The function of the Holy Spirit is to guide the followers of Jesus, and to help us understand the words of Jesus (John 14:26). How does the Holy Spirit speak to us? There are a variety of ways, but some are more central than others.
Few would contest the fact that the primary way in which the Holy Spirit speaks to us is through the written Word: the reading and study of Holy Scripture, individually or corporately, forms the thinking of the Body of Christ. Without it, we are lost. Expanding on this are other forms of Christian discourse: sermons, homilies, devotionals, counseling sessions, theological and doctrinal books, etc., which transmit the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to the extent that they are faithful to Scripture.
What comes next? This question is somewhat less clear. There are many other vehicles by which the Holy Spirit can, and sometimes does, transmit understanding to us. Some are rare, others common. I suggest that, after Scripture, the secondary route for information flow from the Holy Spirit is the advice and counsel of trusted and proven fellow believers (Hebrews 10:25).
If we pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit, and fail to consult, and listen to, our experienced fellow Christians, then we may be ignoring God's effort to give us exactly what we have been asking for.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Healing and Ronciliation
A congregation which has lived through some manner of internal political turmoil will find itself in need of "healing and reconciliation." Any number of books and seminars are available on this topic; consultants and specialized pastors can be utilized to facilitate the process.
But be aware: this is not an easy or painless process. The words "healing and reconciliation" sound nice to us, but getting there may require blood, toil, tears, and sweat. In fact, the healing and reconciliation process may be as agonizing as the unhealthy behaviors which caused the rift in fellowship to begin with.
Be encouraged, however: this pain is at least purposeful. It is moving you in the correct direction, and to the extent that you encourage healthy conflict to replace dysfunctional sniping, you will be in harmony with God's Spirit, and He will empower you to make progress.
Healing is painful, but the pain of healing is more constructive than the pain of sinful power struggles.
But be aware: this is not an easy or painless process. The words "healing and reconciliation" sound nice to us, but getting there may require blood, toil, tears, and sweat. In fact, the healing and reconciliation process may be as agonizing as the unhealthy behaviors which caused the rift in fellowship to begin with.
Be encouraged, however: this pain is at least purposeful. It is moving you in the correct direction, and to the extent that you encourage healthy conflict to replace dysfunctional sniping, you will be in harmony with God's Spirit, and He will empower you to make progress.
Healing is painful, but the pain of healing is more constructive than the pain of sinful power struggles.
Pray Hard?
Often heard: when someone is very ill and near death, when a potential disaster looms over a population center, or in a moment of personal crisis - this phrase, “pray hard!”
The mind conjures up visions of a devout Christian, perhaps on her or his knees, drops of sweat on his brow, agonized in soul, begging God for His intervention. Surely this is the action which reveals true piety; surely we ought to mimic our understanding of how Jesus prayed in Gethsemane.
Or perhaps not.
So often the first words of Jesus, or the angels He sends, are: “Do not be afraid! Peace be with you!” The lack of fear and the presence of peace are the fruit of the Spirit.
Whether we pray for minutes or hours, should that not be primarily the experience of speaking with the One Who loves us? The One Who reminds us that we will be preserved through the various trials and tribulations which attack us? Ought prayer to be time when God unburdens us, by taking “all our cares upon Him, because He cares for” us?
The people for whom I pray may be traumatized, the situations I bring before God’s listening ear may be traumatic, but the experience of prayer is not trauma. It is peace in the midst of that trauma, which restores my soul.
So don’t pray hard. Pray easy!
Let God’s peace fill your soul as you speak with Him about even the most painful things. Know that He already knows everything. Pray easy!
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Prophet vs. Priest
Beware the leader who casts himself as a prophet. While there certainly have been, are, and will be some true prophets who lead, it is much more generally the pattern that prophets are not leaders, and certainly not institutional leaders.
Consider the nature of the prophet, as demonstrated in Scripture. Only a tiny fraction of the prophets, whether in the Old Testament or the New, were priests. Priests were the organizational leaders of their day, the institutional heads of the religious system.
Prophets, by contrast, usually criticized the priests and their institution. The paradigm for understanding much of the Old Testament is the conflict between prophet and priest.
Tangentially, this shows us how God uses healthy conflict among His people as a sort of check-and-balance. God carries His plan forward, sometimes in the context of responsible disagreement. God does not want His Body to be free of conflict; He wants it to be free of unhealthy conflict.
One major role of the prophet is to be a social critic. (Other major roles include being a seer and a spokesperson for God.) The prophet is thus essentially an outsider; the priest, by contrast, functions as a mediator between the people and God; the priest also organizes and leads religious activities.
