, but with excellence. As football great Vince Lombardi observed, "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence." 2. Go With What You Got Rivers didn't have any superstars so he designed the team around things he could control. He designed a hustling, up-tempo style that relied on defensive pressure to create scoring opportunities. He made his players scramble after every loose ball. Effective leaders consider things under their control and within their people's abilities. They help their organization do small things with hustle, desire and excellence. 3. Play as a Team. Can you name a single player on the Orlando Magic starting five from that year? It's doubtful that you can. Despite team management making 37 player transactions involving 38 different players throughout the year, Coach Rivers forced his players to play as a team and to know each of their teammates' skills and specialties. Rivers observed: "If I could explain our team in one word, it would be 'care.' Because that's what they did. They cared about playing. They cared about being coached. They cared about winning. They cared about improving. They cared about being teammates. And they made my job easy." Great leaders instill a sense of teamwork. "One man can be a crucial ingredient on a team, but one man cannot make a team." (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar ) 4. Enjoy Yourself Rivers' philosophy can be described as "cheerful optimism" He carries with him the invaluable ability to keep his head up when all those around are sagging theirs. When the Magic were slated to finish with the worst record in the NBA, Coach Rivers could have joined the doomsday crowd but his optimism resulted in a .500 season, a near playoff berth, Coach of the Years honors and the respect of players across the league. The privilege of leadership should be enjoyed, not endured! Leadership can at times be a daunting task. The future is uncertain, the risks are great and the responsibility is unappreciated. But as a leader, called by God, your work has eternal ramifications! Stay the Course, Greg Morris

Once upon a time, the animals decided they should do something meaningful to meet the problems of the new world. So they organized a school. They adopted an activity curriculum of running, climbing, swimming and flying. To make it easier to administer the curriculum, all the animals took all the subjects. The duck was excellent at swimming; in fact, better than his instructor. But he made only passing grades in flying, and was very poor at running. Since he was slow in running, he had to drop swimming and stay after school to practice running. This caused his web feet to be badly worn, so that he was only average in swimming. But average was quite acceptable so nobody worried about that--except the duck. The rabbit started at the top of his class in running, but developed a nervous twitch in his leg muscles because of so much make-up work in swimming. The squirrel was excellent in climbing, but he encountered constant frustration in flying class because his teacher made him start from the ground up instead of from the treetop down. He developed "charlie horses" from overexertion, and so only got a C in climbing and a D in running. The eagle was a problem child and was severely disciplined for being a non-conformist. In climbing he beat all the others to the top of the tree, but insisted on using his way to get there . . . . A duck is a duck--and only a duck. It is built to swim, not to run or fly and certainly not to climb. A squirrel is a squirrel--and only that. To move it out of its forte, climbing, and then expect it to swim or fly will drive a squirrel nuts. Eagles are beautiful creatures in the air but not in a foot race. The rabbit will win every time unless, of course, the eagle gets hungry. What is true of creatures in the forest is true of Christians in the family; both the family of believers and the family under your roof. God has not made us all the same. He never intended to. It was He who planned and designed the differences, unique capabilities, and variations . . . . If God made you a duck saint--you're a duck, friend. Swim like mad, but don't get bent out of shape because you wobble when you run or flap instead of fly. Furthermore, if you're an eagle saint, stop expecting squirrel saints to soar, or rabbit saints to build the same kind of nests you do. . . . So relax. Enjoy your spiritual species. Cultivate your own capabilities. Your own style. Appreciate the members of your family or your fellowship for who they are, even though their outlook or style may be miles different from yours. Rabbits don't fly. Eagles don't swim. Ducks look funny trying to climb. Squirrels don't have feathers. Stop comparing. There's plenty of room in the forest.

It's always a constant consolation to me to realize that although God created man and woman there is no recorded testimony that he created committees. For this alone we worship him.

"A man went to an asylum for the criminally insane. He was a bit surprised to find that there were three guards to take care of a hundred inmates. He said to one of the guards, "Aren't you afraid that the inmates will unite, overcome you, and escape?" The guard said "Lunatics never unite." Locusts do. Christians should. If we don't, we don't know where our power is." also "Back at the turn of the century, there was a plague of locusts in the Plains of the United States. In a matter of a few days that swarm of locusts swept over the states of Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas. In less than a week, they did over five hundred million dollars' worth of damage (in the currency of that time). Locusts don't have a king to get them organized. They don't have a draft board to call them into ranks. By instinct the locust knows it has to be in community with other locusts. When that occurs, they are able to topple kingdoms. The wisdom of the locust is the wisdom that tells us we must have community."

John Maxwell, in The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork, writes: During World War II, when Britain was experiencing its darkest days, the country had a difficult time keeping men in the coal mines. Many wanted to give up their dirty, thankless jobs in the dangerous mines to join the military service, which garnered much public praise and support. Yet their work in the mines was critical to the war. Without coal, the military and the people at home would be in trouble. So prime minister [Winston Churchill] faced thousands of coal miners one day and told them of their importance to the war effort, how their role could make or break the goal of maintaining England's freedom. Churchill painted a picture of what it would be like when the war ended, the grand parade that would honor the people who fought the war. First would come the sailors of the navy, the people who continued the tradition of Trafalgar and the defeat of the Spanish Armada. Next would come the best and brightest of Britain, the pilots of the Royal Air Force, who fended off the German Lutwaffe. Following them would be the soldiers who fought at Dunkirk. Last of all would come the coal-dust-covered men in miners' caps. Churchill indicated that someone from the crowd might say, "Where were they during the critical days of the struggle?" And the voices of thousands of men would respond, "We were in the earth with our faces to the coal." It's said that tears appeared in the eyes of the hardened men. And they returned to their inglorious work with steely resolve, having been reminded of the role they were playing in their country's noble goal of pursuing freedom for the Western World. Citation: John Maxwell, The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork (Thomas Nelson, 2001); submitted by Kirk MacLeod, Keswick, Ontario

