This was a tweet that I read from Jared Wilson… I’m not sure what I think about it.
“Vision is overrated”
From what I have seen, many in the Reformed camp tend to shy away from words and topics such as “vision,” while other camps-such as Andy Stanley, Craig Gross, etc. spend a little(maybe a lot) too much time on “vision.”
In my mind when the Bible talks about leadership, which is a lot, “vision” is included. Vision is in fact part of leadership and it isn’t something we can ignore, at least if we are to be good leaders.
To have a productive conversation about this I would like to get a working definition from you all… Hopefully this will be the first of several posts on “vision” and leadership.
So to start, how would you all define “vision” in the biblical leadership sense?
Dave Miller (97)
Debbie Kaufman (54)
Rick Patrick (49)
dr. james willingham (32)
Christiane (31)
Greg Harvey (31)
Bart Barber (30)
Bob Hadley (30)
Chris Roberts (30)
Frank (30)
Vision is first and foremost future. In a way vision is our present perception of a desired future reality. I would argue that vision is overrated in the sense that in a lot of places anything can pass a vision. The problem is not that we don’t have vision the problem is that a lot of what passes as vision is not inline with God’s vision. I personally have seen a lot of arrogant empire-building in the name of vision.
We need vision, and indeed we are given one, it is called eschatology. My question is whether or not your vision corresponds to God’s vision. As soon as we begin to think less about our personal narratives and more about God’s metanarrative we will begin to see vision used in a far more helpful sense. I am as reformed as they come and use vision frequently, but I try to frame it within the context of the biblical metanarrative.
“In a way vision is our present perception of a desired future reality.”
What is the difference between vision and ambition?
The difference between vision and ambition would be origin. Empire-building would be an example of ambition trying to pass as vision.
.-= Keith Walters´s last blog ..Convergence =-.
Are both of you assuming that “ambition” is in itself a dirty word?
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Inerrancy Should Lead to Real Conversation with God… =-.
Not at all… There is godly ambition and worldly/selfish ambition.
What I see in scripture that it is not a man’s vision, but his obedience that is the key to leadership and success in scripture.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significant Servant, October 4, 2009 Essential Reproducble Quality 1 =-.
I agree that obedience is the key to leadership. The scripture teaches us to walk in the spirit. It is up to the leadership to emulate this. There must be a definite balance between walking in the spirit and scripture. I say balance, not because the Spirit would ever lead us contrary to His word, but because of two extremes. (We can address them later if necessary.)
The leadership of the church must know what direction the Holy Spirit is leading the flock. Without a vision, the people perish.
I think part of the pushback against the hyper-popularity of “Vision-casting” might often come back to the de-facto “vision-casting” sermon many have heard from the pulpit where the preacher spends about 30 seconds quoting Proverbs 29:18 and then 45 minutes outlining all the things he would like to see happen program-wise.
A problem with this is that “vision” in Proverbs 29:18 doesn’t refer to individual dreams, but to divine revelation. A word study of the Hebrew behind “vision” will show this, as well as the parallelism of the verse itself where “vision” matches “Torah.”
I guess the difficulty in defining “vision” for this discussion will depend upon taking one of two routes.
A) Define “vision” in a workable way for leadership contexts and then find appropriate Biblical passages/examples of this.
B) Define “vision” in the way it is used in the Bible and then skillfully apply that to leadership today.
I don’t think either route is wrong, but I think that might be the key difference between many in the Reformed circle and those who teach more on “leadership” generically.
.-= Josh C´s last blog ..Inerrancy Should Lead to Real Conversation with God… =-.
Your interpretation of Pr 29:18 is spot on.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significant Servant, October 4, 2009 Essential Reproducble Quality 1 =-.
matt,
you said, “In my mind when the Bible talks about leadership, which is a lot, ‘vision’ is included.”
any examples? i suspect the bible talks about following more than leading, and about being faithful to the apostles’ gospel and witness more than looking ahead and planning. so, i’m curious what passages you have in mind.
good discussion topic!
.-= mike´s last blog ..2nd century auditorium of hadrian found in rome =-.
mike,
I am mainly talking about the passages such as Romans 12 and the other passages that mention leadership as a spiritual gift. To me, “vision” is automatically included under the umbrella of leadership. So when I see the Bible tell those who have the gift of leadership to lead with all zeal, I suspect that includes leading with vision.
For example- John Piper is the “Pastor of Preaching and Vision” according to his churches website.
I’m glad you brought up John Piper, Matt. His understanding of leadership, as you indicated, includes constant strategizing (his word for “leading with vision”). Go to the Desiring God website and search for “strategize” or “strategizing” and read some of Piper’s statements. He’s dead serious about creatively planning, brainstorming, strategizing, establishing specific, concrete ways for the church to reach people, encourage each other, care for the poor, etc.
As an example, in one sermon he said:
“I and the other elders of Bethlehem will give an account for how we shepherded this flock, and how we equipped you for the work of the ministry, and how we strategized to spread a passion for Christ among the unbelievers of these cities.
