Buzz: Craig Groeschel on the Qualities of Innovative Leaders
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Fri, June 29, 2007
- Viewed 193
- (35) comments so far
One of the speakers Thursday was Craig Groeschel, the pastor of LifeChurch.tv. Craig shared what he thinks are four great qualities of innovative leaders. I thought I’d pass them on to you here today.
First, innovative leaders heal the sick. Jesus sought out those in need and met their needs. Unfortunately today, too many churches are inwardly focused and are not meeting the needs of unbelievers. Craig said that in order to reach those who no one is reaching, we will have to do things that no one else is doing. Our goal is to reach people for Jesus however we can, and in order to do that, we need to teach our people to love people who don’t know Christ. His question to us was, “Who is God calling you to reach that no one around you is reaching?”
Second, innovative leaders break the rules. Jesus broke the Sabbath rules. Craig used the analogy of Nascar. “Go straight, turn left. Go straight, turn left.” Innovative leaders don’t take the common path. They turn right! Every great movement of God was started by a leader making a right turn. Quest: What is God calling you to do that’s never been done before?
Third, innovative leaders offend the Pharisees. When you do something new to reach people for Jesus, the Pharisees WILL attack with a vengeance. But Craid said we shouldn’t worry when the Pharisees are shooting at us. We should worry when the aren’t. He asked, “What new thing will God call you to create that will be hated today and embraced tomorrow?”
Fourth, innovative leaders redefine success. Instead of saying how many people they are reaching and bragging about numbers, they are constantly reminded how many people there are still to reach. We cannot be impressed with ourselves. We need to stop building attendance and start building the Kingdom.
It was a great lesson on leadership.
So… you have my (and Craig’s permission): Heal the sick. Break the rules. Offend the Pharisees. And redefine success!
As you know, I’m roughing it this week in the nation’s capital at the Buzz Conference, held at National Community Church. Well, actually it’s being held in one of the theatres at Union Station in Washington, D. C. since that’s where National Community Church meets.
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Peter Hamm on Thu, July 05, 2007
Wyeth writes… [Did He? Did Jesus seek out the needy or did Jesus simply meet the needs of those He came in contact with?] Wyeth, by the very act of becoming man and putting on flesh, God sought and seeks to meet the needs of those He comes in contact with. It was on purpose. He came to seek and to save the lost, and many of those are sick.
Also… [There is a difference. Jesus DID NOT seek to heal all the sick. His “mission” wasn’t to seek out those in physical need. His mission was the salvation of His ‘sheep’.] Indeed, he certainly did come for the purpose of saving us. Agreed. None of the regulars here would disagree with you on that. Did he go out of his way to be where the sick were, like he went out of his way to “dine with sinners”? Yes, I believe so.
I think the article presented some great metaphors for how we should approach ministry if we are to be innovative in the way Jesus was.
Wyeth Duncan on Thu, July 05, 2007
Peter, I will have to disagree. I’m trying to make a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important distinction to make. Jesus did not “go out of His way” to meet physical needs; He went “out of His way” to accomplish salvation. Jesus’ “mission” was to “save His people from their sins” by giving His life “as a ransom for many”, but while in pursuit of that mission He met the physical and spiritual needs of some (not all) who crossed His path. Apply this to the church: If we make the meeting of physical needs our “mission” (“healing the sick”, as Groeschel called it), I don’t see that we become anything more than a social service agency or clinic, albeit religious. Society already has social service agencies in place. The church, however, has the gospel, which is the power of God unto salvation. No one else has the gospel to offer, only the church. As we are going about with the message of the gospel, of course we love people and take the time to meet physical and emotional needs, as we are able, but the meeting of physical needs never becomes our “mission”. To put it another way: Being sick, poor, disabled, etc. is no barrier to getting to heaven. These are real needs, but not ultimate needs. Sin, on the other hand, is an absolute barrier to seeing God. Sin is the biggest issue. That Jesus lived a sinless life and bore the holy wrath of God against sin is the sinner’s only hope. Therefore, the gospel—the good news of what Jesus has done—is first. Proclaiming the gospel doesn’t preclude meeting physical needs, but we never let the meeting of felt needs usurp the priority of the gospel.
Todd Rhoades on Thu, July 05, 2007
Wyeth,
A couple of things:
1. These were my words about Craig’s words. Please give a little latitude for something getting lost in the translation.
2. As one who heard Craig’s talk in it’s completeness, I think you are knit-picking. (I really do). I think it would be wise to hold off on your criticism until next week when Craig’s entire session will be posted at the buzz conference site.
3. If you know anything about Craig’s ministry, it is all about helping people meet Christ. I think you may be putting words in his mouth if you say that he’s more concerned with meeting people’s physical needs than their spiritual ones. Again, I think that’s where the knit-picking starts.
Respectfully,
Todd
Peter Hamm on Thu, July 05, 2007
Wyeth writes [herefore, the gospel—the good news of what Jesus has done—is first.]
Nobody said it isn’t, actually. I think we’re arguing over semantics here, and as Todd has put it, perhaps nit-picking.
