Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1149: The Leadership Crisis in the Church: Dr. J.R. Woodward

Episode Date: February 1, 2024

JR Woodward, PhD (University of Manchester, UK) is a catalyst, author, and teacher. He is the national director of the V3 church planting movement. See jrwoodward.com. He's also the author of The Scandal of Leadership, which forms the backdrop of our conversation.  We discuss the need for polycentric leadership, the problems with hierarchical leadership, the temptation for church leaders to build their own kingdoms, why it seems like so many leaders are failing (or are they?), and how to make sure our churches are more focused on the kingdom of God than sustaining and building their own brand. Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw

Hey friends, the Exiles in Babylon conference is right around the corner, April 18th through the 20th in Boise, Idaho. All the information is at theologyintherod.com. If you do want to attend live, and I would highly recommend if you can afford it, if you have the time to come out to Boise, Idaho, attend the conference live. Space is filling up, so you want to register ASAP. We are tackling loads of really important and very controversial topics. We're talking about deconstruction and the gospel. We're going to hear from people who have had a journey of deconstruction. Tell us why they did so. We're going to hear from women, talking about women, power, and abuse in the church.

We're going to talk about LGBTQ people and the church. We're talking about different Christian views of politics. That should be loads of fun, if not really intense. And we just added a very important pre-conference symposium on the theology and politics of Israel-Palestine. And we're going to have different viewpoints represented. Various discussions are going to be engaged in with that really important conversation. So come to Boise. You can ask questions. You can engage the speakers, engage other people who are at the conference. It is loads of fun. It really is, I would say, the highlight of my year. So again, April 18th to the 20th at Boise, Idaho. Check out all the information at theologyintheraw.com.

Hey, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in Raw. My guest today is Dr. J.R. Woodward, who received his PhD from University of Manchester. He is the co-founder of Missio Alliance and the national director for V3 Church Planting Movement. Okay, this episode is all about church planting and church leadership. J.R. is the author of several books, including Creating a Missional Culture, The Church as Movement, and his recent book, The Scandal of Leadership, which is a really fascinating book that wrestles with a lot of academic themes surrounding what church leadership should look like. So please welcome to the show for the first time, the one and only J.R. Woodward. All right. Hey, JR. Thanks for coming on Theology in Iran, man. I'm excited to meet you in person. We have a mutual friend in Dan White Jr. So tell him I said hi if you talk to him before I do.

I will. I will. He's still out in the Caribbean, right? Hanging out? He's in Puerto Rico. Yeah. Yeah out in the caribbean right hanging out he's in puerto rico yeah yeah doing the caneo center yeah yeah i've had people um he was on last time he's been on a couple times i want to say a couple years ago and i've actually had listeners that have gone out there and done his is it like a spiritual retreat or the late i'm not sure the language he uses um yeah yeah i mean i think like healing and restoration for especially for people working in ministry in different areas. And yeah, it's really kind of a healing, holistic time, you know?

Yeah. Yeah. There can be individual group retreats. Yeah. I think I had some pastors that went out there after hearing them on the podcast. And so, yeah. Yeah. So it sounds like an awesome setup.

I think we need a lot more of that. I want to get to, I mean, that kind of is related to what we're going to talk about, ecclesiology and leadership. Both are areas of, I mean, your academic expertise, but also your passion, I know. Let's go back and let's just talk about the V3 movement. What is it? And what was the motivation in your heart in particular and why you wanted to start this thing? Yeah, yeah.

So, well, I've been a church planter for like 25 years. So my first church was at Virginia Tech on the East Coast. And then my next few plants were in the Los Angeles area. I lived kind of in East Hollywood. And so I became a Christian and a church plant. And I think church planting is always something that I just thought was a natural thing to do, to see the kingdom continue to grow and expand. And so I was looking to potentially go up to San Francisco and plant, but then I had some

hesitation. And so kind of to discern that, I went up there for a couple of weeks and I met with like 10 different planters from people who've been there three months to 10 years, from the smallest to one of the largest in the city. And the last guy I talked to, I don't even remember his name, to be honest, but he was a guy who connected with Dallas Willard pretty early after Willard wrote The Spirit of the Disciplines or something. And Willard said to him, I know this spiritual formation thing works for me individually, but maybe you can see how it works for your whole congregation. So this guy was kind of early on in that spiritual formation thing. And so when I met with him, like he just kind of asked me questions the whole time instead of me asking him.

And by the end, he goes, you know, when you talk about this, your face really lit up or he kind of just gave that type of feedback. And then he shared this story about St. Francis, which I've tried to find if it's valid or not, but I'm not quite sure if it could be true. Could not be. And but apparently St. Francis was trying to discern his future, whether he should be an itinerant preacher or go and or just kind of stay in one place. And so he went to his trusted friends and asked them to discern on his behalf. And so they prayed, came back and said, we think you should be an itinerant preacher. He says, thanks be to God. And that's what he did. And so that story kind of was one of the ways that God was speaking to me.

He's like, I don't really want you to make this next decision. ways that God was speaking to me. He's like, I don't really want you to make this next decision. Like, I want you to go and find trusted friends and let them decide what your next thing is to be. So I kind of wrestled through that for a while. I wasn't that comfortable with that. But then I thought, okay, like, who would I have at night? I thought of about seven people with at least one contrarian thinker by the name of David Fitch. I figured if they all agreed, I could take it as from God. If they didn't, I would go back and take all that counsel into consideration. And so I said, I can stay in LA and continue to plant, go to San Francisco and plant, give myself over to helping church planters, or maybe there's another option. And through a long process, they all kind of discern, we think you should

help train church planners. Long story short, it was probably within a couple of weeks, I get a call from the Virginia Baptists who were looking for someone to head up their church planning. So it's like a 200-year organization, but they were really just starting a little bit of a new thing, wanting somebody to give their full-time attention to it. And so they really just gave me a whiteboard, do what you need to do. Here's some resources and build a team. And that was kind of the beginning of V3. And every kind of movement, there's kind of this acronym that called CARTS,

does things like coaching, assessment, recruiting, training, and supporting. And so I had to really decide which of these do I start with. And I felt like coaching and training were the two things that you could really build a sense of maybe a community and dynamic there. And I was, this was back in about 11 years ago. And this was back in about 11 years ago. And at that time, I would say church planting boot camps was the most popular way that church planters got trained. Five days, seven days, we'll just give it all to you as if you're going to know how to plant a church. And so I just felt like, man, I feel like we need a couple of years. So we did these nine-year training week to week, coach with planters in a group setting.

