In traditional churches it is common to think that everyone should be in on the decision making. The church is a democracy, and all people should be heard. If it’s not practical for all to be heard, then at least every viewpoint needs to be heard. From what I’ve seen this way of thinking will kill the church. Since “vision leaks” (was it Andy Stanley or Erwin McManus that said that?) and evangelistic fervor is entropic (we lose our energy to win people to Jesus), churches commonly redirect their energy and resources to take care of themselves.
In newer “leadership oriented” churches, the argument is made that not all voices should be heard. Instead, the leaders function as the stewards of the church’s mission. Their job is to know current reality, be completely sold out to fulfilling God’s mission, and to make the wise decisions to make the mission a reality. The idealist in me sees this as a great way to do things. The cynic in me sees it as another form of our culture’s tendency to expertocracy.
How about a third option? What would happen if all the people consistently developed their relationship with God and each other? What if they cultivated their ability to hear God through careful listening (in the Bible & prayer) and ready obedience? Then when a decision needs to be made – assuming it’s a big decision that knowing the mission of the church alone isn’t the deciding factor – the church gets together, not to vote, not to hear an edict (we usually call it a “presentation” these days), but to wait on God. In my experience, sometimes God will speak quickly, sometimes not. Sometimes God will speak through an established and recognized leader – but often not.
The advantage of this third option – over the Democracy and Leadership models – is that it won’t work without God – or without our steady cultivation of our life with God. Nothing automatic anymore. No guarantees going in that we’ll get what we want.
Might be worth trying.
I preached on overcoming regret today. We have a tendency to ask “What if?” looking back in our lives. This too often results only in regret or despair. Looking at the characters of King Saul, Judas Iscariot, Peter and Jesus, I suggest some ways to handle “What if” situations. I also suggest that God’s call to us is a kind of future “what if” – and that we can respond in faith. You can listen if you like.
I took the kids to see Sky High, the new Disney movie this afternoon. It was light, fun, family entertainment. Though the plot was fairly predictable, the characters seemed to enjoy themselves. As usual, the villians took themselves too seriously, but even their villiany seemed pretty cartoonish.
A conversation today got me thinking again (I’ve been told that is dangerous business). We were discussing fleshing out Matthew 6:33: 33 “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.”
What exactly are we to seek? what is it that will be added? Those were supposed to be the questions. The question I came to, though, was: “Who do we as good democrats even begin to understand Kingdom?”
I’d like to invite you to consider how we who live in a country that generally understands that democracy and the exportation thereof is the major factor in freedom are to understand Kingdom. Because I seriously doubt that a modern translation of “seek ye first the democratic republic of God….” would be faithful to the original intent or language.
Winds of Change has an informative post on Avian Flu - a major threat to the whole world, and one sitting right on our door step. Are we prepared? Do we have sufficient medications available? Do we have the infrstructure to create and distribute medicine when the need arises? Sure looks like we aren’t prepared.
Do our elected leaders know this? They will if you call them.
Has the “Global War On Terror” become the “Global Jihad On Terror”? Today’s Washington Post reports:
The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials.
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country’s top military officer have spoken of “a global struggle against violent extremism” rather than “the global war on terror,” which had been the catchphrase of choice.
The article suggest this change originates in a view that the “war” wil be longer and include more than just battlefield action. Quite possible. I find it fascinating that “struggle” can be a good translation of jihad also. I wonder how the US is handling the Arabic ranslation of this new phrase.
The rage on conservative talk radio yesterday was over a funeral crasher. Apparently Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor Catherine Baker Knoll attended the funeral of a Marine who had been killed in Iraq. Here is the story from the Pittsburg Port-Gazette.
The article says that Knoll attended the funeral uninvited. The reasonable concern is that she apparently took every opportunity to politicize the event. To politicize a funeral for personal gain is the ultimate in bad taste, but can be remedied at the ballot box.
My concern is not that Lt. Gov. Knoll acted in such a boorish and insensitive way. That much is obvious. My concern here is that every conservative talk radio host I heard reference the story was furiously offended that Knoll had attended the funeral though she hadn’t been invited.
I have never heard of funeral by invitation. Certainly there are times when the family desires a closed or very limited service, but in general funerals are attended freely by all who want to pay respects to the deceased. That Knoll seemingly intended to pay no respect is a great point of discussion for talk radio and partisan debate. Who attends which funeral is not.
It is the time of year when professional football players hold out for more money. Players and their agents sit across tables from owners. Offers meet counteroffers until a compromise is reached somewhere in between. It is a microcosm of a system that is rooted deeply in our culture; the adversarial system.
The primary presumption of the adversarial system is that a fair outcome is reached by opposed sides vigilantly contend on issues at which they are at odd. The outcome of such organized and refereed contention is to be accepted as the best possible outcome. The adversarial system is the basis for contract negotiations, our justice system, and much of the work of the academy.
But ought it be the basis for all our public and social interactions? One of the benefits of the adversarial system is that it works whether or not one’s opponent has compromise or fairness of outcome in mind. In fact, this system assumes opposing sides in a dispute may even be willing to withhold relevant information or even cheat in an attempt to gain an advantage. In other words, the adversarial system is set up for interaction that cannot be based on trust.
Since the adversarial system is designed to overcome or at least provide for mistrust, it should not be the primary model used in some settings. It certainly does not belong in family relations or in the church.
“Does God exist?†This question was the theme of the day Tuesday at Senior High 2 camp at Glen Lake last week. I was the preacher at worship that evening, and was to preach on the theme. I confess I have some difficulty using the standard proofs of God’s existence. It isn’t that I don’t believe them or can’t follow their logic.
There are two reasons I have some difficulty with the standard proofs of God’s existence. The first I will deal with here, the second next. My first problem is I don’t think strict logic and clear reasoning will convince all unbelievers.
For example, one argument that seems flawless to many Christians is the argument from creation. Paul expresses this argument in Romans 1, and it appears elsewhere in scripture as well. A simplified form of the argument is that a look around at the beauty, intricacy, and variety in the world would require a Maker to have brought it into being.
This is closely related to the argument from causation; every effect has a cause, and there must have been some ultimate First Cause that began the chain reaction of effects and causes that gave us the world we have today.
The difficulty of using these “proofs†to conclusively convince unbelievers is simple. These proofs work for us because we believe in a Creator or First Cause. In other words, before we articulate these arguments for God’s existence, we already believe.
There are many unbelievers who look at the same beautiful sunsets I do, who are as in awe of the splendor of nature as I am, yet who do not attribute such beauty and splendor to God.
If we truly want to convert others to our perspective, to believe in the God in whom we believe, we must first be able to understand things from their perspective. When we have done so, we earn the right with them to be heard from our own perspective.