“Not thinking through a strategy as a church for winning and adding and shepherding more and more people is not an option. Because no strategy is a strategy. A heartless one. So the strategy we call Treasuring Christ Together is not a small thing for us. It is not icing on the cake. It is the calling of God on our lives among these hundreds of thousands of perishing people. I want you to feel the wonderful weight of this calling. And, if God would be so gracious, I want you to share it.”
I don’t think Piper would say vision is overrated.
.-= Barry Wallace´s last blog ..Devotional Christian Book Giveaway =-.
Just a couple of quick thoughts as I glance through this:
I don’t know about the intended Biblical meaning of the term translated “vision”, but to argue semantically for a distinction between ambition and vision is a bit unnecessary. There is perhaps a connotative distinction.
One possible meaning of vision has been touched on and that is with regard to being able to set and communicate meaningful and motivating goals, spiritual or tangible, for a corporate entity. This is indeed a necessary leadership quality. It’s not necessarily a Christian-only leadership quality.
There is one kind of vision that is Christian-only. That is the kind of vision that is contrary to spiritual blindness. That is to have sight of who the true God is so that our condition and state is clearly visible. This is necessary for discerning the truth behind the patterns of this world and correctly setting and communicating meaningful goals as outlined above.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
My conversion was the result of a vision of Christ standing at a door, knocking. At the time I was a full-fledged, practicing atheist, making converts to atheism. I attended a Youth for Christ meeting on 12-7-57. While there I thought I would like to go forward. then I thought, “Why would I want to do this? I don’t believe any of it is true.” At that moment I saw Jesus (a person standing aboutt 12-15 feet in front of me, wearing blue and red robes, facing me, with his hand raised like He was knocking at a door. Then I wanted out of there and nothing to do with the whol affair. Before I got home that night, something changed my mind (I had resolved to tell no one as it was too embarrassing for an atheist) and I did tell someone and was converted. 40+ yrs. later one fellow told me that that was not the Jesus of Revelation as He had on a white robe. I wonder what he would have done about the two views of Jesus that I had in dreams (one of a young Jesus without a beard telling us how He saw our tragedies and the other of Him walking in the clouds wearing green and white robes) and the experience of His presence, invisible, no less, that lasted for a half hour in a seminary apart in the fall of 1972. I really do not care much about visions or dreams. After all, we have the word of God. The only problem we have with that is understanding the word of God. It is a book inspired by an omniscient God, and, consequently it reflects the depths of Divine wisdom. Ahough the book has parts a child can readily grasp, it has parts that the greatest of human minds can scarcely comprehend (if at all). But the vision for leadership, the vision leaders need to guide the people of God in ways that are honoring to Him, which is what the lead blogger addresses, is a matter of agonizing bible study, prayer, and communication with other servants of God. One of the ideas (and visions have a stronger relationship to ideas than most people have dreamt) that haunted me across the years has been that of a Great Awakening. Havng served in the Sandy Creek Assn which grew out of the efforts of people converted in the First Great Awakening (and was really a continuation of that awakening for a while I now think) and led to the Second Great Awakening, and having preached an early sermon in the Pastors’ Prayer Meeting (which existed at that time – in the Spring of 1973) on the subject of A Great Awakening (Ephs.5:14), and a fifth anniversary of that same meeting as well as the 10th anniversary (on the latter occasion my subject was “A Third Great Awakening,” Hab.3:2), I have come to the conclusion that the Third Great Awakening should involve the whole earth as a result of seeing how the Great Century of Missions grew out of the call for prayer for the propagation of the Gospel among the heathen (Edwards’ Humble Attempt which inspired Carey and others) and that we should take it for our vision and labor to that end, giving thought to the remains of our past which might help us to get a handle on how to implement such a vision from the perspective of confidence in the Absolute Sovereignty of God in all things along with the consequent flexibility which that truth can supply and provide to us. We are, I believe, on the verge of such a possibility. God grant that we might truly have a vision of the Lord Jesus Christ winning the whole earth with His Great Good News by the very wonder of it (“O, it was so wonderful that I could not resist it,” as the young lady of about 20 yrs, said to my friend, Dr. Merle Eugene Spurgeon in 1965-66, when he asked her why she had responded so readily to his presentation of the plan of salvation.). Think of the whole world being won by such a method. Now that is a vision we could all embrace, one to present to all of our churches and members as a reason for their efforts to promote a Great Commission Resurgence. Link the Great Commission Resurgence with The Third Great Awakening and we will have an irresistible combination that might enable us to win the whole earth like Dr. Spurgeon won that young lady – with, as Goerge Beverly Shea sings, “O the Wonder of It All.”
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Vision is paying attention around you, your chuch, its congregation, and to the community around you.
I grieve everytime that my former church chose to pretty much abandon it’s young married and children’s programs since many of its founding members felt that their church should always be a church caring for its senior adults. While there’s nothing wrong with that, a group that was paying attention to the trends and tides of their community broke off and joined up with a local church which was already preparing for the anticipated hundreds of young families to move in the area.