And it was like six months later, I brought Dan on, started to build a team. We developed it together and started yeah, and started it off. And so that's how a little bit of the origins of V3. What is that? It's about 10 years old. Is that right? Yeah. Okay.

What are some of the, I guess, the main kind of ecclesiological values that go into V3? Like what would a V3 church look like that would look different than another church next door? That's great. Yeah. Good question. Yeah. I mean, there's a lot of ways to explain that. I feel like,

but one of the ways I like to maybe the more holistic way is like a grounded spirituality, a missional theology and a movement ecclesiology. And I think each of these three have like some different dynamics to them. So when I think about a grounded spirituality, I'm really talking about the leader themselves. I kind of take the Lord's prayer as a way to kind of look at what a grounded spirituality looks like. That first part of the prayer, a rooted identity, the vocational faithfulness that deals with thy kingdom come,

this kind of contrast community that I think when he's talking about our daily bread and debts and forgiveness, I think we're dealing with relationships and economics and all of that. Spiritual formation in particular, as it relates to how the powers try to subvert our leadership, you know, the deliver us from the evil one. And then what I would say is the canonic leadership. And so in the very Lord's prayer, you know, I see the potential problem of leadership. It's interesting that, you know, at least tradition as on, you know, to thine be the kingdom, the power, what is it? For thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever and ever. Yeah, sorry. So, but the point is like, this comes right after

lead us not into temptation or deliver us from the evil one. And so I think the greatest temptation is to build our own kingdoms by our own power for our own glory. And so, you know, and that's, it's a very big temptation for church planters. Church planters tend to be go-getters, you know. big temptation for church planters. Church planters tend to be go-getters. Yeah. Okay, so this opens up a whole other... I mean, we can't talk about ecclesiology without talking about leadership and leadership

without ecclesiology, so let's just kind of tackle both of these, I guess, because I know this is... you wrote a pretty large academic book on church leadership, which I, as a fellow academic, I so appreciate it because i think some church leaders this is gonna make sure it sounds not negative like a lot of church leadership

books let me just say maybe aren't as academic as yours yours is a thick book and you're wrestling with uh you integrate um walter wink uh his work renee gerard, William Stringfellow. We talked offline about, dude, this guy's a hidden gem, Stringfellow. Um, yeah, yeah. Uh, and, uh, who was Oscar, um, Oscar Romero, Oscar Romero. So, I mean, is this party, is this part of your dissertation? Cause you did a PhD in Manchester, right? So is this, yeah, yeah, yeah. I was, I did my PhD at University of Manchester and yeah, this, uh, book is, book is based on that. It's a bit more than that. Yeah. But yeah, the research from that is a core element of this book. And I'm really kind of seeking to give a deeper diagnosis to the problem of domineering leadership in the church. Yeah.

leadership in the church. And I realized in order to kind of give a more meaningful remedy, we have to go beyond just a psychological and sociological analysis of the problem, but maybe look at it from a theology of the powers, because they shape the social and the personal, in my opinion. But given like the current plausibility structure that most of us live, developing a theology of the powers becomes a very huge task to undertake. So that's where Wink, Gerard, and Stringfellow become some important dialogue partners. Can you sum up, I mean, this is probably impossible to do, but can you sum up as briefly as you can, kind of the gist of what you're getting at in that book? Because I found, I haven't read the whole thing, but as I was reading that, this is fascinating. I've never

seen a church leadership book integrating these thinkers in particular, but these kinds of thinkers and also addressing the issue of, um, well, like what you said, that there's a, there's a spiritual warfare going on specifically targeting leaders and encouraging them to build their own kingdoms. And, and I've is, is obvious as that should be. I've never thought about it from that angle. So what, yeah, what, what did, what's, how would you summarize your, your passion for this idea of, of a more upside down view of leadership? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I think like I, maybe some ways is kind of defining leadership to begin with. I kind of look at leader as identity, like our being, how do we develop a sense of self, our practice or our doing in and in particular, how do we use power,

and then our telos, kind of what we're ultimate aim, what we're becoming and where we're leading people to, which ideally is life in God and the kingdom of God, or new creation. And so, if that's kind of what leadership is all about, I would also say, you know, kind of based on, maybe you're familiar with James K. Smith, kind of desiring the kingdom and so forth. But, you know, here he talks about like, he articulates a philosophical anthropology that understands humans, not just people as thinkers shaped by ideas, people as believers shaped by faith, but also, and most importantly, people as lovers shaped by desires. And so I do think what's most importantly, people as lovers shaped by desires. And so I do think what's most important about us as people is our desires. And so Gerard is really

the doctor of desire. And what Gerard would say is that we don't self-generate our desire, but we mimic the desire of our models. So whoever we look up to, that's where we gain our desires. Now, you know, and he kind of discovers this through, first through some of the great novelists, but then he looks through anthropology, mythology, and other. He was a historian with his kind of earned PhDs. He got six conferred PhDs as well. Six? Wow.

Yeah. earned PhDs. You got six conferred PhDs as well. But, um, yeah, but Gerard, like, uh, so I, what, what I'm kind of doing is kind of, uh, trying to, in the words of kind of weak to name unmask and, and so that we can engage the powers and, uh, and even kind of understanding how do we understand the powers? And when I say powers, I'm kind of talking about Satan, the demonic, and the principalities and powers. And I like to distinguish those. I think that the principalities and powers were created good, are fallen, and can be redeemed. I think that Satan and the demonic are more emergent realities that have no path to redemption. And so, and again, like through a pretty detailed look at Wink and Gerard, and I use like Matthew Kraussman, like really you could say Gerard kind of deconstructs Satan into this memetic cycle, which we can talk about, whereas Kraussman reconstructs Satan through his study of the body of sin and the emergence of that in Romans 5 through 8.

Kraussman's over at Yale, the faith professor over there. And so, yeah, I'm kind of doing a lot with these concepts, but ultimately maybe Stringfellow kind of puts a very practical bent on this. And he would talk about the principalities. So I'm talking about here the principalities and powers in particular as image, institution, and ideology. And so when you think about image, he talks about this probably the most common principality. He talks about like Marilyn Monroe. There's Marilyn Monroe the person and Marilyn Monroe the image. And so the public image is a principality. And so as with any idol, image seeks full devotion.

