When your ministry vision becomes a grind

I visited a colleagues's blog today (he's a pastor), and saw that it had become the equivalent of a twitter feed.

In fact, it was a twitter feed – I recall seeing the same posts on Twitter.

I'm curious to ask: In the long run, has his desire to write become part of the grind? Has what was once exciting become a chore? How does he sustain his passion for writing?

Of course, life's like that, for both church leaders and volunteers. While the pastors and teachers are the gifts to the church for equipping the saints (Ephesians 4:11-13), we need to remember to encourage our leaders... we need more sharp individuals and fewer dullards in the church.

Crazy about the numbers

Churchianity drives me crazy.  Talking about discipleship but evaluating a program based on numbers drives me really crazy.

Why is it all about numbers? Where is the depth in the American church? Three years ago, Willow Creek's research revealed that their emphasis on programming over relationships had failed. Has it really been like this for over 30 years?

Focusing on quantity over quality is a sign that spiritual growth has been replaced by a measurement of success.  The church sees the tantalizing numbers of early Acts, and want the same for their own ministries.

Paul states in I Cor 3:6:

 ⁵ After all, who is Apollos? Who is Paul? We are only God’s servants through whom you believed the Good News. Each of us did the work the Lord gave us. ⁶ I planted the seed in your hearts, and Apollos watered it, but it was God who made it grow. ⁷ It’s not important who does the planting, or who does the watering. What’s important is that God makes the seed grow. ⁸ The one who plants and the one who waters work together with the same purpose. And both will be rewarded for their own hard work. ⁹ For we are both God’s workers. And you are God’s field. You are God’s building.
 ¹⁰ Because of God’s grace to me, I have laid the foundation like an expert builder. Now others are building on it. But whoever is building on this foundation must be very careful. ¹¹ For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have—Jesus Christ. (New Living Translation).

Can we presume then, by a measurement of numbers, that if a program isn't growing numerically, that God isn't in it?  Must we value activity for activity's sake to evaluate success?

It's easier to count numbers and declare that a ministry is growing than to spend time evaluating it from within to determine if true discipleship is occurring and spiritual growth is happening.

I propose that growth can occur even if numbers don't increase.  How do we measure influence and impact? How can we measure significance?

I can't recall any Scripture that states that God's goal or measure of evaluation in the body is numeric growth, but depth of growth:

Then Christ will make his home in your hearts as you trust in him. Your roots will grow down into God’s love and keep you strong. (Eph 3:17, NLTse)

Church leaders, if a program doesn't seem to be growing, are you equipping your staff and volunteer leadership to help it grow?  Have you spent enough time in the program to see where the growth is really occurring before creating an artificial measurement of success?  As pastors and teachers are gifts to the church (the body of Christ) for the purpose of equipping, so are church leaders the gifts to the staff and program leaders – pastors and volunteers alike.

Equip us before you evaluate us.  Then we're all working toward the same goal, and being evaluate by a common standard – and with the same purpose!

Pay me to play?

Not too long ago, I had a conversation with a worship leader about the practice of paying musicians who serve on worship teams. Initially, I was surprised by the practice, as I've never ever been in a church that pays its musicians. But it may not be such a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think for a minute that people should ever be paid to serve. Paying musicians sets a precedent for paying every volunteer, and that's not what service is about. Even if it were offered, I don't think I would accept it (there are plenty of underfunded ministries in most churches, particularly youth groups, that can use the money). Personally I don't need the money; I know plenty of professional musicians who are far better than I am and would do a far better job. If paid to play, then I'm not truly serving out of my love for God and a desire use my gifts in service.

Paying musicians would create an expectation of performance: if you are paid to play, you will be prepared; you will know your music; you will have listened to the worship set before you arrive for rehearsal. If you're not prepared, it's quickly evident, and if you're not scheduled to pay you won't get paid.

If you're like me, you serve because there is an area in the church that aligns with your gifts. You believe you have something to contribute, to the greater good, the Cause, and that by participating you're being obedient to your calling.  if nothing else, I'm prepared because that's important to me – my personal integrity is aligned with my sense of responsibility to my fellow musicians.

