Personal Reflections

The House Has a New Owner

/ pastorlynnmalone / 1 Comment

Since my mom died, my brothers and I have faced a task that eventually comes to almost every family: cleaning out her house.

There is nothing particularly unusual about cleaning out a house. You open drawers. You empty closets. You decide what to keep, what to give away, what someone else in the family might want, and what simply needs to be thrown away. Except when it is your mother’s house, nothing is quite that simple.

A drawer isn’t just a drawer. You open it and find something you remember from childhood. A closet contains clothes you still picture her wearing. A cabinet holds something you haven’t seen in thirty years, and suddenly you aren’t standing in an empty house anymore. You’re ten years old again.

Cleaning out Mom’s house brought floods of memories. But it also brought another realization. Life can become incredibly cluttered without us ever noticing it.

Very few of us wake up one morning and decide, “I think I’ll fill every drawer, closet and cabinet in my house with things I may never use again.” It just happens.

We put something in a drawer because we might need it someday. We move something to a closet because we don’t know what else to do with it. We keep something because it belonged to somebody we loved. We hang on to something because throwing it away feels wasteful. One thing becomes ten things. Ten things become a closet full of things. Eventually we stop noticing.

It isn’t necessarily bad stuff. Some of it is valuable. Some of it is sentimental. Some of it once served an important purpose. But somewhere along the way, the house became cluttered.

As we worked through Mom’s house, another thought slowly began forming in my mind. This is what Jesus wants to do with my house. Not the house where Vanessa and I live. Me. My spiritual house.

The House Gets a New Owner

When we come to faith in Jesus Christ, something far more significant happens than inviting Jesus into our lives. The house—my house—gets a new Owner. We deed the property to him.

Paul puts it rather bluntly:

“You do not belong to yourself, for God bought you with a high price.”
—1 Corinthians 6:19–20 NLT

The deed has changed hands.

But here’s where things get interesting. We still live in the house. And living in a house you used to own after someone else has taken ownership can get uncomfortable. Because the new Owner begins opening drawers.

“What’s this?”

Oh, I’ve had that for years.

“Do you need it?”

Well, no. But I’ve always had it.

Then he opens a closet.

Jesus, we really don’t need to go in there.

But he does.

Opening the Drawers

There are resentments we’ve stored away. Old wounds we’ve carefully boxed up. Ambitions we haven’t quite surrendered. Habits we’ve learned to live with. Attitudes we’ve stopped questioning. Fears we’ve carried so long that we think they’re part of the house.

Some things aren’t necessarily sinful at all. They simply no longer belong in the life Jesus is creating. And some things carry memories. That’s when cleaning gets difficult. Because Jesus isn’t sorting through somebody else’s house. He’s sorting through mine. He starts rearranging furniture.

Wait a minute. That chair has always been there.

“I know.”

I like it there.

“I know.”

Then why are you moving it?

“Because this is my house now.”

And there, I think, is much of the uncomfortable work of sanctification. By grace, we gladly gave Jesus the house. We meant it when we did. But we didn’t necessarily understand everything that new ownership would mean.

We knew about the things lying around in plain sight. Those were often among the first things we expected Jesus to change. But then he starts opening drawers. Then closets. Then boxes we haven’t opened ourselves in years. And sometimes he points toward a door and we realize we’ve been living in this house so long that we had almost forgotten there was a room behind it.

“I’d like to go in there.”

There?

“Yes.”

Why?

“Because it’s mine.”

The Whole House is His

That may be one way of understanding what we Wesleyans have traditionally called entire sanctification. It does not mean Jesus has finished cleaning the house. It means there are no rooms we knowingly refuse to let him enter.

There comes a point when we stop following him from room to room negotiating over every drawer and simply say, “The whole house is yours.”

And that is more than another step in the cleaning process. It is a moment of surrender—a decisive work of grace in which I quit deciding which parts of the house Jesus may have. By grace, I hand him every key I know I possess. I may not yet know everything stored in every room, but there is no room I knowingly reserve for myself. The question is no longer, “How much of this house will I let Jesus change?” The answer has become, “All of it. Whatever you want. Wherever you want to go. The whole house is yours.”

Not just the living room where everybody can see. Not just the rooms I’ve already cleaned up. The closets. The drawers. The attic. The boxes. The room at the end of the hall. All of it. Yours.

Ownership and Renovation

That surrender can be real and decisive. But it doesn’t mean the work is finished. In fact, it may mean the real work has only begun. Because complete ownership is not the same thing as completed renovation.

Tomorrow Jesus may open another drawer. Next year he may move another piece of furniture. Ten years from now he may show me something that has been sitting in a corner my entire life, something I have walked past ten thousand times without ever realizing it didn’t belong there. That’s not evidence that I never gave him the house. It may be evidence that he loves me enough to keep working on it.

John Wesley understood sanctification as both something God does decisively and something in which we continue to grow. There is a genuine surrender of ourselves completely to God, but there is also a lifetime of discovering what that surrender means.

Maybe that’s because we don’t know our own houses nearly as well as we think we do. We know the rooms we use every day. Jesus knows what’s behind the walls. And grace keeps working. Opening. Sorting. Cleaning. Repairing. Rearranging. Sometimes throwing away. Sometimes uncovering something beautiful that had been buried beneath years of clutter. And all the while, we are still living in the house.

Trusting the New Owner

Maybe that’s one reason sanctification can be uncomfortable. The old owner still has opinions about where the furniture ought to go. I certainly do. But I’m learning that the question isn’t whether I like every change Jesus makes. The question is whether I trust the Owner.

After all, he didn’t purchase this house in order to destroy it. He bought it because he loves it. And he intends to make it into what it was always meant to be.

So perhaps the prayer of sanctification isn’t nearly as complicated as we sometimes make it: Jesus, this house belongs to you. Whatever you find, whatever needs to change, whatever room I have yet to discover—remind me whose house this is.

As my brothers and I worked our way through Mom’s house, every drawer we emptied and every closet we opened made the house a little less like the house we had always known. That was tough.

Those things were part of her life. Our life with her. Some brought laughter. Some brought tears. Some made us wonder why in the world she had kept them. And some were almost impossible to let go. But eventually, everything had to be examined.

Maybe that’s what I didn’t understand about sanctification for a long time. When I gave my life to Christ, I gave him the house. But I brought a lifetime of stuff with me.

Jesus keeps cleaning, sorting and rearranging, not because he despises the house, but because he loves the person who still lives there. And perhaps that’s the grace I’ve begun to see differently. Jesus didn’t buy the house so he could throw me out. He bought the house so that, room by room, it might become a place shaped by his presence.

So, when he opens the next drawer, perhaps I don’t need to become defensive. When he points toward the next closet, perhaps I don’t need to hide the key. And when he decides the furniture needs rearranging, perhaps I can trust that he sees something I don’t.

After all, the house isn’t mine anymore. I still live here, but thanks be to God, I don’t live here alone.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

Why I Am an Evangelical Methodist

/ pastorlynnmalone / 2 Comments

People occasionally ask me why I am a member of the Evangelical Methodist Church, yet I pastor a Global Methodist congregation. It’s a fair question.

I spent more than twenty-eight years as a pastor in the United Methodist Church. I served churches large and small. I served for two years as a district superintendent. Methodism shaped me as a pastor and as a disciple, and I remain deeply grateful for many of the people and experiences that were part of those years. But today I am an ordained elder in the Evangelical Methodist Church. Why?

The answer begins with something very simple: They gave me a home when I didn’t have one.

When I Didn’t Have a Home

My introduction to the Evangelical Methodist Church came long before I ever imagined becoming part of it. In 1995, Rev. Dr. Fred Layman was one of my Supervised Ministry professors in seminary. Dr. Layman was a member of the Evangelical Methodist Church, and through him I learned for the first time that there even was such a thing as the EMC.

I wasn’t looking for another denomination. I was a United Methodist pastor and fully expected to remain one. The EMC was simply this little Methodist denomination that I learned about because one of my professors happened to be part of it. I certainly didn’t imagine that twenty-five years later it would become my denominational home.

In February 2019, I served as a delegate to the called General Conference session of the United Methodist Church. That experience became a significant turning point for me. After considerable prayer and discernment, I concluded that I could no longer remain in the denomination I had served for most of my adult life. By August, I had surrendered my United Methodist clergy credentials. What I didn’t have was somewhere else to go.

For almost a year, I was spiritually homeless. I still loved the Church. I still believed God had called me to ministry. I was still Methodist—Wesleyan down to my toes, as they say—but I no longer had a denominational home.

Then, in July 2020, the Evangelical Methodist Church gave me one. There is something powerful about being welcomed when you aren’t quite sure where you belong. The EMC received me, recognized my calling and ministry, and gave me a place to serve. I will always be grateful for that.

But gratitude alone doesn’t explain why I’m still here. Gratitude brought me through the door. Conviction is why I’m still here.

