...would be just as fattening. ;)
I've always been interested in cooking and baking. I remember I baked my first cake at about age 8, took it to a school party, and was very upset when nobody believed I had baked it myself. As a child I fed on my mother's Gourmet magazines, and I still read cookbooks as if they were novels. Finding and sharing recipes on the Internet and indulging in what some call "Food Porn" (trolling beautiful photos of foods) are some of my favorite down-time activities. This often inspires me to try out a new recipe, or it gives me ideas how to creatively use what's moldering away in the fridge.
This hobby has its perks; I am regularly entertained by the names of dishes. I've often wondered over the years how recipes come to be called what they are commonly known by. Germany and Austria are generally not very creative in their choices of "official" recipe names; the name more or less simply describes the contents of the dish, or is named "in the style of --- (town or region)". But what country people and local farmers call their traditional dishes can be very creative indeed: Schäufele (little shovels), Späetzle (little sparrows), Maultaschen (mouth pockets)...
The most intriguing name I have come across for a purely Austrian dish is the local nickname for a sausage officially called a Käsekrainer. A Krainer is a coarse, farmer-style pork sausage and a Käsekrainer is the same recipe with bits of white cheese added. (They're both delicious, by the way.) When grilled, the bits of cheese quite naturally melt, causing the sausage to leak or squirt somewhat alarmingly. You can imagine what it looks like when sliced. So it's not surprising someone came up with the name "der Eitrige" for this, which is what you'll most often hear requested at late-night sausage stands. What does that mean? "The one full of pus".
Sorry (but not very)!
England especially has some rather queer names for what turn out to be quite innocuous dishes: Toad in Hole (sausages baked in batter), Bubble and Squeak (leftover pan-fried cabbage and potato), the unfortunate Spotted Dick (sponge pudding with raisins)... But what really surprised me when I first got to Europe was the fact that no French person I ever met had heard of French toast, no German is familiar with what Americans know as German chocolate cake, and Salisbury steak is unknown in Salisbury. It turns out all these dishes are purely American; their misnomers mislead us to believe they originated in the places after which they are named.
When I did make German chocolate cake (plain chocolate layers with a filling and topping of pecans, shredded coconut and condensed milk) for my German friends, they loved it! But it's still not German in any sense of the word.
Looking toward moving to the UK, I realize I have a lot to learn. What I grew up believing was an English muffin is, in fact, much closer to a crumpet. An American muffin, on the other hand, would be known in the UK as a fairy cake if sweet, a bread if savory. (American sweet muffins have changed from when I was a child; now what is usually sold as a muffin is far closer to cake than the slightly sweet bread it used to be. And they are now 3 times the size!)
In the UK pancakes, flapjacks, and griddle cakes are all vastly differing foods. A sandwich can be known variously as a bap, a butty, a roll or a cob, depending on what bread is used and which part of the country you're in. In the USA and in Austria, if asked would you like some tea and you reply yes, the second question will be: black or herbal? But in the UK tea is always black tea unless stated otherwise; an herbal tea is a tisane.
Both A and I love soups, especially in colder weather. Many dishes I would probably call stew he calls soup. What we each call dumplings are two different dishes. No matter; we enjoy eating it whatever we call it, as long as it tastes good! A name can influence one's desire to taste the dish (or not), true; but it's the flavor that is convincing, not the name. For an example in English, who would ever think that "sweetbreads" meant "innards"?! But in Austria I have eaten and enjoyed some innards I would never have touched while still in the USA-- and all of them have euphemistic names.
That could, in turn, lead me to musing on many other things we-- perhaps wrongly-- assume, because of our misleading cultural appellation for a certain thing. Maybe we unthinkingly accept its origins as authentic and definitive, when perhaps they're not. Maybe we know the same flavor under an entirely different moniker. Maybe we have refused even to taste it because the name has put us off... et cetera.
Some examples:
what is "family"?
what is "evangelism"?
what is, for that matter, "a Christian"??
...but it's a Saturday morning, laundry needs to be done, and I've spent enough time on this already.
Have fun thinking about it yourself!
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Coming Home
So... A and I have just returned from a spa break in Trentino, Italy. Using the last of our "play money" from wedding gifts, we celebrated our 6-monthaversary (any excuse will do) by taking advantage of a great cheap offer: 3 nights' off-season bed and full board at an exclusive 4-star hotel with its own thermal pool, saunas, workout room, etc. The only catch was, you had to get there under your own steam. No problem, I thought. Google says it'll take about 5 1/2 hours to drive there. It's a school/work day so traffic should be fairly light.
I had forgotten: this is ITALY we would be driving through!
Up to the Austrian border it was relatively straightforward, though the skies had been darkening and we'd driven through a few minor rainsqualls. But once we crossed into Südtirol, the weather, the roads (particularly signage) and most of all the quality of the other drivers rapidly deteriorated.
I have never understood this cultural divide. Italians as a nationality are generally an engaging, familial, friendly and laid-back people. But put a steering wheel in their hands and they suddenly seem to become these slavering, testosterone-driven, irrational creatures who think nothing of endangering everyone's lives for the sake of passing that next truck (which is also already exceeding the speed limit). I even saw mothers with small children in carseats execute insanely risky road manoeuvers. Passing at high speed going uphill on a blind curve or in a no-passing zone seems to be de rigeuer, whilst "yield/give way" or even stop signs are mere suggestions --generally to be ignored.
All this time the weather had steadily degenerated until we were driving, in the middle of an autumn afternoon, in near-darkness and through blinding torrents of rain (which small detail didn't seem to slow traffic down perceptibly). Several times I heard A mutter bitterly "Thank you so VERY MUCH" to the next downpour as it arrived. Somehow, in the driving rain, we had missed our entrance to the Autostrada and passed agonizingly slowly through 30 km of villages on a 2-lane side street from which we could frustratingly look up and see the road we were supposed to be on, but could not for the lives of us find a way to get onto it. It turns out that the Auostrada in Italy is a toll road, with entrances only in major towns, and we must have driven right past the first possible one 30 km back. We finally managed to enter it over halfway further on.
Add to this that most road signs are either poorly placed, written too small to read on the countless roundabouts or missing entirely. When we finally reached "our" exit from the Autostrada, for example, we found it was --surprise!!-- closed, with no diversion in place and no other options offered. There had also been no indication on any of the many signs leading up to it, that this major exit would not be in use. C'mon, guys, how hard could that be?! We had to drive through to the other side of Trento and figure out how to get back through the city to the smaller road which would lead us to our destination 25 kilmometers further on.