Now, you have a church that used to run 800 is now barely 400 and still declining and a church that used to run 800 is now running around 2000.
Numbers may not mean much to some on these forums, but the church running 2000 paid attention to their community and were ready to reach out and minister to all the families that have moved into our area in the past few years. I could list all the things the church implemented while anticipating the influx of families, but I’ll leave it at they were prepared to meet the needs of children, youth, young married couples with or without children, stay at home moms, young working men, and the busy working family. The irony is that some of the fastest growing subdivisions of young married families are literally across the street from my former church.
To me, my former church ignored their community and, I believe, signs from God that kept pointing to a massive ministry opportunity down the road. It came and they weren’t ready.
So for me, Vision is paying attention.
“Vision is overrated!”
so says the man who lacks vision.
.-= Joe Miller´s last blog ..Fill In the Blanks Bible ©? Exodus =-.
That depends, cousin Joe, on whether you define “vision” correctly. The word in Proverbs 29:18 means “revelation from God.” If you define vision as the “the revelation of God to man” then I am with you 100%. We need vision.
But, if my vision we mean human ideas and wisdom, man’s inadequate understanding of the future, then I can’t go there.
.-= Dave Miller´s last blog ..Significant Servant, October 4, 2009 Essential Reproducble Quality 1 =-.
Joe,
I think I might actually agree with you… As long as, like Dave said, you define vision correctly.
I had a friend who saw Wilson’s quote and said, “Usually, people who say stuff like that have never led anything with success.”
I agree.
uh, i don’t really think a zinger like this proves anything
.-= rmichaelfox@sbcglobal.net´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
ok matt,
you said, “To me, ‘vision’ is automatically included under the umbrella of leadership.”
that’s a bit subjective; for me, “vision” is not automatically included. so either we plunge into relativity or try to present real evidence. leadership is a gift, yes, i can agree. i think the best place to look at the nature of leadership is pastoral corpus, i.e. 1 & 2 timothy and titus, since A) the recipients are not apostles, B) all three letters are written to leaders about leadership, and C) they’re quite churchy, despite being called “pastorals.”
it seems clear to me that leadership in these three books is about guarding the received faith, NOT having vision for the future. think of the qualifications for pastors & deacons – they’re living according to the standards of the faith, and pastors must be “able to teach” the received faith, i.e. the faith paul had been talking about in 1 tim chps 1-2. think of 1 tim chp 1 – paul starts how his letter (and canonically, the pastorals) by pointing out beliefs and behaviors that don’t jive with the faith, heresies that timothy must deal with.
i think there’s a place for discernment and, yes, some vision in ministry, but aren’t you tired of pastors “casting vision” and acting like they are more in tune with God’s will than anyone else in the congregation? i am.
it seems clear to me that, when we look at the evidence in the bible, it is far more important that leaders help the church look back and adhere to the received faith than to look ahead with vision. you know what? i think i agree, “vision is overrated.”
again, for you to say that leadership implies vision might imply that you’re bringing your own definition of vision to the text and justifying it. possible?
.-= rmichaelfox@sbcglobal.net´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
Possible, but I think its naive to not think vision is a part of leadership.
I think Piper, who is the Pastor of Preaching and Vision, is a great example in showing the role and importance of vision in pastoral leadership.
.-= Matt Svoboda´s last blog ..Keller: “Preachers-only aren’t good preachers” =-.
okay matt, i’ve asked you to use bible, and AGAIN you turn to piper . . . just go ahead and canonize him lolz. baptists and our gurus – we complain about catholics and human authority but we’re not that much different, practically speaking.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
mike,
The short reply was due to me watching the miserable Husker game…
The passages I use are the passages that talk about leadership-because leadership includes vision.
Also, as Josh pointed out there are examples throughout the New Testament- “we want to be a church that remembers the poor.” Throughout Acts and in the epistles we see examples of Paul and others “casting vision” on ministry. “Be a church that remembers the poor.”
I mentioned Piper because he is the best example of a pastor that practices the importance of leading his elders and church with vision.
again, i’ve asked you to demonstrate that the bible talks about leaders casting vision, and your answer is that it’s implied. how am i supposed to converse with that?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
“i think there’s a place for discernment and, yes, some vision in ministry, but aren’t you tired of pastors “casting vision” and acting like they are more in tune with God’s will than anyone else in the congregation? i am.”
First, I’ll say yes, I am tired of that somewhat… Second, it is part of the pastors role to LEAD the church… Which includes leading the church into the future.
I would say a lot of pastors misuse vision. I also think a lot of pastors, especially in my camp(Reformed), throw out vision as if it has no use or importance, which is foolish.
Vision cannot be defined as- “Seeing God and being obedient.” That is a cop out definition. It is way to general and doesn’t offer any answers. Its the same as saying “Ambition is- desiring God and being obedient.” Its so general it doesnt mean anything. You could use that definition with everything.
