Aaron Loy's Ragamuffin Blog

Gauging Spiritual Maturity

Perhaps no other factor plays a more central role in shaping a church’s ethos than how it measures spiritual maturity.

As an inherently spiritual community, the church’s gauge for spiritual maturity essentially defines success for its congregation. In other words, the church’s measuring stick identifies the goal that everyone ought to be shooting for. Is the ultimate aim to accumulate a wealth of theological knowledge? To be passionate about humanitarian issues? To be an outspoken republican? To become a central leader in the church? To live a life of simplicity? To not do anything "bad"? 

The easiest way to get a feel for how a church gauges spiritual maturity is by looking at its leadership. These men and women represent the kind of lifestyle, discipline and/or giftedness that is deemed worthy to lead (and thus most valuable) in that community. In a way, they represent the quintessential believer because they set the bar for what it means to be spiritually mature, or at least spiritually mature enough to lead everyone else.

If a church says that true spiritual growth is revealed by acts of compassion, but the majority of its staff has theology degrees and spends most of its week in the church office, then it is the latter that comes to be understood by the community as the standard for spiritual maturity. Although that church might really believe that spiritual maturity ought to be fleshed out through acts of love in theory, it is communicating through its own action that in actuality theological education is the ultimate gauge for maturity.

This is extremely important for leaders to understand because whenever certain qualities are considered more valuable than others by a community, that community will find itself attracting, developing and retaining people with those qualities. Over time, the community inevitably becomes a reflection of its leadership.

Don’t believe me? Take a moment to think of an established church near you that places a very high value on biblical knowledge. They probably teach through the scriptures verse by verse, use lots of big words with extensive theological meaning, regularly examine the original Greek and Hebrew texts, argue that one biblical translation is superior to all others, generally assume that people will bring a bible to church, encourages extensive note taking on Sunday morning and most of their staff have a seminary degree or its equivalent. Okay, are you picturing it? Now survey the general characteristics of that congregation. I’d venture to guess that the church you are picturing has a very high theological IQ compared to most churches. Chances are that its members (like its leaders) would blast most of yours in bible jeopardy. These are the sort of people they attract, retain and develop because that is how they have come to define spiritual maturity.

Although the details change, the story is always the same. Churches that use the Knowledge Gauge are really good at bible trivia and enjoy lengthy theological debates. Churches that use the Financial Generosity Gauge have white teeth, pleated pants and large budgets. Churches that use the Tolerance Gauge have a smorgasbord of sin issues and very few hard conversations. Churches that use the Faithful-To-Show-Up-Each-Week Gauge have apathetic congregations and less and less young people. Churches that use the Involvement-In-Church-Functions Gauge have very full calendars and lots of single women. Churches that use the Frugality Gauge have small budgets, organic produce and no parking issues. It all comes down to how you measure spiritual maturity and how that value is reflected in your leadership.     

So how does your church measure spiritual maturity? What is your gauge? What cherished "spiritual" characteristic is most clearly modeled by your leaders as the most important? Is there consistency between this and what your church says it values most? Or how about between this and what you are asking of your people? If not, what needs to change? And most importantly, what does your gauge say about what you believe as a church? Is it biblically sound? Or did it generate from somewhere else?

(In part 2, I'll be looking at the way Mosaic gauges spiritual maturity and how that fleshes itself out in the church. It's probably not what you think...)

Belong Before Believe (part 2)

Creating a culture where people can belong before they believe is a practical application of our first core value: Mission is why the church exists. At first glance this might not seem like a big deal. After all, many Christians would nod their head in agreement with this statement. The mind of the seasoned Christ follower might even jump to relevant passages like the Great Commission in Matthew 28 or Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9. However, it is in praxis that this core value often becomes problematic.

Every church has got to decide which voices they are going to listen to. In most churches, it is the loudest, most persuasive, most powerful, or sometimes just the most deliberate Christian voices that get listened to. But the conversation is essentially the same: everyone vouching for their own preferred brand of Christianity. Mosaic essentially ignores these voices of religion in order to better hear the voices of humanity.

There are always any number of conversations going on throughout Christendom that church people consider to be of immense importance. The details of these conversations are always in flux - traditional/contemporary, emergent/emerging, modern/postmodern/post-postmodern, and a never ending plethora of theological asterisks. But as a movement whose very purpose for existing resides outside of its four walls, Mosaic just isn't all that interested in engaging in such "internal" conversations. We want to spend the best of our time, energy, passion and creativity on connecting people to God who wouldn't normally associate themselves with church.