I Have Found a Theological Home

One of the things that increasingly attracts me to the EMC is its emphasis on Wesleyan holiness. In some ways, that attraction reaches all the way back to my childhood. I grew up next door to Pentecostal cousins, and occasionally I would attend worship with them. Those experiences made an impression on me. There was an expectancy about the work of the Holy Spirit that was different from much of what I experienced elsewhere. Then came the charismatic movement of the 1970s, right about the time I was coming of age. That movement reached even our little church in Chatham, LA.

So, from an early age I was exposed to Christians who believed there was more to the work of the Holy Spirit than simply getting us saved and getting us to heaven. They expected God to continue doing something in us. That stayed with me.

As I grew older and eventually entered ministry, however, I began to struggle with some elements of Pentecostal theology. In particular, I had difficulty with the emphasis on speaking in tongues as the evidence of a subsequent work of the Holy Spirit.

Wesleyan holiness theology eventually gave me another framework for understanding something that had attracted me for much of my life. The holiness tradition retains the expectation of a deeper work of grace. It has traditionally spoken of entire sanctification as a “second work of grace” or even a “second blessing.” But the emphasis isn’t on speaking in tongues. The emphasis is on holiness of heart and life.

God doesn’t merely want to forgive us. God wants to transform us. Grace isn’t finished with us when we are converted. The Holy Spirit continues working to make us more like Jesus. And there comes a place in the disciple’s journey where we are called to surrender ourselves fully to the sanctifying work of God.

I’m still working through exactly how I understand some of that language and how I understand it in my own experience. I can’t necessarily point to a particular date on the calendar and say, “There. That’s when it happened.” But I have become increasingly convinced that conversion cannot be the end of what God’s grace intends to accomplish in us.

One way I’ve come to think about sanctification is that when we come to Christ, the house gets a new Owner. Sanctification is the work of that new Owner opening closets, cleaning out drawers, rearranging furniture and sometimes showing us things we’ve kept around far too long. The goal isn’t merely that Jesus occupies a room in the house. The whole house belongs to him.

I find a theological home for that conviction in the Evangelical Methodist Church.

I Like Being Part of a Small Denomination

There is another reason I love the EMC that isn’t nearly as theological. It’s small. And I mean that as a compliment. Actually, there are only a few more congregations in the entirety of the United States than there were congregations in the district I served as District Superintendent in the UMC.

After spending most of my ministry in a large denomination, I’ve discovered something refreshing about being part of a denomination where it is possible to know one another.

I know our denominational leaders. They know me. They aren’t simply names printed beneath titles on an organizational chart. They’re people I can talk to, pray with, disagree with, eat with and call when I need something. There is something healthy about that kind of accessibility.

At our General Conference this summer, I was reminded again how much I value that. These aren’t distant denominational officials I know only by title. They’re brothers and sisters in ministry I actually know. Seriously, every congregation in the connection was represented. Every pastor was present. In all my years in the UMC, I never experienced anything like that.

Small doesn’t mean insignificant. And large certainly doesn’t mean bad. There are strengths and weaknesses that come with both. But at this stage of my life and ministry, I have discovered that I value relationships more than organizational machinery. I like knowing the people with whom I’m doing ministry. I like being known by them.

The EMC feels less like an institution I belong to and more like a family of churches and pastors with whom I share ministry. That matters to me.

I Like Simple

I also appreciate the relative simplicity of the EMC. I’ve spent enough years in church meetings to know that Methodists are capable of turning almost anything into a committee. And then appointing a subcommittee to study it. And then requiring a report from the subcommittee so the original committee can discuss it at the next meeting. Oh, and let’s not forget the potato salad—well actually, that part was good. But I don’t miss the endless meetings.

There is accountability in the EMC. There is structure. There are reports that have to be completed and meetings that need to happen. Any denomination needs those things. But the machinery doesn’t overwhelm the mission.

The paperwork is relatively simple and can be completed online in a matter of minutes. The denominational structure is relatively simple. There aren’t endless layers of meetings demanding the time and energy of pastors and congregations. I appreciate that more than I probably would have twenty years ago.

The older I get, the more convinced I become that the church’s structures should exist to support ministry rather than ministry existing to support the church’s structures.

I want to preach the gospel. I want to make disciples. I want to pastor people. I want to help people become more like Jesus. If our denominational machinery helps us do those things, wonderful. If maintaining the machinery begins consuming the energy we need to do those things, something has gotten out of order.

I’ve found the simplicity of the EMC refreshing.

Why I Have Stayed

There is one other part of the story worth mentioning. When I became part of the Evangelical Methodist Church in 2020, the Global Methodist Church did not yet exist. So, I didn’t choose the EMC over the GMC. There was no GMC to choose at the time.

Since the GMC was formed, however, I have been approached numerous times about becoming part of it. I’ve chosen to remain where I am.

That isn’t because I’m opposed to the Global Methodist Church. I’m not. I have friends there. I currently serve a congregation in the GMC. I want the GMC to succeed in its mission of making disciples of Jesus Christ and spreading scriptural holiness across the globe.

But somewhere along the way, something changed for me. The Evangelical Methodist Church stopped being simply the denomination that gave me somewhere to belong when I needed a home. It became my church.

Its Wesleyan holiness theology increasingly resonates with what I believe about the disciple’s life. Its size allows relationships that I have come to value deeply. Its leadership is accessible. Its structure is relatively simple. And its emphasis on holiness keeps calling me toward the kind of disciple—and pastor—I believe Jesus wants me to become.

I’m not suggesting the Evangelical Methodist Church is perfect. That would be a particularly strange claim coming from a guy who has a website called Not the Perfect Pastor. Every denomination has its weaknesses. Every denomination has things it needs to do better. The EMC is no exception. 

One example is our language around children and baptism. I remain uncomfortable with the option the EMC offers of dedicating children rather than baptizing them, because my understanding of Wesleyan sacramental theology leads me strongly toward infant baptism. 

That’s one place where I continue to wrestle with my own denomination. But I’ve reached a place in my life where I’m less interested in finding the perfect denomination than I am in being faithful where God has placed me.

Almost thirty years ago, Dr. Fred Layman introduced me to a little denomination I had never heard of. Twenty-five years later, that denomination welcomed me when I didn’t have a home. And over the years since, I’ve discovered something I couldn’t have known then: I wasn’t merely looking for somewhere to land. I was finding home.

Gratitude brought me through the door. Conviction is why I’m still here.

And that, my friends, is why I am an Evangelical Methodist.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

Have I Truly Surrendered to Christ?

/ pastorlynnmalone / 2 Comments

Not long ago, I was listening to a preacher give an invitation at the end of a gospel concert. I don’t remember everything he said, but one question caught my attention: “Have you truly surrendered your life to Christ?”

It was a perfectly reasonable question. I’ve probably asked some version of it myself more times than I can count. But this time it confused me. What exactly does that mean?

Most of the people at a gospel concert are probably already Christians. Certainly, there could have been someone there who enjoyed the music but had never made a profession of faith. Perhaps someone needed to hear the gospel that night and respond to Christ for the first time. But I wondered whether there might be another possibility.

What if the person hearing that invitation had already surrendered his life to Christ? What if he had believed? What if she had been following Jesus for twenty years? What if the work Christ wanted to do in someone’s life that evening wasn’t the beginning of faith, but the continuation of it?

The question stayed with me because I realized I’m not always sure what we mean when we ask someone to “surrender your life to Christ.” There certainly is an initial surrender. There comes a moment when we recognize our need for Christ, repent of our sin, place our faith in him, and confess Jesus as Lord. As Wesleyans, we describe that as the moment of justifying grace. God forgives. God reconciles. God makes us his own.

But grace didn’t suddenly appear at that moment. God’s grace had already been at work. Wesleyans have traditionally called that prevenient grace—the grace that goes before. Long before we understood what God was doing, God was drawing us. Before we knew we needed grace, grace was already awakening us to our need.

In my old age, I have come to believe that we are never absent from God’s grace. We may not always be aware of God’s grace, but we are never absent from it. That doesn’t mean everyone is automatically saved. Grace can be resisted. We can turn away. We can refuse what God desires to do in us. But even our ability to recognize our need for God begins with God’s gracious activity toward us.

Then comes that moment when we say yes. We believe. We surrender. We trust Jesus. But what happens the next morning?

I Surrender All—Again

Since I was listening to a gospel concert, one of the old hymns of the church came to mind: I Surrender All.

I’ve sung it hundreds of times. And I mean it. I surrender all. Today. But tomorrow morning I’ve got to surrender it all again. That’s the part of surrender I don’t think we talk about enough.

Surrender isn’t simply something I did once. Surrender is a daily activity. I can sincerely surrender my life to Christ today and wake up tomorrow determined to have my own way about something. I can place my future in God’s hands and then spend the next three days worrying about it. I can surrender my anger and discover tomorrow that I’ve picked it back up. I can tell Christ that everything I have belongs to him and then become remarkably possessive when he puts his finger on something I don’t want to release.