“i think there’s a place for discernment and, yes, some vision in ministry, but aren’t you tired of pastors “casting vision” and acting like they are more in tune with God’s will than anyone else in the congregation? i am.”
- Dude, isn’t it his job to be thinking more about leading the congregation toward a Biblical future than anyone else in the congregation??? Isn’t this exactly what God has called the guy to do?
All “vision” is, is a preferred future. You can’t lead without vision for the future or you’re not leading anyone (because the very word “leadership” implies you know where you’re going). Examples of “vision casting”…
- “we want to be a church that remembers the poor”
- “what if this were a place where people could come and see people were more satisfied with Christ than the hope of a full bank account?”
- “How cool would it be if we saw 100 people give their lives to Christ this year?”
- “There are 14 million orphans in the world. Can you imagine walking into this church and seeing kids from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language adopted by Christ-loving families?”
Those things are vision and thinking about what the future would (and should) look like if we embraced Jesus’ call on our lives is a MUST for anybody leading people.
alright josh, remember the original post. matt s. says that when THE BIBLE talks about leadership IT IS implies casting vision.
vision is great, okay, there! what i’m trying to get across is this: don’t pretend like THE BIBLE is concerned with vision casting for the future – biblical leadership is about keeping the church faithful to the traditions received from the apostles, or as 1 tim puts it, keeping the faith (pistis), i.e. what we’ve been entrusted with.
my concern is that we might create our own definition of leadership and then eisegete it into the bible. is that not what’s happening here?
if you want to advocate vision, fine. define it, study it, use it with wisdom and faithfulness, but don’t start casting vision and pretend like that’s the implied in biblical leadership.
clearer?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
mike,
As Josh pointed out-
“You can’t lead without vision for the future or you’re not leading anyone (because the very word “leadership” implies you know where you’re going)”
To say vision isnt implied/a part of biblical leadership undermines what leadership is… You cant have leadership of any kind without vision, including biblical leadership.
still waiting on those bible references about vision
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
and i forgot to mention this. should a church really try to picture where vision can lead them and then let those future possibilities motivate them? or should a church be faithful to the Word and keep pressing on even if they never reach the (pastor’s) vision?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
I’m thinking when we say vision we don’t mean the same thing…
There isn’t anywhere specifically in the Bible that talks about leaders “casting vision” but we see examples of it- when the elders tell Paul and Barnabas to “remember the poor” is one example.
Vision isn’t about a pastor saying- “In 5 years we should have these specific ministries started, have more Sunday School space and I would really like to be at 500 people by then.”
Vision is about the pastor leading his church in the direction that Scripture gives- remembering the poor, planting churches, partaking in missions in a specific way(as in not just giving to the CP), and then re-look at some of the examples Josh gave above.
and i would simply say that remembering the poor is a huge old testament concept, especially in the torah and in many of the prophets. jesus taught about giving to the poor too. it’s not “vision” for the future as much as it is adherence to the faith.
and as far as vision meaning “leading the church in the direction that Scripture gives,” i think you’re using “vision” when you really mean faithfulness or adherence.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
To be sure, the pastor (or primary preacher depending on your church’s polity) channels the vision of the congregation into scriptural challenges to grow in faith and ministry as the Body of Christ.
He need not be the one to whom the vision originates, but prayerfully pays attention to what God is doing in the congregation. There may be members of the congregation who have a vision for a particular ministry or another. There may be obvious spiritual needs in the community that must be addressed, and the ministerial direction of the church guided, through the edifying and unifying preaching of the scriptures.
Several years ago our pastor challenged the congregation for each member to spend at least two weeks on the foreign mission field. The congregation caught the “vision” and undertook involvement according to the vision each caught for taking the gospel out. In the first three years, we were involved in perhaps 60-70 trips. We’ve been to most countries in South America, Europe and the Middle East; a few countries in Africa and Asia; some evangelistic ministry to Native Americans; and some significant covert stuff.
The vision went crazy here at home too. We’ve taken over CEF in the local schools and one recent activity we have started is the instead of an evening service one Sunday a month, the congregation gets together and distributes Bibles and Jesus videos across town, bottled water at recreational parks, food at the local homeless shelter, and many other things that open the door for evangelism. One vision – a multitude of manifestations of that vision as the congregation caught the vision.
We’ve recognized a need to minister the gospel to children in the community and have put feet on the ground with events, programs and staffing with the goal of not letting local children go without knowing the gospel. And teens are a special group. We’re building them up with one-on-one discipleship, mentoring and church internship.
It’s exciting to see what God is doing. So vision doesn’t come by one man, but one man’s leadership can unify the biblical vision of the local church as a corporate whole.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
Again, when leadership is used in a general sense in the Bible it is including everything that falls under the category of leadership, which includes vision.
Romans 12:8 is a good example.
I am really baffled by the people that don’t think vision is a part of leadership. You cant say that it is a part of leadership and then deny that the Bible includes vision when it talks about leadership.