Stopping at a gas station to ask directions proved at first very frustrating, but ultimately not entirely fruitless. Somehow we found our way up the correct very winding mountain road in the rainy gloom, and fully 8 hours after leaving home, we arrived at the Grand Hotel Terme de Comano.
Oh my word.
I have very rarely stayed in a proper 4-star hotel in my missionary life, this stay itself only possible through the package deal we snapped up. I have been in hotels in Eastern Europe which claimed to have three or four stars but were actually only shabbily glorified B&Bs. But this Grand Hotel lived up to its name. Although it was off-season and many summer attractions had closed (the outdoor swimming pool was closed, and part of the extensive, beautifully landscaped grounds were being refurbished before the snows set in), clearly no expense had been spared to make sure guests felt they were being pampered. Although end of September, the gardens had been planned so there were still plenty of flowering shrubs, plus fountains, winding paths...
The entrance hall alone, all done in marble flooring, warm woods and inviting-looking, overstuffed furniture, would have been enough to convince me. But when we entered our "standard" room, I was really impressed: it was huge and sparkling clean, the bed was king size, and we had a balcony (though overlooking one end of the car park) directly across from a forested mountainside. Oh yes, I thought, I could far too easily get used to this!
Our plans to arrive early enough in the afternoon to have a nice soak in the thermal waters after our trip and then a leisurely shower before the evening meal had been thwarted. We nevertheless, after a brief lie-down (and munching the chocolate left on our pillows), changed into nicer clothing and made our way down to the dining room-- where we were not disappointed in the quality of the food served. Throughout our stay we ate far too much excellent Italian food, but then burned it off in the swimming pool, workout room, walking (it did clear the next day) and --for me-- the sauna.
I really enjoyed myself, but after 3 nights I was ready to come home, as was A.
The drive back home was uneventful and much faster on the road, since it was much better weather and we knew the tricks by then. We still witnessed, and braked to avoid, several situations which by all rights should have been life-threatening. I have no idea why one doesn't pass fatal accidents every 2 miles or so in Italy, but I suppose Italians drive very defensively (they can certainly be very offensive!). I did insist upon a stop at an Interspar, where we loaded up on extra-virgin olive oil, unusual pastas, Mozzarella and Parmesana Reggiano to take home with us. I think we will be eating Italian for awhile...
Once we move to England it won't be as easy to just bop over to another country (excepting France), so I'm glad we took this opportunity. But I was also so very glad to get back home, and to know that we don't plan on going anywhere else for several months. During the years I traveled a lot in ministry, I discovered I'm not really cut out for living out of a suitcase for very long. I can handle two weeks pretty well, but any longer than that started to feel like a hardship. I love to travel, but I also love having a home to come back to.
And that is not necessarily a physical place. I can make pretty much any place homey; it's who I am with which makes it feel like home to my soul. Next year we will be leaving this flat which was a real God-send for me in my transition time, and I won't miss it as such. I value all I learned here and I have enjoyed being in the newest place I've ever lived-- if something is broken, I did it, not some tenant before me-- but I always knew this was temporary.
Dad is my home. A is my home. And we can live anywhere, so long as we are together.
That's a rather comforting thought.
I had forgotten: this is ITALY we would be driving through!
Up to the Austrian border it was relatively straightforward, though the skies had been darkening and we'd driven through a few minor rainsqualls. But once we crossed into Südtirol, the weather, the roads (particularly signage) and most of all the quality of the other drivers rapidly deteriorated.
I have never understood this cultural divide. Italians as a nationality are generally an engaging, familial, friendly and laid-back people. But put a steering wheel in their hands and they suddenly seem to become these slavering, testosterone-driven, irrational creatures who think nothing of endangering everyone's lives for the sake of passing that next truck (which is also already exceeding the speed limit). I even saw mothers with small children in carseats execute insanely risky road manoeuvers. Passing at high speed going uphill on a blind curve or in a no-passing zone seems to be de rigeuer, whilst "yield/give way" or even stop signs are mere suggestions --generally to be ignored.
All this time the weather had steadily degenerated until we were driving, in the middle of an autumn afternoon, in near-darkness and through blinding torrents of rain (which small detail didn't seem to slow traffic down perceptibly). Several times I heard A mutter bitterly "Thank you so VERY MUCH" to the next downpour as it arrived. Somehow, in the driving rain, we had missed our entrance to the Autostrada and passed agonizingly slowly through 30 km of villages on a 2-lane side street from which we could frustratingly look up and see the road we were supposed to be on, but could not for the lives of us find a way to get onto it. It turns out that the Auostrada in Italy is a toll road, with entrances only in major towns, and we must have driven right past the first possible one 30 km back. We finally managed to enter it over halfway further on.
Add to this that most road signs are either poorly placed, written too small to read on the countless roundabouts or missing entirely. When we finally reached "our" exit from the Autostrada, for example, we found it was --surprise!!-- closed, with no diversion in place and no other options offered. There had also been no indication on any of the many signs leading up to it, that this major exit would not be in use. C'mon, guys, how hard could that be?! We had to drive through to the other side of Trento and figure out how to get back through the city to the smaller road which would lead us to our destination 25 kilmometers further on.
Stopping at a gas station to ask directions proved at first very frustrating, but ultimately not entirely fruitless. Somehow we found our way up the correct very winding mountain road in the rainy gloom, and fully 8 hours after leaving home, we arrived at the Grand Hotel Terme de Comano.
Oh my word.
I have very rarely stayed in a proper 4-star hotel in my missionary life, this stay itself only possible through the package deal we snapped up. I have been in hotels in Eastern Europe which claimed to have three or four stars but were actually only shabbily glorified B&Bs. But this Grand Hotel lived up to its name. Although it was off-season and many summer attractions had closed (the outdoor swimming pool was closed, and part of the extensive, beautifully landscaped grounds were being refurbished before the snows set in), clearly no expense had been spared to make sure guests felt they were being pampered. Although end of September, the gardens had been planned so there were still plenty of flowering shrubs, plus fountains, winding paths...
The entrance hall alone, all done in marble flooring, warm woods and inviting-looking, overstuffed furniture, would have been enough to convince me. But when we entered our "standard" room, I was really impressed: it was huge and sparkling clean, the bed was king size, and we had a balcony (though overlooking one end of the car park) directly across from a forested mountainside. Oh yes, I thought, I could far too easily get used to this!
Our plans to arrive early enough in the afternoon to have a nice soak in the thermal waters after our trip and then a leisurely shower before the evening meal had been thwarted. We nevertheless, after a brief lie-down (and munching the chocolate left on our pillows), changed into nicer clothing and made our way down to the dining room-- where we were not disappointed in the quality of the food served. Throughout our stay we ate far too much excellent Italian food, but then burned it off in the swimming pool, workout room, walking (it did clear the next day) and --for me-- the sauna.