This doesn't always involve a choice. After all, we are not a divided humanity. At our core we all desire, need and long for the same things. Mosaic speaks into those things that are true of us all. However, in those times when we must choose, we will always choose to ignore the voices of religion and internal religious conversation in order to begin new conversations with those who do not know Jesus.

Epic Mistakes in Ministry

You ever think back to something you did and wonder to yourself, What was I thinking?! Perhaps it was your first ministry gig or one of the first times you were trusted with significant responsibility and you did something of such epic stupidity that it still makes your face hot to think about it?

When I was in my early twenties, I was hired as the part time worship pastor for a church plant in Lincoln, NE. I had previously sworn to never work for a church. As a wounded pastor's kid, I had spent most of my young adult life avoiding church people. So when I took the job, I did so with more than a little hesitation and with a big church-person-sized chip on my shoulder.

So you can about imagine how well I handled it when anonymous comment cards started coming in attacking myself and the worship team for (of all things) wearing hats on stage. All of the bad pk memories came flooding back as I remembered the people who had caused me to tuck tale and run from religion so many years ago. Adding to the fire was the fact that these comment cards represented a direct contradiction to the vision of our church (the reason I was there in the first place). I was primed and ready to flip.

Then one week I received a particularly scathing comment card. Its author took cheap shots at various members of the worship team for their unacceptable attire on Sunday mornings - particularly their wearing of hats - and what they believed that reflected about their character. And in true coward form, it was once again anonymous. I was livid. But ya know, it probably wouldn't have been that big of a deal if I hadn't been on deck to preach one of my first sermons that coming Sunday.

Church in Three Movements: A Model

"...I believe we have failed to embrace our God-given freedom to use our creativity in the task to which we have been called. Although Christ’s calling on our lives to spread the gospel is clearly communicated in the Scriptures, the methods by which we are to do that are not. Like the disciples after Pentecost, we, too, have been given the freedom to take the gospel and run. (When everyone needs the gospel, there is no wrong direction.) One would doubtfully assume this to be true, however, if they were to survey the landscape of Christianity in America. Sadly, many churches have come to look eerily similar in form and expression. In some cases, creative expressions have been mocked and ridiculed for nothing else than their unwillingness to conform. The church must reclaim its freedom to creatively express itself in whatever ways are necessary to reach those in unique local contexts. The following proposal is an effort to do exactly that..."

(read the rest here)

Why Plant Churches?

This past week I've had a couple conversations with people who either have questions about or downright struggle with the idea of starting new churches. These conversations always throw me for a loop. I sometimes forget that not everyone is coming from the same place I am, has had the same wonderful experiences I've had, and that others even believe the best way forward is, in one friend's words, to "make big churches bigger." I write a lot about church planting here, but often with the assumption that most of us agree that church planting is a valuable and even necessary endeavor. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to post an article that I have found to be very helpful on the topic, entitled Why Plant Churches by Tim Keller. Enjoy!

Homegrown Leadership

This past week I was made aware of a college pastor job that was recently posted by a very well known and influential church that I greatly admire. Apparently this quite large, emerging-type church is looking to hire someone from outside of their community, which quite honestly, surprises me. In fact, I have to admit that I am surprised every time a church of three, four, or even five thousand people still feels the need to look outside of their community to find leadership. A big part of this has to do with my paradigm of leadership promotion -a topic that I think deserves some attention. There are essentially two different paradigms when it comes to finding and promoting leaders. 

The old way: Hiring from the outside.

A lot of churches still operate with this paradigm. The goal is typically to hire a pastor from another church who they feel can take their church or a particular ministry to the next level. In the good scenarios, the pastor sticks around as long as the average pastor sticks around (less than 5 yrs according to most sources), and does his job well until he is “called” to a better opportunity (i.e. bigger church, higher pay). Those are the good scenarios.

In most cases, however, things don’t really work out. This can happen for a number of different reasons: as an outsider coming in, the pastor is never fully embraced by the congregation, early mistakes cause people to question his ability to lead, he just isn’t a good fit for the community and/or the church, or the aforementioned “calling” comes a whole lot sooner than anyone expected.

