One of the great dangers in North American Christianity is that a lot of Christians have experiences that allow them to feel spiritual with out actually being spiritual. This creates a false sense of spiritual awareness that leads to a stunting, or even halting, of one's spiritual growth. In extreme, it derails faith altogether.
I obviously have missional ideas rolling around as is evidenced by the number of posts on the topic, but it serves as a good example of this because I think it is easy to act missional without actually being missional. Let's simplify missional down to "being a blessing." A church might create opportunities for the church community to be a blessing. They might see this as part of their equipping role. They figure some good lessons will be learned in the process and several of the participants might catch "the bug" of being a blessing. So let's say the church organizes a food drive and distribution for needy families in the community.
No doubt the activity would be a blessing to the recipients. You could probably even find participants who found serving others to also be a blessing. In fact all of those who did the serving would probably feel pretty good about what they have done. But my question is whether they have been transformed, or in the process of being transformed, into some one who is a blessing, or if they are simply people who have participated in a blessing activity.
I think there is a danger of filling people's calendars with blessing activities and creating the impression that they are "being" spiritual when actually there has been very little heart transformation. They could end up as very good people with no relationship with Jesus.
I think being a blessing as a community is a good thing and I think there are a lot of valid reasons to create those opportunities. But I think we need to be clear that the outward expression needs to go hand in hand with an inward transformation. We need to be people who are a blessing whether it is in an organized event or just out on a grocery run. It just becomes who we are based on a relationship with Jesus. God doesn't want obedient slaves, He wants sons and daughters.
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Missio 2
No this isn't some world wide conference that you missed that is meeting for the second time. And it isn't a .{point} anything (as in 2.0) in an attempt to be cool and relevant. It is just the second post I am making about the Missional Leadership Initiative I've gotten myself into.
Last weekend was the first of 6 gatherings we will have over the next two years with Reggie McNeal. It is sponsored by another denomination so I was one of only two participants that weren't part of the family, so to speak. I am friends with two of the other pastors though so it wasn't too weird.
This session focused on self-awareness which was good but it will take some time to process. If you think you do a pretty good job with self-awareness does that automatically make you self-clueless? In the effort to make me even more self-aware I was also subjected to yet another personality/cognitive style test. This one was called the Success Style Profile, a title that practically made me throw-up, but was pretty good anyway.
I've also been assigned to a cohort with four other guys I've never met. We are supposed to meet once a month to cover various topics but I think a lot of people are suspicious of them. Reggie referred often to the group of pastors he has been a part of for a long time. He talks about how they mentor each other, counsel each other, and serve each other, even in little things. He said they have even vacationed together. I think he counts that experience as invaluable and wants us to have a taste of it, even if these groups don't develop into that. He sees that kind of peer mentoring in the Acts church and I think he thinks it is an ideal fit for today's context. Sounds good.
One thing I liked about this gathering was that no matter what situation you came from you obviously had a common interest in thinking missionally or you wouldn't have signed up. As far as I could tell there were people from all kinds of churches. At a lot of conferences there seems to be a tension between the various philosophies of ministry represented. In this case, the majority had to favor a missional philosophy or you wouldn't have come. (Yeah, there are always a few who may have ulterior motives.) I think that allows for deeper thought and dialogue. You think deeper about the philosophy rather than wasting time defending your belief or gritting your teeth at what else is being said.
I should also mention that we stayed at the Salt Ford Resort in the Salt Fork State Park in Ohio. Nice place. They have a ton of deer wandering around. I stepped out on my balcony one morning to watch 4 or 5 of them wandering around right below me. They just looked up as if they were waiting for me to feed them something. I think that must happen a lot. I am interested to see what this place will be like in the warmer months. It was too cold for me to go out for a walk in the woods at this time of year. Yeah, I'm a wimp.
Last weekend was the first of 6 gatherings we will have over the next two years with Reggie McNeal. It is sponsored by another denomination so I was one of only two participants that weren't part of the family, so to speak. I am friends with two of the other pastors though so it wasn't too weird.