I really enjoyed myself, but after 3 nights I was ready to come home, as was A.
The drive back home was uneventful and much faster on the road, since it was much better weather and we knew the tricks by then. We still witnessed, and braked to avoid, several situations which by all rights should have been life-threatening. I have no idea why one doesn't pass fatal accidents every 2 miles or so in Italy, but I suppose Italians drive very defensively (they can certainly be very offensive!). I did insist upon a stop at an Interspar, where we loaded up on extra-virgin olive oil, unusual pastas, Mozzarella and Parmesana Reggiano to take home with us. I think we will be eating Italian for awhile...
Once we move to England it won't be as easy to just bop over to another country (excepting France), so I'm glad we took this opportunity. But I was also so very glad to get back home, and to know that we don't plan on going anywhere else for several months. During the years I traveled a lot in ministry, I discovered I'm not really cut out for living out of a suitcase for very long. I can handle two weeks pretty well, but any longer than that started to feel like a hardship. I love to travel, but I also love having a home to come back to.
And that is not necessarily a physical place. I can make pretty much any place homey; it's who I am with which makes it feel like home to my soul. Next year we will be leaving this flat which was a real God-send for me in my transition time, and I won't miss it as such. I value all I learned here and I have enjoyed being in the newest place I've ever lived-- if something is broken, I did it, not some tenant before me-- but I always knew this was temporary.
Dad is my home. A is my home. And we can live anywhere, so long as we are together.
That's a rather comforting thought.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
A re: Leadership / Guest Post
This post is taken verbatim from an email my husband A has written to a mutual friend regarding the theme of leadership. It is too good, and too full of what we have discussed in recent months, not to share here, as it reflects a lot of where we have got to in our current spiritual process.
Take it away, Mr A!
***
Here a just a few thoughts from which you could go in any direction you like! The main thing is to find where your heart is at. If none of this registers with you, don't use any of it! It's just me spewing out thoughts.
1) What are you leading?
It depends on what you believe church in general, and XX in particular, is supposed to be about.
If you see XX through the lens of "business" and "organisation" (the models that I think have most shaped how we do church in the Western world) then you will tend to assume leaders of churches should have the same qualities as leaders of companies: charisma, dominance, gregariousness and superstardom... the ability to lead (or at least give the appearance of doing so!) in every situation. Happily, even business nowadays is waking up to the fact that this "extrovert" ideal doesn't necessarily make a good CEO, e.g. the richest man on the planet is Bill Gates who is an introvert. But don't let me get distracted on the extrovert/introvert thing!
The point is that leadership in the last century or so has been very much about "the culture of personality" e.g. "how to make friends and influence people" instead of what it was for centuries before that: "the culture of character", e.g. "character, the grandest thing in the world". It has redefined success to be the result of "performance" rather than "virtue", or perhaps, in Christian language, "gifts" rather than "character". Even business nowadays is tending towards defining successful leadership as much in terms of character as ability, e.g. openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness and agreeability.
When business or Christian leaders fail, it isn't usually due to their lack of ability but their lack of character. It's not that we don't need gifts. Indeed, as Christians, it's not legal to choose between gifts and character. We need both. But that's the point. We need both. For too long the emphasis has been too much on gifting and too little on character. Indeed, again, Bill Johnson would say that leadership is 95% character and 5% gifting. The gift can be trained. But the character has to be grown in real life in order to withstand the pressures greater responsibility places on us.
If you see XX through the lens of "family", then the leaders you are looking for are more like mums and dads and big brothers and big sisters. I'll make a crude and unfair comparison between a business-type leader and a father to show you what I mean.
A leader has a vision that is to be achieved through tasks. A father has a family that is to be grown through relationships. A leader is more task oriented. A father is more relationship oriented. A leader will form relationships in order to get the task done. A father will look for good things to do with the family he actually has. A leader will sacrifice relationships for the sake of a task. A father will sacrifice tasks for the sake of a relationship. A leader will try to reproduce themselves in others so that they can do his tasks in his way to achieve his vision. A father will raise and release his children to be whatever they are made to be. A leader is happy if he remains in control. A father is happy if his children surpass him.
Like I said, the comparison is unfair, but it does show that the values of business and family are very different. A business has a task to do if it is to remain in business. Therefore everything has to be focused on, and sacrificed for, the sake of the task. It's completely understandable. But a family doesn't exist under that kind of pressure, so need not be managed on those kind of principles. So, the question you could ask is: what does a successful family look like? An environment where kids are raised to heathy adults? An environment where we treat adults like adults? An environment that is open to adopting new family members without seeing that as a disruption? That will then determine the kind of leaders you want, or want to become, and how you will behave towards your followers.
Personally, I believe that if the King is Love and the Kingdom runs on loving him and loving people, then love, i.e. relationship, not task, is the most fertile thing in the universe. Yes, love leads us to doing things, of course. But someone needs to be loved, i.e. love doesn't exist without relationship. As an introvert, I dread a commune, or "one big happy family"! But I am also aware that, even as an introvert, I am still nourished, and able to nourish, in communion with (in my case, a few) others. And if we must talk about tasks like "discipleship" and "evangelism" (and we must!) then I believe they can only be done effectively through relationship anyway. The trouble is that our church life often takes so much energy out of us that we don't have time for relationships with each other or those around us. Our focus on the task has taken away our time and energy from the only thing that can actually fulfil that task: relationship. My opinion.
2) What does the Bible say about leadership?
I would say, "Start with Jesus" but I also recognise that all of us look at Jesus through the lenses of our culture, which is worlds apart from his! Nevertheless, rightly interpreted, he is obviously our model. It's often called "servant leadership" or as Bill Johnson likes to say, "He ruled with the heart of a servant and served with the heart of a king." The authority we are given positions us for more effective service: to do more good to more people. That's the only reason authority is given. Jesus washing the disciples' feet in John 13 comes to mind: "This is what 'Teachers' and 'Lords' do". Jesus' response to James and John in Matthew 20 and Mark 10 comes to mind: "The way the Gentiles do leadership is by exercising authority over people. But that's not how I do it and nor should you. I came to serve. If you want authority then become a servant, because only servants are given authority."
Three key passages in the letters are: Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13, where Paul lists what a leader looks like as far as he is concerned, and 1 Peter 5:1-4, where Peter appeals to his fellow elders to be examples to, and carers of, the people entrusted to them. As you can imagine, the two words that leap out of these passages to me are "family" and "character". Paul doesn't see how anyone can manage a church family if they can't manage their own family. And Paul sees proven character and spirituality, grown in real family life, as necessary to sustain someone in greater responsibility and therefore greater exposure. The only "gift" he seems to mention is the ability to teach the truth, but I don't see that necessarily as being "the spiritual gift of teaching" identified in Romans 12. In order to have lived the lives they have so that they have the character that qualifies them for leadership, they must have had some ability to recognise, put into practice and speak about what is true in the context of their family life. Truth always brings freedom (John 8:32).