And it's in conflict with us until we fully give ourselves over to it. So the principality demands that the person of the same name give up his life as a person to the service and homage of that particular image. And so when that surrender is made, the person, in fact, dies, but not physically. For that point, they're literally possessed by their own image. So in my sense, we either possess our image in God or we'll be possessed by our image. be possessed by our image. And I think even with all of the, you know, being Twitter and all the different things that makes image even more of a powerful thing in our life. And then institutions is another thing that kind of, again, they seek ultimate allegiance. And so most of us look for meaning in our life through our work, which typically takes place in some kind of institution.

And according to Stringfellow, the guiding moral principle of an institution, be it a university, a corporation, or a church, is really the persevering of the institution. And then it's demanded by everyone who lives within its sphere of influence that they commit themselves to the service of that end, the survival of the institution. But when the institution exists, not for something greater than itself, but for its own survival, then he would say it becomes demonic. And all of those that live under its domain kind of is an invitation to bondage instead of freedom. And the church is an institution in that way as well. And then, yeah, but go ahead. Sorry, you give it. Stop me anytime.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, we might have to go back and unpack principalities and powers for somebody who maybe isn't familiar. They've read the phrase in Ephesians and like, wait, what? What? Like, what are we talking about?

But institution, this is fascinating. Are you saying, or are they saying, and I guess you summarizing or agreeing with that, the very concept of an institution, is it, it's not neutral? Like, is there some kind of intrinsic negativity? Or I don't want to say evil might be too strong, but it's not just an institution, including the church in as much as it reflects institutional qualities, can have an intrinsically negative quality to it? Or help me understand, maybe. Yeah, great. Yeah, thank you for that. Super good. And probably the best place to look here is like

Colossians 1, 15 through 20, and some of the details there. But I would say that institutions were created by God. Like whether like whether it's legal institutions, government, all of these things are to kind of bring a sense of order out of chaos, right? And so they were created good. In our current state, they are fallen. And when they're fallen, they're open to the demonic. And there is a visible and invisible reality to institutions, to all institutions. And real quick, open to the demonic in a unique way? I mean, in a sense, everything's open. Pigs are open to the demonic, according to Mark. Yeah, yeah.

But is there something kind of particularly attractive to the demonic realm about institutions and if that makes sense yeah like well i mean maybe uh i i don't uh you know it's a little bit more powerful an institution than individuals so yeah individuals are open but also institutions But when it happens in an institution, there's that collective nature that seems to have a greater impact. It's a stronger force, if you will, I would say, because, well, let's just kind of take, I think we can see some evidences of how racism has affected affected different institutions and how that how how how it you know the evil is is even more uh hideous and overwhelming when an institute when it's kind of embedded in the institution um can you define institution just briefly when does something cross over from not being an institution to being an institution or is that is that a fuzzy line i i think it's a very interesting question

i think it's uh one because a lot of people i number one like i i'm not one who thinks that institution in itself is again like the principalities and powers are created good fallen and can be redeemed so for me institution isn't the problem probably institutionalism is the problem sometimes people make institution negative I don't hold that perspective. I think you could say that there's a weak sense of institution and a strong sense of institution. And I'll give you a couple examples. A weak sense of institution, and I think this would be, you know, by theorists would say, this would be, you know, by theorists would say, I kind of mentioned this in my first book, Creating a Missional Culture. But when you have two or three people doing something regularly over a period of time, you have a weak sense of institution. That would be

an institution. But then you also have something like Harvard, which is a college or university that's been around for a couple hundred years or whatever. And it's much more of established and formal institution, right? So that would be kind of a strong institution. This kind of three or four people meeting over a regular period of time would be a weak sense of institution. And there'd be things in between that. Obviously, our government has been around for for a while so it's just kind of a strong institution some churches been are just starting so they're an institution but weak but then there's others that have been around for a couple hundred years or more and so the the nature of institution maybe is its longevity and and maybe

its uh size and influence uh maybe speak to the weakness and strength of an institution. So churches can be a weak institution or a strong institution. Would you say if it, if it's, if it's fallen into a strong institution, are you seeing just red flags or are strong? No, no,

no, no. Like, so, and maybe the best way is that when I say institution is a principality, again, keep in mind, no. And maybe the best way, when I say institution of principality, again, keep in mind, I'm saying these are created good, but they're fallen and they can be redeemed. So institution of any type can be redeemed. What I would say is it becomes demonic when it seeks its own survival instead of existing for something beyond itself. So even the church is to seek the kingdom first.

If the church seeks its own self first, it becomes more demonic, in my opinion. Just like we ourselves seek the kingdom first, the church is to be about the kingdom of God in whatever place it is. The moment it becomes about itself, it opens itself up to the demonic. Now, every church is going to say it's about the kingdom of God. I know. And this is the slyness of how the powers work, right? So we have to just be brutally honest with that and as much as our conscious and much as we can be aware of why we exist. So you come into a church, they say, all right, JR, we want you to come in, evaluate our institution

and make sure we're not falling prey to demonic powers. You got a key to every door, to every office. You can talk to anybody you want. You can, yeah, just let us know, evaluate us and tell us whether we are falling prey to the powers in our institution. You're lighting up. You're like, oh, I would love to do that.

What are some things you're – what are some – okay, so again, churches are – every church is going to say, of course we're for the kingdom of God. Everything we do is for the kingdom of God. What are some things you would identify that would tangibly show that maybe there are some areas that are betraying maybe that mission? No, that's a good question. I haven't been asked to do that, but I have done kind of just health assessments of churches. And I probably look at leadership. I look at how they approach mission. I look at the culture of the congregation. And when I look at the culture, you're kind of looking at also the underlying assumptions that the congregation has.

I think you could look at the artifacts that, you know, whether it's the building, the place, the websites, whatever type of artifacts are there, I would interview people. And I think through learning, you kind of learn what people are trusting and, again, what their underlying assumptions are, how they're living those out. they're living those out. And again, like all of us, you know, individually and collectively, you know, we face the spiritual warfare for the desires of our heart, right? Where is our ultimate desire? Is it for God and his kingdom, or is it for ourselves? Is it for something else? These are not easy things to discern, but it would have to take a pretty broad analysis. And I would probably just make suggestions based on what I discovered through that analysis. I don't think I go in kind of looking for a particular thing. I think it becomes evident through the,

you know, assessment. Let me ask it a different way. What are some common characteristics of a church that has fallen into really negative institutions? Yeah, I think like, if they're like survival oriented, like, oh, we're just trying to survive. That can be a flag to be concerned about. Like if they got into a building that's – say they're – this actually happens a lot, right? They're growing, they're growing, they're growing. And then they say, we need a bigger building. So they invest, let's say, $10 million into a building that's still bigger than what they need at the moment. But given the trajectory of growth, they're like, well, by the time we build this building, we're going to be able to fill it, you know, whatever.