Don't throw away that old computer. You might be able to use it for something big. The New York Times reports the birth of a homemade supercomputer about to be ranked as one of the fastest machines in the world. Supercomputers traditionally cost $100 million to $250 million and take years to put together. But the faculty, technicians, and students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute used 1,100 off-the-shelf Apple Macintosh computers and assembled a supercomputer in just one month for $5 million. The result is a machine that can compute 7.41 trillion operations a second. Student volunteers received free pizzas for their labor. Virginia Tech's president offered free football tickets to those spending long hours on the project. Their efforts produced a system that ranks at least fourth fastest in the world. Officials at the school said the final speed number might be significantly higher. Citation: John Beukema, associate editor PreachingToday.com; source: John Markoff, The New York Times (10-22-03)

Consider a tuning fork. It delivers a true pitch by two tines vibrating together. Muffle either side, even a little, and the note disappears. Neither tine individually produces the sweet, pure note. Only when both tines vibrate is the correct pitch heard.

Vin Crosbie Posted: 2004-03-04 The bad case of bronchitis suffered by Chang Bunker probably didn't alarm his brother Eng, despite their being conjoined at the chest. Born in the kingdom of Siam in 1811, the 63-year-old brothers -- who inspired the term "Siamese twins" -- had retired as farmers to Mount Airy, North Carolina, after decades touring the world as curiosities and freaks. They had lived a vigorous life despite their conjoined bodies, and Eng reportedly felt in good health that night. So, Eng was quite surprised when, awaking the next morning and seeing Chang had died, he suddenly realized that his brother's death was also his own. Despite his apparent good health, Eng died within hours of his brother because of their dependency.

In every committee of twelve, one will love you and one will betray you.

Many ideas grow better when transplanted into another mind than in the one where they sprang up. – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Some snappy comebacks you'd like to use at the office, but can't 1. I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public. 2. I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter. 3. I don't work here. I'm a consultant. 4. It sounds like English, but I can't understand a word you're saying. 5. I like you. You remind me of when I was young and foolish. 6. I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care. 7. I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you. 8. Thank you. We're all refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. 9. The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist. 10. Do I look like a people person? 11. Errors have been made. Others will be blamed. 12. Chaos, panic, & disorder — my work here is done. 13. How do I set a laser printer to stun?

You’ll have fifteen guys who will run through a wall for you, five you hate you and five who are undecided. The trick is to keep the five who hate you away from the five who are undecided.

A committee of one gets things done.

Leaders shouldn’t attach moral significance to their ideas: Do that, and you can’t compromise. -- Peter F. Drucker

The best teams are made up of sharp people with different strengths – the team is well rounded because each individual isn’t.

[After Sertorius' Spanish allies were humiliated in battle they became demoralized.] Wishing to dispel their dejection, after a few days he called a general assembly before which he brought two horses. One was totally weak and well past its prime, the other sizable and strong, possessing a tail amazing for its thick, beautiful hairs. By the side of the weak one stood a tall, powerful man; by the strong horse another man who was small and contemptible in appearance. Once a signal was giving them, the strong man with both hands violently dragged the horse-tail towards himself, as if to tear it off; the weak man plucked out the hairs of the strong horse one by one. The first individual gave up on his attempt, after giving himself a lot of trouble for nothing (and plenty of laughs to the audience). However, the weak man quickly and effortlessly stripped clean the horse's tail. Sertorius rose up and said, "Look, allies: perseverance has more efficacy than brute force, and many things that cannot be overcome when they stand together yield to one who is systematic. Persistence is invincible, through which time on its march captures and subdues any opposing force, being a friendly ally to those deliberately awaiting their opportunity.

I have been forced to make decisions, many of them of a critical character, for a good many years, and I know of only one way in which you can be sure you have done your best to make a wise decision. That is to get all of the [responsible policy makers] with their different viewpoints in front of you, and listen to them debate. I do not believe in bringing them in one at a time, and therefore being more impressed by the most recent one you hear than the earlier ones. You must get courageous men of strong views, and let them debate and argue with each other. You listen, and see if there's anything been brought up, any idea, that changes your own view, or enriches your view or adds to it. Then you start studying. Sometimes the case becomes so simple that you can make a decision right then. Or you might wait if time is not of the essence. But you make it. [I found this quote in a paper by Greenstein and Immerman. They note "Our citation comes from the original draft transcript of the oral history that is available at the Eisenhower Library. The transcript released to the public omits the passage that we quote." - the paper is at http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/programs/livinghistory/GreensteinArticle.pdf]

Churchill's Team: Complementary Talents

The Prof will follow Churchill anywhere. Winston's motives for cultivating him are very different. Lindemann's many talents include a matchless gift as an interpreter of science for laymen. In the words of Sir John Colville, Lindemann can "simplify the most opaque problem, scientific, mechanic or economic," translating technical jargon into language which provides "a lucid explanation" and sacrifices "nothing of importance." Churchill loathes scientific terminology. He never even mastered public school arithmetic. The Prof provides him with the essential facts when he needs them without disrupting his concentration on other matters. Like radar, Lindemann's "beautiful brain," as Churchill calls it, will prove worth several divisions in the struggle to save England from Adolf Hitler. Less than ten years from now he will arrive at No. 10 Downing Street with clear, accurate charts which, by replacing statistics, present displays showing England's stockpiles of vital raw materials, the rate at which ships are being launched on the Clyde, the Tyne, and the Barrow, and Britain's production of tanks, artillery, small arms, and warplanes in terms the prime minister can understand with what Colville calls "infallible skill and punctuality."