My question:
What exactly does leadership include?
for now i’ll simply say that you’re finally asking the right question
though i still hesitate to take a concept to the bible and try to build it up systematically; but that’s just the biblical studies part of me which would rather start with books of the bible and construct biblical theology rather than do systematic theology
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
I think a TON of this conversation can be cleared up by two things:
1) Understanding that all we mean when we say the [cliche and overused] “vision”, we just mean “what we think the future should look like”. Nothing more or less. When you walk into a church that’s in disarray and want to see elders established, membership covenants implemented, faithful preaching happen, and discipleship take place that is a vision for the future of that church.
2) Understanding that a pastor’s vision is TOTALLY shaped by Scripture. Otherwise, yes, vision is overrated and counterproductive.
All we’re talking about here is understanding what Scripture says about a Biblical church and then helping people see the beauty of what that would look like. That is vision-casting. That’s being a biblical pastor at it’s finest.
.-= josh´s last blog ..“Preachers-only aren’t good preachers” =-.
I echo everything Josh just said.
and i would simply say that the great danger here is that we’re teaching churches to be faithful to God because of the good things it can purchase for us. this is truly an american problem. christians in many other countries are struggling with persecution and inhumane treatment. they are being faithful to God and His word whether or not they have a happy “vision” that everything is going to turn out blessed.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
Vision isnt about things turning out “blessed.” Im not sure what we have said to give that impression. It is a preferred future- and with a good pastor that future is a more and more biblical one. As in over time pastor hopes to make his church one that: remembers the poor, plants churches, send teams overseas, and on and on.
and i would say the things you mention – remembering the poor, planting churches, sending teams overseas, etc – are things laid out clearly in scripture. we shouldn’t have to manufacture some “vision” to do these things. the REASON we do them is important too, and i think we should do these things simply because they’re scriptural tasks for the church, and because they’re things God has commanded us to do. again, you’re saying we need leaders need visions of these things and i’m saying churches should bypass vision here and simply obey these things out of faithfulness and adherence. why do we need to envision what it will look like if we do them? that screams american christianity.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
The most important part of vision is purely setting those things in Scripture in the hearts and minds of your congregation in order to become a church that does those things… aka-reach the preferred/biblical future.
We are talking about the exact same thing, I’m just calling it vision and you’re not.
Its screaming biblical christianity. Have you ever led a church? Is it not more than pointing out verses and saying, “obey?” Of course it is… Yes, people are to obey out of faithfulness, but not everyone in every congregation has even read the verse-”remember the poor” and not every member understands the Bible’s mandate of church planting, therefore, the pastor must set these things on the hearts and minds of his people-vision casting.
matt,
you said, “The most important part of vision is purely setting those things in Scripture in the hearts and minds of your congregation in order to become a church that does those things… aka-reach the preferred/biblical future.”
is that “vision?” or is the right word for this “teaching,” or “education,” even “equipping” if you want to sound more biblical?
and you asked, “Have you ever led a church?” first of all, that is a logical fallacy since my experience in leadership doesn’t change A) what the bible says, or B) the logic of my position. but since you asked, yes, i’ve pastored churches in arkansas and missouri.
to be honest, it was actually during my “leadership” of congregations that i saw the pitfalls of vision and goal-oriented church. what we need are churches and disciples of the Jesus who realize that what’s important is being faithful to the bible and to the Lord and just letting the chips fall where they will. that doesn’t mean we can’t plan and use our brains, but i do repeat that you’re the one refusing to bend on your claim that biblical leadership implies vision.
and no, i won’t ask if you’ve ever been a leader since it’s a logical fallacy :p
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
Is this discussion going anywhere at all? I called attention to a specific type of vision, that of the whole earth being won to Christ in one generation in a Great Awakening. Since we have two in our history both as Americans and as Baptists, we ought to give thought and effort to the possibility of another. A study of the promises in Edwards’ Humble Attempt which inspired and informed the prayers of Carey and others might well prove fruitful and beneficial to us in seeking a viable future for our churches and the masses of the earth. The pastoral leadership of each church could chart a course for each congregation involving all the members in maningful activities and ways. One blogger has given an indication of a practical kind. I refer to Mr. Pemberton. And when I say all the members I am being mindful of the blogger who spoke of his congregation taking care of the seniors and neglecting the young marrieds. What would a prayer meeting involving all groups accomplish in a situation like that? The church of which I am a member has a low attendance at a special prayer meeting on Sunday afternoons at 5:30. It has activities for all age groups. One young elder got a vision of having the auditorium full of people praying for the church and its goals. A short while before I had prayed for that prayer meeting to turn around. I like to hope that my prayer is being answered in that elder’s effort. In any case, the auditorium was half full last Sunday. God grant that it shall be full this coming Sunday.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
i would simply ask, why do we need some sort of vision in order to be faithful christians who do evangelism and missions? are we trying to help churches be faithful by showing them the rewards it will bring? why can’t we be faithful and keep doing evangelism no matter what happens?
again, i think our discussion of church and vision has a definite “american” flavor. if we’re going to be faithful, we need to see what the payoff is going to be. that’s why this is important. biblical leadership and christianity is about faithfulness and adherence to what God inspired and commanded.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
Mike,
What you say is mostly true but it also partially misses a key factor and that is that no church is perfect. Just as individual believers go through sanctification where one sin or another is being mortified, local church bodies have seasons of spiritual growth and ministry. One does not both inhale and exhale at once, but does one at a time, one after the other. Each church as a corporate body must be unified through such changes. That requires what we’ve been calling “vision” here.