And then, I don't know, you know, a pandemic hits or pastor preaches a sermon that people don't like and, um, or, uh, uh, uh, a new church shows up and people kind of drift over there or there's economic downturn, you know, something interrupts that pattern of growth. So now they're in this building where it's like, oh my gosh, we need 300 more people to come regularly. Hopefully at least 10% of them will be giving at least 5% of their income. To make budget, we need to do that. Is that it?

Yeah. I'm sure this is not a fictitious scenario. No, no, no. Is that an example of a church that has gotten into survival mode? It's potential, right? I think it depends at that point what they're trusting in, right? And so if they're starting to think competitively, say with other churches, or if there's this

kind of undue pressure, those can be things that can push them toward that direction. But obviously, we could face challenges and tests and trust God with that and do it in a healthy way. challenges and tests and trust God with that and do it in a healthy way. But those would be things that could potentially push you to trust yourself instead of trusting God. I think there's always a choice involved there. I think when we're overly concerned for church growth or survival can it's always going to lead to the potential the temptation to uh in a sense like to what was the i think the archetypical temptations of jesus might speak to kind of the issue we're talking about here uh the political temptation where jesus uh the devil goes like hey i'll give you all these kingdoms uh just put it out to me. Like this is kind of the temptation

what we're talking about is building our kingdom, but in the way, not in the way of God, in the way of the devil. There's either it's the way of God or it's the way of the devil. There is no middle course, in my opinion. The devil and the ways of the world are sometimes what we're taught as Christians to do.

So we sometimes mimic the business world and we uncritically bring it into the church world and is that there is no kind of trying to discern what is good and what is bad. We can learn from everywhere. All truth is God's truth, but we must kind of critically engage everything, and we need to look at the underlying assumptions that different ways of the world kind of bring to us, because there is a way of the world, and there's the way of Christ. And the temptation for Christ was just to bring the kingdom, not in the way that the Father was wanting him to, but in the way the devil was inviting him to. And so we will always have that invitation. And it will not just come knocking at our door once, it will come multiple times. And the situation that you presented is a very keen time for that temptation to come. That doesn't mean that that church would necessarily fall to it at that time.

But it's much more of a temptation, I would say. You mentioned something in passing that I just want to kind of follow up on that. And I want to make sure I understand you correctly because it made sense. And again, I'm trying to be really careful with my wording here um that the the same kind of personality that might attract somebody to church planning i mean you got to be you got to be you can't be a a passive non-ambitious introverted well maybe you can be a person you know like church planners are attract go-getters they're entrepreneurial they want to build something right they're they're rolling the

dice they're taking risks uh they don't they want to in a sense and i don't say this nate this is my personality like they don't they they want to be the boss not answer to a boss um and i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Um, I've been an independent person now for over 10 years and I can't imagine, like, I love it. I love waking up and doing what I want to do and not going to do what somebody else has told me they want me to, you know, like, um, it could be bad. It could be terrible, you know what I mean? I don't think it's intrinsically bad.

So, but, um, it is, have you found that the same kind of personality that attracts somebody to want a church plant also opens up maybe some unique temptations to want to build their own kingdom? Because they do have this kind of drive, this entrepreneurial spirit. Is that a correlation there? I don't want to – No, I think it's a great question. And maybe you've even seen studies where they talk about narcissism in the church and how many pastors are narcissists. It's a breeding ground for narcissists. I feel like – but think about it. Like what's a successful pastor?

Somebody who grows a church and preaches great sermons and can make people feel good and is it is not passive and shy and meek like he's on state like it takes a lot to get on stage narcissist right there's kind of this and i think not everybody likes to be on stage as a narcissist i'm not saying that but yeah no no no no yeah and so you know at v3 one of the i'll kind of wrap in our v3 element too but uh you know one of the things that we look at is the fivefold, the apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher. And, you know, I think apostolic, the apostolic gifted person is kind of likely to be a good church planter. I think any of the fivefold can plant. They'll just plant differently at different paces in different ways. But maybe your typical planter today would probably be apostolic or

evangelist. These are very outward-oriented gifts. They tend to have a level of confidence and so forth, faith looking forward. There's a little bit of outward orientation, which is needed. And I think the downside is, you know, I think, you know, apostolic evangelists tend to tend to be fairly confident type people. And so the difference between having confidence in God and confidence in self, you know, Paul, Paul was an intelligent man. He was a super capable builder of the church. He was an expert builder, we're told in Corinthians, but he didn't trust in himself. He learned to trust in God. My sufficiency doesn't come in myself, but it comes from God. And I think that becomes an important element for the, if you want to say like natural leader, the temptation of the

natural leader is to live in the natural and not to trust and abide in the spirit as we should do. And without the dependence on the spirit, we're going to, you know, be prone to a lot of problems. Yeah. Yeah. Again, that's something that's easy to say, but it's like tangibly, are we, are we doing that? It's hard to, hard to identify sometimes.

Are we operating like operating in our flesh to build their own kingdom or operating in the spirit to build God's kingdom that can tangibly look exactly the same on paper. Right. I mean, yeah, yeah. That's like the,

the fruit could look very similar. It can be super hard to discern uh i i do think that um that there are some signs that can kind of uh you know help us like uh again when i kind of get to the remedy i kind of look at like philippians through giardian lens and in particular i'm kind of trying to understand philippians to this kind of get to the remedy, I kind of look at Philippians through a Girardian lens. And in particular, I'm kind of trying to understand Philippians 2, this kind of whole canonic journey that Jesus takes. What does that mean? But at the very beginning, it says, consider others more important than yourself.

That's a pretty simple thing to consider. Now, that does have complications when we're kind of in the flow of life and we're thinking through our relational connections. And am I considering this person first? And the complication comes too, because what if there's needed correction here? And how does that put that person first and so forth? i don't it's not there's always a need for discernment and uh i think this is why we need other people in our lives one of the things that we really encourage at v3 is polycentric leadership as opposed to just hierarchical uh so shared leadership okay uh yeah that you know polycentric just means poly, many, centers. And so even V3, like I didn't want to do this by myself.

So I invited Dan and now we have Jesse. And the three of us kind of lead this together. And so sometimes I'm leading and sometimes I'm following. I think that's important. One of the problems has when you're a solo leader, and my first book kind of addresses, you know, hierarchy, flat versus polycentric. And I would say when you think about hierarchical, it leads to a controlling leader.