But one example… when the centurion came to ask if Jesus would heal his servant… Jesus prepared to go “out of his way” to heal him.
Wyeth Duncan on Thu, July 05, 2007
Todd, you are right: These are your words about what Groeschel said. That’s why earlier I wrote, “As reported by Todd…” I will take your advice and try to look up Groeschel’s entire session next week to hear for myself what he said.
Nevertheless, Todd, please know, Groeschel’s message as reported by you is NOT a biblical message. It is a pragmatic (whatever works) message that dismisses critics of pragmatic innovations, calling them “Pharisees.” I have a lot of problems with a message like the one you reported, for churches can, indeed, draw a crowd by meeting physical and felt needs, but souls aren’t saved except as the sovereign Spirit of God works through the proclamation of the gospel. In my opinion, because souls are at stake, the gospel is worth nitpicking about. However, since you, apparently, misquoted Groeschel by putting in his mouth words he did not say, I will back off.
In the future, please, be more careful when you quote others.
And Peter, the text says, “When [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him…” (Matthew 8:5). Jesus wasn’t going “out of his way” to meet the centurion; the centurion came to him. And Jesus didn’t go anywhere to heal the servant: “And to the centurion Jesus said, ‘Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.’ And the servant was healed at that very moment” (Matthew 8:13). As I said, Jesus met needs as they crossed his path.
Let’s try to be more like the Bereans (see Acts 17:10-11).
Peter Hamm on Thu, July 05, 2007
Okay Wyeth,
You’ve decided (perhaps before you finished the article) to disagree. The message is very much, imho, a biblical message, even in the “limited way” that it was presented by Todd, to do things the way that Jesus did them.
For the record, I didn’t say Jesus went anywhere to heal the servant, but he was certainly prepared to. You blew by my assertion earlier that in becoming flesh, Jesus went out of his way to reach us and to do all the things he said. Again, He came to seek and to save the lost, and many of those are sick. I think you are struggling with semantics.
I agree. Let’s be open-minded (as the NLT puts it) like the Bereans! http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/wink.gif
Ron Roy on Thu, July 05, 2007
I have heard a lot through this limited discussion, Brothers, but, when our opinions start to dictate to the discussion it ceases to bear fruit. Keep the fruit in this discussion and we all will be enriched and blessed with revelation by the Spirit of Christ which is in us all. Controversy will always bring opinions which is the very cause of the controversy. I personally hate controversy, as I stated in my first post. We are not teaching each other in this type of discussion but seeking the truth of the Father’s intent and purpose. Let us all be reminded to do that in our next discussion of this sort. We are many members but one body, so also is Christ. What we have done with this topic, has added different perceptions to the same point. This will always bring a need for dialogue, which is edifying, exhorting and comforting in the right spirit. I personally appreciate every comment that was made because of the heart it came from? Simply it is how we see it personally, but what collectively, as the body of Christ, can we reap from it? If I ever post my opinion, please disregard it. OK?
One final thing I received is the sincerity of each one of you, as well as your love for the Lord. Who else talks and often thinks on His Name? We are all in the book of remembrance, I pray. Amen
Todd Rhoades on Thu, July 05, 2007
Wyeth,
I sat and broke bread (that’s KJV for eating supper) with Craig last week. We can get all caught up in symantics and the meanings of words all day long; but I think you are taking a great deal of latitude talking about a brother whom you do not know about his ministry (which from your writing you know little, if anything about)
Is your comment to me: “However, since you, apparently, misquoted Groeschel by putting in his mouth words he did not say, I will back off.” trying to win me over in love or prove your point?
(It did neither, by the way).
The discussion of “did Jesus go to the centurion; or did the centurion go to Jesus” is an intersting one; but the real issue to me seems to be ‘are lives being changed; people being converted; and disciples being made’?
All these things are things that I know (from personally talking with Craig) are his motivation.
I’d love to hear how God is working in your church to achieve these things. And I promise not to nitpick.
Todd
Wyeth Duncan on Thu, July 05, 2007
Todd, I have simply commented on your post—your report of what Craig Groeschel said—and responded to comments that were addressed to me. I didn’t know I had to know or know about Groeschel before I could comment. I disagreed with 3 of the 4 points you said Groeschel taught, and I think I communicated clearly my particular disagreement with those points, as they were presented. If “taking a great deal of latitude” means freely expressing my opinion, I plead guilty. I would hope that you would want comments to contain freely expressed opinions, even if they disagree with your posts. Isn’t that the point of allowing comments? At any rate, my opinion has not changed.
I’m not aware that I have attacked or defamed anyone. I tried to focus my comments on the words of the post, not the character of the writers. But, if I have attacked persons, please let me know, and I will immediately apologize. (And, by the way, the use of “Pharisee” in the original post WAS an attack on people.)
As far as my church, you’re welcome to view its website (http://www.cclf.org). I am not the pastor or one of the pastors; I am an active, fully-participating member. Our attendance averages over 1,000. Just a couple weeks ago, we received about 80 people, who had just completed membership class, into full membership. We’ve sent out about 3 short-term mission teams this summer, and we support several full-time missionaries scattered all over the world. So, I think we’re doing our part to reach people and meet needs. But, like I said, you can check out the website to see for yourself.