Perhaps that’s part of sanctification. Yesterday I surrendered “all.” Today the Holy Spirit shows me something else that “all” includes. My ambition. My resentment. My money. My need to be right. My fear. My plans. My relationships. My pain. My reputation. My future. My sin. Apparently “all” is bigger than I realized.

That doesn’t necessarily mean yesterday’s surrender wasn’t genuine. It means God isn’t finished with me. That’s the difference between justification and sanctification. The grace that forgives me is also the grace that transforms me.

“Have You Truly Surrendered?”

That’s why I’ve become uncomfortable with that question—not because it is wrong, but because it can mean several different things.

“Have you truly surrendered your life to Christ?” Are you asking whether I’ve ever trusted Christ? Yes. Are you asking whether I’ve confessed Jesus Christ as Lord? Yes. Are you asking whether there was a moment when I believed and entrusted myself to him? Yes. But are you asking whether every part of my life is completely surrendered to Christ at this particular moment? Well…

Maybe I surrendered once. Maybe I didn’t this morning. I don’t think today’s failure necessarily invalidates yesterday’s faith.

Sometimes we Christian preachers collapse justification and sanctification into one event. We see someone struggling with sin, obedience, doubt, addiction, anger, pride, or surrender, and conclude that perhaps that person was never really saved. “You need to truly surrender your life to Christ.”

Maybe. Or, perhaps the person has trusted Christ and now needs to surrender to what the Holy Spirit is trying to do next. Perhaps this isn’t a question of whether justifying grace was real. Perhaps it is a question of whether I am presently yielding myself to sanctifying grace. That’s a very different question.

Can We Fall From Grace?

And this raises another difficult question. Can I fall from grace?

As a Wesleyan, I don’t believe in “once saved, always saved” in the way that phrase is commonly understood. I believe human beings remain capable of resisting God’s grace. Scripture takes seriously the possibility of turning away from faith.

But I wonder whether “falling from grace” is always the best way to picture what happens. A fall sounds accidental. I wasn’t paying attention. I stumbled. Suddenly I’m outside the grace of God.

I’m not convinced that’s a good description of our relationship with God.

Perhaps it is better to speak of turning from grace. I can resist the Spirit. I can ignore conviction. I can refuse obedience. I can repeatedly say no to what God is asking of me. And I suppose it is possible for repeated resistance eventually to become rejection. A person can turn away from faith. I don’t know that it requires someone to stand up one morning and formally announce, “I hereby renounce Jesus Christ.” Scripture’s warnings about drifting and hardened hearts suggest that turning away may sometimes happen gradually.

But neither do I believe that every act of disobedience means I’ve fallen out of salvation.

If it did, none of us could have assurance for very long. There is a difference between struggling within a relationship with Christ and abandoning the relationship altogether.

I can be disobedient and still be a disciple, though not necessarily a good one. I can resist the Spirit and still be someone the Spirit is pursuing. I can refuse to surrender something today without concluding that everything God has done in my life until today was imaginary. In fact, the conviction I feel over my resistance may itself be evidence that grace is still at work.

Grace Doesn’t Eliminate the Will

There is another distinction I think matters. Sometimes we talk about surrender as though everything depends upon human determination. Try harder. Do better. Make yourself surrender. Sanctification isn’t self-improvement with religious vocabulary.

At the same time, surrender isn’t passive. God doesn’t surrender my life for me. The Holy Spirit convicts. The Holy Spirit draws. The Holy Spirit enables. Grace makes obedience possible. But I still have to say yes.

Maybe surrender is best understood as the grace-enabled yielding of the human will to God. That’s different from willpower. Willpower says, “I am going to make myself a better person.” Grace says, “God is at work in me, and I am yielding myself to what God desires to do.”

Paul captures that tension beautifully in Philippians: “Work hard to show the results of your salvation, obeying God with deep reverence and fear. For God is working in you, giving you the desire and the power to do what pleases him.”

We work because God is working. We respond because grace has already acted. We surrender because the Spirit has enabled us to surrender. And tomorrow, we do it again.

Maybe That’s the Invitation

So, I’ve been thinking about that preacher’s question. “Have you truly surrendered your life to Christ?” Maybe the problem isn’t the question. Maybe we just need to understand how large the question really is. 

There is an invitation for the person who has never trusted Christ: Will you surrender your life to Jesus? Believe. Repent. Trust him. Receive the grace God has already been extending toward you.

But there is also an invitation for the person who has followed Jesus for fifty years: Will you surrender your life to Jesus? Not because your previous surrender was necessarily false. Not because every failure means you need to get saved again. But because Jesus is still Lord.

And there are still places within us where we would rather be lord.

Maybe the Christian life is learning, by grace, to surrender those places as the Spirit reveals them. Today it may be my pride. Tomorrow it may be my fear. Next year it may be something I cannot even see in myself today. That doesn’t mean grace has failed. It means grace is still working. Sanctifying grace keeps reaching into the places I haven’t surrendered yet and saying, “This too.” And I get to answer again, “Yes, Lord.”

The Goal Isn’t Becoming Better

Perhaps this is where I’ve finally landed. Christianity is often presented as though Jesus came to make us better people. I don’t think that’s quite right. Certainly, following Jesus ought to change the way we live. We should become more loving, more patient, more generous, more forgiving, more truthful, more compassionate. If decades of following Jesus leave us just as angry, selfish and cruel as we were when we began, something is wrong.

Becoming a better person isn’t the goal. We don’t follow Jesus to become better people. We follow Jesus to become like Jesus. Becoming better is the fruit, not the goal.

That’s why surrender matters. I can’t transform myself into the likeness of Christ by determination. I cannot grit my teeth and manufacture holiness. Sanctification isn’t a self-improvement project. It is the continuing work of God’s grace forming Christ in me.

My part is surrender. Not once. Again. And again. And again.

There was a day when I surrendered my life to Christ. I meant it. By God’s grace, I still mean it. But this morning there are things I need to surrender again. And tomorrow morning, if God gives me another day, I suspect there will be more. That’s not evidence that my surrender failed. Maybe that’s simply what a life of surrender looks like.

So, what about you? Have you surrendered your life to Jesus Christ?

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

The Cattywampus Episcopacy: A Friendly Question About GMC Bishops

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

There is a word we used back in Jackson Parish when something wasn’t exactly crooked, wasn’t exactly backwards, but somehow didn’t seem put together quite right: cattywampus. I’m not sure that’s how one spells it, but I know it’s how one says it.

I’ve been looking at the new episcopal areas of the Global Methodist Church, approved earlier this year and now being used to elect bishops at its General Conference in South Africa, and I’m having trouble finding a better word.

I should probably establish my credentials—or lack thereof—before going any further. I am not a member of the Global Methodist Church. I am an ordained elder in the Evangelical Methodist Church. However, I spent more than twenty-eight years as a United Methodist pastor, served for a time as a district superintendent, and currently pastor a GMC congregation. I’d call myself an inside-outsider.

I understand the Methodist system. I understand some of the problems the GMC was attempting to correct when it designed its polity. I have friends and former colleagues throughout the denomination. One of the newly elected bishops, Carolyn Moore, and I were seminary classmates. So, please understand, this isn’t an attack on the GMC, nor is it criticism of the eight people elected to serve as bishops.

It is simply a question about structure. And the question is this: Does this seem cattywampus to you?

Trying Not to Rebuild What You Left

I understand at least part of the philosophy behind the GMC’s episcopacy. The Global Methodist Church did not want simply to recreate the United Methodist episcopal system with a new name on the door. That’s understandable.

GMC bishops are intended to function as general superintendents of the whole connection rather than becoming little ecclesiastical rulers over permanent territories. The denomination emphasizes a traveling episcopacy. Its Discipline even provides that episcopal areas do not have to be geographically contiguous and may be international in composition. I get the theological argument. In fact, the international character is intentional: no episcopal area was designed with more than four annual conferences from the same continent.

A bishop is a bishop of the whole church, not merely the bishop of Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, or wherever that bishop happens to be assigned. But here’s where I begin scratching my head. Why does being a bishop of the whole church require having a geographically scattered supervisory assignment? Those are two entirely different things.

A bishop could be a general superintendent of the whole Global Methodist Church while being assigned for a particular term to annual conferences located within a reasonably coherent geographic area. Those ideas aren’t contradictory. In fact, Methodists have been figuring out how to combine connectionalism and geography for a very long time.

This Map Ain’t Mapping

The problem is that theology doesn’t make geography disappear. If a bishop is responsible for annual conferences spread across large portions of the United States and other parts of the world, somebody has to travel between them. That means airline tickets, hotels, meals and ground transportation. It means days spent traveling—sometimes over multiple time zones. It means jet lag. And perhaps most importantly, hours and days in which a bishop is sitting in an airport or airplane rather than actually exercising episcopal ministry.

That raises a stewardship question for me. Local congregations provide the financial support that ultimately makes denominational ministry possible. Every dollar spent moving a bishop from one side of the country—or the world—to another is a dollar that originated somewhere in the offering plates and bank accounts of local churches. If geographically coherent episcopal areas could substantially reduce those costs without compromising the denomination’s theology of episcopacy, why wouldn’t we do that?

Maybe there’s a good answer. I just haven’t heard it yet.

There’s Also the Stewardship of the Bishop

Money isn’t the only thing being entrusted to our stewardship. People are, too. The GMC elected eight bishops in 2026 to six-year terms. Again, that isn’t a criticism of them. I’m 62 years old myself.

Carolyn Moore and I were seminary classmates, so we’re essentially the same age. I have great respect for Carolyn and wish her well in her ministry.

Rev. Dr. Moore has been assigned to Episcopal Area 8, which consists of these annual conferences: 

  • Allegheny West — U.S.
  • North Carolina — U.S.
  • Heartland — U.S.
  • Uganda
  • Kenya
  • Malawi
  • Zimbabwe

That’s three U.S. conferences and four conferences spread from East Africa down into Southern Africa.

I cannot imagine spending the next six years repeatedly flying across multiple time zones, arriving somewhere and immediately being expected to preach, preside, meet with clergy, address problems, make decisions and provide spiritual leadership—then fly home, recover and eventually do it again.

Could I do it? Probably. Would I want a denomination to design my job around doing it repeatedly until I was nearly seventy? That’s a different question.

A six-year episcopal term isn’t necessarily unreasonable. A traveling episcopacy isn’t necessarily unreasonable. International connectionalism certainly isn’t unreasonable. But when you combine six-year terms, extensive travel and intentionally noncontiguous episcopal areas, I wonder whether the pieces fit together as well as the designers intended. In Jackson Parish terminology, things start getting a little cattywampus.

Preserve the Principle Without Creating the Problem

What puzzles me most is that the solution doesn’t seem terribly complicated. Create geographically sensible episcopal areas. Assign bishops to those areas for six-year terms. Maintain strong presiding elders and annual conference leadership. Rotate bishops among episcopal areas when appropriate. And continue teaching clearly that every bishop is a general superintendent of the entire Global Methodist Church rather than the ecclesiastical owner of a particular territory.

What theological principle would that sacrifice? I don’t see one.

A bishop assigned to Louisiana, Arkansas and East Texas would not somehow cease being a bishop of the whole church simply because the conferences under that bishop’s immediate supervision were located near one another. Geographic efficiency doesn’t require theological provincialism. It just requires a map.

Sometimes the Old Guys Did Something for a Reason

This may point toward a larger danger for every new denomination. The GMC was born partly out of dissatisfaction with structures and practices in the United Methodist Church. Consequently, there is an understandable desire to avoid recreating the institution it left behind. But reaction can sometimes become its own form of institutional blindness.

Not everything the UMC did was wrong simply because the UMC did it. Some practices developed because generations of Methodists discovered that they worked. Geographically coherent episcopal areas may be one of them. 

You can reject an unhealthy understanding of episcopal authority without rejecting sensible geography. You can make bishops accountable without making them accumulate frequent-flier miles. You can insist that bishops serve the whole connection without requiring them to spend an unnecessary portion of their ministry getting from one part of the connection to another. And you can build something new without assuming that everything old needs replacing.

A Question From an Inside-Outsider

I don’t have a vote in the Global Methodist Church. I shouldn’t have one, nor do I want one. The GMC will determine its own polity, elect its own leaders and decide how best to deploy them.

But I do have an interest in the question. I pastor a GMC congregation while remaining an elder in another Methodist denomination. Many people I have served alongside for decades now call the GMC home. I genuinely want them to flourish. So, consider this a friendly question from an inside-outsider.

The Global Methodist Church says it wants a leaner, more accountable and more missionally focused denomination. Good. Then every structure ought to be evaluated according to those goals. Does this structure make the best use of the church’s money? Does it make the best use of its bishops’ time? Does it make the best use of their physical and emotional energy? Does it strengthen relationships between bishops, clergy and congregations? And most importantly, does it advance the GMC’s stated mission “to make disciples of Jesus Christ and spread scriptural holiness across the globe”?

If the answer is yes, then perhaps this old Methodist needs someone to explain the map to him.

But if essentially the same theological goals could be accomplished with less money, less travel and less wear and tear on the people we’ve asked to provide episcopal leadership, then perhaps the structure deserves another look. Because sometimes something can be perfectly permissible under the Discipline, carefully thought through by committees, overwhelmingly approved by a General Conference, and still be a little…

cattywampus.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

Accept One Another: Baptism, Denominations and the Grace of Jesus

/ pastorlynnmalone / 3 Comments

I saw a sign on Facebook this week that made me laugh. It depicted a public creek with a cross, and in large letters it said, “FREE BAPTISMS.”

My first thought was, “I didn’t know we had started charging for baptisms.” I thought all baptisms were free. The water is free—and so is the grace.

But after I laughed, I started thinking about it. That is usually where I get into trouble. What began as a funny photograph sent me down a theological rabbit hole.

The baptism was being offered by a parachurch ministry. By “parachurch,” I mean a Christian organization that works alongside the Church but is not itself a congregation or denomination. And I started asking questions.

Who prepares the person for baptism? Who hears the promises? Who receives that person into the Church? Who teaches and disciples the person afterward? Who will be there next month when the emotion of that Sunday afternoon has passed?

Those are not insignificant questions. Baptism is personal, but it is never merely private. We are baptized into Christ, and therefore also into his body. The question is not only whether there is water and someone willing to get into it. The question is whether there is a community prepared to be the Church to that person when he or she comes out.

I have seen this before. Through the years, I’ve been involved in two different Christian retreat ministries. They were described as ecumenical, though “cross-denominational” may be the better word. Christians came together from different traditions for a weekend of worship, teaching, prayer and renewal.

Here’s one irony: one of the ministries began as an offshoot of the other. Why? Because someone attended the first and thought, “I can do it better.”

Eventually, both ministries began conducting baptisms during their retreat weekends. Sometimes clergy performed them. Sometimes laity performed them. Sometimes people who had already been baptized were baptized again. That troubled me then, and it still troubles me now.

I believe baptism belongs to the Church. I believe it is more than my public declaration that I have decided to follow Jesus. Baptism is a means of grace. It is an act of God in and through the Church. I believe there is one baptism because the faithfulness being declared in baptism is ultimately God’s faithfulness, not mine.

So, I had several theological objections ready. Then I remembered Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

When Scripture Interrupts a Good Argument

In Acts 8, Philip meets a man traveling home from Jerusalem. The man is reading from Isaiah. Philip explains the Scripture and tells him the good news about Jesus. As they travel along, the man sees some water and asks, “Why can’t I be baptized?” They stop the carriage, go down into the water, and Philip baptizes him.

There is no church building. No congregation is visibly present. There is no six-week membership class. Philip does not tell the man to wait until he gets home and finds a local church.

Now, the situations are not identical. The Holy Spirit clearly directs Philip. The eunuch is already seeking God and reading Scripture. Philip proclaims Jesus to him before baptizing him. Philip is a recognized evangelist carrying the Church’s mission into a place where no established congregation appears to be available.

The story does not answer all my questions. But it does keep me from acting as though the people on the creek bank have no biblical argument at all. They may sincerely believe they are doing exactly what Philip did: proclaiming Jesus and refusing to place unnecessary barriers in front of someone who asks to be baptized.

And while I was thinking about all this, I happened to be preparing a sermon called “Accept One Another.” Isn’t God’s timing wonderful? I first thought the sign might give me something to say to them. Then I read Romans 14 and discovered that Paul might have something to say to me.

The church in Rome was divided over food and the observance of particular days. Some Christians believed they could eat anything. Others ate only vegetables because of concerns about foods that were religiously unclean or associated with pagan worship. Some regarded certain days as holy. Others regarded every day alike.

Paul calls one group “strong” and the other “weak.” He includes himself among the strong. But he doesn’t tell the strong to flaunt their freedom until the weak finally get over it. And he doesn’t allow the weak to condemn the strong for their lack of restraint.

Instead, he identifies a temptation on both sides. The weak are tempted to judge the strong: “If they were serious about following Jesus, they would never do that.” The strong are tempted to look down upon the weak: “If they understood the gospel as well as we do, this would not bother them.”

Judgment on one side. Contempt on the other.

Then Paul asks, “Who are you to condemn someone else’s servants?”

That question caught me. I had assumed I was the mature Christian in the baptism conversation. I had the developed sacramental theology. I had the denominational doctrine. I had the experience and the ecclesiological vocabulary.

They had a creek.

But perhaps, in this particular conversation, I am the one whose conscience is troubled. Perhaps I am the “weaker” brother. Paul doesn’t tell me to abandon my convictions. He doesn’t tell me that baptism does not matter. He does tell me to stop judging the servant of another Master.

Sometimes accepting one another begins when we stop assuming that we are the mature Christian in the conversation.

Good Theology and Poor Discipleship

That doesn’t mean theology is unimportant. Theology matters because what we believe about God shapes how we understand the Church, salvation, grace and the Christian life.

But here’s an uncomfortable truth: A person can have good theology and still be a poor disciple.

I don’t mean that good theology causes bad character. I mean that knowing the right words and reaching the right conclusions don’t automatically make me like Jesus. Good theology held without humility can make me proud. Good theology without love can make me harsh. Good theology used as a measuring stick for everyone else can make me judgmental.

The purpose of theology isn’t merely to help us win arguments. Its purpose is to help form the life of Christ within us. It’s possible to be right about the issue and wrong in the way we treat the person.

Paul’s instruction is not that differences are imaginary or convictions are unimportant. He tells Christians how to treat one another while they disagree.

Acceptance is not approval. Christian acceptance doesn’t mean that every belief is true or every practice is faithful. There are beliefs and practices the Church must challenge. There are times when love requires truth, correction, boundaries and even discipline. Christian acceptance doesn’t ask us to surrender discernment. It asks us to surrender the pride with which we so often exercise it.

I can receive the person seeking baptism with joy and trust that God may genuinely be drawing that person. I can receive the Christians conducting the baptism as brothers and sisters whose desire to reach people may be sincere. And I can still ask whether their practice reflects a sufficiently rich understanding of baptism and the Church.

I can accept the people without endorsing everything they do. That is harder than either approval or rejection. Approval asks us to ignore the difference. Rejection allows us to dismiss the person. Acceptance requires us to hold conviction and love at the same time.

Guests Who Have Already Been Received

Paul takes us directly to Jesus: “For even Christ didn’t live to please himself.”

Christ didn’t accept us because our theology was correct. He didn’t wait until our motives were pure, our behavior was consistent and our understanding was complete. He received us by grace.

That does not mean he approved everything in us. Christ accepts us in order to transform us. Grace does not leave us as it finds us. But transformation begins with his gracious welcome, not with our successful completion of an entrance exam.

Alistair Begg tells an imaginary story about the thief on the cross arriving at heaven. The angels begin asking him questions. Does he understand justification by faith? What does he believe about the authority of Scripture? The man cannot answer any of them. Finally, they ask why he should be admitted. His answer is wonderfully simple: the man on the middle cross said he could come.

That’s the only answer any of us has. We aren’t here because we passed the theological exam. We are here because Jesus said we could come. And if my place in his kingdom rests upon his gracious welcome, I must be very careful about requiring someone else to pass my exam before I receive them.

We sometimes act as though we are the hosts of the Church and have been assigned the responsibility of deciding who deserves admission. But we’re not the hosts. We’re guests who have already been received.

Acceptance After Separation

This conversation carries particular weight for Methodists right now. Over the past several years, thousands of congregations have left The United Methodist Church. Many have become part of the Global Methodist Church. (Disclosure: I am an Evangelical Methodist elder serving a Global Methodist congregation). The disagreements that produced that separation weren’t superficial. They involved biblical authority, human sexuality, ordination, discipline, accountability, church property and institutional trust. People on both sides believed they were acting faithfully.

We should not take Romans 14 and declare that all those questions were merely matters of personal preference. They were not the equivalent of choosing whether to eat meat or observe a particular day. Convictions mattered. Decisions had consequences. Separation brought grief. Congregations divided. Friendships were strained. Clergy who had served together for years found themselves in different denominations.

But Romans 15 puts a question before us now that the separation has happened: Can United Methodists and Global Methodists still accept one another as brothers and sisters in Christ?

Can we remain convinced that we made the faithful decision without declaring that everyone who made the other decision was faithless? Can we name the differences honestly without making those differences the whole truth about one another? Can we recognize that the person across the denominational divide has also been received by Christ?

This is where baptism returns to the conversation. Both United Methodists and Global Methodists confess one baptism. Both baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Both understand baptism as our entrance into Christ’s Church.

Disaffiliation changed our denominational affiliation. It did not erase our baptismal identity. We may no longer belong to the same denomination, but we still belong to the same Christ. The name on some of our church signs changed. The name placed upon us in baptism did not.

That doesn’t require reunion. It doesn’t mean we must cooperate in every ministry or remain silent about the convictions that divided us. It doesn’t mean the separation didn’t matter. It means Christ matters more.

Acceptance after separation means we refuse to excommunicate one another in our hearts. We refuse to speak as though the Church of Jesus Christ begins and ends with our denomination. We refuse to presume that our faithfulness gives us the authority to judge another Master’s servant.

Perhaps Global Methodists need to hear that about United Methodists. Perhaps United Methodists need to hear it about Global Methodists. Perhaps Baptists need to hear it about Methodists, and Methodists need to hear it about Baptists. Perhaps every denomination needs to remember that Jesus never agreed to fit entirely inside the boundaries we draw.

The Church is bigger than our part of it.

The Water and the Grace

Paul gathers his argument into one sentence: “Accept each other just as Christ has accepted you so that God will be given glory.”

Not “Accept one another when you agree.” Not “Accept one another after the weaker Christian matures.” Not “Accept one another after the stronger Christian becomes more sensitive.” Accept one another as Christ has accepted you.

So, I go back to that creek bank. There stands the parachurch evangelist, ready to baptize anyone who sincerely asks. Somewhere nearby stands the Methodist preacher with several ecclesiological objections. Christ has received them both.

Neither one is received because he has baptism completely figured out. Neither one is received because his motives are completely pure or his practices completely consistent. Both are received because the grace of Christ is greater than the incompleteness of their understanding.

That does not settle every baptismal question. It does not erase denominational differences. It does not make discernment unnecessary. But it does tell me how I must regard the person standing on the other side of the disagreement.

He isn’t mine to condemn. She isn’t mine to dismiss. They belong to Christ.

And if Christ had waited until I understood baptism, the Church and grace perfectly before accepting me, I would still be standing on the creek bank.

The water is free. The grace is free. And because Christ has received us by that grace, he commands us to receive one another. So that God—not our denomination, not our position, not our correct theology—may be given glory.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

When Ambition Masquerades as Calling

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Age is a humbling thing. It brings aches in new places, but it also brings old decisions into sharper focus. One uncomfortable truth I have come to see is this: Not every decision made for questionable reasons ends badly.

That may be one reason some of them are so difficult to recognize. Sometimes the opportunity works out. Sometimes the new position goes well. Sometimes everyone involved flourishes. The outcome becomes evidence we use to reassure ourselves that we made the right decision. But good outcomes do not always justify the reasons behind our decisions. Sometimes we succeed for the wrong reason.

You’re wondering about that questionable decision, aren’t you? One in particular has returned to my thoughts recently. It happened in 2011. At the time, I was serving as pastor of Benton United Methodist Church. A few years earlier, in 2008, I had taken a clergy renewal leave. When I returned that December, I stood before the congregation and made a commitment: I would stay as their pastor as long as they would have me.

And I meant it when I said it.

At least, I thought I did.

Then, in February 2011, the bishop called. He invited me to serve on the Cabinet as a district superintendent. It was an honor—a significant opportunity and the kind of invitation a pastor does not receive every day.

Vanessa and I talked about it. I said I would pray about it. Looking back, however, I’m not sure I really did. If I prayed at all, my prayer was probably more “Thank you” than “What do you want me to do?”

The truth is, I had already made up my mind.

The invitation felt like the next rung on the ecclesiastical ladder I had been climbing for a long time. It carried recognition, greater responsibility and the possibility of broader influence. I could easily describe it as an opportunity to serve the Church in a new way—and it was.

But it was also something I wanted.

There is nothing necessarily wrong with accepting a new responsibility or pursuing an opportunity. There is also nothing necessarily wrong with ambition. The danger comes when ambition becomes so entangled with our sense of calling that we can no longer tell them apart.

That is what happened to me.

I accepted the position without fully wrestling with the commitment I had made to the congregation. A promise that had sounded firm in 2008 suddenly became negotiable when a sufficiently attractive opportunity appeared in 2011.

Perhaps it was a promise I should never have made. In the United Methodist system, pastors do not ultimately control how long they remain in an appointment. But I had made it. The people had heard it. They had every reason to believe I meant it.

And then I set it aside. At the time, I had plenty of ways to justify my decision. It was a good opportunity. It was a larger role. It offered the possibility of broader impact. I could tell myself that the bishop had called, the Church needed me, and God had opened the door. All those things may have been true.

But they were not the whole truth. The rest of the truth was that my ambition spoke louder than my commitment.

I wish I could point to a particular moment when that realization struck me, but I can’t. It emerged gradually. As I have grown older and looked back across the years of my ministry, I have begun to see things I could not—or would not—see when I was living them.

Faithfulness has certainly been part of my story. I have loved the Church. I have wanted to serve Christ. I have tried to follow where I believed God was leading. But faithfulness was not the only thing driving me. Ambition was there too.

That is difficult for me to admit because ambition rarely announces itself honestly, especially in the Church. It does not usually say, “I want a more important position,” or “I want people to recognize me.” It learns to speak the language of calling, opportunity, influence and impact.

We tell ourselves we are expanding our ministry. We are accepting a new challenge. We will be able to influence more people. We may even interpret the opportunity itself as proof that God wants us to take it.

I did not have to choose between faithfulness and ambition because I had learned how to call my ambition faithfulness. Only with the passage of time have I become more capable of separating the two.

Leading a small congregation has been part of that process. Small-church ministry has brought a level of humility into my life that I did not know I needed. It has forced me to reconsider some of the assumptions I once carried about success, influence and significance.

There are fewer people in the room. There is little institutional prestige. Most of what happens will never be noticed beyond our congregation. There are no impressive statistics to report and few opportunities to convince myself that the size of my platform is evidence of the importance of my ministry. There are simply people to love, Scripture to teach, burdens to help carry, prayers to pray and a congregation to serve. And perhaps that is closer to faithfulness than much of what I once imagined.

Small-church ministry has not removed every trace of ambition from me. I am not sure anything short of complete sanctification could accomplish that. But it has exposed ambition in ways that success often concealed it. It has reminded me that a larger assignment is not necessarily a more important one, and that faithfulness cannot always be measured by the size of the room, the prominence of the title or the reach of the ministry.

Sometimes faithfulness looks like staying.

That is what makes the promise I made to the Benton congregation difficult to remember. I told them I would remain as long as they would have me. A little more than two years later, when an attractive opportunity appeared, that commitment became negotiable.

I never went back and acknowledged that to the congregation. There was no moment when I stood before them and admitted how much ambition had influenced my decision. I cannot go back and change what I did, but I can look back honestly and name what I now see.

Some things can be corrected. Other things can only be confessed.

I do believe God was at work in ways I could not see at the time. The Benton congregation has flourished, and so have Vanessa and I. God brought good from the years that followed, and I remain grateful for them.

But good outcomes do not make every motive good.

God’s ability to redeem a decision does not relieve me of the responsibility to examine why I made it. Grace does not require me to rewrite the past so that I was right all along. Grace gives me the freedom to admit that I was not fully honest about what was driving me—with the congregation, with God or perhaps even with myself.

That may be one of the most difficult forms of repentance. Failure forces us to examine ourselves. Success often allows us to avoid it.

Sometimes the hardest thing to face is not realizing that we failed.

It is realizing that we succeeded—and still need to repent.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

11 Questions I’m Asking Myself About the Contemporary Church

/ pastorlynnmalone / 1 Comment

Examining the Church We Have and the Church Jesus Intended

I have spent most of my adult life serving the institutional church and I’ve spent much of the past week sitting in institutional meetings. The week was encouraging and uplifting, but it also prompted me to reflect on the “institutional” church as it exists today.

Here is what I’ve been thinking about all week…

For more than thirty-five years, I have preached sermons, led worship services, administered programs, attended meetings, developed budgets, supervised staff, and participated in denominational structures. I have served as a senior pastor. I have served as a district superintendent. I have not only participated in the denominational system; for a season, I worked for the denomination. Even now, I remain an ordained elder serving as the pastor of a local church.

I say all that because I don’t want anyone to misunderstand what follows. I am not standing outside the institutional church throwing rocks at it. I am standing firmly inside it. I have given most of my life to it. I love the church, and I continue to believe the local church can be one of the most beautiful expressions of the body of Christ in the world. But I also know that I have been complicit in fostering some of the very issues I am beginning to question.

I have helped create worship services in which most people watched while a few people participated. I have stood behind the pulpit as the central personality in the room. I have encouraged people to invite their friends to “come hear the preacher.” I have supported budgets that devoted significant resources to staff, buildings, programs, and institutional maintenance. I have participated in denominational systems that sometimes appeared more concerned with preserving the institution than advancing the mission.

I have measured attendance, counted giving, promoted programs, celebrated growth, and worried when the numbers went in the wrong direction. I have sometimes treated a full room as evidence of spiritual success without asking whether the people in that room were actually being formed into the image of Christ.

I am not confessing that everything I have done was wrong. Much of it was done prayerfully, faithfully, and with good intentions. Some of those practices have borne genuine fruit. But good intentions do not place our practices beyond examination.

Neither does the fact that a particular practice is not found explicitly in the Bible make it inherently wrong. The New Testament does not give us a complete operations manual for the twenty-first-century church. It does not tell us what time to gather, how many songs to sing, whether to use a pulpit, how to organize the church office, or what kind of building to occupy. We have freedom to develop structures and practices suited to our time and place.

The question is whether those structures still serve the purposes of the church—or whether the church has gradually begun serving the structures.

A practice does not become biblical simply because churches have done it for a long time. Neither is it necessarily faithful because it attracts a crowd, produces measurable results, or appears successful. Every practice must be examined in light of the character of Jesus Christ, the teaching of Scripture, and the mission Jesus entrusted to His church. That examination has led me to begin asking some uncomfortable questions.

1. Is the senior pastor a truly biblical role?

The New Testament speaks of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers, elders, overseers, and deacons. It certainly recognizes spiritual leadership and entrusts some people with particular responsibilities. But do we find anything resembling the modern senior pastor—the primary preacher, chief executive, public face, institutional leader, and often central personality of the congregation?

The role may not be inherently wrong, but what happens when so much authority, visibility, and responsibility become concentrated in one person?

2. Is the church supposed to be a gathering of non-participants?

Paul describes the church as a body in which every member has a function. He also pictures gatherings in which different members contribute to the life of the community.

How, then, did church become a gathering in which a relatively small number of people perform while everyone else watches? Have we unintentionally taught people that attending church is the same as participating in the body of Christ?

3. Are multisite campuses about growing God’s Kingdom—or the senior pastor’s kingdom?

I know this question sounds pointed, and I do not presume to judge the motives of every pastor or congregation using a multisite model. Heck, I even tried it myself once (to no avail). Multisite churches may reach people who would otherwise remain disconnected from Christian community.

Still, we should be willing to ask why one pastor’s preaching must be broadcast into multiple locations. Are we multiplying churches and leaders, or extending the reach of a particular personality and brand?

4. How biblical is it for more than half of a church’s giving to support buildings, maintenance, upkeep, and staff?

Buildings and staff can serve the mission of the church. Pastors who devote themselves to ministry may rightly receive financial support, and congregations need places in which to gather.

But when much of the church’s financial life is devoted to sustaining its own operations, we should at least ask what remains for mission, mercy, generosity, and ministry beyond ourselves. At what point does maintaining the institution become the institution’s primary mission?

5. When did church gatherings become sermon-centered?

I am a preacher, and I believe preaching matters. The proclamation and teaching of God’s Word have always been central to the church’s life. I’ve often told my congregations that they pay me to be their pastor. I preach for free!

But is a thirty-minute sermon delivered by one person supposed to become the defining feature of Christian worship? How did the sermon come to dominate the gathering while prayer, testimony, conversation, shared discernment, and the Lord’s Supper moved toward the margins?

6. When did the church lose its weekly commitment to the Lord’s Supper?

The earliest Christians appear to have gathered regularly around the table. The breaking of bread was not an occasional addition to worship. It was central to their life together.

How did many Protestant churches move from the Table every week to once a month, once a quarter, or even less frequently? What did we lose when the sermon became weekly but the Meal became optional?

7. Is denominational hierarchy a biblical concept?

Denominations can provide accountability, connection, shared resources, theological identity, and a means of accomplishing ministry that no single congregation could undertake alone. I have benefited from those structures and have worked within them.

But how closely do our layers of boards, agencies, executives, superintendents, bishops, conferences, and administrative offices resemble the leadership structures of the New Testament? When does connection become control? When does accountability become bureaucracy? When does the institution begin protecting itself?

8. Is professionalized ministry the biblical model?

Scripture recognizes that those who preach the gospel may receive their living from the gospel. There is nothing inherently unbiblical about paying pastors or other ministry leaders.

But have we created a system in which the work of ministry is largely outsourced to professionals? Have pastors become religious service providers while church members become their clients? Has professional ministry equipped the saints for ministry—or relieved the saints of ministry?

9. How did we develop such a consumer mentality concerning church?

People shop for churches based on music, preaching, children’s ministries, facilities, style, convenience, and personal preference. Churches respond by marketing programs and attempting to provide increasingly attractive religious experiences.

How did following Jesus become another consumer choice? And how much has the church itself contributed to that mentality by treating people as customers whose preferences must be satisfied?

10. Were early church gatherings limited to one hour?

There is nothing inherently spiritual about a longer gathering. A three-hour service can be every bit as lifeless as a one-hour service.

Still, why has an hour become the accepted limit for worship in so many churches? Why do we become anxious when the service runs long? What does that reveal about the place worship occupies in our lives—and about the kind of experience our gatherings have become?

11. Why is the modern church so afraid of church discipline?

Jesus and the New Testament writers took sin, accountability, restoration, and the holiness of the Christian community seriously. Church discipline was not intended to be cruel, controlling, or punitive. Its goal was truth, repentance, reconciliation, and restoration.

Yet many churches avoid it almost entirely. Are we afraid people will leave? Are we afraid of conflict? Have abuses of authority made us unwilling to exercise any authority? Or have we become so consumer-oriented that we no longer believe the church has the right—or responsibility—to call its members to a life of holiness?

I’m Asking, Not Accusing

I do not have settled answers to all these questions. If I had the answers, I probably would not be writing this series. Or, more likely, I would have already written a book and gone on the speaking circuit.

I am also aware that it is much easier to identify problems than to propose faithful alternatives. Institutional structures developed for reasons. Many of them solved real problems, supported valuable ministries, and helped the church carry the gospel across generations and cultures. Tearing down structures without understanding what they hold together is neither wise nor faithful.

Nor do I believe the solution is simply to reproduce the first-century church. The early church existed in a particular historical and cultural setting. It had problems of its own—many of which are preserved for us in the New Testament. My goal is not to romanticize the past. My goal is to examine the present.

I want to consider what Scripture establishes, what freedom Scripture allows, what benefits our contemporary practices provide, and what unintended distortions they may have produced. I want to distinguish between what is biblically commanded, what is biblically permissible, and what we have simply come to assume.

Most of all, I want to ask whether the church we have built is forming people into the image of Jesus for the sake of others.

I love the church too much not to ask. And because I am part of the church I am questioning, these are not questions I am asking about “them.”

They are questions I am asking about us.

They are questions I am asking about me.

So, I invite you, over the next two weeks, to reflect on these eleven questions with me. In addition to my regular Tuesday posts, I will add two Friday posts to unpack these questions a little more deeply.

I would love your feedback, too. Comment below with any questions these questions raise for you, or feel free to dispute my assumptions. I certainly could be wrong and I invite your correction. Let me hear from you.

Please join me on the journey.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

We Bought a Beach House—and Learned What We Really Needed

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Last night, a friend was watching television when a couple of familiar faces appeared on the screen—ours. 

She took a few pictures of the television, posted them on Facebook, and tagged us. There we were, a decade younger, walking around Dauphin Island, Alabama, looking for a beach house on an episode of Island Life.

We bought the house in 2016, but the episode still turns up occasionally. Every few years, somebody will be watching television, recognize us, and send us a picture. It is a little strange to have a decision from your past preserved in reruns.

Seeing those pictures again brought back a flood of memories. It also reminded me of something I learned during that season—something Richard Foster expressed far better than I ever could: “It’s possible to enjoy the beach without owning a piece of it.”

It took buying a beach house for me to discover that.

Let me clear up one misconception before we go any further: Vanessa and I are not wealthy people. We were not wealthy in 2016, either. Owning a beach house is not necessarily proof that someone has a lot of money. Sometimes it simply means they have a good credit score and a complicit banker. We had both.

We loved Dauphin Island. It was quiet, unhurried, and far removed from the pace of ordinary life. We could imagine ourselves escaping there, sitting near the water, watching the sun go down, and enjoying time with family. Somewhere along the way, however, enjoying the island turned into wanting to own a piece of it. Once that desire took hold, we began finding ways to make it happen.

That is one of the things I have learned about desire: once we decide what we want, we can become remarkably creative in justifying it. We run the numbers. We imagine the possibilities. We focus on everything that might go right and minimize everything that could go wrong. If the door opens—even if the door is opened with borrowed money—we take that as confirmation that we are supposed to walk through it.

We found the house. The bank found the money. And television found us. The producers of Island Life told the story of a couple searching for the perfect place on Dauphin Island. We toured houses, talked about what we liked and didn’t like, and eventually chose the one that would become ours. It made for a nice episode of television. But, there is nothing real about reality television.

The story had already been decided before the cameras arrived. Scenes were staged and conversations repeated. We walked through houses we had no intention of buying and acted as though the decision still hung in the balance. Hours of recording were edited into a neat little story about a dream coming true.

That is what television does. It removes the complications, compresses the timeline, adds some music, and gives everything a satisfying ending. Real life is rarely that tidy.

The episode showed the excitement of buying a beach house. It did not show the mortgage payments, insurance, upkeep, repairs, worry, or responsibility that came with it. It did not show what happens when the place you visit to escape becomes one more thing demanding your attention.

Owning a beach house changes the experience of going to the beach. You no longer simply arrive and enjoy it. You notice what needs repairing. You wonder what the weather has done while you were away. You think about what the house is costing when you are not there and what needs to be done while you are. The place that was supposed to provide rest can become another source of work.

There was another complication, too—one that is harder for me to admit. At the time, I was pastoring a church. Not everyone in the congregation celebrated our new adventure. Some assumed that buying a house on Dauphin Island meant we were preparing to leave. Others wondered whether my attention was where it needed to be.

I thought those concerns were unfair. We were not planning to leave, and I was still doing my job. From my perspective, owning a beach house had nothing to do with my commitment to the church. Looking back, however, I wonder whether they saw something I did not. Perhaps my body was still present while some part of my imagination had already moved to the island.

That does not mean pastors should never own beach houses. Nor does it mean the house itself was sinful. The deeper issue was not the property. The deeper issue was desire—and the amount of attention, energy, and imagination I was willing to give it.

I wanted something, and because we could find a way to acquire it, I assumed we should. I confused the ability to purchase something with the wisdom to pursue it.

That is a temptation most of us understand. We live in a culture that is remarkably skilled at turning wants into needs. We are told that fulfillment is always one purchase, one accomplishment, one experience, or one upgrade away. And when we finally get what we wanted, we often discover that it cannot give us what we were really seeking. The beach house was not just a financial decision. It revealed something about my heart.

I am in a different season of life and ministry now. These days, I find myself thinking less about success and more about faithfulness—less about what I can build or acquire and more about who I am becoming. As I reflect on my own discipleship, I am beginning to recognize how easily misplaced desires can shape a life.

Discipleship is not only learning to resist desires that are obviously sinful. Sometimes it means surrendering good desires that have taken an improper place in our hearts.

Rest is good. Time with family is good. Watching a sunset over the Gulf is good. Even owning a beach house can be good. But good things become dangerous when we ask them to give us something only God can provide—or when pursuing them begins to compete with the life to which God has called us.

We do not always abandon Jesus to chase what we want. Sometimes we simply ask Jesus to come along and bless the pursuit.

Richard Foster was right. We did not need to own a piece of the beach to enjoy it. We did not need a mortgage to appreciate the water, the sand, the sunsets, or time together. Those things were already available to us as gifts. We could receive them, enjoy them, and then return home without carrying the burden of ownership with us.

Perhaps that is what we really needed—not possession, but permission to enjoy the gift without having to own it.

The old episode will probably continue appearing on television from time to time. When it does, it will show two people pursuing a dream and finding the house they wanted.

What it cannot show is what took us years to learn: We bought a beach house. But what we really needed was to examine the desire that made us believe we needed one.

Until next time, keep looking up…

If any of my reflections encouraged or challenged you, follow Not the Perfect Pastor on Facebook for more conversations about faith, ministry, and becoming faithful disciples of Jesus.

Stop Trying to be a Better Evangelist…

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Acts 2:42-47

A Problem

A few weeks ago, a Facebook post caught my eye. A church was offering a one-day discipleship class — 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. A full day dedicated to making disciples.

Before I say another word, let me be clear: I’m grateful for any church trying to make disciples. I’m not throwing stones at that particular congregation. If I’m honest, this word is for all of us. That post simply exposed something we’ve quietly come to accept.

We’ve begun to believe discipleship can be primarily taught in a classroom. That with enough curriculum, enough seminars, enough programs, and enough information, we’ll produce mature followers of Jesus.

But following Jesus has never been mastered in a classroom. It’s learned in kitchens and living rooms, hospital rooms and workplaces, neighborhoods and ordinary daily rhythms. It is learned over a lifetime through daily surrender, daily obedience, and the transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

Pentecost happened in a day. Spiritual formation happens over a lifetime.

Somewhere along the way, we’ve made the same mistake with evangelism. We’ve turned it into another skill to master, another class to attend, another program to organize, another technique to learn. We’ve made evangelism a “task” to be performed.

But when I read Acts 2, I don’t find an evangelism committee. I don’t find a strategic planning session or a “Director of Outreach.” I don’t find the apostles creating a twelve-week curriculum called “How to Win Your Neighbor in Five Easy Steps.”

What do I find? People worshiping. People praying. People eating together. People devoted to the apostles’ teaching. People giving generously. People living life together. And somehow — while doing all those ordinary things — “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”Evangelism is not primarily a task to be performed. Evangelism is a life to be lived.

A Pattern

We’ve made evangelism the destination. But what if Acts 2 reveals that evangelism is actually the byproduct? The fruit, not the root?