Just having the gifts isn't enough. The most suitable individuals to participate on a worship team may not always be the best musicians, but in a team may show surprising ability to contribute to the whole. Too often the attitude and condition of the heart are overlooked in the supposed "need" of a certain number of musicians; the effect that one individual can have on a team can be very demotivating. A right heart and musical talent is a powerful combination.

I don't want to get paid. I want to serve as a musician because I love to play music; to honor God by using these gifts before the congregation is a very high calling. We are all leaders when we are at practice or when we are on stage before the congregation or in the daily grind of life, and it's dishonoring to God if we're not prepared. Ultimately we're playing for an audience of One. Never more, never less.

I want to serve in worship in an environment where the team is valued over the individual; where we lift one another up when we are weak in our abilities and and in our faith; where everyone is ready to play and tech is ready to go when it's time to rehearse. Waiting for everybody to get ready is demotivating; my time is valuable to, please respect it.

Where exactly should we serve?

Thinking today about service. Purposefully avoiding where possible the word "ministry," it's so institutional, and limits us.  No criticisms intended here, just observations.

I know many believers who have a deep and active faith relationship with God, but don't serve in their churches.

I know many ministry professionals have a deep and active faith relationship with God, and spend all their time in church-related activities.

I know many believers who serve in their church, and are active in the community – outside of the church – volunteering in nonprofits.

I just can't help but think that serving in the church is not enough, but it's outside where we have the greatest impact.  Inside the church, the gifts we were given – the pastors, teachers, evangelists – were given for the building up of the body, to do his work – so we can grow in Christ and serve. (Eph 4:11-13).

The church seems to project the expectation that all of a believer's activities must be church-related, but that's missing the point. The gospel is just part of God's story, and it always has been – it's in moving beyond the milk, beyond the cake – where our roots grow deep into God's marvelous love, where we can break out of the confines of piety and serve in the world we live in, in the fulness of the redeemed relationship we have with our Father.

Some are called to serve inside the church. Some are called to serve outside the church, and some are called to serve in both places. Where are you called? Regardless, we're called to serve.

Remembering my Father

My father, Gordon, has never been one for sentimentality; and he's still alive, I'm just thinking about him today because he's several states away. Remembering. So let's not go getting all emotional.

In today's culture, our family is an anomaly. My parents are still happily married after 50 years, and gave me and my brothers an example of faithfulness and steadfastness that we all model in our own families. What he and my mother have shown us, my children will carry on.

My dad (let's not be formal) is a man of remarkable strength and creativity. He never watched sports, or listened to music, or played golf -- instead his hobbies have been those of craftsmanship and creativity. His interests are broad and varied, and include antique clock repair and restoration (both the mechanical and woodworking aspects), woodworking, leaded glass design, raising Nishigi koi, raising bonsai, Vespa restoration (and riding!), and making fountain pens (from the raw materials). He learned from reading, book after book, night after night.

I've learned honesty, authenticity, integrity, loyalty and wisdom from him. He has taught me what it means to have character, and how character applies to everything.

He taught us a long time ago that "children are the result of a marriage, and not the reason for it."  We're raising our children to be independent, just as he and my mother did with us.  My wife and I make time for dates and time for each other, because our marriage is about us, not the kids. (Although we love them and are so thankful for them!)

He is more light-hearted since a life-threatening accident over 10 years ago, which only slowed him down for a few weeks after major brain surgery and reconstruction. Recently he had to have surgery again, to care for some long-term after effects... The surgeon removed some titanium hardware from his head, so he made some earrings from the titanium plates for Lisa. I love his sense of humor!

Now that he is retired, Each new day with him is a blessing. We're more friends now than ever, and he surprises us more by stopping by on a scooter ride or when he's out for a drive.  Laughs at the frustrations I'm experiencing or the level of activity that always seems to surround families with children.  I think he laughs because he knows we're making it through just fine.

just like he taught us.  Happy Father's Day, Dad!

Thoughts on designing a typeface for the Bible

When designing a Bible typeface, what considerations come to mind? Legibility, character count, beauty? What's most important?