3) What about the spiritual gift of leadership in Romans 12?
I think this is very important, so long as we understand what we mean by it. A lot of Christian books I have read define this gift like our extrovert CEO above. But that presupposes that church should look like a business... and so on! Here's what I think it is more about.
As the saying goes, "If someone thinks they are leading but no one is following them, that person is just going for a walk!" If people are following us, no matter how surprising that is, then we carry some kind of leadership gift. If they aren't, we don't. Having the job title does not give us the gift. We all know the teachers at school we respected and those we didn't. It wasn't so much about their knowledge of the subject or the techniques with which they delivered it. It was the authority they carried.
A gift can be trained, but its absence cannot be replaced by training. It's a gift, not an achievement. It's not the loudest voice, the most eloquent voice, nor the most frequently heard voice; it's the voice that carries spiritual authority. Look at some of the other 7 gifts in Romans 12. When the true gift of prophecy speaks, the Body recognises God's voice. When the true gift of encouragement speaks, the Body goes on its way rejoicing. When the true gift of mercy speaks, the Body is comforted. Likewise, when the true gift of leadership speaks, the Body follows. It's not about personality. It is about spiritual authority. Some English versions of the Bible actually translate the word as "rule" not "lead", which perhaps captures the sense of it better. We can only rule to the extent we have authority to do so.
Don't think I have any concerns about you as a team when I say this. It's just to make the point clear. I don't think we can lead a spiritual environment without the spiritual gift of leadership somewhere in the mix. We can only occupy the position of leadership, while our people actually follow those among us who do have the gift!
Because of our Western interpretation of "church as organisation" I think we have been too quick to turn the "gifts" into "offices" with names on the door, like "leader" or "pastor". While St Paul was obviously applying what he understood of Jesus' message to the situation of his time, not ours, I think it is important to notice that he did not make the association between "spiritual gift", i.e. an ability of Holy Spirit needed by the Body to function, and "elder", i.e. the office caring for a part of the Body. He deals with each matter separately.
He seems to me to identify 3 kinds of spiritual gift: wiring, tools and jobs. The Romans 12:6-8 gifts seem to be about the way we are wired to function with Holy Spirit in the Body. The 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 gifts seem to be the tools Holy Spirit makes available to the Body to use for the good of all. The Ephesians 4:11 gifts seem to be jobs that Holy Spirit gives people to raise the Body up to the full maturity of Christ. The Body needs all of these gifts, and none of us have all of them. But St Paul treats them all as functions and gifts, not positions and achievements. He deals with positions, i.e elders and helpers, separately, without listing the spiritual gifts they must have.
Why did I say all that? Just to say that I think, biblically, an elder needs to be a mum or a dad, not an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. If they happen to be one of those as well, that's no problem. Just don't confuse, say, the function of pastoring with the office of elder. They are different things. One can be a good pastor and a lousy elder and vice-versa! The job of an elder is primarily to rule, not to pastor...
and in case you hadn't already guessed, I have mischievously singled out "pastor" here precisely because it is the term we commonly use for "church leader", just to get you thinking about what leadership is actually about. While I don't object to the term being used in that way, or have a problem with pastors being leaders, I'm just suggesting they mean separate things in the Bible, which frees us to focus on what we actually mean by leadership.
4) "A house divided against itself cannot stand" (Matthew 12:25)
One final point that may no longer be relevant depending where your team is at in their process. Unity does not mean uniformity. Indeed, unity embraces diversity. That's what it means to be the Body. Every tribe and nation throughout all of history is represented. So, if we make agreement the basis of unity then we are doomed to failure. That's why we have so many different protestant denominations today. Most of them actually do agree on the basics of the creeds, but have divided over relatively minor issues.
However, I really do think there are limits to how far we can disagree with one another and maintain unity. True relationship can only exist to the extent there is a shared view of reality. Indeed, the correct way to understand "repentance" is as a change of mind, a buying into God's version of reality as opposed to our own. Repentance and forgiveness are made available precisely so that relationship can be restored and deepened.
It's not so much about offence. It's just that there are places that God and I cannot go together until I am on the same page as he is. It's exactly the same dynamic between human beings. Our ability to grow, and work, with people depends on how similar our beliefs and values are. Differences in beliefs and values need not be cause for hostility. But they do limit what is possible between us.
Imagine a building with four walls and a window in each wall. Four people, one looking through each window, will see the same reality but from a different perspective. That is healthy. That is why we need each other. As we listen to one another our understanding of the whole increases. But what I'm talking about is when people are not even looking into the same building!
"Agreeing to disagree" is an honest and helpful moment of clarity in a process, but not a position from which we can lead. It's the point at which we recognise we are divided and are therefore incapable of leading until we deal with the division, as I'm sure you now know only too well! Either the two sides need to bless one another and separate, or the two sides need to work together until they can see the same reality. But all the time they are divided, the house is crumbling around them. Unity builds. Division demolishes. By definition. No exceptions. No matter what name you give to it to make it sound better.
To put a positive spin on this, how does growth happen? Cells form and divide. Sometimes two perfectly good visions cannot coexist without competing with one another. Sometimes two valid, but different, cultures cannot coexist without sucking the life out of each other. In the context of all of space and time, no one group of Christians can represent all expressions of the kingdom. It is not an act of disloyalty to part company with blessing in order to free both sides to pursue what is truly in their respective hearts. Loyalty is a virtue, but when its fruit is a crumbling house, then it is misplaced loyalty. It is then loyalty to loyalty rather than loyalty to the Kingdom.
***
Well, I hope some of those thoughts were helpful. If not, you've just read my journal for today! It was useful to me to see where I'm at on my journey, even if it wasn't useful for you!
Take it away, Mr A!
***
Here a just a few thoughts from which you could go in any direction you like! The main thing is to find where your heart is at. If none of this registers with you, don't use any of it! It's just me spewing out thoughts.
1) What are you leading?
It depends on what you believe church in general, and XX in particular, is supposed to be about.
If you see XX through the lens of "business" and "organisation" (the models that I think have most shaped how we do church in the Western world) then you will tend to assume leaders of churches should have the same qualities as leaders of companies: charisma, dominance, gregariousness and superstardom... the ability to lead (or at least give the appearance of doing so!) in every situation. Happily, even business nowadays is waking up to the fact that this "extrovert" ideal doesn't necessarily make a good CEO, e.g. the richest man on the planet is Bill Gates who is an introvert. But don't let me get distracted on the extrovert/introvert thing!
