Desperate To Get Married

In 1960 the average age for a woman in America to get married was 20. By 1990 it was raised to 23. In 2013 it is 27. That's quite a jump since 1990 and I have read pluses and minuses to the increasing age of first marriages. But at this moment I can name four young women that I know who are younger than that and seem desperate to get married and I wonder if they are caught in the middle of this shift.

Desperation can lead to poor choices and I wonder if there are any statistics on the marriage success rate of marriages born out of desperation. I'm not even sure how you would measure that. It just stands to reason that you would be starting out on the wrong foot. 

Of course it may be just my judgment that these women are throwing themselves at bad situations and maybe these relationships are better than I suspect. I am not really saying that these guys they are chasing are losers either. I'm just saying they don't really seem ready for that level of relationship.

This got me thinking about why these women settle when they have so much to offer. I don't claim to know anything about biological clocks but I wonder if the late average age for marriage is part of the problem. It seems that in past decades there were a lot more people thinking seriously about marriage at a much earlier age. That would mean that for someone looking to get married they would find plenty of possible partners. In 2013 that pool of partners is significantly smaller and I would guess that that is frightening for someone desperate to get married.

The fear of missing your opportunity is strong but I think making sure you have a solid foundation for a relationship makes up for it. I have a strong urge to yell "relax and be patient" but I don't think they would find it very helpful.

One last thing, There could be just as many desperate young men out there as there are women. Ijust don't know any.

Cool Tool

Well, after using it for about a month I have to say that I really like using Scrivener for writing. It really doesn't do anything special but it works in a way that really fits how I work, and that makes all the difference.

It is really geared to someone writing a book which is not something I am doing. I can see why it would work well for that though. They also recommend doing final formatting in another application but I haven't bothered with that so far. It is good enough for me as is.

I think the best way to think about it is as a 3-ring binder with subject dividers. Anything you would organize that way would probably work great with Scrivener. Right now I am working on my summer sermon series. So inside my binder I have one folder for each week. Inside each week I have one file each for my scripture, order of service, announcements, kid's sermon, big's sermon, and research. (I do use a separate research file in the binder for general research that is not week specific.)

All of this is easily done with any word processing software and file system. The thing I like about Scrivener is how easy it is to switch back and forth between ALL the documents in the binder. That may not seem like that big of a deal but it just makes a huge difference to me. Like I said at the beginning, it just fits how I work. It feels right, comfortable, and it makes me smile, which isn't something software does very often.

There are a lot of other cool little features that it has, including some they make a big deal about that I think are cool but don't really use too much. And there are a few annoying quirks that leave me scratching my head. But for anything that would fit in a binder that you would use text on, rather than numerals, it is simple elegance.

Going Wild

On a regular basis we see people going wild when they make a decision to cross a line. Sometimes it is the result of new found freedom like when a child reaches adulthood and is no longer under parental restriction. We all probably know of someone who went from a "well behaved and respectful" kid into a wild, party animal when they got out from under their parent's wings. What I am focusing on here is the extremes.

While probably most kids open up a bit they often retain a good deal of the characteristics of their upbringing. But why is it that some seem to try and run as far away from everything they have known? Do they really reject EVERYTHING they have known or is there something else that goes on that makes it difficult to accept even a portion of their past belief?

I think there is a psychological reason for the total rejection. There seems to be a need for validating their rejection so the brain works overtime finding reasons to reject everything. They find it difficult to mesh some of their new ways of seeing the world with their established ways of seeing the world so they can only choose one or the other. My guess is that these people have difficulty with gray areas and uncertainty and like to see things in black and white.

This doesn't happen only with young people either. I have seen people leave their faith and become some of the harshest critics of their former faith. Most would probably say this is because they have seen the inside and don't like what they saw. My guess is that this has more to do with their personal struggle and uncertainty. I have also see this with people who were once politically conservative but are now quite liberal. They consistently attack conservatives while defending liberals. My guess is that they really don't feel that their liberal side is always right but they have spent so long living in an unbalanced, conservative view that they subconsciously feel the need try to put it back in balance.