This article references the article about Lucerna, the font designed for the New Living Translation Bible.  The answers are in response to one student's questions about typeface design for Bibles.  In 2006, the typeface Lucerna first appeared in the New Living Translation Bible, Second Edition.  it has since been used in the Life Application Bible featuring the NLTse, the New King James Version, and the New International Version Bible (NIV).

In fact, readers say "I find this Bible easy to read without straining the eyes, with large clear print."
Considerations for designing a typeface for a specific application such as a Bible have to take into account legibility, character count and beauty, but I don't think one is necessarily more important than the other.  They all work together to solve a problem.

There are different Bible layouts: single column and multi-column.  A typeface that will work well for multi-column won't work as well in a single column.  Lucerna and Veritas are reduced and narrow width fonts (respectively), designed to solve specific problems.  For maximum readability, shorter line lengths benefit from a reduced-width font, but not necessarily a narrow font.  The reduced width characters will allow for a word or two more per line, enhancing the reader's ability to read the text without having to stumble through only a few words before the eye has to return to the beginning of the next line (a struggle for poor readers, from my observations).  A narrow font enhances the verticality of the strokes, which leads the eye to move up and down, rather than horizontally.

Lucerna emphasizes the top of the x-height, to enhance the horizontality of the typeface, in an attempt to lead the eye horizontally along the line rather than vertically.

Does the psychology of typefaces play a role?

Do some typefaces give you a headache after reading them for a long time? Do typefaces influence a reader's behavior?  Can a typeface make the text more difficult or easier to read?  If so, what are the qualities that make it more legible, more readable?

The psychology of typefaces plays a role in the designer’s mind.  By the time the Bible is complete, so many other choices have been made that the typeface selection either enhances or diminishes the reader’s experience.

Shouldn’t the life-changing power of God’s word be as accessible to all level of readers as possible?  Would a bible typeset in Comic Sans be easy to read, and could you take it seriously?  (Although, I would like to see a bible typeset in ITC Coventry.

Should a Bible typeface be "invisible" to the reader?

It shouldn’t be invisible, but it shouldn’t distract the reader from the message, but at the same time the typeface is a work of art that is an expression of whomever created it and seeks to be honoring to God. That is my particular opinion. I have designed the two typeface families (Veritas/Lucerna) with the goal that the Bible would be typeset in them.  With that consideration, the typeface should not distract the reader from the text and should make it easier to read. It should make the Word seem familiar and inviting.  It should have a distinctive visual character in and of itself, because when it’s bigger on a page it needs to be beautiful as a work of art, but also needs to be appropriate to the message.

If there are at least some psychological effects, should we try to match the "mood" of the typeface with the message?

In a long text, what would it accomplish?  The Bauhaus style of expressive/emotive typography is best for headlines and short passages.  Have you ever seen Tim Bott’s work?  (www.timbotts.com)  The use of expressive typography or calligraphy can enhance a short passage, clarify the meaning, enhance the meaning or illuminate it to a reader.  But can you imaging reading en entire Bible like this?  It would be very tiring and tedious.  The words need to be more important than the typeface.

Is there any room to use more than one typeface (or layout) in a Bible - different fonts for different types of passages (poetry, law, epistles, etc.)?

There are historical guidelines and precedent for the use of type and professional-looking typography, as well as standards that book publishers follow.  Using different typefaces for different sections would look chaotic and disrupt any continuity for the serious reader of scripture.  Continuity in book publishing (which is what a Bible is after all) is of the utmost importance.  Publishers have tried using layout variations thinking that a more dynamic design will make the Bible more appealing to attention-deprived individuals (ie teenagers and children), but it’s more marketing than anything else.  An attention-deprived culture needs color and variation in order to retain its attention and engage it.

Contemporary Bible design in some instances is like trying to teach a pig to dance.  It’s a waste of the teacher’s time and it irritates the pig.  Nobody comes to a saving knowledge of Christ because of the color of ink or the page layout – but by being able to read, hear and understand God’s Word without distraction.  Changing type, especially in a text passage, diminishes readability.

Did it take you longer to read that passage?  Ultimately, readability is what's important.

Please note, this type of project is not for the faint of heart.  It took 18 months!