A buzz word/phrase that has been around for a long time now is "Servant Leader". I'm beginning to think that we have confused this phrase and we have quickly forgotten what a powerful phrase it is. The common definition is that a leader leads by serving. This sounds good but doesn't completely define a servant leader because a lot of people serve but not all of them are leaders. There is an element of leadership that still must be present to fully define the term.

Part of the definition then has to be in regards to under/over position. The under position reflects the servant aspect in that the servant is under those he/she serves. The over position relfects the leadership aspect in that the leader is over those he/she leads. Determining how these two come together will should bring us to an understanding of the shepherd metaphor that appears to epitomize servant leadership.

My cousin's husband wrote a book about leading from the middle. I read the back cover and a page or two to satisfy my mom's desire for me to read my relative's book but maybe I should actually read it!

I keep coming back to the thought that the typical American Christian faces the temptation of comfort and safety to a crippling degree. So many do not live the life they know God has placed in their heart because they are either spending their time trying to achieve comfort and safety or they are unwilling to risk losing them. I'm finding that this is a big issue for college students too.

Why I Would Rather Do Something Radical Rather Than Join The MCUSA!

Several years ago I recall sitting in an ordination service during our Annual Conference. Bishop Seilhamer was speaking and he was talking about the future. He used words that I wasn't to familiar with like post-modernity and post-denominationalism. I confess I don't recall what he said but I left with the feeling that I had some catching up to do.

Since then I have read a lot about the future. In doing so I have come to some conclusions about what lies ahead. First of all, in spite of the passion with which they predict, no one is really sure about what the future will bring. I suppose some of the writers may be sure in their own minds but most are not so bold and they understand the speculative nature of their work.

A second conclusion is that even though we don't really know what lies ahead we are in the middle of a seismic change in how people think and view the world. As a missionary and a missionary's kid I have always been aware of the difference between modern ways of thinking and pre-modern ways of thinking. I do believe that there has been a rejection, to a degree, of the rationalistic approach of the modern mind and a recapturing of the acceptance of mystery of the pre-modern mind.

The third conclusion is that the modern church is losing its ability to reach a growing segment of society while it maintains its ability to reach a large but shrinking segment. The dilemma here is that the modern church can and will continue to be successful because this latter segment is so large that it could be a long time before a problem arises. But I believe that in the end the modern church will find itself unprepared to be the church.

All of this is simply background information and some of it really has no bearing on whether we should join the MCUSA or not. In a simplistic sense I could argue that joining would simply tie us to another modern denomination that will be difficult to change because it is stronger. That argument is countered with the argument that the MCUSA has its act together and so it will make whatever changes are necessary when the time comes. I believe that my main argument for not joining will fall short of being able to convince anyone to agree, especially a modernist. At best it may give a little understanding to those who share my position as to why they feel the way they do and perhaps it will help the rest to understand me a little better.

One of the incredible gifts that humans have received from God is the spirit of adventure. Since the earliest records we can see this spirit of adventure in men and women as we read about what they accomplished and, just as importantly, how they failed. I think that one of the reasons we are drawn to it is because it is when we are on a great adventure that we feel the most alive.

Some writers have tried to distinguish between adventuring and exploring. The explorers did what they did because they were compelled by very tangible motivations. Queen Isabella asking Columbus to explore a new route to the East Indies is a good example of this. These writers argue that adventurers do what they do simply because the adventure is there. I like to think that explorers wouldn't really be explorers if they didn't also have a spirit of adventure. Nevertheless, the spirit of adventure is evident throughout history.

The fact is, while I believe we all are born with a spirit of adventure, most of us manage to suppress it as adults. Adventure often leads us into danger and failure. Most of us prefer the security that avoiding adventure brings. The spirit is always there, lurking deep down in our souls. It makes us restless at times but we manage to keep it at bay and under control. In spite of that we often live with the regret that we never went for it, that we never (ad)ventured.

Will Steger is probably America's greatest living adventurer. He has logged thousands of miles in kayaks and dog sleds to go to unmapped places. He has taken dog sleds to the north pole and across Antarctica. He writes, "Adventure is natural and obvious to children, and it is rare that I get the 'why' question from anyone younger than 16. (Kids typically want answers to the really big questions, like 'How do you go to the bathroom when it's 50 below?') 'Why adventure?' is an adult's question. When we grow up, our instinctual, go-for-it sensibility is replaced by an analytical, judgmental one. We grow out of the spontaneity that we knew as children."

I believe that joining the MCUSA is the "adult" option. It offers safety and security and a degree of comfort. It allows us to avoid the misery that adventure inevitably brings. Careful analysis and sound judgment lead us in that direction. But it suppresses the spirit of adventure.

I do not mean to imply that MCUSA is not on an adventure of its own. Undoubtedly it is. But it is their adventure not ours. People have been extremely critical of denominationalism and the lack of unity it brings. There have definitely been negative outcomes. But I think maybe allowing groups of people to join together on their own adventures produces many positives as well. It is interesting to note that the larger the denomination the more internal movements develop.

I don't believe that we have lost our spirit of adventure in our own denomination. It is still there. But we are trying to go on our adventure in comfort. We don't want to adapt to our environment. We want to travel with all the comforts of our past that we have become accustomed to. It won't work.

There are many examples of adventurer's who have also fallen into this trap. In 1845 Sir John Franklin set off on an expedition to find a northwest passage. He took with him a 5 years supply of food, a 2,000 volume library, an organ, monogrammed table ware and the finest naval attire among other niceties. His ships even had hot water heat in the cabins. It was by far the most luxuriously equipped expedition of the time. Unfortunately their finery did them little good. What they didn't have was clothing suitable for the artic and the tin food they brought caused lead poisoning. The result was that when their ships became trapped in the ice they couldn't survive and they all met a terrible death.

Another example is Robert Scott who didn't like sled dogs and so opted for ponies instead on his quest for the south pole. Admundsen had learned in the artic that the dogs where an adaptation to the environment that insured success. Admundsen won the race to the pole while Scott died while trying to return from finishing second.

I have no doubt that there will be attempts to abandon environmental adaptation with any option we have. There will be those who will want to agree to go on this adventure but they will want to do it from the comfort and familiarity they are used to. I get discouraged even thinking about it. But my spirit of adventure tells me that the attempt must be made.

I warned you in the beginning that this explanation would not satisfy you. You don't read about the spirit of adventure in scripture. But I think a journey of faith is the greatest adventure. Wasn't Abraham exhibiting and adventurous spirit when by faith he left his home. Can't we say the same for almost all of the people in Hebrews 11?

Any worthy alternate proposal will not be easy and it will require a tremendous faith. But maybe we need to stop looking at this through adult eyes. Maybe we need to have the faith of little children. Maybe we need to stop asking the "why" questions and get to the really big questions. We need to understand that to truly be alive as God intended we need to embrace the spirit of adventure.