Sometimes an imported leader and those who hired him or her are faced with the harsh truth that effective leadership is not always transferable. Leaders that are effective in one environment will not necessarily be effective in other environments. This is a basic truth of leadership. A great example of this can be seen in Willow Creek’s hiring of Randy Frazee. Randy was a proven leader that seemed to be a sure bet as he was hired to serve in the same type of capacity he had thrived in elsewhere. But as often happens, what worked elsewhere didn’t work in South Barrington and Randy’s stay was short and his departure (along with Gene Appel’s) painful. Unfortunately, theirs are a common story. Rarely does a leader hired from the outside stick.

The new way: Empowering from the inside.

Many churches are moving away from models that look to hire leadership from the outside and are choosing instead to raise up and promote leaders from within. This is what one might call “home grown leadership.”  

Mosaic is one of many churches that have chosen to adopt this paradigm. Mars Hill (Seattle) has also gone this route. I mention these two churches because they are both highly influential and very different from one another. Both have opted to empower from within and both are reaping the rewards, a few of which include:

• Vision: homegrown leaders are more likely to get it, own it and live it
• Tested: homegrown leaders are known by those they lead and by those they answer to long before they are ever given authority
• Fit: homegrown leaders are already acclimated to and serving in your local context, meaning whether or not they "fit" is never a question
  
• Loyalty: homegrown leaders are more likely to be committed to you and the vision of your church for the long haul

Of course, occasionally situations arise that require looking for leadership outside of an organization. Some churches have simply done such a poor job of developing leaders (or such a good job of running them off) that there are few, if any, leaders ready or willing to take the reins. And as I have mentioned, sometimes promoting leaders from the outside works. But I would recommend this only as a last resort. Leaders grown and empowered from within are simply more committed, more dependable, and more likely to champion and embody the vision. So, the question then is…

Who are your home grown leaders/influencers? These are people that have come to know and follow Christ as a part of your church and/or have been a part of your faith community for some time, where they served faithfully with integrity. Are there any? If not, what does this say about your faith community? What needs to change? How can you begin investing in and raising up leaders in your church?

Secondly, who are your potentials? Who has the potential to be a homegrown leader two years from now? Three years from now? Now, what can you do to help these men and women develop into power players in God’s Kingdom work? What are their strengths, their gifts, their passions, their talents, their dreams? Where do they need encouragement and where do they need some guidance? How can you help them discover and grow into their God-given potential?!

Leading Alone?

The resurgence of Ted Haggard (and his epic failings) into the public spotlight has got me thinking a lot about leadership. Namely, I have been thinking about why highly successful and influential men like Haggard continue to fall morally only to lose everything – their job, their influence, their families and any hope of vocational ministry in the future. I wonder, why does this keep happening and how can it be avoided?

Can I admit something on the front end? My heart breaks for Ted. I know he messed up and that he messed up big time. I know that he caused a horrendous amount of emotional, psychological and spiritual damage to thousands of people, including friends of mine. And I know he is reaping what he has sown. But as someone who tends to err on the side of grace, my heart breaks for Ted. Consider this:

How alone do you think someone has to be when they can carry a secret like this - one that draws into question everything they stand for - and no one – not friends, not colleagues, not even family – has even the slightest idea?

I think most of us recognize the inherent danger in putting one man on such a large pedestal, but I don’t think the pedestal is the problem. History has taught us that people always push for influential men and women to be put into positions of power. This is one of the reasons Jesus had to work so hard to stay underground for as long as he could. When the word got out about him, what did the people want to do? Crown him king. When the powers-that-be found out, they recognized a legitimate threat and had him crucified. It’s a wonder that his public ministry lasted a full three years.

You see, we will always look to those who capture our hearts and imaginations for inspiration, direction and leadership. This kind of influence is a gift. And like any ability, it can be used for good or it can be used for evil. I think Ted set out with the genuine desire to use his influence for good. But somewhere along the way he got lost. Terribly lost. Over time, he stopped quieting himself long enough to hear the gentle whisper of the Spirit and started listening to the voices blaring in his ears. In the end, his influence was used to inflict horrendous damage on those who trusted him.  

I don’t think the problem was that Ted had great influence. I don’t think the problem was that people had put him on a pedestal. I think the problem was that Ted stood on that pedestal completely alone.