We can be satisfied in Christ, but we can’t be satisfied to simply maintain the same spiritual status quo or we will stagnate into death because none of us are spiritually “there” yet.
Leaders present “vision” to challenge a group of people. To place temporary goals that we can achieve together and be strengthened. “Let’s plant a church across town as we evangelize the people there so we will learn how to evangelize, or let’s build a significant outreach to people who have a certain spiritual need (indeed we see that need in ourselves and we have the solution in Christ), but perhaps we can’t do both. Let’s do one first because it it more important, then do the other as that season wanes.” That’s vision.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
like i said above, vision isn’t necessarily a bad thing. but the original post and many of the comments have assumed that “vision” is an important part of biblical leadership. what you said about using vision to motivate a congregation might not be a bad thing (though i think helping them understand that being faithful no matter where the chips fall is better), let’s not eisegete 20th century verbage and concepts into the bible. biblical leadership is about faithfulness and adherence. that’s why pistis and its cognates pop up all over the pastoral epistles.
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
So let me get this straight, Mike. You believe either:
A. Congregations should already know what it is to be faithful, and that’s the end of it.
or
B. Congregations only need to be told to be faithful and they will just kind of do what they think needs to be done on their own in that regard.
or
C. Congregations need to be taught what it is to be faithful, but that the teaching doesn’t require the practice of actually doing any ministry.
Because if you need to do ministry corporately, as a congregation, it must:
A. Be Biblical, i.e. Great Commission.
and
B. Be directed by human leadership as provided by God.
and
C. Be a necessary spiritual exercise for the congregation to grow in faith.
This requires vision.
The council in Jerusalem directed the church at large according to a vision in the first century before God declared that their vision was limited and provided a greater vision himself when he brought persecution on the church in Jerusalem and caused the congregation to flee and multiply in sundry places elsewhere.
Paul himself wrote to the churches he was involved with. Sure he exhorted them, but he also directed them according to a vision. Some congregations he required no money from. Others he did. Why is it faithful for one congregation to give and not another? But Paul knew the spiritual and social situations of these churches and directed their cooperation and requirements according to a “small” vision of their needs, but also a “large” vision of the continued fulfillment of the GC.
Paul wrote of himself as an example to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 9:26 that he doesn’t run aimlessly. That means he runs with certain direction. What do you call that direction? I think most of us here would call it “vision”.
“You shall run counter-clockwise around the track.”
“Is it wrong to run clockwise?”
“No, but this particular race is being run counter-clockwise. You can run clockwise, but you won’t win this race that way.”
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
it sounds to me like what you’re describing is education and equipping. teaching people what the Bible says and helping them to live it out in real time is called education, not vision. everyone above, especially matt but i believe also you, has already talked about vision being forward thinking and goal-oriented and stuff like that.
for the record, i believe (and practiced to the best of my ability) that leaders in churches should teach the people what the bible says and help them live it out in real time. if you want to call that “vision,” fine, but i don’t think most use the word “vision” to simply mean education and discipleship. the words you’re looking for are, well, “education” and “discipleship”
nobody on here is going to budge on this issue, eh?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
No ministry is done by us that doesn’t come without spiritual growth. But you bandy around the words obedience and faithfulness without describing how that happens in a corporate setting. That’s what we all get, but you don’t.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
i forgot this – paul knew the old testament better than we could even dream of knowing it. the old testament, especially the torah and the prophets, demands that the people of God take care of the poor. in other words, paul’s concern for the poor doesn’t seem like “vision,” but rather obedience and adherence to the faith. if have the opporunity to steal an old lady’s purse, but don’t, is that vision? or obedience?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
“…paul knew the old testament better than we could even dream of knowing it.”
Really?
Did God author the OT for only Paul to be able to explain to us? Or did Paul author a considerable portion of the NT without the Holy Spirit?
We really can’t dream of knowing it as well as Paul did?
As for the OT, what was it that Moses’ father-in-law instructed him to do in the desert? One would call that vision. why didn’t God deliver it to Moses directly? Why didn’t Moses just not judge anyone? This was a matter of growth in Moses life and he was 80+ years old drawing wisdom from the vision of his FIL. Well, they didn’t need that vision. All they had to do was be faithful and obedient, right?
