One Simple Way to Avoid Burnout And Make It For The Long Haul
Bob Hyatt
June 1, 2017

One of the primary differences between those who make it for the long haul in leading and ministering to others and those who don’t is the level of self-differentiation they are able to achieve. Self-differentiation is the ability to separate one’s intellectual or emotional functioning from that of family or other groups. In other words, it is the ability to know who you are without reference to who others believe you to be. This happens when your identity is rooted in something other than the transitory—your job or title, the esteem with which others hold you or the way you feel about your current performance. For the Christian leader, self-differentiation depends on our view of ourselves as the beloved of God, children of a God who cares for us because of who we are and accepts us because of what Christ has done.

Leading in a church setting is especially challenging for our self-differentiation. We’re often expected to respond not just to the needs but also to the wants and preferences of a very diverse community at all stages of spiritual development. We’re looked up to by some and looked down on by others; we’re seen as the solution by some and the problem by others. In all of this, we’re dealing with our own spiritual development and with our identity as leaders and members of the very communities we’re also trying to lead. Trying to be “all things to all people” is a sound missiological principle, but doing so without first having a grounded core identity—dependent not on what people think of us but on what God thinks of us—will quickly have us running in twelve different directions at once and losing our mission orientation. “Doing God’s will means at times resisting the loving appeal of nervous friends who offer us another, safer agenda”—or resisting the nervous preferences of our community or fellow leaders.

One of the things that has been most valuable to me in my quest to be the leader God means me to be is:  Knowing the difference between to and for.

Leaders face a constant temptation to feel responsible for their community, their spiritual well-being, their marriages and their continued presence and involvement with their community. The problem is that as a community grows, as more and more marriages struggle (and perhaps fail) and as some decide to walk away from your church (and even the faith), that weight on your shoulders increases exponentially. Feeling responsible for others when we have no control over their behavior quickly leads to leaders who either try to control the behavior through whatever means necessary or who burn out under the load.

The good news is that you are not responsible  for  anyone in your community. As a pastor, you have responsibilities  to  them. You have the responsibility to love them, to teach them, to carefully and lovingly correct and exhort and encourage them, but you are not responsible for what they choose to do with that. Your responsibility includes doing all you can to point them to Jesus, but it puts the results firmly in their choices and the work of the Holy Spirit.

The same holds true with the overall community. We tend to take responsibility both when things are going well and when they aren’t, when we’re growing and when things feel stagnant and dead. In both, we overestimate both our influence and our responsibility. As leaders, we don’t make the church grow—God does. Our responsibility is to discharge our duties faithfully as elders and then leave the results up to God. We are responsible to our communities to be the best leaders we can be, to offer the best we can in terms of spurring others on toward love and good deeds and sounding a clear call to be the church Jesus had in mind. Ultimately, God is responsible for his church and its members, not us. The outcomes of our efforts rest in his hands, not on our shoulders.

(This is an adapted excerpt from  Eldership and the Mission of God: Equipping Teams for Faithful Church Leadership – Check it out  here )

By Bob Hyatt September 15, 2025
A New Ecclesia Network Benefit! 
By By Jim Pace September 15, 2025
In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s shooting, social media has been filled with perspectives, as is typically the case. I am reluctant to add mine as there seems to be no lack one way or the other. To be clear, this is not just about Charlie Kirk, this is about violence across the board. I did not feel led to write this because it was Charlie Kirk specifically, but rather another in a long and winding line of acts of violence, that my ministering at Va. Tech gives me a bit of personal experience with. But as I have just finished teaching two classes on Christian Ethics, and as I was encountering again the spread of responses from my Christian sisters and brothers, I felt led to look at this event through that lens. Ethics, at its base, seeks to answer the question, “What is better or worse? Good or bad?” As a follower of Jesus, this is what seems right to me… 1. We never celebrate harm. Whatever our disagreements, rejoicing at a shooting violates the bedrock claim that every person bears the imago Dei (Gen 1:27). Scripture is explicit: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls” (Prov 24:17); “Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44); “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). I don’t love blasting verses like this, but you cannot get away from them if you are reading the scriptures. 2. Moral responsibility sits with the shooter—full stop . Saying “his rhetoric got him shot” smuggles in a just-world logic that excuses violence. As a contextual theologian, I have an enormous amount of respect for the impact our various narratives have in shaping our understandings of the world around us. They are inescapable. But that is not what I am talking about here. Ideas can be wrong, harmful, or worth opposing vigorously, but vigilante ‘payback’ is never a Christian category. My primary gig is that of a consultant for churches and non-profits. Today, in my meetings and among friends, I have heard some variation of “He got what he deserved,” and “I vote for some very public justice for the shooter.” Both of these views speak of revenge; the follower of Jesus is called to lay these down as our Messiah did. Not asked to, told to. 3. Grief and outrage about gun violence are legitimate; schadenfreude is not . Channel the pain toward nonviolent, concrete action (policy advocacy, community intervention, survivor support), not dehumanization. Here are four thinkers who have had a profound impact on the Christian ethic I try to work out in this world. As I share them, three things are worthy of mention. One, I certainly do not claim to follow their guidance perfectly, and at times I do not even do it well, but they have all given me what seems like a Jesus-centered and faith-filled direction to move in. Second, I do not claim to speak for them in this particular matter; I am merely showing how my ethical lens has been formed. Third, clearly I am not dealing with all the components of our response to these types of violence, this is not a comprehensive treatment, merely the reflections in the moment. Stanley Hauerwas : “Christian nonviolence is not a strategy to rid the world of violence.” It’s part of following Jesus, not a tactic we drop when it’s inconvenient. Stanley Hauerwas, Walking with God in a Fragile World, by James Langford, editor, Leroy S. Rouner, editor N. T. Wright : “The call of the gospel is for the church to implement the victory of God in the world through suffering love.” Simply Good News: Why the Gospel Is News and What Makes It Good. In other words, we answer evil without mirroring it. David Fitch : Our culture runs on an “enemy-making” dynamic; even “the political rally… depends on the making of an enemy. Don’t let that train your soul.” The Church of Us vs. Them. Sarah Coakley : Contemplation forms resistance, not passivity. For Coakley, sustained prayer trains perception and courage so Christians can resist abuse and give voice against violence (it’s not quietism). “Contemplation, if it is working aright, is precisely that which gives courage to resist abuse, to give voice against violence.” Sarah Coakley, God, Sexuality, and the Self. Coakley would say that far too often we react before we reflect. This is the problem that Fitch is getting at in much of his writing, that our culture actually runs on antagonisms, the conflict between us. We need to find a better way.