I wonder if Jesus ever meant for his followers to venture into positions of influence (or to venture anywhere, for that matter) alone. I wonder how many times he had to warn his ragtag group of followers about the alluring nature of power over a pint at the local watering hole. I’d venture to guess it was a popular topic of conversation. After all, the very reason Jesus had come was to fix what the human desire to play God had broken. This is why we hear Jesus continually teaching about things like humility, generosity, serving and forgiveness. This is why we find Jesus apparently unsurprised by an argument over which of his disciples was the greatest; to which he responded by teaching them to become everyone else’s servant. And I think this is also why Jesus chose not to send his disciples out to do ministry alone.

We find a great example of this in Luke 10:1. It reads:

“After this Jesus appointed seventy-two others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.”

I wonder what would happen if today’s leaders approached ministry in the same way. I wonder how many churches would benefit from having two pastors of the same authority, of equal power, and of mutual accountability leading the way. I wonder how much more effective our church planting would be if we stopped sending our planters out alone. I wonder how much more healthy our churches would be if we resisted the tendency to build around a single personality by diluting the spotlight. I wonder how many of our pastors would benefit from giving lead pastorship back to Jesus and sharing the rest of the responsibilities and burdens with a plurality of equal leaders.

I wonder if Jesus wasn’t on to something.

Haggard: When A Leader Falls

In case you haven’t heard, this Thursday HBO will air a special documentary entitled “The Trials of Ted Haggard.” The documentary was shot by Alexandra Pelosi, daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and includes home footage shot during some of Ted’s lowest moments since the scandal originally broke out in 2006.

For millions of Americans, the documentary will undoubtedly evoke a wide range of emotions reminiscent of the ones they felt when the story first unfolded just a couples years ago – feelings of anger, disbelief, betrayal, sadness and devastation, among many others. For me, and probably for many Christian leaders across the globe, the documentary will force us to revisit the horrendous moment we found out that yet another high profile Christian leader had fallen. Painfully, we asked, How could this happen? How does the pastor of a 12,000 member church, the leader of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals, a representative to the White House, one who holds so much influence and voice in so many lives do something like this? More than two years later, we are still trying to come up with an answer.

Pelosi has said that she hopes the documentary will turn out to be a story of forgiveness. I do too. I hope that the church, New Life and the Capital “C”, responds by embracing Ted by showing him love and grace, by apologizing for the things that were handled poorly, and by welcoming him back into fellowship. But I fear that the documentary itself will reveal just the opposite. I fear that it will reveal an all too familiar story in which a once beloved and admired man makes some poor choices, embarrassing himself and the church, and is then abandoned by those who so often talk about “forgiveness,” left to try to pick up the pieces himself.

Why is the church so quick to shoot their wounded?

I will readily admit that I am thankful I was not one of the elders at New Life when this all came out. I am thankful I did not have to decide how to try to handle such a difficult, painful, embarrassing and complex situation under the scrutinous spotlight of the American media. I am thankful that I did not have to try to faithfully handle and lead through the emotional and spiritual fallout that continued in Colorado Springs long after the journalists and news crews had moved on to the next big story.  

But I think most would agree - if not now, certainly after the documentary airs - that the church (New Life and the Capital “C”) essentially abandoned Haggard in his darkest hour. Sure, they gave him a generous severance package, but throwing money at a problem never solved anything. Even in the business world that is considered only professional, not especially gracious. And when you consider that New Life demanded Haggard not speak publically about the issue and that he move out of state, it just doesn’t look good. Even those far from the church perceive this to be inconsistent with the person and message of Jesus.    

And to make matters worse, I have recently found out that a former staff member of New Life – a childhood friend of mine – is responding to the documentary by bringing further allegations against Haggard and the church in a coming interview with ABC. This time, however, the allegations include things that reportedly happened that were not consensual. In other words, this thing will get worse before it gets better.

But here is the deal: we understand that moral failure always has devastating repercussions. And when it is a leader, the fallout is exponentially worse because it affects the lives of so many others. This is true regardless of the circumstances. But I have to believe that this could have been a different story - one of tremendous grace and forgiveness.