Spiritual formation tends to be more pragmatic and individualistic because you just have one leader who's kind of an example. And mission tends to be extractional, meaning oftentimes we're extracting people from their place of mission to come to our gathering because it tends to be a Sunday-centric oriented place. And how many people come to our gathering tends to be the measure of success. And so we're actually sometimes extracting them from their place of mission as opposed to blessing them in their space. On the other hand, you have flat, which is a reaction, which sometimes is absent of leadership. It tends to lend itself to more of a fuzzy, unfocused sense of spiritual formation. And I find oftentimes stagnant when it comes to mission.

Polycentric is really just shared leadership. It models communal formation. Like we don't form just by our individual selves. We're always kind of formed by other people. What do we usually say when someone needs healing and wholeness? It happens in community. Join some type of community group. And yet oftentimes leaders have no community. If you look at all of the fallen leaders that we've seen, they're very much isolated selves that no longer can live under the rules that they're asking everybody else to live under. And so shared leadership by nature demonstrates and models a type of community under Christ that can be mimicked by those around. And I think that leads to

multiplication of mission because, you know, in some ways, every leader has a chance to actually live on mission as well. Because if you're just a sole leader, you have to take care of so many different things within the church. You probably have a hard time being outside of the church, connecting with everyday people who don't know Christ. But if you have multiple leaders sharing responsibilities, we each have opportunity to be living a mission in our neighborhood, in our networks, and making a difference and being an example. And there's nothing more important than being an example when it comes to what leadership is. That's kind of what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 5. to what leadership is. That's kind of what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 5.

Hey friends, Preston here. I just received the coolest message from a Theology in the Raw listener, and I wanted to share it with you. Take a listen to this. I'm Ashlyn, and I'm a Theology in the Raw listener. I was listening to a podcast and heard Preston talk a little bit about when you're in ministry and you're teaching scripture, the importance of biblical languages. And I felt really compelled by that. I've always been interested in biblical languages. And I tell my students all the time, like context is key. And so much of that lies within the biblical languages. And I was praying, I was like, okay, Lord, I want to learn the biblical languages for an affordable price in an environment that's conducive to my

stage of life, where I'm at and what I need. And I kid you not, the next podcast I clicked on was advertising Kairos. And it was just a perfect opportunity. Checked all of my boxes of not homework heavy, very practical based on learning, not on passing tests, very much the way that I learn. And there was an opportunity to take a class on a Friday morning in my own home online. And it's just been so practical and so effective and so helpful. And it's been really cool just how fast you begin to pick up on it because it is so practical. So if you have been wondering if you should learn the biblical languages, if that's something that you would benefit from, the answer is yes. You will always benefit from gathering more context into the scriptures that shape the entirety of our

life and our belief system. And it's not as complicated as I think we can make it out to be, or as daunting as we make it out to be. the way that the teachers teach and the way that the class is oriented, the way that the homework is, is it's very practical, it's very digestible, and it's little by little. It's fun, you know, whenever you actually get to see progress so soon, the way that it's wired is you're not waiting months upon months upon months to grasp a language because this isn't something that you're learning to speak or write necessarily. You're reading and understanding and recognizing. It's a lot more practical than it may come across and it's definitely worth it. You should definitely check it out. It's been a

really great decision for me. It's so awesome when we get to bring to you the Theology in the Raw Family resources that actually make a big impact in your life. And Kairos Classroom has quickly become one of those resources that I hope you'll check out by visiting www.kairosclassroom.com. And don't forget to use our special code TITR. That's kairosclassroom.com with the code TITR. With your model of shared leadership, communal leadership, polycentric, do you believe in like a first among equals? I've heard people use that phrase that we are all equal and yet there still might be one particular leader who's still at the end of the day, not in a hierarchical way, but maybe more of an, what would be the opposite? If he's first among... Yeah, yeah,

no, no. So you bring a good question so uh i'll kind of give you something that like i'm gonna give you a non-church example first switzerland has seven presidents seriously um yeah and they've had it for like 150 years how did i not yeah i'm pretty sure it's switzerland sweden or switzerland but i'm pretty sure switzerland uh we can double check on that. But yeah, seven presidents, they have equal authority, but they have one point president. They don't get more and more votes or more say, but they do kind of are the kind of point person for that year. And that rotates around. And so if you kind of think of like a polycentric leadership, if you think of the geese who fly in a V,

there's the point geese, but the point geese doesn't stay there. They rotate around. So they kind of take that wind for a little while, but then they can't endure that for so long. So somebody else rotates in. Or think about a jazz band, like a jazz band where you have people that play these different instruments. They're all super great musicians. If they get in the groove, a good jazz band will just start kind of different instruments will lead out at different times just intuitively because they know each other. I think that's kind of like an ideal picture of how polycentric leadership works. So yeah, I would say at points you always have somebody leading and somebody following, but there's a collectiveness and not every decision has to be done by everybody. You kind of decentralize as much as you can anyway. But when you're kind of building, dealing with important issues and

so forth, you probably want to have somewhat of a sense of what the spirit is for everybody. Now, again, this is one of those things that makes total sense when you explain it. It looks good on paper, and I think a lot of people strive for it. Have you seen this work out in practice well? Yes and no. I would say every form of leadership has its challenges. And I think that shared leadership, if leaders are not healthy, it will create more rivalry when you have shared leadership. It just kind of does that. But at the same time, like rivalry will happen in a hierarchical leadership as well. So I think the danger of solo leadership

is kind of what we see happen in the church all over the place today, right? We know that hasn't been working well. I think, again, my book, Creating Mission Culture, really takes the most time in that, making a case for polycentric leadership. But I look at it theologically, I look at it scripturally, I look at it emotionally, just through five different angles. And then I look at the

fivefold as a way to kind of these five types of uh leaders working together uh being important but yeah it has its challenges no doubt does it can it work yes you know v3 we they and i've been leading it for a while jesse now is a part of it. Sometimes we have people come in and out. But those who practice and have a mutual humility, that's what's needed. You kind of constantly need the humility, but you're constantly in community as leaders. I think it's ideal. It's not always easy, but it's, it's, it's a great check and balance, uh, for leaders lives.