The point is that leadership in the last century or so has been very much about "the culture of personality" e.g. "how to make friends and influence people" instead of what it was for centuries before that: "the culture of character", e.g. "character, the grandest thing in the world". It has redefined success to be the result of "performance" rather than "virtue", or perhaps, in Christian language, "gifts" rather than "character". Even business nowadays is tending towards defining successful leadership as much in terms of character as ability, e.g. openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness and agreeability.
When business or Christian leaders fail, it isn't usually due to their lack of ability but their lack of character. It's not that we don't need gifts. Indeed, as Christians, it's not legal to choose between gifts and character. We need both. But that's the point. We need both. For too long the emphasis has been too much on gifting and too little on character. Indeed, again, Bill Johnson would say that leadership is 95% character and 5% gifting. The gift can be trained. But the character has to be grown in real life in order to withstand the pressures greater responsibility places on us.
If you see XX through the lens of "family", then the leaders you are looking for are more like mums and dads and big brothers and big sisters. I'll make a crude and unfair comparison between a business-type leader and a father to show you what I mean.
A leader has a vision that is to be achieved through tasks. A father has a family that is to be grown through relationships. A leader is more task oriented. A father is more relationship oriented. A leader will form relationships in order to get the task done. A father will look for good things to do with the family he actually has. A leader will sacrifice relationships for the sake of a task. A father will sacrifice tasks for the sake of a relationship. A leader will try to reproduce themselves in others so that they can do his tasks in his way to achieve his vision. A father will raise and release his children to be whatever they are made to be. A leader is happy if he remains in control. A father is happy if his children surpass him.
Like I said, the comparison is unfair, but it does show that the values of business and family are very different. A business has a task to do if it is to remain in business. Therefore everything has to be focused on, and sacrificed for, the sake of the task. It's completely understandable. But a family doesn't exist under that kind of pressure, so need not be managed on those kind of principles. So, the question you could ask is: what does a successful family look like? An environment where kids are raised to heathy adults? An environment where we treat adults like adults? An environment that is open to adopting new family members without seeing that as a disruption? That will then determine the kind of leaders you want, or want to become, and how you will behave towards your followers.
Personally, I believe that if the King is Love and the Kingdom runs on loving him and loving people, then love, i.e. relationship, not task, is the most fertile thing in the universe. Yes, love leads us to doing things, of course. But someone needs to be loved, i.e. love doesn't exist without relationship. As an introvert, I dread a commune, or "one big happy family"! But I am also aware that, even as an introvert, I am still nourished, and able to nourish, in communion with (in my case, a few) others. And if we must talk about tasks like "discipleship" and "evangelism" (and we must!) then I believe they can only be done effectively through relationship anyway. The trouble is that our church life often takes so much energy out of us that we don't have time for relationships with each other or those around us. Our focus on the task has taken away our time and energy from the only thing that can actually fulfil that task: relationship. My opinion.
2) What does the Bible say about leadership?
I would say, "Start with Jesus" but I also recognise that all of us look at Jesus through the lenses of our culture, which is worlds apart from his! Nevertheless, rightly interpreted, he is obviously our model. It's often called "servant leadership" or as Bill Johnson likes to say, "He ruled with the heart of a servant and served with the heart of a king." The authority we are given positions us for more effective service: to do more good to more people. That's the only reason authority is given. Jesus washing the disciples' feet in John 13 comes to mind: "This is what 'Teachers' and 'Lords' do". Jesus' response to James and John in Matthew 20 and Mark 10 comes to mind: "The way the Gentiles do leadership is by exercising authority over people. But that's not how I do it and nor should you. I came to serve. If you want authority then become a servant, because only servants are given authority."
Three key passages in the letters are: Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13, where Paul lists what a leader looks like as far as he is concerned, and 1 Peter 5:1-4, where Peter appeals to his fellow elders to be examples to, and carers of, the people entrusted to them. As you can imagine, the two words that leap out of these passages to me are "family" and "character". Paul doesn't see how anyone can manage a church family if they can't manage their own family. And Paul sees proven character and spirituality, grown in real family life, as necessary to sustain someone in greater responsibility and therefore greater exposure. The only "gift" he seems to mention is the ability to teach the truth, but I don't see that necessarily as being "the spiritual gift of teaching" identified in Romans 12. In order to have lived the lives they have so that they have the character that qualifies them for leadership, they must have had some ability to recognise, put into practice and speak about what is true in the context of their family life. Truth always brings freedom (John 8:32).
3) What about the spiritual gift of leadership in Romans 12?
I think this is very important, so long as we understand what we mean by it. A lot of Christian books I have read define this gift like our extrovert CEO above. But that presupposes that church should look like a business... and so on! Here's what I think it is more about.
As the saying goes, "If someone thinks they are leading but no one is following them, that person is just going for a walk!" If people are following us, no matter how surprising that is, then we carry some kind of leadership gift. If they aren't, we don't. Having the job title does not give us the gift. We all know the teachers at school we respected and those we didn't. It wasn't so much about their knowledge of the subject or the techniques with which they delivered it. It was the authority they carried.
A gift can be trained, but its absence cannot be replaced by training. It's a gift, not an achievement. It's not the loudest voice, the most eloquent voice, nor the most frequently heard voice; it's the voice that carries spiritual authority. Look at some of the other 7 gifts in Romans 12. When the true gift of prophecy speaks, the Body recognises God's voice. When the true gift of encouragement speaks, the Body goes on its way rejoicing. When the true gift of mercy speaks, the Body is comforted. Likewise, when the true gift of leadership speaks, the Body follows. It's not about personality. It is about spiritual authority. Some English versions of the Bible actually translate the word as "rule" not "lead", which perhaps captures the sense of it better. We can only rule to the extent we have authority to do so.
Don't think I have any concerns about you as a team when I say this. It's just to make the point clear. I don't think we can lead a spiritual environment without the spiritual gift of leadership somewhere in the mix. We can only occupy the position of leadership, while our people actually follow those among us who do have the gift!
Because of our Western interpretation of "church as organisation" I think we have been too quick to turn the "gifts" into "offices" with names on the door, like "leader" or "pastor". While St Paul was obviously applying what he understood of Jesus' message to the situation of his time, not ours, I think it is important to notice that he did not make the association between "spiritual gift", i.e. an ability of Holy Spirit needed by the Body to function, and "elder", i.e. the office caring for a part of the Body. He deals with each matter separately.