Can you imagine what might have happened if New Life would have responded by coming around the Haggard family and embracing them? Can you imagine what might have happened if instead of requiring that they move out of state, New Life had urged them to stay in Colorado Springs as a part of the church where they could be loved, served and provided for? What if the New Life staff had resolved to encourage those in their church to extend grace to the Haggard family and to personally come around them when they needed support the most? What if, instead of releasing official statements to the press, Pastor Brady and the rest of the New Life leadership were able to respond to these new allegations alongside Ted and his wife, as friends, admitting mistakes wherever needed but doing so in the context of friendship and a mutual commitment to get through it together? And then what if, instead of demanding that Ted not speak publically about the issue, He was encouraged to share about his restorative journey after a period of time, if he desired to and when he was ready as an example of how a community of Christ followers can come alongside those who fall with grace and love in order to see them restored?

Imagine the kind of message that would have communicated. Imagine the kind of impact that might have had. Imagine what could have been if only we had responded differently. I do hope that this story turns out to be one of forgiveness. And I hope and pray that we, the church, get better at loving those who need it most in the times to come.

Re-Engaging Relevance

 Relevance has been a favorite topic of conversation in many circles over the last decade. The word is everywhere. We have Relevant Magazines, Relevant Radio (& these guys definitely are), Relevant Churches, Relevant Worship, Relevant Performances (sorry, I had to) Relevant Multimedia, Relevant Para-church Ministries, Relevant Branding, Relevant Blogs, and Relevant Conferences where Christian leaders can learn how they and their ministries can become all things, you guessed it, relevant.

The word has soared to the great heights of Buzzword - reserved for only the most ridiculously over-used terms in Christendom - taking its place alongside former chart-toppers, like seeker, contemporary, community and postmodern. But like most buzzwords, the hype has since fizzled out leaving our poor word to hang out in ambiguity with the other has-beens. Here they are generally assumed to be understood by most, but rarely are. And since they are no longer considered a relevant part of the conversation, they remain misunderstood.

Thus is the case with our friend Relevant. And so I thought I'd bring him back into the conversation today in order to address some of the common misunderstandings about him and to better understand the valuable idea he still represents.

"Relevance is not about being cool. It is about being understood." - Jason Jaggard

Tuesday I spent the day snowboarding at Big Bear with buddy Kurtis. If you've never been to Big Bear, it is a relatively small mountain consisting of 90% snowboarders, 75% fake snow, and 100% terrain park. It is a x-gaming terrain freak's dream. Every run on the mountain has terrain features - even the bunny slope. We're talking table tops, jumps, rails, funboxes, trees, wall rides, bonks, even conversion vans and broncos (the car, not the horse) on which to pull your sickest trick. The venue naturally pulls in a large hipster crowd from all over L.A. and Orange County.

In surveying this melting pot of cool, a converted midwesterner, like myself, can't help but muse on the almost comically obvious reality that I have stepped into a world far from the one I was raised. "I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto." As we took another ride up the mountain, Kurtis and I talked about the importance of fashion to L.A. You don't even have to live here to see it. Visit L.A. anytime of the week or weekend and you'll see it. It is everywhere. But here is the interesting thing about L.A. fashion, it is both necessary and relative. There is no one way to dress that is deemed cool or in. There is no one designer, one look, one anything, there are many. There is an understood freedom to express oneself. And because it is relative, no one is really better than the other. However, the one thing that isn't acceptable is to disregard the importance of fashion - in essence, to say with your look that you really don't think fashion matters. To do this is to essentially take a shared value of the culture and say that you do not deem it to be worthy of your time. Like all matters pertaining to relevance, it is a sure way to alienate yourself from the culture in short time.

And so herein lies a valuable truth about relevance to culture: It is not about being cool. It is about being understood. And at least in part, it is about communicating to others that their interests, concerns, struggles and needs are worth your time.   

Relevance is about starting on even ground.

Sometimes pastors make the mistake of thinking that being relevant gives them "one up" on everyone else; as if one's ministry could only be cool enough, hip enough, edgy enough, it would almost certainly succeed. This is not the function of relevance. Relevance only affords you the opportunity to start the conversation on even ground. Irrelevance, on the other hand, forces you to start from behind. In ministry and relationships, it can often cause you to lose your voice with people before you even start speaking.

Relevance, therefore, is only Step 1. Failing to engage people in a relevant way may prevent you from ever getting to Step 2. And so it is important. Very important. But again, it is only Step 1. If relevance is all you have to offer, you don't have much.

Relevance is not a tool. It is a worldview.