This session focused on self-awareness which was good but it will take some time to process. If you think you do a pretty good job with self-awareness does that automatically make you self-clueless? In the effort to make me even more self-aware I was also subjected to yet another personality/cognitive style test. This one was called the Success Style Profile, a title that practically made me throw-up, but was pretty good anyway.
I've also been assigned to a cohort with four other guys I've never met. We are supposed to meet once a month to cover various topics but I think a lot of people are suspicious of them. Reggie referred often to the group of pastors he has been a part of for a long time. He talks about how they mentor each other, counsel each other, and serve each other, even in little things. He said they have even vacationed together. I think he counts that experience as invaluable and wants us to have a taste of it, even if these groups don't develop into that. He sees that kind of peer mentoring in the Acts church and I think he thinks it is an ideal fit for today's context. Sounds good.
One thing I liked about this gathering was that no matter what situation you came from you obviously had a common interest in thinking missionally or you wouldn't have signed up. As far as I could tell there were people from all kinds of churches. At a lot of conferences there seems to be a tension between the various philosophies of ministry represented. In this case, the majority had to favor a missional philosophy or you wouldn't have come. (Yeah, there are always a few who may have ulterior motives.) I think that allows for deeper thought and dialogue. You think deeper about the philosophy rather than wasting time defending your belief or gritting your teeth at what else is being said.
I should also mention that we stayed at the Salt Ford Resort in the Salt Fork State Park in Ohio. Nice place. They have a ton of deer wandering around. I stepped out on my balcony one morning to watch 4 or 5 of them wandering around right below me. They just looked up as if they were waiting for me to feed them something. I think that must happen a lot. I am interested to see what this place will be like in the warmer months. It was too cold for me to go out for a walk in the woods at this time of year. Yeah, I'm a wimp.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Dumber
I watched the Presidents State of the Union last night. I think I've blogged before on how scrutiny has ruined political speeches in the USA. Politicians seem to be afraid to speak because if they don't say something exactly right or if they make a mistake it will be turned into a big deal. I really don't see how any one can get excited by most political speeches these days with their plodding, monotone delivery.
To make matters worse, it appears politicians now feel the need to dumb down their speeches to make a connection with "the people." Are we really that dumb? Maybe we are. It isn't really the Presidents fault either. But it really makes the speech hard to listen to.
At one point last night, the President said, "We need to increase our exports." This one line received a standing ovation. Really? At that point he had not said why or how this was going to be accomplished (he did talk about it a little bit, later in his speech) and yet he was getting a standing ovation because he said we needed to increase our exports. And I thought Mr. Obvious was a joke. I didn't know that so many ideas really aren't obvious.
There were some other items that got applause which really surprised me. The President said that a company called eTec received $99.8 million to create 15 jobs with another 27 jobs to be added next year. Let's see, $99.8 million divided by 42 people equals about $2.3 million per person. And this is an efficient way to create jobs??? At this rate won't it take 16 trillion to get the unemployment rate down to 5% or so? Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but if so it is because it requires closer scrutiny. But instead of making a note to look at it more carefully people stand up and cheer.
Unfortunately we won't ever hear great political speeches again in this country. People have grown used to this so now it is normal. I can't believe how many people say they think it was a good speech last night. All that means is that we can expect more of the same. I would like to see a speech that is honest, relevant, passionate, and inspiring. I don't blame Obama or other politicians as much as our apparent collective inability to understand anything above a 3rd grade level.
To make matters worse, it appears politicians now feel the need to dumb down their speeches to make a connection with "the people." Are we really that dumb? Maybe we are. It isn't really the Presidents fault either. But it really makes the speech hard to listen to.
At one point last night, the President said, "We need to increase our exports." This one line received a standing ovation. Really? At that point he had not said why or how this was going to be accomplished (he did talk about it a little bit, later in his speech) and yet he was getting a standing ovation because he said we needed to increase our exports. And I thought Mr. Obvious was a joke. I didn't know that so many ideas really aren't obvious.