Um, and I, I think it's sorely needed today. Like we, we definitely need something other than what we have right now. In my world, at least, and I live in a weird subset of evangelicalism when, when people talk about, yeah, their evangelical experience. I'm like, I, that's just's just not the world I live in. I don't know. So I feel like everybody, pretty much everybody I know

in the church leadership world would all be for, to me, it's just a done deal. It's like two plus two equals four and you shouldn't have a top-down CEO model. Like CEO leadership is just a negative phrase. And again, I mean, people can say that and fall into something that they say they're not doing so i don't i don't want to say in practice it's all perfect but uh idea of kind of communal humble uh leaders that are leaning on

each other and not being isolated to me that's just a given it's almost like wait that's not the norm out there um so i guess my question is that's not the norm out there like like is the top down ceo model still a thing out there i know it is oh yeah yeah i i think it's pretty common uh i would say senior pastor or lead pastor maybe the more common thing now uh i mean that's you know i gotta see that a lot yeah and but but but like yeah not like not when i when i say a genuinely policy i i think a lot of our planters are living you know seeking to live into that maybe 60 percent uh do that but uh and that's with us purposefully helping them because it is not what people have been exposed to kind of what i'm talking about like in a genuine shared way that that's not, it's just, it hasn't been modeled for us as a whole. Joe Hellerman, Hellerman.

Yeah. Embracing shared ministry. He's got a great, great book on that. I love him. Yeah. Yeah. He's great. I mentioned him a number of times in my last couple of chapters. Oh, cool. Yeah. Yeah. So what's going on in, in do we have a crisis of, of failing leaders in the church today? Here's, I guess, it seems like every time you turn around, you have some scandals, some, something happens, or at the very least, you know, a burnout, you know, I think there was a survey. Oh, gosh, was it burnout? i don't know like where you know it asked pastors if you could do something else would you and like it was it was a crazy high percentage just said well yeah of course i

would get a i just thought what am i gonna do this is how i earn a paycheck you know um and then all those scandals and and and adulteries and affairs and what or or narcissism and blowing up. Is it a crisis unique to our cultural moment or, or is it simply being exposed much more than we're used to through social media and, and anybody with a social media account can kind of blow the whistle or, you know, whatever. So have we always been living in this kind of crisis or is it,

we only hear the negative reports. This is the reports this is the this is something i've thought about like i again i know loads of humble godly pastors who don't need to be on stage they they they uh truly want to serve people in my own church i is a decent sized church two three thousand and yeah it's funny on paper it has a ceo model the the pastor it's a calvary chapel and from right here their model is the senior pastor has all unilateral authority and like like so my senior pastor could do whatever he wants without and he is the opposite like he he does not he he would give up the pulpit any day that he doesn't make you know he's like

delegates everything that other people like he's the most communal almost to a fault like he just like lets other even on paper he has all this power and he just says i don't i don't want that power that's sickening you know like yeah yeah yeah where am i going with this oh but he'll never make the news unless he unless he has unless he has an affair right right right right right yeah yeah and i know loads of people that like, like the loads of just humble godly pastors that are pastoring a church in the middle of Iowa, 200-person church or whatever. I'm not sure.

Yeah, yeah, no. You know what I'm getting at. So yeah, the question, do you find that we are in a unique crisis of leadership or are we just exposed to the small percentage of bad leaders that are out there? I think maybe what I'm kind of trying to say, it's more than just about individual people that we have to kind of consider and analyze the problem. I don't know if I would be – I, I, I couldn't give you an expert opinion on, uh, the question that you're asked, like, are we experiencing more of it or not?

Because all the nuances that you mentioned are there, right? It's hard to quantify. Yeah. Yeah. It's not a new problem. It's an old problem. Uh, Peter was addressing it in his book, uh, first Peter five, right? So like, it's been, people have been lording it over since the first century. I think it's always been a perpetual problem. And I think it potentially has the systemic elements to it and spiritual elements to it. And so I'm trying to say that all of us kind of should be more mindful of what is at work and what is seeking to subvert our leadership, because it can happen to any of us. None of us are immune to the temptations of the powers. That's really what I'm saying. And I do think that there may be some spaces today.

We talked about image institution. We didn't talk about ideology, which is another principality. But I would say image seems to be more powerful today because social media, right? We can project and our own image trying to, for us to live to our image and versus living in our image of god is much more of a temptation today than before because of our social media presence right we can be uh inauthentic selves uh in this case you know in a podcast in a tweet in whatever uh you know uh it's easier because we're not kind of day-to-day with the same people where it's much easier for people to turn what is real and what is not. Right. So I think we are in a time and a space where the potential for some of these

things may be greater than they have been in the past. And also the awareness greater of the problem. But, but it's not just a church problem. It's a societal problem. Sure. And, and it's not just a church problem it's a societal problem sure and and it's large and and i do think that with some of the problem comes with technology and the uh technology itself you know has is is kind of works with the principalities and powers and and strengthens them uh jackie little who i studied was huge on technology and very weary of it. McLuhan, after studying him for a little while, I'm more aware of both the positives and negatives of technology and the power that is much more maybe invisible to our eye and our thinking, but very, very effective on us. You know, it has a power over us that we often don't see. And that's what makes it even more powerful. And so in some ways,

I'm trying to, in the book, you know, The Scandal of Leadership, I'm trying to make visible what is often less visible to most people. With the social, that's interesting. And I think, how can you disagree? You know, like that you do have this temptation. Okay, so it's not limited to church pastors and leaders, but since that's what we're talking about, you do have this temptation to build a, let me use a neutral phrase,

or build a presence or have an influence that goes outside your local church responsibilities. Do you think that that is neutral or do you think that that should be warned against? I mean, take someone like Eugene Peterson. And I know he was really old when technology started really taking off and stuff. So you can blame it maybe on his age or whatever. But I think in principle, I think if he was alive today and in his prime, I don't think he would post his sermons on a podcast.

Yeah, probably not. Like when Bono reached out, he didn't even know who Bono was. It's the greatest thing ever you know he's like who some irish rock star all right yeah sure i'll i guess i let me let me let me pencil you into my calendar you know um but he was so focused on his even writing books like he did that primarily for his own church i think we're working on his own. You get the impression, he never once tried to build some kind of platform. That can be a negative term. Like have some massive influence outside his church, I mean, his church walls.