Which is God-pleasing? The prophet or the priest? Both! God sets up a creative and dynamic tension between them, and ensures that neither can set himself up as an exclusive authority.
In our churches, we may not use the words "prophet" or "priest" in quite this way, but the principle is still in operation. A pastor, a congregational president, or other leader is carrying out the functions of a priest.
One who truly believes himself to be a prophet should excuse himself from such leadership roles. Read again the texts of Isaiah and Jeremiah from this perspective. These men were not institutional leaders, but rather critics of the institution and its leaders.
Consider the nature of the prophet, as demonstrated in Scripture. Only a tiny fraction of the prophets, whether in the Old Testament or the New, were priests. Priests were the organizational leaders of their day, the institutional heads of the religious system.
Prophets, by contrast, usually criticized the priests and their institution. The paradigm for understanding much of the Old Testament is the conflict between prophet and priest.
Tangentially, this shows us how God uses healthy conflict among His people as a sort of check-and-balance. God carries His plan forward, sometimes in the context of responsible disagreement. God does not want His Body to be free of conflict; He wants it to be free of unhealthy conflict.
One major role of the prophet is to be a social critic. (Other major roles include being a seer and a spokesperson for God.) The prophet is thus essentially an outsider; the priest, by contrast, functions as a mediator between the people and God; the priest also organizes and leads religious activities.
Which is God-pleasing? The prophet or the priest? Both! God sets up a creative and dynamic tension between them, and ensures that neither can set himself up as an exclusive authority.
In our churches, we may not use the words "prophet" or "priest" in quite this way, but the principle is still in operation. A pastor, a congregational president, or other leader is carrying out the functions of a priest.
One who truly believes himself to be a prophet should excuse himself from such leadership roles. Read again the texts of Isaiah and Jeremiah from this perspective. These men were not institutional leaders, but rather critics of the institution and its leaders.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Money
The issue of how money is handled in a congregation is a source of many problems, and yet God has given us this responsibility because it can be used to produce great good.
When money is thought to be a matter of concern, it often is merely the symptom of a deeper problem.
To be sure, money can be the problem, if money is stolen, for example, from the church.
But if there is a debate about how the budget of the congregation should be structured, or who is donating how much, the real matter is spiritual. Money is merely a concrete way to express a spiritual priority.
The salaries of pastors and church-workers is a special case: if there is a perception that the pastor is serving sincerely and gladly, there are usually no complaints about him being "overpaid" and raises will be approved routinely. Privately, members of the congregation will give him gifts at holidays and birthdays.
But if there is a perception that the pastor is not carrying out his job in a way which serves the Kingdom of God well, then one hears complaints about him being overpaid.
Now, to be sure, every congregation will have a small percentage of members who always claim that the pastor is overpaid, and another small percentage of the members who always claim that he is underpaid. But we are looking here at the broad middle.
It is important to bear in mind that these comments about being “overpaid” are not actually about the pastor's salary. These comments are directed toward the spiritual nature of the congregation's interaction with one of its leaders; the money here is not the issue. But the money is a concrete way to address an issue that is abstract in nature, and otherwise difficult to literally grasp: I can touch a coin; I cannot physically touch the qualities of relationships within the congregation - they are intangible. Money makes them tangible.
We keep in mind, then, that discussions about money are often not about money.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Worst Thing That Could Happen ...
When a congregation is facing, or has faced, rough times - declining attendance, declining membership, declining revenues - people often pose the question: will this church close its doors forever? Will this congregation cease to exist? Certainly these are painful, and even frightening, questions, especially for those who seriously embrace their faith communities as a family, who find many of their important relationships within the context of this congregation.
If the course of time continues to unfold, and after a while, the attendance bottoms out and begins to slowly increase, if the losses in membership eventually stop, and perhaps even a few new members are added, and if financial losses finally begin to correct themselves as budgets are adjusted, and a few more contributions begin to trickle in, then, at such a point, some people may breathe a sigh of relief, and think, "we're going to make it! Things are OK!"
As much as we might want to believe that, we must not look to these external measurable physical variables to judge the health of a congregation. It is quite possible to see increased attendance, membership, and donations, but at the same time to have a congregation which is getting spiritually sicker and sicker.
The worst thing that can happen to a congregation is not that it goes out of existence, not that it goes bankrupt, not that it closes its doors forever. Those things are bad, to be sure, but the worst thing that can happen is that a congregation grows in members and attendance, and receives many large steady financial contributions, but remains dysfunctional. If the love and Gospel of Jesus are not clearly preached, and even more clearly lived, and if saints are not equipped for ministry (II Tim 3:17, Hebrews 13:21), then it would be better for that congregation to cease to exist, than for it to continue in a spiritually sick manner.