There were some other items that got applause which really surprised me. The President said that a company called eTec received $99.8 million to create 15 jobs with another 27 jobs to be added next year. Let's see, $99.8 million divided by 42 people equals about $2.3 million per person. And this is an efficient way to create jobs??? At this rate won't it take 16 trillion to get the unemployment rate down to 5% or so? Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but if so it is because it requires closer scrutiny. But instead of making a note to look at it more carefully people stand up and cheer.
Unfortunately we won't ever hear great political speeches again in this country. People have grown used to this so now it is normal. I can't believe how many people say they think it was a good speech last night. All that means is that we can expect more of the same. I would like to see a speech that is honest, relevant, passionate, and inspiring. I don't blame Obama or other politicians as much as our apparent collective inability to understand anything above a 3rd grade level.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Professionals
"We are letting the professionals do what they do best." This was basically what I was told when I asked a friend about helping in Haiti. First, let me say that it was the right response from him. He is not in a position to do more. But I think it is clear that somebody needs to be able to do something because the "professionals" don't know what they are doing.
I felt a lot of embarrassment after Katrina with the way my government responded to the crisis. I had hoped that we had learned our lesson. But the Haiti earthquake has proven that the professionals are still clueless.
It really is simple. No matter what sort of threat you may think exists in the target area, Port-Au-Prince and New Orleans in this case, it dissolves immediately after a major catastrophe. It's like a boxer that has been stunned and left reeling. They have been knocked out.
So here is the basic strategy that should be used to respond to major disasters.
- During the first 3 or 4 days there is no security threat. You can walk through the worst neighborhood in the city with no problem. The most hardened thug will help you rescue people. That means you can take advantage of the situation and immediately start saving lives. It is also the perfect time to flood the region with food and water and basic medicines. Yes, there may some loss do to lack of control but it will be minimal in the grand scheme of things. The result is that a lot of lives will be saved.
- By day 4 or 5 (it depends on the severity of the devastation) security will begin to be an issue. Now is the time to start rolling out the security apparatus. I understand that to have it ready in time there needs to be lead time but it should be secondary in days 1 through 3. Now the people who are all ready on the ground can have a place to retreat to should they begin to feel threatened. Of course, the immediate relief also reduces the security threat anyway.
Simple. Do everything to help save lives immediately. Everything else can come later.
I felt a lot of embarrassment after Katrina with the way my government responded to the crisis. I had hoped that we had learned our lesson. But the Haiti earthquake has proven that the professionals are still clueless.
It really is simple. No matter what sort of threat you may think exists in the target area, Port-Au-Prince and New Orleans in this case, it dissolves immediately after a major catastrophe. It's like a boxer that has been stunned and left reeling. They have been knocked out.
So here is the basic strategy that should be used to respond to major disasters.
- During the first 3 or 4 days there is no security threat. You can walk through the worst neighborhood in the city with no problem. The most hardened thug will help you rescue people. That means you can take advantage of the situation and immediately start saving lives. It is also the perfect time to flood the region with food and water and basic medicines. Yes, there may some loss do to lack of control but it will be minimal in the grand scheme of things. The result is that a lot of lives will be saved.
- By day 4 or 5 (it depends on the severity of the devastation) security will begin to be an issue. Now is the time to start rolling out the security apparatus. I understand that to have it ready in time there needs to be lead time but it should be secondary in days 1 through 3. Now the people who are all ready on the ground can have a place to retreat to should they begin to feel threatened. Of course, the immediate relief also reduces the security threat anyway.
Simple. Do everything to help save lives immediately. Everything else can come later.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Intrigue
"Soap Box Ranting"
Maybe it is just me but it seems that way too many people are using the word "intrigue" far too often. I used to hear it every now and then and figured it was a good word. But now that everyone is intrigued or finds something intriguing the word has been ruined.