He seems to me to identify 3 kinds of spiritual gift: wiring, tools and jobs. The Romans 12:6-8 gifts seem to be about the way we are wired to function with Holy Spirit in the Body. The 1 Corinthians 12:4-10 gifts seem to be the tools Holy Spirit makes available to the Body to use for the good of all. The Ephesians 4:11 gifts seem to be jobs that Holy Spirit gives people to raise the Body up to the full maturity of Christ. The Body needs all of these gifts, and none of us have all of them. But St Paul treats them all as functions and gifts, not positions and achievements. He deals with positions, i.e elders and helpers, separately, without listing the spiritual gifts they must have.
Why did I say all that? Just to say that I think, biblically, an elder needs to be a mum or a dad, not an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor or teacher. If they happen to be one of those as well, that's no problem. Just don't confuse, say, the function of pastoring with the office of elder. They are different things. One can be a good pastor and a lousy elder and vice-versa! The job of an elder is primarily to rule, not to pastor...
and in case you hadn't already guessed, I have mischievously singled out "pastor" here precisely because it is the term we commonly use for "church leader", just to get you thinking about what leadership is actually about. While I don't object to the term being used in that way, or have a problem with pastors being leaders, I'm just suggesting they mean separate things in the Bible, which frees us to focus on what we actually mean by leadership.
4) "A house divided against itself cannot stand" (Matthew 12:25)
One final point that may no longer be relevant depending where your team is at in their process. Unity does not mean uniformity. Indeed, unity embraces diversity. That's what it means to be the Body. Every tribe and nation throughout all of history is represented. So, if we make agreement the basis of unity then we are doomed to failure. That's why we have so many different protestant denominations today. Most of them actually do agree on the basics of the creeds, but have divided over relatively minor issues.
However, I really do think there are limits to how far we can disagree with one another and maintain unity. True relationship can only exist to the extent there is a shared view of reality. Indeed, the correct way to understand "repentance" is as a change of mind, a buying into God's version of reality as opposed to our own. Repentance and forgiveness are made available precisely so that relationship can be restored and deepened.
It's not so much about offence. It's just that there are places that God and I cannot go together until I am on the same page as he is. It's exactly the same dynamic between human beings. Our ability to grow, and work, with people depends on how similar our beliefs and values are. Differences in beliefs and values need not be cause for hostility. But they do limit what is possible between us.
Imagine a building with four walls and a window in each wall. Four people, one looking through each window, will see the same reality but from a different perspective. That is healthy. That is why we need each other. As we listen to one another our understanding of the whole increases. But what I'm talking about is when people are not even looking into the same building!
"Agreeing to disagree" is an honest and helpful moment of clarity in a process, but not a position from which we can lead. It's the point at which we recognise we are divided and are therefore incapable of leading until we deal with the division, as I'm sure you now know only too well! Either the two sides need to bless one another and separate, or the two sides need to work together until they can see the same reality. But all the time they are divided, the house is crumbling around them. Unity builds. Division demolishes. By definition. No exceptions. No matter what name you give to it to make it sound better.
To put a positive spin on this, how does growth happen? Cells form and divide. Sometimes two perfectly good visions cannot coexist without competing with one another. Sometimes two valid, but different, cultures cannot coexist without sucking the life out of each other. In the context of all of space and time, no one group of Christians can represent all expressions of the kingdom. It is not an act of disloyalty to part company with blessing in order to free both sides to pursue what is truly in their respective hearts. Loyalty is a virtue, but when its fruit is a crumbling house, then it is misplaced loyalty. It is then loyalty to loyalty rather than loyalty to the Kingdom.
***
Well, I hope some of those thoughts were helpful. If not, you've just read my journal for today! It was useful to me to see where I'm at on my journey, even if it wasn't useful for you!
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Sorting More Than Clothes
I spent much of last weekend sorting my summer and winter clothing. Having moved from a 7-room house to a 2-room flat does make one realize how much STUFF one possesses. So every fall and every spring, roughly half my clothing takes up seasonal residence in plastic boxes in the basement, while the other half enjoys hanging around in my closet. I am nothing if not fair.
I know I own far too much clothing (and, needless to say, too many shoes). One, I am a woman and that's just what we do. Two, I know that for many years after it finally became financially feasible, clothes shopping was for me a sort of consolation prize, a form of compensation for other lacks I was feeling. Three, much of my clothing, though it still fits and may even look good, is no longer called-for because it is (drumroll, please:) Ministry Clothing.
What do I mean by Ministry Clothing (MC for short)? MC is clothing I wore in my former life as a (at least part-time) public figure. It is, with some exceptions, mostly in muted colors or subtle patterns. My outfit of choice was a longer skirt or slacks, stretchable top and blazer-- dressed up or down with scarves, belts, higher or lower shoes. There are no low necklines, high-ish hemlines or figure-hugging lines in my MC. I even had a score of rather uncomfortably reinforced Ministry Bras, bought for the express purpose of hiding the fact that I am one of those girls created with all-too-evident nipples.
The purpose of this wardrobe was, while well-dressed enough not to give offense, to draw as little attention as possible to myself or to the fact that I am a woman. I think part of that motivation was a good one; ie, especially when in ministry, I want people to be able to look past me and see Christ ministering to them. I consider myself a delivery person of God's blessings, and the packaging should not detract from that. I certainly didn't want to follow the example of a South African woman minister I experienced long ago, who was a beautiful and anointed woman, but seemed clueless to the fact that the way she dressed was a distraction to her goal. Her outfit was in no way indecent, but certainly did not de-emphasize any of her considerable feminine attributes. Each time she bent over a bit (causing her silky blouse to gape) or stretched her legs (causing her skirt to ride up) to pray for somebody, half the men in the room were, er, not exactly worshiping in the beauty of holiness. Add to that she was also a girl with nipples which made themselves known when she was (for any reason, mind you!) excited, clearly did NOT wear a ministry bra, and there you have my Unintentionally Poor Example.
However, I think I went a bit too far in the opposite direction. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a born slob, and like dressing up now and then. I still like the look of a blazer and feel comfortable wearing one (these days usually with jeans). But when I looked at my row of businesslike blazers, matronly trousers and shirts I wouldn't pair with my usual jeans or leggings, I became a bit thoughtful. Why was I being someone else? Whose expectations was I trying to meet, besides my own?