Sid A. on Sat, July 07, 2007
I totally appreciate everyone’s insights… but this gets back to the
same old thing (no disrepect intended): Can’t we just start “doing” and stop
dissecting everything for days (hours, posts) on end? I don’t have the answer, just
swimmin’ along with you all, we’ve had this same discussion (debate) under our
own roof. Have we all completely lost what it’s all about? Or do we even know
anymore? What are your thoughts?
Ron Roy on Sun, July 08, 2007
Hi Sid,
Please share with us; What is it all about? If it is your opinion, I for one am not interested in another opinion. However if it is truth, I will surely consider it.
Sid A. on Sun, July 08, 2007
Hi Ron,
I don’t have an opinion to sell. I’m tired of opinions too..just seeking answers. I guess what happened is, that when I read the existing posts, I felt like it was the same old thing , someone trying to make a point of “their” theology. The article was passed on to us as church leaders and I became frustrated when a some continuous posts between a couple of people tried to prove things right or wrong about issues that seemed so small in comparison to the “big picture”. I think I’m disillusioned by so much debate and am just curious about what exactly besides debate, are we doing so we don’t leave a Kingdom abandoned while we dissect things to pieces. Tired of “playing church”. I apologize if my post was taken any other way. I’m including myself in all of this. I don’t have if figured out, just have seen it slip away.
I haven’t tapped into this site much before and was hoping to find encouragement… It felt like the same old thing…maybe I just chose the wrong series of posts to tap into.
Peace and Blessings,
Sid
Sid A. on Sun, July 08, 2007
By the way, I loved the article that this all stems from.
Sid
Ron Roy on Sun, July 08, 2007
Hi Sid,
Thank you for your response, I better understand your input to the discussion. I have found Monday Morning Insight as a great opportunity for us all to pursue the love of the truth that the Lord has put into our hearts. I have found as you indicated that too many opinions causes controversy and we then debate the subject instead of pursuing it with a love for the truth. We all know truth, but it is all the truth that we are hungering and thirsting for, and the Lord is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. Jesus is the truth, and He is in all of us who believe. So let us all keep pressing in sharing and forbearing with one another, and loving one another as Christ loves us. If ever there was a time when we needed each other it is in this hour of revelation from the Lord, He is speaking to His people and we all hear His voice, by sharing our revelations we can all come to a better understanding of what the Lord meant by the words that He has spoken. Truth without understanding will not do any of us any good.
Monday Morning Insight is an opportunity to not only find the truth, and come to a better understanding of it, by considering each others comments even if at first we do not agree with them. Some of the things that we have always believed, just doesn’t stand up against the revelations we are receiving from the Lord in this hour. I for one have been asking the Lord why He didn’t tell us these things before. His answer was profound: “It wasn’t for before, it is for NOW.”
In His Blood, Ron Roy
Wyeth Duncan on Sun, July 08, 2007
Dear Sid,
As one of those someones “trying to make a point of ‘their’ theology”, I’m truly sorry the discussion leaves you frustrated and disillusioned. It is true: the Church has an obligation to “reach out”—this is part of what the “Great Commission” is about. And we know that a true faith will always evidence itself in good works (that’s the message of James 1:22-25; 2:14-26). However, although one cannot have a true faith without good works, one can have good works without a true faith. Doctrine and theology (i.e., what one believes about God, Christ, salvation, the mission of the Church, etc.) matter. My concern was/is that churches that adopt a pragmatic—whatever works—approach to reaching out put themselves in a position where there is an increased likelihood that, in their zeal to reach out, they move away from sound, biblically-grounded doctrine.
What I was trying to get across, Sid, is that in our reaching out,
1) We can’t “heal”, either figuratively or literally. Apart from Christ, we can do absolutely nothing of eternal value (John 15:5). We must strive to do God’s work in the strength which God supplies (see Colossians 1:29).
2) We don’t “break the rules”, rather we strive to cling close to God’s “rules”, taking care to solidly ground our ministry in the Scriptures (and the sound doctrine that flows from Scripture), and taking care that our method won’t lead us away from the firm foundation of Scripture. And,
3) We don’t make offending the “Pharisees” our aim or focus. More often than not, the ones we’re calling “Pharisees” are fellow-believers who simply disagree with our method. The pursuit of that which is new and “innovative”, does not give us the right to run rough-shod over fellow-believers who don’t agree with the “innovation”. Christ Jesus and His gospel will be offensive to “the world” (incidentally, these are the ones we’re trying to reach), but there is something wrong if the only ones the innovators are offending are fellow believers. Instead of labelling fellow believers as “Pharisees”, maybe the innovative leaders should take the time to listen to their concerns.
So, Sid, don’t be frustrated or disillusioned. Stay in God’s word, cling to sound doctrine, labor in prayer, seek the anointing of God’s Spirit, and reach out in Jesus’ name.
Page 2 of 3 pages < 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment