Faithfulness to Fruitfulness

The Rev. Canon Mark E. Rudolph

Introduction
My wife often reminds me that God calls us to faithfulness. Success, she says, is not
our problem but Gods. Since the concept of measurable goals is an increasingly
repeated theme in the church, I sometimes need to think back to her wisdomas
do we all!
So what constitutes fruitful ministry?

MBO
Couched in the terms of business, the idea of planning and management with an
eye toward fruitfulness is called management by objectiveMBO. Peter Drucker
wrote about this idea in 1954, rightly pointing out that the activity trap of day to
day business can cause one to forget the main objective, the strategic big picture.
Derived from such management theories, the business world went from management style Theory X, to Theory Y, to Theory Z.1 We learned phrases like give
me the bottom line and wheres the value add? Strategic planning, ISO 9001,
QMS, and six sigma werent far behind, not to mention such platitudinous
clichs as thinking outside the box and connect the dots, extend the dots.
These business theories had their effects on the human factor in the business
and social arenas, resulting in a broad spectrum of human resource and management styles, ranging from soft communism to draconian authoritarianism.
Hewlett-Packard virtually pioneered day care for employees children, together
1

My laissez faire capitalist businessman father (none of which are derogatory terms!) gave
me a copy of William Ouchis Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge
when I was in my teens. Together with the book The Incredible Bread Machine, written by a cadre
of economics students, these books have been fundamental in my understanding of economics
and management.

with liberal benefits and work arrangements. General Electrics poster boy of
management, Jack Welch, used to fire the bottom 10% of his management on a
yearly basis for the purpose of productivity, boasting that his bottom 10% became
the top 10% of the rest of corporate America.

Adoption By The Church

The various church growth movements of the last 40 years have adopted much of
this mind set, but with baptized language and sometimes sanctified application.
We talk about having measurable objectives, which are achieved by being seeker
sensitive and meeting felt needs, so that the church can demonstrate that it is
results oriented and showing Gospel fruitfulness.
Further demonstration of the influence of an outcomes-based view of the
church can be found in the popularity of the mega-church movement and its
darling daughter the emerging church. These movements have significantly
shifted the churchs view of worship, music, and membership. In fact, just about
anything that smacks of old fashioned churchmanship has been pummeled into
practices and expressions that are relevant in a post-modern culture. Over two
decades ago, I heard a lecturer proclaim that any church under 250 members was
obsolete, unproductive, and bound to disappear. More recently, a colleague heard
a church consultant point out that preaching is pass. Its something that one
has to go through to get to the good stuff.
Be very clear at this point: I am not asserting that the problem is postmodernism, nor being emergent, nor relevancy, nor shifting styles of music
and liturgical structure. What I find of particular concern is not the concept of
fruitfulness per se. Im very much in favor of fruitfulness. What disturbs me is the
concept of fruitfulness as a primaryif not solecharacteristic of the churchs
leadership and ethos.
To use theological and historical terms, the problem, at its root, is good oldfashioned Pelagianism. Pelagianism says that we are neither disposed to good
nor evil, but may choose our way freely and without hindrance. To use business
language, its the idea that if we do the right things, well get the right results;
and the right results always seem to be defined by nickles and noses showing a
marked increase from year to year. Much of modern church growth theoryin
some cases, unintentionallysays exactly this.
Does it never strike us that Jesus poured out his life in ministry for 3 years and
never expanded his personal circle much beyond the 12? A study of early missions
2

work among Hindus and Muslims, or in China and India would show that using
modern measurements, these were all failures, flops, and bad investments in the
kingdom. Bad investment? Tell that to the 39 million Christians in China, or the
25 million in India, or the nearly 1 million in and around Baghdad (at the time of
the original writing of this paper, 2006).
Having been involved in ministry and missions for over 30 years, I know well
the personal desire to see demonstrable gains from my efforts. And if my own ego
didnt push me to look for such outcomes, church boards and missions donors
demand them.

Outcomes or Character?
To the extent of my knowledge, the Scriptures never talk about fruitfulness as a
ground, basis or cause of what is pleasing to God. Fruitfulness is always the result
and outcome of Biblical character and obedience; a characteristic that one might
summarize as faithfulness. Think about Pauls words to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3,
a key passage committed to an apostolic description of Biblical leadership as it
should be found in the episkopos.
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of
overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must
be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent,
respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. He must
be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children
under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to
manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of
God?), and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited
and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. And he must
have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will
not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (vss. 17, NAS, 1995)
Every marker of Biblical leadership in this text refers to the internal and
fundamental character of every Christian person. While one might be able to find
hints of an outcomes-based sub-theme in this text, there is not one numeric goal
listed, not even for souls! The closest thing to MBO Christianity would be that: a)
the presbyters household is under control with all dignity, and, b) having a good
reputation outside the church. Even with these, faithfulness counts first!
3

Corporate World Ahead of the Church?

Its not just the Bible that thinks this way. The business world has started to get
the picture in the last 20+ years. Stephen Covey, in his paradigm-making book
on management and leadership The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People makes the
following comments:
I was deeply immersed in an in-depth study of the success literature
published in the United States since 1776 . . . As my study took me
back through 200 years of writing about success, I noticed a startling
pattern emerging in the content of the literature . . . I began to feel
more and more that much of the success literature of the past 50
years was superficial. It was filled with social image consciousness,
techniques and quick fixes.
In stark contrast, almost all of the literature in the first 150 years
or so focused on what could be called the Character Ethic as the
foundation of successthings like integrity, humility, fidelity, temperance, courage, justice, patience, industry, simplicity, modesty, and
the Golden Rule.2
The character ethic to which Covey refers is set in distinction to the ethic
of personality, as he calls it. He goes on to say that such things as personality
growth and communication skills training can be important enough, but that
they are secondary traits, not primary. Covey is no religious writer. He is a
management consultant. But he seems to have a very Biblical view of leadership
and management!
The idea of corporate stakeholders is a reflection of this kind of thinking
in the business world. The idea of stakeholders says that stockholders arent the
only interested parties in a business. Employees need to be taken into account.
Communities need to be kept happy. The government is a stakeholder in its
regulative capacity. Suppliers and customers are stakeholders, too. Corporations
now speak about being good corporate citizens and good neighbors. Even the
primitive idea of MBWA (management by walking around) was meant to convey
relationship between manager and managed, a genuine synergy and mutual
interest of parties. In other words, Theory Z works if the fundamental character
2

p. 18, 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Restoring the Character Ethic. Stephen R. Covey.
Franklin Covey Company. 1990.

of the corporation and its constituent parties is sound. Bad character not only
corrupts good morals;3 it corrupts the bottom line!
When discussing the difference between outcomes-based and character-based
thinking, one cannot help but think of some famous cases in our court system.
Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were found guilty of 29 counts
of bank fraud, conspiracy, and insider trading between them. Associated Press
reported:
Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were known as visionaries, handson executives, corporate titans directing the high-flying ship at Wall
Street darling Enron Corp. Add another title: convicted felons.
A juror, when questioned about the verdict, showed nearly schizophrenic
thinking about success versus character. She almost seems to be conflicted about
whether success or character is more important:
I did have admiration for both men, just what they accomplished in
their careers, another juror, Wendy Vaughan, said. It was sad to see
that at end it wasnt accomplished in a respectful manner, having to
hurt so many people to get there. She worried, however, whether
the panels verdict and justice will really prevail or will the almighty
dollar be the winner again.4

Driven or Called?
Gordon MacDonald, in Ordering Your Private World, makes the same kinds of
points about Biblical character and leadership. He calls it a distinction between
being called and being driven. For MacDonald, being called means being drawn
forward by a great goal, worthy of our all, no matter how small or large our
contribution and recognition. Being driven means being pushed to accomplish in
order to satisfy our internal needs, no matter what the cost to others.
Noting that many successful Christian leaders have a record of leaving
behind dead bodies of relationships, while producing what many observers would
call wonderful Gospel fruit, he describes these characteristics of driven people
this way.
3

1 Corinthians 15:33.
Enron Founder Lay Shocked at Conviction, May 26 2006, Michael Graczyk, Associated
Press Writer.
4

1. A driven person is most often gratified only by accomplishment.

2. A driven person is preoccupied with the symbols of accomplishment.
3. A driven person is usually caught in the uncontrolled pursuit of expansion.
4. Driven people tend to have a limited regard for integrity.
5. Driven people often possess limited or undeveloped people skills.
6. Driven people tend to be highly competitive.
7. A driven person often possesses a volcanic force of anger.
8. Driven people are usually abnormally busy.5
There are also reflections of the dichotomy between good character and appearing to have good character in the excellent essay Idol-Smashing and Immodesty
in the Groves of Academe by Wilfred M. McClay. In his discussion of modesty,
he writes:
Even at its very best, modesty for us signifies a restraint or inhibition
that one choosesor more likely, has had drilled into one, so that it
is an unconscious reflexnot because it conforms to what is inherently
right or appropriate, but because it represents a safe and politic way
of handling things, one that protects against public embarrassment,
or against the envy or rivalrousness or passions of others. To the
extent that the concept still lives, its force has become almost entirely
other-directed rather than inner-directed, to use the sociologist
David Riesmans famous dichotomy. One is modest not because of
what one believes but out of concern for how one is seen.6
Modesty, he points out, is no longer an inherent aspect of good character, its
just a means to an end. It is outcomes-based management of oneself.
What is even more frightening is the tendency in the church today to idolize
some of these characteristics! We give a positive spin to these traits by calling
5

Gordon MacDonald, Ordering Your Private World. Highland Books, Godalming, Surrey, UK.
1998.
6
Emphasis mine. In Character: A Journal of Everyday Virtues. See the archived article at
www.incharacter.org/article.php?article=58.

such a person a visionary, motivated, single minded, committed, focused, a get

the job done kind of person. But MacDonalds list of characteristics often does
not square well with another and better known list, that of the fruit of the spirit:
love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, gentleness, kindness, or faithfulness.
If the idea of fruitfulness is understood as an outworking of Christian character,
then fruitfulness is not merely acceptable, it is necessary. By your fruits you
will know them, says Jesus. Ones works demonstrate faith, says James. Paul
instructs us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.
But if fruitfulness is the primary characteristic of our leadership ethos, then
large churches without holiness, monetarily sound organizations without true
piety, and poor pastors but sound businessmen as leaders will becomeand, in
fact, they have becomea defining distinctive of Christs church. We then sound
more like those who come to Jesus saying: Didnt we cast out demons in your
name? Didnt we run a well-ordered outcomes-based, management-by-objectivesoriented organization for you?
I heard a respected and well-paid church consultant say that there is a lack of
good leadership in America. I dont believe that.
I would say that there are plenty of good leaders, but no direction. The moral
compass of the church should be godly character defined by Gods law, based on
relationship between mankind and the Creator through Christ, which necessarily
results in faithful work and, very often, fruitful labor. But if the ethic of the church
is outcomes based, then the ends really do justify the means, and Paul doesnt
have any idea what hes talking about when he writes to Timothy and Titus.

Consequences of Outcomes over Character

The man whom many came to know as the Doctor, Martin Lloyd-Jones, wrote
on this very topic:
God has done His greatest work throughout the centuries through
remnants, often even through individuals . . . This is not to advocate
smallness or exclusiveness as if they had some inherent merit; but it
is to suggest that the modern slavish attitude to bigness and organization cuts right across a central biblical emphasis. Indeed it suggests
ignorance of, and lack of faith in, the power of the Holy Spirit . . .
The ultimate question facing us these days is whether our faith is in
men and their power to organize, or in the truth of God in Christ
7

Jesus and the power of the Holy Spirit. Let me put it another way:
Are we primarily concerned about the size of the church or the purity
of the church, both in doctrine and life?7
Permit me to restate his point slightly: are we primarily concerned with
the size of the church and other such outcomes, or the character of the church
expressed through its purity of life and doctrine?
Several consequences will naturally follow, I believe, if we put our attention
on outcomes over character.
First, we ignore Scripture. What the church would be effectively asserting
is that the Bible has no wisdom for us in the areas of church growth, pastoral
practice, leadership development, or economics. To be honest, through many of
the theological errors prevalent today, this is exactly what the church is asserting.
Second, and perhaps even worse, we pretend to do our Biblical-theological
homework and we take our present conception of leadership and church growth
and baptize it with Biblical language. This is far more dangerous that we may
appreciate. Without the willingness to rigorously test ideas and paradigms against
Biblical models, we have made the Creator (God and his word) serve the creature
(the method or idea). In so doing, we create an idol. We become false prophets
fully equal in execrable delusion to the modern tele-prophets of health, wealth,
and success, or the Baal worshippers of old. We preach a false gospel and proclaim
a false god.
Third, we not only perpetrate a kind of idolatry, but we create fruit exactly
like that which we have planted. We create a church and mindset that is selfdestructive and other-destructiveperhaps inadvertentlybut just as really. Return for a moment to the characteristics of the driven person: accomplishment
driven rather than vision driven, lacking integrity, systems driven and people
averse, dangerously competitive, easily angered, busy beyond reason.
What are the outcomes of this kind of (often otherwise) talented and motivated leadership? Resentful personnel? Frail organizations? Single-generation
congregations based on personalities? Damaged people? Unhealthy marriages?
Children of pastors who hate the church and all it stands for? Ministry that
7

Knowing the Times, p. 163, italics added, from the conclusion of Lloyd-Jones addresses collectively entitled, The Basis of Christian Unity given to the Westminster Ministers Fellowship in June, 1962. See also the helpful essay by Phil Ryken, How the
Devil Wants to Run Our Churches at http://sites.silaspartners.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0PTID323422%7CCHID664014%7CCIID2179502,00.html.

isnt? Criminal behavior? Squandering of funds? Lack of leadership training?

Narcissism?
As we sow, so shall we reap.
For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind . . . Sow
for yourselves righteousness; reap steadfast love.8
If the seeds of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness,
faithfulness, and self-control are not sown, then . . . ? Is holiness optional for the
church office, while mandatory for the church family?

Conclusion
We should put the S.M.A.R.T.9 method for valuation of objectives and S.W.O.T.
grid analyses10 in their proper place. Make use of such models, in the manner
and to the extent appropriate. But let us again exalt the Biblical markers of
good leadership to their place of primacy: character, wisdom, faithfulness, honor,
integrity, and otherperhaps time-worn, but still essentialcharacteristics of
godly leadership and growth. And more than anything else, let us return the best
manager in all the universe to His rightful place in the church.

Other / Miscellaneous Notes

What we measure as faithfulness.
How we measure faithfulness.
Why we measure faithfulness.
We celebrate William Wilberforce for his endurance and perseverance, but
whence comes such a disposition? The Claphamites recognized, with Justin Martyr
and Mother Teresa, that the Lord has called us to faithfulness, not success. Like
Esther, they were able to heed the call of God on their lives, examine their efforts,
and at the end of the day say If I perish, I perish. Their spiritual focus gave their
frequently unsuccessful efforts meaning and purpose. It also gave them breadth
of vision. Each defeat did not call their vocation into question; it only encouraged
8
Hosea 8:7 and 10:12, together with similar imagery and wisdom in 2 Corinthians 9:6 and
Galatians 6:78.
9
Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, Time framed
10
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats

them to reexamine their methods and prepare for the next engagementthough
it might be 20 years in the future, as in the case of rechartering the East India
Company with provisions for admitting missionaries and schoolmasters to curtail
the abuse and exploitation of the Indians by company executives, for example
[my favorite story of the Clapham Community].11

11

From Clapham to Capitol Hill: Reflections on William Wilberforce and the Clapham Community for an Anglican Parish in the Federal City, Presented to Clergy, Staff, and Communicants
of the Church of the Resurrection, Douglas C. Minson, Associate Director, The Witherspoon
Fellowship, Washington, DC, 3 March, 2007

10