Anyway, I don't need most of this wardrobe any more. Not that I plan to never stand in front of people and speak again; I do think that is in my future as well as in my past. But I think I will do that as the woman I am now, not as the minister I was then. Shedding all titles, though it has also been painful, has been very freeing in a way. All the titles (minister, pastor, missionary, church planter, Christian leader; even some I was given with which I did not identify, such as "revivalist" or even "prophetic evangelist"--!) bring expectations along with them. Early on in my days of traveling ministry, I discovered that people will pretty much receive what they expect to get. If I had been invited to minister in the context of being known for training in healing prayer, people would expect healing to occur (and it did). If I was doing training in prophetic ministry, people would expect me to give public words of prophecy (and I usually did). If people received me primarily as a missionary, they were waiting to hear Heidi Baker-style stories of incredible miracles amidst horrendous poverty (which I couldn't deliver).
All these expectations are legitimate as far as they go. In fact I used to encourage prayer teams I trained for ministry trips to take full advantage of what I call "the Out-Of-Town Anointing": When people seeking ministry see your little Ministry Team badge, they assume you know what you're doing (even if you don't feel that way), so their level of expectation/faith/ability to receive from God is often higher than your confidence/faith/assurance you have something to give. Just give what you have, and watch God bless it and multiply it like loaves and fishes to feed a multitude. All this is still valid.
But what if you are expected to minister prophetically and God turns it into a healing meeting by giving you unexpected words of knowledge for healing while you're trying to preach (as happened to me with the group who, apparently frustrated at my calling myself "just a minister", advertised me as a prophetic evangelist. I don't even know what that is!)? Or it has been billed as a healing meeting and God seems much more interested in healing the inner than the outer man that particular day? These things do occur, and sometimes our titles, and the resulting expectations, get in the way of what Dad has in mind to do.
The title with which I least identify is that of "revivalist". There are differing interpretations of this term, but my experience has shown me that the expectations people have connected with it are things which do not fit with what I know of myself. I am a motivator, true; I can "preach the Word" and apply it to life; and I do know how to stand on a stage and sense where a crowd is at, what Dad has in mind, and take us from here to there. But I am not a revivalist. Though I value the times of refreshing Dad regularly grants his people, and my life has personally been formed by many of these, I do not live for revival (as if that were the answer to everything). I abhor hype and whipping up a crowd into a frenzy. Not to say that all revivalists do this, but there is certainly an expectation within revivalist circles that something of this nature will occur, and I just won't go there.
I do get genuinely excited at what Dad genuinely does. I will be the first to punch the air, grinning widely, and shout "Hallelujah!" when someone walks from their wheelchair for the first time, or has no more debilitating pain after prayer, or reconciles with estranged family members, or whatever.
I don't like it, though, when the person who has just experienced God's touch gets dragged up to a platform, interrogated, usually shoved over, and used as proof of God's favor and blessing on that ministry. I've seen this done many times over the years but particularly in Pentecostal-based circles (currently, a traveling ministry known as The Bay Revival exemplifies this style for me).
I do not agree with using these genuine signs of God's goodness (note: NOT of our correctness) as proof that we are on the edge of imminent "revival"-- however that is defined-- which will somehow solve everything and is our goal.
Hello?! Since when has the concept of revival replaced God's Kingdom coming to Earth as it is on Heaven, as the main goal of his Church? At best, times of renewal in the church leading to a measure of revival in the land are one factor in this much larger and much broader paradigm. Genuine restoration of mankind and the earth is the goal, not just the bursts of revivalist activity on the way.
I do believe in revival. It happens, thank God. I have personally been involved in at least 4 of these moves of God: the Catholic Charismatic renewal of the 70s, the Jesus People revival, a personal revival and healing on the order of Wimber's Vineyard (which in 1990 shoved me suddenly into being a renewed evangelical), and the Toronto revival starting in 1994. Oh yes, I have been in Catholic prayer groups where people were spontaneously healed just during worship. I have sat singing "Come To The Waters" over and over again with my fellow Jesus People around a campfire, modulating into beautiful harmonies of tongues, never wanting it to end. I've been in many situations where the air was so thick with the presence of God that one could hardly breathe. I've "fallen under the power" (from gently to knock-over-rows-of-chairs) countless times since the first time in 1972, when I floated serenely down at the lightest possible touch of a Catholic priest. I've seen and personally experienced miracles of every kind: physical, emotional, supply, impossible coincidence.
Yes, I absolutely believe in the manifest presence and power of God. I'm just not a revivalist. I have neither the conviction nor the energy to keep believing that revival, the revival which will change everything and solve all our problems, is right around the corner if we just pray enough, fast enough, believe enough, are passionate enough... (fill in the blank).
I can't help experiencing that emphasis as misguided effort. I can't help feeling a type of performance pressure that I know does not come from Holy Spirit, whose voice and ways I know and love. I can't help but feel that often, the God we love and serve has been quietly usurped by a thing, a thing we call REVIVAL, which at least a portion of the Church unknowingly worships and ceaselessly strives to serve, though it never-- quite-- fully manifests.
If it ever did, boy would we be in trouble, because are our churches set up to receive thousands of new believers every week? If not, what will we do with all these new followers of Jesus who are not, and probably should not ever become, "church-broken"? Are we prepared to leave our comfortable buildings and safe services (and yes, no matter how wild it may get inside, we go home to our comfortable lives and many times the twain don't meet during the week), to dive into the real lives of real people all around us?
If we are not, if we can't even integrate what we experience on Sundays and in meetings with what we live throughout the rest of the week, then maybe we should stop working so hard for a revival that, should it ever occur, would mess everything up.
Just a thought.
Anyway, if you need some nice blazers, come on by.
I know I own far too much clothing (and, needless to say, too many shoes). One, I am a woman and that's just what we do. Two, I know that for many years after it finally became financially feasible, clothes shopping was for me a sort of consolation prize, a form of compensation for other lacks I was feeling. Three, much of my clothing, though it still fits and may even look good, is no longer called-for because it is (drumroll, please:) Ministry Clothing.
What do I mean by Ministry Clothing (MC for short)? MC is clothing I wore in my former life as a (at least part-time) public figure. It is, with some exceptions, mostly in muted colors or subtle patterns. My outfit of choice was a longer skirt or slacks, stretchable top and blazer-- dressed up or down with scarves, belts, higher or lower shoes. There are no low necklines, high-ish hemlines or figure-hugging lines in my MC. I even had a score of rather uncomfortably reinforced Ministry Bras, bought for the express purpose of hiding the fact that I am one of those girls created with all-too-evident nipples.