Intrigue used to be a word best reserved for spy novels. It slowly made its way into the crime genre and associated big screen flicks. That was all okay. I don't know what the official definition of intrigue is but it seems to fit well with espionage, counter intelligence, double agents, and blackmail. The word knew its place and played a powerful descriptive role.
Then people started to use the word in ordinary ways. The first time I heard someone say "I'm intrigued by that," I thought it sounded out of place. It gave the word a sort of pompous attitude that made the speakers of it sound quite a bit more intelligent than evidence suggested. Were they really intrigued by an idea? As if it could stab them in the back at any moment, or something?
Now I see the word used all the time. Today I saw a headline "Intriguing People of 2009." Really? Either the word has changed or all those spy novels I've read weren't as (ahem) intriguing as I thought they were.
So I am hereby asking everyone to stop using the word unless they are referring to something that is really, actually intriguing. If you find yourself about ready to say or write the word please stop and check yourself. Ask if the word is really appropriate for the situation. Perhaps a word like "fascinated" or "interested" or "curious" would be better suit the situation. Intrigue has a dark dimension to it and I would hate to see it lose that quality.
Of course, let me offer some grace to those of you who have allowed this word to slip into inappropriate places of your vocabulary. It is not your fault. Like most words they tend to sneak up on us with such subtlety that we don't even notice. I just ask that from this point forward you be more cautious.
Thank you.
Maybe it is just me but it seems that way too many people are using the word "intrigue" far too often. I used to hear it every now and then and figured it was a good word. But now that everyone is intrigued or finds something intriguing the word has been ruined.
Intrigue used to be a word best reserved for spy novels. It slowly made its way into the crime genre and associated big screen flicks. That was all okay. I don't know what the official definition of intrigue is but it seems to fit well with espionage, counter intelligence, double agents, and blackmail. The word knew its place and played a powerful descriptive role.
Then people started to use the word in ordinary ways. The first time I heard someone say "I'm intrigued by that," I thought it sounded out of place. It gave the word a sort of pompous attitude that made the speakers of it sound quite a bit more intelligent than evidence suggested. Were they really intrigued by an idea? As if it could stab them in the back at any moment, or something?
Now I see the word used all the time. Today I saw a headline "Intriguing People of 2009." Really? Either the word has changed or all those spy novels I've read weren't as (ahem) intriguing as I thought they were.
So I am hereby asking everyone to stop using the word unless they are referring to something that is really, actually intriguing. If you find yourself about ready to say or write the word please stop and check yourself. Ask if the word is really appropriate for the situation. Perhaps a word like "fascinated" or "interested" or "curious" would be better suit the situation. Intrigue has a dark dimension to it and I would hate to see it lose that quality.
Of course, let me offer some grace to those of you who have allowed this word to slip into inappropriate places of your vocabulary. It is not your fault. Like most words they tend to sneak up on us with such subtlety that we don't even notice. I just ask that from this point forward you be more cautious.
Thank you.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Missio
Over the next couple of years I am going to be involved with a Missional Leadership Initiative with Reggie McNeal. It will involve three 3 day meetings each year with involvement in a cohort in the in between times. I got involved in it because I meet once a week with a couple of pastors in the area. They both belong to the denomination that is responsible for the whole thing. Dan, one of my friends I meet with, must be a big shot in his denom because he finagled an invitation for me even though I'm from a different tribe. Thanks again Dan.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it. I have a lot of interest in the topic as a whole but right now I'm very interested in the spiritual formation component of it. I also think it is good timing for my church. The last 6 months have been the most difficult in the last 11 years and that has led to a lot of head scratching and soul searching. I'm hoping this will help me process some stuff.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it. I have a lot of interest in the topic as a whole but right now I'm very interested in the spiritual formation component of it. I also think it is good timing for my church. The last 6 months have been the most difficult in the last 11 years and that has led to a lot of head scratching and soul searching. I'm hoping this will help me process some stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