There are plenty of examples of vision in the OT and it’s a fallacious argument to say that Paul didn’t teach vision because he knew the OT better than we could ever dream of and the OT didn’t teach vision, which is incorrect. I’m still trying to wrap my head around how bad an argument that is.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
uh, dude, paul was at one time a top-ranking pharisee. this means he had basically memorized the old testament. he spent years reciting and rehearsing it to the point where he could reel off section on demand.
and i have no idea what point you’re making in asking if the OT is only for paul or if the NT is uninspired. what!?!
besides, what i said is that paul’s concern for the poor isn’t vision, but obedience. that’s pretty clear. yet you put these words in my mouth: “There are plenty of examples of vision in the OT and it’s a fallacious argument to say that Paul didn’t teach vision because he knew the OT better than we could ever dream of and the OT didn’t teach vision, which is incorrect.”
c’mon, at least make a fair argument. how’s about you go out and cast your visions and i won’t judge, and i’ll go out preach faithfulness and adherence to the gospel and you won’t judge? fair enough?
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
Mike,
I’m not judging your theology or your sense of morality. But I am judging your capacity to read and understand what I’m writing because it’s clear that you’re not doing it very well. I’m not going to restate what I’ve already written. You just need to re-read it until you understand what I’m saying. Otherwise a discussion is impossible.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
okay sure
.-= mike´s last blog ..scholarship as worship =-.
This discussion would be more helpful, if every one would back off of either/or and try some both/and. Also it might be helpful to have some knowledge of church history, especially Baptist history and how controversies have erupted, flourished, and died out in our past. I attended a group recently who went the faithful route (so to speak) and their reduction in numbers is justified (in their thinking) by the Great Falling Away. It never seems to occur to them that there might be some fallacies in their own thinking and views – though not necessarily in the book they preach. We need both faithfulness and vision. Using one or the other as a billy club to whack one another over the head is kind of like the head bangers down in Georgia back in the early 20t century which one of my deacons who had worked down there told me about. A part of their worship was to bang their heads into the walls of the church building (???). This either obedience or vision strikes me as dreadfully similar and with the same dead-end in the offing. Polarization on a one-sided idea is one of the explanations for insanity which I discussed with the chairman of a psychology dept. of a major state university. I got the idea from a study church history and from looking at controversies in the same. A one-sided idea/doctrine/truth/concept/understanding and the application of the same to life, etc., leads to incongruities. The more intense, continuous, etc., the greater the incongruities until a break down occurs. The teachings of Christ are crisnatological (Christ plus dissonance), that is, they are two -sided, apparently contradictory (to the human mind which cannot reconcile them) and are not meant to be reconciled (please observe the right side and left sides of your brain seemingly have different functions in mental exercises). They set up a tension, these two-sided, apparently contradictory truths, in the human mind which enables one to be flexible, (objective and/subjective – that is warm, affirming, supportive – as the occasion requires without feeling that you have compromised your convictions), balanced, creative, and magnetic. In short, what we call mature, that is, spiritual maturity. The spiritually mature person/church is one that is truly attractive to the lost who have hungers and thirsts for meaning and purpose that the world and all the host of Hell can never satisfy. Biblical orthodoxy and the Great Awakenings (which are really the fruition of biblical orthodoxy) are what produced America and the Great Century of Missions, and that latter is a whole lot better than conversion by the sword. I mean they recovered the Gospel in the Reformation, but they were still in a fighting mode until the Awakenings transformed the recovery operation into an outgoing winsome, ain’t it wonderful, mode. Let us take a good look at ourselves and have a good laugh as we realize that we hold a both/and theology that is designed to make us effective, winsome, attractive, charming, magnetic, etc. Hark! Do I hear the distant, muted roar of an incoming tsunami of grace? Are we praying for such? Are we pleading the promises which Edwards searched out for us to plead?
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
Dr. Willingham,
If you read what I’ve written, you would recognize that I am already on the both/and side. The discussion of “vision” as it is commonly used isn’t even a biblical one per se. Leadership without vision is like music without tonality. It doesn’t happen. Leadership without faithfulness isn’t biblical. It’s actually as simple as that, but apparently it’s not simple enough.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
Dear Brother Pemberton (hmmm any kin to that one in the War between the States/Civil War?), I was addressing those fellows taking the either/or positions of obedience/vision and bashing one another over the head with the billy club of their own position. They can do that all day (how long has this been going on?) until the cows come home, and they will get exactly no where except to knock each other out so that both will eliminate the other just as effectively as the headbangers (at least the latter had the excuse of being truly out of it in their hopeless misery, but then the former could have the same excuse but I repeat myself). After all, if it weren’t for the misery, this must be hilarious. Or maybe it is the other way: If it weren’t for the hilarity, this must be miserable.
.-= Dr. James Willingham´s last blog ..The Climax of the Reformation =-.
I understand. Thanks! And I like the last two sentences you just used! Do you mind if I “steal” them from you?
General Pemberton is probably a distant kin. Most Pembertons in the US are descendants of Phineas Pemberton and his family brought to the US as Quaker statesmen by William Penn.