The sad part about all of this is that it stifles honest discourse. Our ability to have constructive conversations seems to be disappearing. It isn't safe to say anything because it will probably be taken the wrong way or someone will read something into it that was never intended. That's sad.

Missional (Again)

As I have mentioned before, I am concerned about how missional is defined because I think it is one of those words that is starting to mean a lot of different things and will soon become useless. I also think there is a real danger of people mistaking missional activity for being missional. Before long a person thinks they are missional, not because they are using what God has given them to serve in His redemptive mission, but because they help out once a week at the local community center. Working at the community center may very well be missional but it could just as easily not be.

I want to find an accessible definition that makes it clear that there is a difference between being misisonal and missional activity. There are two scripture references that help for me. The first is Colossians 1:13-23

Colossians 1:13 "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. 21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant."

I almost don't know where to start on this passage.
- Rescued from the dominion of darkness into the Kingdom. (verse 13)
- Redemption and forgiveness of sin. (verse 14)
- The supremacy of Christ. (verses 15-19)
- The reconciliation of all things. (verses 20-22)
- A servant of this gospel. (verse 23)

I'm not fleshing all this out here but I see Paul presenting the gospel here which speaks of our redemption as well as His mission to reconcile all things. Then I see Paul saying that he is a servant to this gospel. To many, the servants part is to proclaim this gospel to the ends of the earth and we see that Paul fits this description. But I do not believe that being a servant of the gospel simply means verbal proclamation. At this point I go to another passage, 1 Peter 4:10.

1Peter 4:10 "Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms."

So then, we are to use whatever gift we have received to serve the gospel of redemption and the reconciliation of all things to God through Christ. That means a missional person is one who:
- Is aware of his gifts and seeks to develop them.
- Studies the world in which he lives seeking the Holy Spirit's to places he can use his gift to bring    reconciliation and restoration.
- Lives out this mission in community as a part of the body of Christ.

One of the dangers I see is that our in our western world view we tend to like everything neatly organized. That is why I see "Missional Communities" organized around a single task. I'm not sure that should be the norm. It is good that a Christian work together with others from their community but a truly missional person will not limit themselves to just one task or need. They will be constantly on the look out for opportunities to be a servant of this gospel in everything they do, whether it is volunteering at a local community center or at the store buying groceries. Being a servant of the gospel is not like a job that you clock in and out of. We are to be slaves to the gospel in a way that it encompasses our whole life.

Accountability

One of the major issues in denominations is providing accountability for pastors. In my denomination that is done on two levels. I am accountable to my local church's governing board and I am accountable to my denomination through my cluster leader, the Pastoral Ministries Leadership Team, and our Bishop. But there are problems with all of these relationships.

The governing board has the closest relationship with me and that is both good and bad. I am not sure how effective it is in a small church setting. It is difficult to keep it effective and healthy at the same time. The denominational structures are based more on numbers rather than relationship and that is very misleading. So is it possible to have an accountability structure that is highly relational but also free from some of the conflict of interest that can occur in a small church?

I have a friend who works for a company that employs over 200,000 people worldwide and in some respects the employees operate similar to pastors in that they don't punch a clock and work in a wide variety of contexts. So I talked with him about their system and this is how I think it might work.

Each pastor needs to have a ministry counselor (MC). In our case it would probably be the cluster leader. The MC would keep track of everything the pastor is involved with; my church, denominational teams, mission trips, and other boards, committees, etc. Obviously a system would need to be developed to keep track of this. The MC would also communicate weekly with the pastor to develop their relationship, learn what the pastor is trying to accomplish in the immediate as well as long term future.

Once a year the MC would also contact several of the groups the pastor has been involved with. For example, the MC might contact the chairperson of a board the pastor was involved with and ask how effective the pastor was as a member of the team, what were the pastor's strengths and weaknesses, and what skills the pastor needed to develop. From year to year this feedback would be used to help the pastor improve his skills and lay out a direction for the coming years.