Now, God gave him that and he absolutely had a massive, he did have that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You get the impression that he never really cared or pursued that. Would your advice for leaders to kind of be there or would you say no like if you have influence have influence outside and and use the gifts god's on you because it's yeah yeah yeah i i i think like uh peterson and what i really appreciate about his work is i think he he understood how the powers work and he his awareness of that really shaped his practice and his heart and his desire. I think there's probably in us a natural and not necessarily negative desire to influence for the

good. I think that would be in all of us. And for that to expand as far as possible. Like for us, you know, we're trying to have movemental churches. Now, what that means, that's different than egotism. You know, it requires like, you know, the opposite. So, I mean, in a sense, people like Eugene Peterson and Dallas Willard, they didn't seek glory for themselves. They humbled themselves and God glorified them in the process and gave them influence. And so I think this is the challenge is like we are made to be kind of co-heirs with Christ and we're justified and we will be glorified. But what we don't realize is that

glory comes through humility. It's the way of the cross that actually God lifts up. There is no other thing that he lifts up. We lift up everything else. It's either us trying to lift ourself up or God lifts up those who are humble. So when Jesus was on the cross, what we see is that humility was exalted. And I think that's what we see in the life of Eugene Peterson. That's what we see in the life of like a Dallas Willard. And we are called to, you know, that canonic, humble, and obedient life that seeks God and His kingdom first. And I can say myself, I would love to be influential and help anybody and everybody come to know Christ, to have a life that's worth living and imitating, and however God would want to use that.

But how that comes about, and not seeking that for myself, but that's the tension part. And I think Dallas, for example, I mentioned him in my 10th chapter. I think Dallas, for example, I mentioned him in my 10th chapter. We were hosting a conference, and we had Dallas speaking, and I was kind of the emcee. Dallas, if you've kind of seen him speak or heard him speak, he's not like an impressive speaker. And so meaning like what I mean by that is like it's not like his oratory is, you know, fascinating to listen to and so forth. So anyway, he was finished speaking. I was supposed to introduce the question and answer time.

And while I'm sitting, I feel like the spirit is saying me to say something that I didn't want to say. But the spirit kind of continued to impress on me. So I get up and I kind of pat Dallas on the back and I say, Dallas, you know, you're not a great speaker. Like everybody's looking at me like I'm crazy. Like, JR, what are you saying? This is Dallas Willard. And like, gasp, you know, in the group. And then, but I go, I noticed that everybody was on the edge of their seat when they were listening, just waiting for the next word to drop. And the whole time he's like patting me on the edge of their seat when they were listening uh just like waiting for the next word to drop and the whole time he's like patting me on the back as if to say dear i understand what you're saying and he kind of told us like i purposefully uh try i mean he purposefully

kind of speaks in a more monotone voice and doesn't want to use kind of certain things to somehow pull people in but really allow the power of the spirit to move through him. Now, that's how he understood it. He never once did a book proposal. It was always people asking him. On the other hand, Eugene Peterson wrote book proposals, had them refused and did them. I don't think there's kind of one little message, but it's ultimately, are we kind of following this kinetic path and really looking at what's more important and trying to not build our sense of identity in the way that the world kind of dictates to us? Because I think that's the temptation. When you think about how Paul understood the canonic journey, I think he explains, you know, the whole book of Philippians, by the way,

it seems like a book about good models and poor models. Jesus is the ultimate model, Philippians 2. Then you have Timothy lifted up as a model, Epaphrodites. You have some poor models who were enemies of the cross. And then Paul himself lifts up as a model. But when he's giving his autobiography there, it's in the same format as kind of what they found, like 7,000 inscriptions in Philippi, which in Bible, in Philippi, the greatest commodity was

honor. There was nothing more great than prestige and honor. You know, Joseph Hellerman does a great job at pointing that out. And they had, the way they got their honors, there was a scribed honor and there was achieved honor, right? And the scribed honor is what they were born with. Achieved was what they achieved. And that was the order and even importance. Like your scribed honor was much more powerful because it was immovable. And so Paul, in addressing the Judaizers, he starts off like, hey, oh, you're talking about circumcision. Somehow this makes you greater than everybody else.

I was circumcised the eighth day. I was a tribe of Benjamin. You know, he starts in with his ascribed honor, and then he goes into his achieved honor. Hey, I was a Pharisee of the Pharisees. It was with the law. It was faultless. It was with the church.

I was, you know, a persecutor. All of those gained him a great sense of honor within his Jewish community at the time. And what did he say? I consider all of that garbage compared to knowing Christ, the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffering. He moved from this kind of domain of death where his identity was formed in a particular way that the culture kind of created. And he went to a whole different way. It was all about Christ. And I think what

we're talking about, you know, Jesus, although he was God, you know, did not consider that something to be grasped, did not try to hold on to that, did not use that to his own advantage is another way it talks about, but emptied himself. I think he was emptying himself of, he did not gain his sense of identity by the dictates of the world, or you could say Satan or the devil, right? The temptations. But before the temptations, what happened? This is my son in whom I'm well pleased. He was secure in his identity through the father and before he even started doing any ministry. And so I think when maybe the most important thing about us as leaders is where we get our sense of identity and what our telos is, because that will dictate our practice or our use of power. If our identity

in any way is kind of shaped, and I would say in general, Christian culture tries to misshape our identity and we get it by different accolades and so forth and so on. Not by, you know, you are the beloved son or daughter, you know, of God as what is foundational and what should ought to give us, you know, the greatest sense of joy and knowing God and knowing Christ and but his power in the suffering. But it's usually other things that that other accolades that we kind of rest our sense of identity on. I think that's what's dangerous. And I think that's what is perpetuated in the church. Oftentimes, it's something that Willard and Eugene were great examples that running away from. Yeah. That, uh, I didn't, I didn't know that about, um, actually I've heard that about Willard,

that he wasn't the most dynamic speaker, but I can only imagine being on the edge of your seat because of the character, really the character, the wisdom, like a person who so clearly desire the presence of God more than most, you know, and, and what that, what that breeds in somebody to be in God's presence so vibrantly. Um, I, and you want to hear from that kind of person, even if it is, uh, in, in, in without all the rhetorical flourish. I mean, especially this day and age, I feel like the more rhetorically persuasive somebody is, it's almost like the more skeptical people are. Like, what are you hiding?

You're too good. You know, like. Right, right, right, right. Okay, we were short on time here. And I have two very different controversial questions for you. I will throw them out and let you pick maybe one to give your thoughts on if you want.

First of all, we talk about church leadership. We haven't even mentioned women. And I would love your thoughts on if you want. First of all, we talk about church leadership. We haven't even mentioned women. And I would love your thoughts on that. Not to give a theological defense. I don't even know what your views are on women in church leadership. But would love, yeah, any thoughts you have on that. Or we are in an election year

and we are going into just – I mean we've been living in political or actually more specifically say partisan polarization that has wreaked havoc on the church. face all kinds of divisions and animosity during the last election season because you had people that had all these politicized views or whatever. We're going into another one that might be even more heated. The last time this happened, and not just last time, it was since the Civil War. We've had political divisions in the church.