.-= Jim Pemberton´s last blog ..Christian Apologetics – The Presuppositional Nature of Evangelism =-.
Vision is insight into implementing biblical values in concrete ways over the long haul. (that’s it … short and sweet)
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..Burj Dubai is Almost Complete =-.
This definition is advantageous because 1) it’s short and easy to understand, but also, more relevant for this post, 2) it helps show why “vision” is not only compatible with biblical principles, but how biblical principles demand vision, for inasmuch as they demand implementation, they demand vision.
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..Burj Dubai is Almost Complete =-.
I think ” vision” is asking yourslef ” what do I do next?” ” How do i find a new way to evangelize?” God does not take the fun out of evangelism. God has given us greative mins to find new wys of spreading the same gospel. That is what “Vision” means to me. If my church was going door to door, I may have a vision of a TV or radio program to take the gospel to more people. Maybe i have a ” vision” to build a bigger building, or add a special section that would serve an unserved population.
What Vision does not mean tome, is God saying something to someone which cannot be varified.
Yes. … But if someone said “I have a vision to leave my wife and marry a hooker,” we would say that this is not exactly what we mean by “vision” in the ecclesial context. So, vision can’t just be “what do I do next?” but has to be related to visioning the future according to biblical values. That’s why I say vision is “implementing biblical values in a concrete way over the long haul.”
Also … if you had a precise idea about what you wanted to do with your next day (go down to the skateboard park and witness for Christ), this also, in my opinion, would not constitute what we mean by “vision,” which is more of an overall long term strategy in the church. Thus, vision is implementing biblical values in concrete ways over the long haul.
Bradley
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..When St. Ambrose Rebuked an Emperor =-.
Or rather, those who have “vision” have an ability to foresee how they will implement biblical values in their own ecclesial context over a relatively long period of time. Vision can change, however, so it’s not permanent. This is because context can change, and vision is implementing biblical values within one’s own ecclesial context.
Bradley
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..When St. Ambrose Rebuked an Emperor =-.
I define the word ‘vision’ as what God calls each of us specifically to do. For example, it is a very general statement to say that pastors and church leaders are called to ‘reach their community’. I consider that our ‘mission’. Our ‘vision’ is how we specifically feel God is calling us to accomplish our mission.
One pastor’s vision may be for their church to reach their community through service. Another pastor’s vision might be for their church to reach their community through media (broadcast sermons, web presence, etc.)
Joseph,
Your definition fits with mine perfectly. I think we are thinking the same thing but articulating it differently.
I also think that when speaking about vision in the context of ecclesiastical leadership (as in this post), vision can include not just what God calls us individually to do, but can include what a leader senses God specifically calling him to lead his people to do (and thus, also seems to include a corporate element). Therefore, I think your definition could be improved like this: Vision is what God calls a Christian or group of Christians to do specifically.
Here also, in your definition, vision seems to refer to the content of God’s specific will more than the subjects insight into it. Usually when we say that ecclesiastical leaders need to have vision, we seem to be referring to their *ability to perceive* such a specific will of God more than the *content* of that calling which they perceive. Does it not seem that way to you also?
For example, a definition for vision should, I think, be able to fit comfortably in this blank: “Mr. Ecclesiastical Leader, in order to lead his people well, needs to have _________.”
In your definition it would read: “Mr. Ecclesiastical Leader, in order to lead his people, needs to have what God calls him to do specifically.” It seems that this could be improved by adding the simple word “insight [into]” (e.g. “needs to have insight into what God calls him [or a group of Christians] to do specifically.”
But, then, what do you mean by “specifically”? Do you not mean the implementation of what you call “mission” in our own ecclesiastical context? (which mission has reference to things that don’t change, that are taught in scripture?)
Isn’t vision, then, insight into implementing biblical values/teachings in concrete ways over the long haul (whether that be for a person or a group of persons)?
Bradley
.-= Bradley´s last blog ..The God Debates: An Alternative to Doug Wilson’s Debate with Christopher Hitchens =-.
Christ had vision – he knew where he wanted to guide the human family in His earthly ministry. He knew the potential that man can rise to and led them there. Without a vision of what fallen mankind can become, there was no leading to get us there. This is speaking of a divine attribute in somewhat of a secular mindset, which can ultimately be defeating (“my thoughts are higher than your thoughts… my ways.. your ways, etc.).
That vision, seeing a future state of potential that can be achieved, is core to leadership. Christ saw the sin from the sinner, and lifted people out of their personal gutters to a new state of existence.
As children of God, his example is before us to follow. From a secular standpoint, if we don’t know where we are going, then any path will get us there, because we have no direction. How many of us wandered without vision before our conversion?
Leaders of religious and secular organizations need to have a vision of the future state, build creative tension and then enable the actions to reduce the tension and achieve future vision state.
Several months ago I wrote a post, Vision: An Overblown Concept. The link is here — http://chuckwarnockblog.wordpress.com/2007/05/21/vision-an-overblown-concept/
Interesting comments all around. -Chuck
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 1 trackback }