Luke doesn’t say the early church devoted themselves to evangelism, outreach, church growth, or making converts. Instead, he writes:

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42)

The very things we often treat as secondary, Luke places first. Why? Because he understands a simple but profound truth: What fills us eventually flows from us.

The overflow of Acts 2 began on the streets of Jerusalem on Pentecost with 3,000 people believing and being baptized. If Luke were writing a modern church growth manual, he might have ended the chapter there. But he doesn’t. Pentecost wasn’t the finish line — it was the starting line.

The same Spirit who brought them to Christ now began the lifelong work of forming them into the likeness of Christ. Verses 42-47 describe what that looked like in practice: worship, prayer, generous sharing, and devotion to apostolic teaching. Nothing flashy. No celebrity speakers, no marketing campaigns, no social media strategy. Just ordinary people faithfully walking with Jesus in the ordinary rhythms of life.

Whatever is forming you is also filling you. And whatever is filling you will eventually flow from you.

A Promise

Luke gives us a quiet but powerful promise in the final sentence of the passage: “…And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”

Notice who the subject is: The Lord. Not the disciples. Not the apostles. Not the church’s clever strategies. The Lord added.

As I’ve been preaching through the Spirit-Formed Life series with my congregation, I’ve stumbled onto a beautiful surprise: The Spirit never asked the first disciples to carry the weight of building His Church. He asked them to devote themselves to Him — worship, prayer, fellowship, generosity, apostolic teaching. Faithfulness was their assignment. Fruitfulness was God’s responsibility.

The Spirit-formed life is one in which Jesus increasingly becomes the subject of every sentence in our story. Jesus is the subject of our worship, our fellowship, our generosity, our witness, our salvation. 

As Jesus becomes the main character, we become perfectly content to be supporting characters in His story. 

That is discipleship. That is maturity. That is holiness.

A Personal Confession

Before I close, I need to confess something. That one-day discipleship class in the Facebook post? Twenty years…no, really more like ten…okay, so seven years ago, that could easily have been me. I would have been the one developing the curriculum, standing in the front of the room, convinced that if I could just teach enough, organize enough, and equip enough, people would become disciples.

Those were the things that formed me as a pastor for a long time. But the Holy Spirit has been teaching me something I wish I had learned much earlier: Jesus doesn’t primarily form disciples in classrooms. He forms them in daily surrender, in worship, in prayer, around tables, in ordinary acts of obedience, and in the daily rhythms of a life yielded to the Holy Spirit.

And when Jesus forms a life, that life begins to overflow.

That’s why I’ve been asking my congregation a Question of the Month that I believe matters so much: What is forming me more than Jesus right now?

Overflow isn’t the goal.

Overflow is the result.

Christlikeness is the goal.

Overflow is the consequence.

So, I’ve decided that I’m not going to spend the rest of my life trying to become a better evangelist. I’m going to spend my life becoming more like Jesus. I’m going to trust Him with the results. Because what fills us eventually flows from us.

Friends, what is forming you more than Jesus right now?

I’d love to hear from you in the comments. And if this resonates, would you share it with someone who needs encouragement to return to the simple, ordinary, Spirit-formed rhythms of the early church?

Until next time, keep looking up…

The Dream Nobody Knew

/ pastorlynnmalone / Leave a comment

Back in the mid-to-late 1980s, I worked in my grandfather’s hardware store in Chatham, Louisiana.

Like most small-town hardware stores, it wasn’t exactly a center of corporate innovation. We sold nuts and bolts, plumbing fittings, paint, and whatever else folks needed to keep life moving. Most days, I sat on an old stool behind the counter waiting on customers and trying to decide what I wanted to do with my life.

Somewhere during those years I started reading Entrepreneur magazine. I don’t know why it captured my imagination, but it did.

Every month I would read stories about entrepreneurs building businesses from nothing. I wasn’t a businessman. I was just a young husband working in a hardware store. But those articles stirred something inside me. They made me dream.

In the back of the magazine there was an advertisement for a little oil change company out of Metairie, Louisiana called SpeeDee Oil Change.

Most people had never heard of it.

They were beginning to franchise locations, and every time I saw that advertisement I found myself imagining what it would be like to own one.

Not just anywhere. In Ruston. And not just somewhere in Ruston. On the North Service Road.

I can still see myself sitting on that stool, flipping through those pages, imagining a future that seemed completely out of reach. Life, however, had other plans.

I never opened a SpeeDee franchise. Instead, I became a deputy sheriff. Then God called me into ministry. The years passed. I pastored churches. Raised children. Attended committee meetings. Preached sermons. Buried saints. Married young couples. Watched grandchildren arrive.

Like most people, I eventually assumed some dreams belonged to younger versions of ourselves.

Every now and then I would see a lube shop and remember those old thoughts from the hardware store, but life had moved on. Or so I thought.

Then in 2019, something unexpected happened. After nearly three decades in pastoral ministry, I sensed God might be leading me into a different season. An opportunity opened with a local bank, and I accepted a position as Business Development Officer.

In some ways, it felt like a return to those old entrepreneurial dreams. I wasn’t leaving ministry because I was angry or burned out. I simply believed God might be redirecting my path. For the first time in years, I found myself working in the business world again, helping build relationships and explore opportunities for growth.

Then 2020 arrived.

Like everyone else, we watched as COVID changed everything. The bank adapted to new realities, reevaluated priorities, and eventually chose a different direction. The role for which I had been hired was disappearing. Leadership offered me another opportunity within the organization, but it involved becoming a consumer loan officer.

I tried to imagine myself sitting behind a desk every day approving loans and financing purchases. The more I thought about it, the more I realized it wasn’t who I was. Nothing against the people who do that work. It simply wasn’t where my heart was. I couldn’t shake the feeling that God wasn’t calling me to spend the rest of my working years helping people borrow money to buy things they probably didn’t need and often couldn’t afford.

Once again, I found myself standing at a crossroads.

The door that had seemed so promising in 2019 was quietly closing. I didn’t know what came next. I only knew it was time for another change.

Looking back now, I don’t see the banking years as a detour at all. I see them as a placeholder.

When I left vocational ministry in 2019, I needed somewhere to land. SpeeDee wasn’t for sale. The opportunity didn’t exist. But the bank did. For two years, God provided exactly what I needed for that season. Not forever. Just for then.

At the time, I couldn’t understand why that door was opening only to close again so quickly. It felt confusing. Disappointing, even. But hindsight has a way of revealing what faith often cannot see in the moment.

The bank was never the destination. It was the bridge.

Had SpeeDee been available in 2019, I likely would have stepped directly into it. But it wasn’t. The timing wasn’t right. God wasn’t withholding anything from me. He was simply preparing the next chapter while providing a place for me to stand in the meantime.

Then, when the season at the bank had run its course and the role I had been hired to fill was disappearing, the opportunity I had imagined as a young man sitting in my grandfather’s hardware store suddenly appeared.

Nearly forty years after I first sat on that stool in Chatham dreaming about SpeeDee Oil Change, the business in Ruston was for sale. The very business. On the very road. In the very town.

The location was right. The timing was right. And for the first time, I could see that what felt like uncertainty had actually been providence all along.

There was one more detail I couldn’t appreciate at the time. The same bank that had provided a place for me to land after leaving ministry became the bank that financed the purchase of SpeeDee Oil Change.

Sometimes God’s provision is only visible in the rearview mirror.

I didn’t start it. I didn’t build it from scratch. Another entrepreneur did all of that. But I bought it. And in doing so, I realized something I had never fully understood. Sometimes God says yes to our dreams. Just not according to our timetable.

Looking back, I spent years paying attention to doors that didn’t open. There were positions I sought and didn’t receive. Leadership opportunities that passed me by. Places where I thought God might be leading, only to find the answer was no. Those disappointments felt significant at the time. Some of them still sting if I’m honest. But while I was keeping score of the doors that closed, I failed to notice the dream God quietly fulfilled.

The young man sitting on that stool in Chatham could never have imagined the route God would take to get there. He certainly couldn’t have imagined owning an oil change business while also serving as a pastor. He couldn’t have imagined the detours, disappointments, failures, successes, and surprises that would fill the next four decades. He only knew he had a dream.

What he didn’t know was that God had not forgotten it. The older I get, the more I suspect that faith is often learning to trust God’s timing when it bears little resemblance to our own.

Sometimes God closes doors we desperately want opened. Sometimes He opens doors we never expected. And sometimes He takes a dream that has been sitting quietly in the back of our hearts for forty years and says, “Not yet.”

Then one day, when we’ve almost forgotten about it, He says, “Now.”

Funny thing is, no one knew that story. Not even Vanessa.

No one knew that a young man sitting on a stool in a hardware store, flipping through Entrepreneur magazine, had quietly dreamed about owning a SpeeDee Oil Change in Ruston one day.

I almost forgot about that dream myself. But God didn’t. 

Until next time, keep looking up…