The purpose of this wardrobe was, while well-dressed enough not to give offense, to draw as little attention as possible to myself or to the fact that I am a woman. I think part of that motivation was a good one; ie, especially when in ministry, I want people to be able to look past me and see Christ ministering to them. I consider myself a delivery person of God's blessings, and the packaging should not detract from that. I certainly didn't want to follow the example of a South African woman minister I experienced long ago, who was a beautiful and anointed woman, but seemed clueless to the fact that the way she dressed was a distraction to her goal. Her outfit was in no way indecent, but certainly did not de-emphasize any of her considerable feminine attributes. Each time she bent over a bit (causing her silky blouse to gape) or stretched her legs (causing her skirt to ride up) to pray for somebody, half the men in the room were, er, not exactly worshiping in the beauty of holiness. Add to that she was also a girl with nipples which made themselves known when she was (for any reason, mind you!) excited, clearly did NOT wear a ministry bra, and there you have my Unintentionally Poor Example.
However, I think I went a bit too far in the opposite direction. Don't get me wrong: I'm not a born slob, and like dressing up now and then. I still like the look of a blazer and feel comfortable wearing one (these days usually with jeans). But when I looked at my row of businesslike blazers, matronly trousers and shirts I wouldn't pair with my usual jeans or leggings, I became a bit thoughtful. Why was I being someone else? Whose expectations was I trying to meet, besides my own?
Anyway, I don't need most of this wardrobe any more. Not that I plan to never stand in front of people and speak again; I do think that is in my future as well as in my past. But I think I will do that as the woman I am now, not as the minister I was then. Shedding all titles, though it has also been painful, has been very freeing in a way. All the titles (minister, pastor, missionary, church planter, Christian leader; even some I was given with which I did not identify, such as "revivalist" or even "prophetic evangelist"--!) bring expectations along with them. Early on in my days of traveling ministry, I discovered that people will pretty much receive what they expect to get. If I had been invited to minister in the context of being known for training in healing prayer, people would expect healing to occur (and it did). If I was doing training in prophetic ministry, people would expect me to give public words of prophecy (and I usually did). If people received me primarily as a missionary, they were waiting to hear Heidi Baker-style stories of incredible miracles amidst horrendous poverty (which I couldn't deliver).
All these expectations are legitimate as far as they go. In fact I used to encourage prayer teams I trained for ministry trips to take full advantage of what I call "the Out-Of-Town Anointing": When people seeking ministry see your little Ministry Team badge, they assume you know what you're doing (even if you don't feel that way), so their level of expectation/faith/ability to receive from God is often higher than your confidence/faith/assurance you have something to give. Just give what you have, and watch God bless it and multiply it like loaves and fishes to feed a multitude. All this is still valid.
But what if you are expected to minister prophetically and God turns it into a healing meeting by giving you unexpected words of knowledge for healing while you're trying to preach (as happened to me with the group who, apparently frustrated at my calling myself "just a minister", advertised me as a prophetic evangelist. I don't even know what that is!)? Or it has been billed as a healing meeting and God seems much more interested in healing the inner than the outer man that particular day? These things do occur, and sometimes our titles, and the resulting expectations, get in the way of what Dad has in mind to do.
The title with which I least identify is that of "revivalist". There are differing interpretations of this term, but my experience has shown me that the expectations people have connected with it are things which do not fit with what I know of myself. I am a motivator, true; I can "preach the Word" and apply it to life; and I do know how to stand on a stage and sense where a crowd is at, what Dad has in mind, and take us from here to there. But I am not a revivalist. Though I value the times of refreshing Dad regularly grants his people, and my life has personally been formed by many of these, I do not live for revival (as if that were the answer to everything). I abhor hype and whipping up a crowd into a frenzy. Not to say that all revivalists do this, but there is certainly an expectation within revivalist circles that something of this nature will occur, and I just won't go there.
I do get genuinely excited at what Dad genuinely does. I will be the first to punch the air, grinning widely, and shout "Hallelujah!" when someone walks from their wheelchair for the first time, or has no more debilitating pain after prayer, or reconciles with estranged family members, or whatever.
I don't like it, though, when the person who has just experienced God's touch gets dragged up to a platform, interrogated, usually shoved over, and used as proof of God's favor and blessing on that ministry. I've seen this done many times over the years but particularly in Pentecostal-based circles (currently, a traveling ministry known as The Bay Revival exemplifies this style for me).
I do not agree with using these genuine signs of God's goodness (note: NOT of our correctness) as proof that we are on the edge of imminent "revival"-- however that is defined-- which will somehow solve everything and is our goal.
Hello?! Since when has the concept of revival replaced God's Kingdom coming to Earth as it is on Heaven, as the main goal of his Church? At best, times of renewal in the church leading to a measure of revival in the land are one factor in this much larger and much broader paradigm. Genuine restoration of mankind and the earth is the goal, not just the bursts of revivalist activity on the way.
I do believe in revival. It happens, thank God. I have personally been involved in at least 4 of these moves of God: the Catholic Charismatic renewal of the 70s, the Jesus People revival, a personal revival and healing on the order of Wimber's Vineyard (which in 1990 shoved me suddenly into being a renewed evangelical), and the Toronto revival starting in 1994. Oh yes, I have been in Catholic prayer groups where people were spontaneously healed just during worship. I have sat singing "Come To The Waters" over and over again with my fellow Jesus People around a campfire, modulating into beautiful harmonies of tongues, never wanting it to end. I've been in many situations where the air was so thick with the presence of God that one could hardly breathe. I've "fallen under the power" (from gently to knock-over-rows-of-chairs) countless times since the first time in 1972, when I floated serenely down at the lightest possible touch of a Catholic priest. I've seen and personally experienced miracles of every kind: physical, emotional, supply, impossible coincidence.
Yes, I absolutely believe in the manifest presence and power of God. I'm just not a revivalist. I have neither the conviction nor the energy to keep believing that revival, the revival which will change everything and solve all our problems, is right around the corner if we just pray enough, fast enough, believe enough, are passionate enough... (fill in the blank).
I can't help experiencing that emphasis as misguided effort. I can't help feeling a type of performance pressure that I know does not come from Holy Spirit, whose voice and ways I know and love. I can't help but feel that often, the God we love and serve has been quietly usurped by a thing, a thing we call REVIVAL, which at least a portion of the Church unknowingly worships and ceaselessly strives to serve, though it never-- quite-- fully manifests.
If it ever did, boy would we be in trouble, because are our churches set up to receive thousands of new believers every week? If not, what will we do with all these new followers of Jesus who are not, and probably should not ever become, "church-broken"? Are we prepared to leave our comfortable buildings and safe services (and yes, no matter how wild it may get inside, we go home to our comfortable lives and many times the twain don't meet during the week), to dive into the real lives of real people all around us?
If we are not, if we can't even integrate what we experience on Sundays and in meetings with what we live throughout the rest of the week, then maybe we should stop working so hard for a revival that, should it ever occur, would mess everything up.
Just a thought.
Anyway, if you need some nice blazers, come on by.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)