The MC would also insure that the pastor is practising a lifestyle that is healthy for ministry. This would include volunteering in the community, a healthy amount of leisure time, vacations, etc.

Obviously the MC would have a huge commitment to this and there would need to be a strict limit on how many pastors an MC would be responsible for. It might also need to be broken out of the cluster system so that every pastor has an MC and most pastors are an MC for another pastor.

Got to run so I will need to finish this later.



Addition:

Okay, so I don't like the idea of the cluster leader being the MC for all the pastors in their cluster. An MC should consult with the cluster leader but an MC should have no more than 2 or 3 pastors that they counsel so that would make it impossible for the cluster leader to also be the MC for every pastor in his cluster.

Okay, time to flesh it out a little more.



Assumptions: - Accountability is necessary. - Accountability must be highly relational. - Pastor's are in a unique situation that requires a unique approach to accountability. - Current systems usually focus on data that is often ineffective at measuring a pastor's performance.



How It Would Work

The MC and the Pastor would have an initial interview that would cover strengths and weaknesses, ministry philosophy, educational goals, family, community involvement, physical health, spiritual health, etc. This interview is designed to help the MC understand where the pastor is and where he feels led. These can, and most likely will, change but that can evolve as the relationship with the MC develops. The MC also helps the pastor develop goals for the next week as well as longer term goals.

Each week the MC communicates with the pastor to discuss progress being made, obstacles encountered, etc. The MC may also suggest resources that could help the pastor reach educational and career goals. Those resources could be books, seminars, conferences, experts, veteran leaders, etc.

Once or twice a year the MC will assess the progress of the pastor by compiling information from personal contact, interviews with the pastor's cluster leader, interviews with the local church board chairman, chairman of boards or committees that the pastor serves on, etc. The MC will ask about the pastors effectiveness, weaknesses, relational skills, etc. Once he has completed the assessment he will discuss the assessment with the pastor and his cluster leader.

The pastor has the option of selecting another MC if he does not feel he has a good fit. This should not be taken personally and it may be the case that the pastor may return to his original MC at a later date. It is very important that the MC/pastor relationship be one that is functional.

After a year or two the pastor should take on the role of MC for another pastor while maintaining his relationship with his own MC. Eventually, every pastor should have an MC, including denominational officials.



Implementation

The first step would be to bring together a small group of pastors who have experience and vision for such a program. Experience might include coaching, mentoring, counselling, etc. This group will develop the initial policies and procedures and begin a pilot program. They will closely monitor the program and make necessary adjustments

All for now.

Tri-UNE

Just a brief note to remember something. When we talk about the Trinity it seems that we go to great pains to talk about each person of the Trinity and how they are different from the other. We have a formula that says that God the Father is not God the Son or God the Holy Spirit, but he is God. Likewise, God the Son is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit but is God. Then we do the same for God the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that we spend most of our time showing how each person is NOT the other and very little time focusing on the IS God part.

I think one reason for that is that we look through the lens of a Western (Greek) worldview rather than an Eastern (Hebrew) worldview. We seem to be focused on separating and not so good at thinking about things as a whole. There is probably some good reason for this and it probably is helpful for a lot of people. But I also think it is helpful for us to focus on the IS God aspect of our formula too.

Probably the hardest person of the Trinity for us to think of as God is the Holy Spirit. Maybe that is because of how Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as a comforter, guide, and helper. Yet we do make the connection when we use the terms "God's leading" and "lead by the Holy Spirit." We see that as one in the same but in other instances we somehow see the Holy Spirit as less than God.

The incarnation probably gives us the best example of looking at it both ways. John 3:16 tells us that God (father) sent his Son (Jesus). That would be the focus on the separation of the Trinity. Yet we also read in Matthew 1:23 that they will call him Immanuel- which means 'God with us." That would be a focus on the whole of the Trinity.

This probably makes little sense to most people but it popped into my head this morning that we don't focus on the wholeness of the Trinity very much and that sometimes it is helpful to do so.