In my generation, it seems like from 2016 on, it's just been really, really intense. I think social media plays a role there and there's just so many things going on. But I look back and it's like, has this been a failure of leadership? How have we not prepared our people

to be disciples of the kingdom and not let something like a three-inch mask divide the church? I write about this in my fourth coming book and it's like, how are we going to take on the principalities of the kingdom of darkness? If we can't even, if the blood of Christ isn't strong enough to unify us around a question about whether to wear a three inch mask on her face.

And I'm not even picking a side here on them. I'm just saying like yeah churches literally blood-bought churches celebrating the risen messiah who commands the universe and it stands at his attention that blood-bought organization spirit-filled couldn't hold it together over a mask that's i mean when you really think about it satan is doubled over a lot he's like you can't make this stuff up this is so easy this is easy like um we're going into another season and i do put responsibility on leaders to prepare our people to be disciples of the kingdom of god and not let the kingdom of babylon and all their partisan yeah you can probably i don't maybe i'm showing my hand a little bit too much on what I want you to address.

No, no, yeah. If you have thoughts on, on, on either one here, uh, women or,

I would just say I, from women and every role, I think we have women, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers of the scripture,

and we should have them today. Um, but, uh, to speak to the other one, like this divisiveness, I think is a super sad reality. I do think the powers are at work here, in particular through ideology. So I didn't get to talk about that, but that is probably the most recognizable principality.

I don't think that we realize, though, how ideology enslaves us and divides us. And so ideologies are these isms that take people, especially leaders, but whole groups captive. So there's communism, fascism, nationalism. These are maybe recognized principalities that dehumanize people. It's less likely for us to recognize humanism or capitalism or rationalism or democracy as potential fallen principalities. But all ideologies are principalities, and they have common characteristics in that they have absolute ties themselves, and they demand unconditional loyalty from the individual and society. They have their own account of sin and redemption. And so like any fallen principality, they claim ultimate allegiance.

And so every developed ideology has, you know, a sense of like, you know, creation, fall, and redemption. And this is kind of the problem is I think oftentimes that the third temptation that I talk about in the scandal of leadership is what Jacques Ellul calls the ideological religious temptation. And he kind of calls it the religious temptation and ideology because, first of all, it's by Luke's kind of order. Jesus is on the temple. He's in Jerusalem as a spiritual place. It's the only time where the devil comes to Jesus with the word of God itself as a temptation. Doesn't the, you know, the scriptures say you throw yourself from the temple and the angels will catch you, right? And so the scripture itself now is being used. So what is the temptation here? I think it's like when we are unknowingly shaped by an ideology, it shapes our very reading of the text.

And so when we're locked into captive to an ideology, whether it's a conservative or progressive, and you see it on both sides, You know, we demonize the other. And Girard would say, we know that we have been captive to an ideology when we demonize the other. And when do we demonize the other? We can no longer talk to them. We can no longer converse. There is no rational discussion anymore, right? Literally, we have kind of scapegoated the other. We've demonized them. I think that's when we know that we're captive to an ideology, not the kingdom of God, certainly not

the kingdom of God. That's not what Jesus learned to love his enemy. If there's anything that we need to learn today is enemy love. So I think it's difficult because like, you know, the issues we on one side, it's like, you know, this is kind of the most moral thing. On the other side, this might be the most just thing. And it's kind of that sense that overtakes us that. but again, I would say that I think it's ideologically driven when we can no longer converse. The moment we demonize others is probably we're under some shape of the powers at that point. It's a good way to discern if we're under the powers or not.

That makes so much sense. Yeah. And that is, that's leadership in the secular not. That makes so much sense. Yeah. And that is, that's leadership in the secular world. You demonize the other, you, you, you know, you tear that down to build yourself up. And it really has all these very secular Roman, you know, demonic, not Roman in the, as if that's something against the city of Rome, but like Roman in the first century, kind of this,

this grasping for power and domineering the other. Or just wanting to be right. Right. It's like, I, this kind of desire to be right. Not, not the, not this humility, not this kind of holding things lightly. Like, Hey, I have a pretty strong conviction about this, but I'm open. Why don't you come at me? You know, let me, let me know what you think. Where, where is that gone? I think it absolutely ruins any witness that we have hope to have, because what did Jesus say to

us? It will be by the love that we have for one another that they will know that you're my disciples, that they will know that I am the one the Father sent. Our unity and witness are wrapped up together. And so the devil will try to destroy that. And he's doing a great job and utilizing, you know, I think some political ideologies to divide the church as much as at any time. Yeah, absolutely. Man, we'd love to keep unpacking that because it's, I think it's going to be a huge – it is a huge already. It's been a huge issue in the church. I just – I really want leaders to, rather than respond – putting out fires after they're already raging, but like do some preemptive discipleship work in their congregations so that in a sense you're kind of protecting the flock against these ideologies that are that are screaming towards them that are trying to captivate their hearts and minds to get their

allegiance they i mean these ideology i love that the way you frame these ideologies that are demonically infused are actively trying to wrench your allegiance away from uh the risen savior toward whatever kingdom, alternative kingdom is out there, whether it's a Republican or Democrat or, or progressive, conservative, whatever. Like there,

there, there's, there is an aggression here, right? It's not just a neutral thing. Oh boy. Like people are off. Like there are,

yeah, there's, there's, there's, there's an aggression here that I think people need to understand how vigilant we need to be to protect ourselves from it. Yeah, because ideology is essentially idolatry. And idolatry, again, is the most formidable sin that we can commit because it speaks to where our allegiance is. And the moment like kingdom first isn't our allegiance.

where our allegiance is. In the moment, kingdom first isn't our allegiance. If it's country first, if it's party first, if it's whatever first, family first, all of those are false sense of kingdom first. Kingdom first is what it means to be a Christ follower. I think we need to

re-disciple ourselves and others toward that. You've got a great tweet pinned on your profile. Yeah. All these different firsts. What did you say? Family first is what nepotism and, and people first is racism.

Like a group, people group, people group, or in the country versus nationally. That's really good. Hey, JR, I've taken enough of your time.

Appreciate you, man. And your book, at least from what I've read and, and digested, Scandal Leadership is incredible. So I encourage people to check that out. Thank you so much for being on Theology on the Road. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.