Certainly, we want to see growth in attendance and membership, and to see people tithing for the support of widows and orphans; but all of this must take place in the context of true doctrine and loving Christian fellowship.
Do not take comfort because your congregation resumes growth after a difficult season of internal dysfunction. Take comfort because Jesus is the Lord of the church, and He uses the congregation to show His love to all mankind.
If the course of time continues to unfold, and after a while, the attendance bottoms out and begins to slowly increase, if the losses in membership eventually stop, and perhaps even a few new members are added, and if financial losses finally begin to correct themselves as budgets are adjusted, and a few more contributions begin to trickle in, then, at such a point, some people may breathe a sigh of relief, and think, "we're going to make it! Things are OK!"
As much as we might want to believe that, we must not look to these external measurable physical variables to judge the health of a congregation. It is quite possible to see increased attendance, membership, and donations, but at the same time to have a congregation which is getting spiritually sicker and sicker.
The worst thing that can happen to a congregation is not that it goes out of existence, not that it goes bankrupt, not that it closes its doors forever. Those things are bad, to be sure, but the worst thing that can happen is that a congregation grows in members and attendance, and receives many large steady financial contributions, but remains dysfunctional. If the love and Gospel of Jesus are not clearly preached, and even more clearly lived, and if saints are not equipped for ministry (II Tim 3:17, Hebrews 13:21), then it would be better for that congregation to cease to exist, than for it to continue in a spiritually sick manner.
Certainly, we want to see growth in attendance and membership, and to see people tithing for the support of widows and orphans; but all of this must take place in the context of true doctrine and loving Christian fellowship.
Do not take comfort because your congregation resumes growth after a difficult season of internal dysfunction. Take comfort because Jesus is the Lord of the church, and He uses the congregation to show His love to all mankind.
A Good CEO
There have been many debates over the years about whether or not churches should examine business organizational charts for ideas about how congregations could be organized. This debate has been passionate and thought-provoking, and I certainly won't attempt to recap or solve it here.
One idea from the business world, however, which intrigues me is this: I heard a novel presentation about what makes a good CEO; the presenter said that a good CEO doesn't spend lots of time in his office, but rather meeting customers and meeting the press. A good CEO doesn't "hide" from the world in his office, and doesn't spend lots of time micro-managing various aspects of his business. He or she will appoint capable vice-presidents for various divisions of the business, delegate operations to them, and meet periodically with them, but not look over their shoulders during daily operations. The good CEO meets with ordinary customers, chatting with them, listening to them; the good CEO will meet with the press, and use various public occasions to highlight the good work of his organization.
This presentation was complete with concrete specific examples of CEO's who spent lots time in retail stores, conversing with ordinary customers. This correlated to measurable outcomes like stock prices and corporate income statements.
I hope that analogy between the good CEO and the good pastor is obvious. I won't belabor the point, but I'll point to one example: among the success "mega-churches", there are a number of senior pastors who spend time chatting with, not elders or church officers, but ordinary members, even those with low income or low education. They spend time in one-on-one counseling with simple lay people, spend time in hospitals visiting the sick and their families, spend time visiting "shut-ins", senior citizens, the lonely, the depressed, the physically or mentally disabled.
What kind of a CEO would Jesus be? What kind of a pastor would Jesus be?
One idea from the business world, however, which intrigues me is this: I heard a novel presentation about what makes a good CEO; the presenter said that a good CEO doesn't spend lots of time in his office, but rather meeting customers and meeting the press. A good CEO doesn't "hide" from the world in his office, and doesn't spend lots of time micro-managing various aspects of his business. He or she will appoint capable vice-presidents for various divisions of the business, delegate operations to them, and meet periodically with them, but not look over their shoulders during daily operations. The good CEO meets with ordinary customers, chatting with them, listening to them; the good CEO will meet with the press, and use various public occasions to highlight the good work of his organization.
This presentation was complete with concrete specific examples of CEO's who spent lots time in retail stores, conversing with ordinary customers. This correlated to measurable outcomes like stock prices and corporate income statements.
I hope that analogy between the good CEO and the good pastor is obvious. I won't belabor the point, but I'll point to one example: among the success "mega-churches", there are a number of senior pastors who spend time chatting with, not elders or church officers, but ordinary members, even those with low income or low education. They spend time in one-on-one counseling with simple lay people, spend time in hospitals visiting the sick and their families, spend time visiting "shut-ins", senior citizens, the lonely, the depressed, the physically or mentally disabled.
What kind of a CEO would Jesus be? What kind of a pastor would Jesus be?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)