Please hear me on this, being relevant does not mean repackaging what you are already doing in a trendier way. In fact, if you want to guarantee failure in engaging with those outside of the church, keep on doing what you're doing and repackage it to look like something different. That is not innovation. That is not vision. That is manipulation. And many pastors and churches are really good at manipulation. Relevance is not a tool to get people to do what you want. It is not the missing piece in your life or ministry. It is a worldview. It is a way of approaching life and ministry that puts the desires and needs of those who do not yet know Christ before your own and before those in your church. 

It is the latter part of that statement that often makes leading relevant movements so difficult. The desires and perceived needs of church people almost always conflict with the desires and needs of those who do not yet know Christ. And just to spare you some time, the two mix about as well as oil and water. Choosing to pursue relevance may force you to make some difficult decisions. You may have to decide between talking about real and uncomfortable issues or maintaining the status quot. You may have to axe some programs that are loved by your members but that do not serve the mission of your church. You may have to watch friends leave and big tithers take their checks to the church next door. You may have to endure a lot of pain. Ultimately, you will have to choose between which voices you will listen to - the loud, constant and often powerful ones coming from within your church's four walls, or the soft, unspoken, unrepresented voices of those who do not yet know Christ.

Your relevance and irrelevance will be decided by which of these voices you choose to listen to. It is a choice that is made not once, but one that must be made continually. The voices will continue. The powerful voices within your ministry will continue to campaign for their interests, and that might involve also campaigning for your resignation. But that is the price of leading a ministry that strives to do what Jesus called us to. That is the price of relevance. Is it hard? Yes. Is it worth it? Absolutely.

Preaching in the Information Age

The other night I curiously looked on as McCain and Obama slugged it out at the 2^nd presidential debate. Immediately following the debate, NBC hosted a special in which they evaluated the performance of each candidate. The most shocking part of the program came when they thoroughly assessed the accuracy of every historical statement and number thrown out by the candidates in the course of the debate. More shocking than the inaccuracy of many of the quotes presented by both candidates was the speed in which those errors were pointed out.

 The debate had concluded only minutes earlier and already the candidates inaccuracies were pointed out and broadcast for the world to see. "Welcome to the information age," I thought to myself.

Pastors are not exempt from the added pressure that comes from living in a time when information is so readily accessible. At any given time on any given Sunday any one of our listeners can easily hop online with the push of a button and test the content of our sermons. In very short time they can cross reference our words with those of other pastors, bloggers, theologians, scholars and antagonists. And just as quickly as they can find inconsistencies they can also publish them on the www for everyone to see.

The dynamics of being pastor have changed drastically over the last couple decades, so here are some suggestions to help us all navigate the minefield:

 Make sure you’re smoking what you’re selling. 

Your life is the litmus test of your message. The most effective way to communicate your message is to live it. The most effective way to lose your voice entirely is to choose to do the alternative and get caught doing it. I have heard stories of people making unwise decisions only for incriminating pictures to show up on facebook, sometimes within minutes. Don’t be that guy. Please, don’t be that guy.

Connection is more important than content.

This one is counter intuitive. Our natural response might be to feel the need to make sure that all the info we present is doggedly accurate. But although it is important to make sure we aren’t contradicting scripture, the reality is that men and women who devote their entire lives to studying the Bible still disagree on all types of things contained within it. It’s more important that we strive to make the scriptures come alive for people, engaging them with God’s words, than striving to be the next great theological mind. If people don’t trust you, they won’t trust your message, even if you’re right.

Everyone knows that you don’t know everything. Make sure you do too.

As teachers, our posture has got to be one of humility. We are seeking to minister to people that are increasingly skeptical. If people sense that you’re not teachable, you can lose credibility real fast. If they sense that you think you know everything, it will just be a matter of time until they prove you wrong. That is not to say that we can’t have conviction, but that we ought to seek to always err on the side of humility.

Give credit where credit is due or prepare to look like a jackass.

“Pray it and claim it” doesn’t apply to someone else’s material. As more and more content is uploaded onto the web and made freely available to all, rip offs are becoming easier and easier to spot. Although it can sometimes be hard to find the original source, identifying recycled material can be done in just seconds with one swift Google. I am thankful for this. We have all seen too many celebrity pastor rip-offs. Am I right? My hope is that this development will force the next generation of leaders to respond with a renewed sense of originality and creativity.