Showing posts with label Ministry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ministry. Show all posts
May 6, 2014
Ten Words that will Make or Break a Church (a belated Advent reflection)
by Matthew McEwan
When I worked in retail I was taught that customers are driven by a basic question informing their decision making. The question is contained in five simple little words. Just five words, and yet they make up a truly powerful question such that when the question is answered a retail associate can make an easy sale. Those five words are: what’s in it for me? If a customer understands a perceived benefit of owning some do-dad is greater than having some money in a wallet or bank account, the sale is a given. A consumer culture is based on this question and the message of advertising is that unless the latest and most recent version of something is purchased, we will remain incomplete and unfulfilled. A consumer culture is raised to ask: what’s in it for me?
When this simple little question is applied to a church, the results can be disastrous. A 90’s Christian rock band called “All Star United” did a song called “La La Land” with the haunting lines:
All the saints and martyrs alike, well they would have called a national strike
Demanded less pain, more personal gain, if only they’d known their rights
Well I take it very personally, I’ve got to know what’s in it for me
Ain’t it grand, when you’re living in La La Land
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5YGZlTO4Os)
The question “What’s in it for me?” changes disciples into consumers, and when a consumer finds their perceived needs are not being met, it becomes easy to move from one church to another, like changing brands or retail stores. People evaluate a church based on what it can offer them rather than seeing the opportunities where they can serve in that church. “What’s in it for me?” can destroy a church.
A more redemptive statement to replace the destructive question “What’s in it for me?” is another five word phrase. These other five words are guaranteed to bless a church, and they can be found in the pages of Scripture. In Luke 1:38, Mary said to the angel Gabriel, “I am the Lord’s servant.” When people say to God, “I am the Lord’s servant” there is no room to ask, “What’s in it for me?” Jesus picked up a towel to wash the feet of his disciples, and he expects his followers to do the same. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” is a church where you will see the “one-another’s” of the New Testament being practiced. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” will be a church where people gather to serve rather than be served. A church filled with people saying, “I am the Lord’s servant” will be a church that is blessed.
Whenever I encounter this phrase in the Gospel of Luke, I’m reminded of the painting by Henry Ossawa Tanner (1859-1937) of “The Annunciation” (1898). In this painting, the angel Gabriel appears as brilliant light. In this painting we see no angelic wings, no halo, no cherub with a baby face but instead we are presented with an angel in the form of pure, brilliant light. The glory of the angel is ineffable and almost overwhelming , much like a glance at the sun. In contrast with the angel we find Mary and her surroundings painted in earth tones. Mary has no halo and the rug is dishevelled. Obviously the annunciation has come unannounced; were I expecting an angelic visitor, I might have straightened up the room! Mary’s body posture is reflective of her heart. She is in quiet submission and answering “Yes” to God’s plan. Like Mary, may we all answer with “I am the Lord’s servant.”
Feb 4, 2013
Sandwiched
by Greg Pulham
My wife and I are part of what some call “the sandwich generation” – one slice of bread is children we are still supporting; the other slice of bread is parents who require an increasing amount of our care. As the meat in this sandwich, we don’t always enjoy life in with the mayonnaise and mustard.
I am finding that I am also part of another “sandwich generation” – one that exists in the church.
One slice of bread in this sandwich is the traditional church of which I am lead pastor. With 125 years of ministry history, my church firmly belongs in the category which has been variously called “modern,” or “maintenance,” or most recently “attractional.” They are a wonderful, devoted group of believers, some of whom I’ve lived with as part this community for more than 25 years now as a lay person and a pastor.
The other slice of bread is the missional-incarnational impulse that is coming alive in me. For several years now (since I first heard the word “missional” from Gary Nelson at our 2004 Minister’s Conference), I have been trying to create (or awaken?) a missional identity in my church. It has been tremendously challenging work, and often frustrating. I have to confess that at times I have wanted to give up my traditional church and my traditional pastor’s job description to be part of something new, something cutting edge, something making a visible kingdom impact in the world.
I am part of a “sandwich generation” – pastors with burgeoning missional impulses who fill traditional pastoral roles in non-missional communities. The movement of the Spirit often conflicts with the expectations of the congregation. Pastoral ministry has never been easy, but I think for this generation, there are complex and thorny challenges.
Some in this sandwich generation will feel called to respond energetically to the missional-incarnational impulse. They will give up their traditional churches and pastoral roles and find genuine fulfilment in pursuit of God’s call in the hard work of birthing radical new missional communities. Others will remain, working hard and praying that the traditional churches they pastor will someday also be truly missional communities.
Alan Hirsch writes, “My great hope for the church is that in actual fact Apostolic Genius is not something that we have to impose on the church, as if it were something alien to us, but rather is something that already exists in us. It is us! It is our truest expression as Jesus’ people. And because this is so, we simply need to awaken and cultivate it.” (The Forgotten Ways, 244)
I share this hope, and so, while the urge to leave is sometimes strong, I believe that God wants me to stay behind to awaken and cultivate a missional-incarnational identity in the community of faith in which He has placed me. While the kingdom dream certainly needs visionary, entrepreneurial pastors who will blaze the trail of missional living, there is also a need for missionally-hearted pastors – pastors who would rather be trail blazing – to continue to work within traditional church communities to lead them out into missional-incarnational space.
Whichever road is taken will require sacrifice for God’s kingdom dream. I hope you will pray for this sandwich generation of pastors.
My wife and I are part of what some call “the sandwich generation” – one slice of bread is children we are still supporting; the other slice of bread is parents who require an increasing amount of our care. As the meat in this sandwich, we don’t always enjoy life in with the mayonnaise and mustard.
I am finding that I am also part of another “sandwich generation” – one that exists in the church.
One slice of bread in this sandwich is the traditional church of which I am lead pastor. With 125 years of ministry history, my church firmly belongs in the category which has been variously called “modern,” or “maintenance,” or most recently “attractional.” They are a wonderful, devoted group of believers, some of whom I’ve lived with as part this community for more than 25 years now as a lay person and a pastor.
The other slice of bread is the missional-incarnational impulse that is coming alive in me. For several years now (since I first heard the word “missional” from Gary Nelson at our 2004 Minister’s Conference), I have been trying to create (or awaken?) a missional identity in my church. It has been tremendously challenging work, and often frustrating. I have to confess that at times I have wanted to give up my traditional church and my traditional pastor’s job description to be part of something new, something cutting edge, something making a visible kingdom impact in the world.
I am part of a “sandwich generation” – pastors with burgeoning missional impulses who fill traditional pastoral roles in non-missional communities. The movement of the Spirit often conflicts with the expectations of the congregation. Pastoral ministry has never been easy, but I think for this generation, there are complex and thorny challenges.
Some in this sandwich generation will feel called to respond energetically to the missional-incarnational impulse. They will give up their traditional churches and pastoral roles and find genuine fulfilment in pursuit of God’s call in the hard work of birthing radical new missional communities. Others will remain, working hard and praying that the traditional churches they pastor will someday also be truly missional communities.
Alan Hirsch writes, “My great hope for the church is that in actual fact Apostolic Genius is not something that we have to impose on the church, as if it were something alien to us, but rather is something that already exists in us. It is us! It is our truest expression as Jesus’ people. And because this is so, we simply need to awaken and cultivate it.” (The Forgotten Ways, 244)
I share this hope, and so, while the urge to leave is sometimes strong, I believe that God wants me to stay behind to awaken and cultivate a missional-incarnational identity in the community of faith in which He has placed me. While the kingdom dream certainly needs visionary, entrepreneurial pastors who will blaze the trail of missional living, there is also a need for missionally-hearted pastors – pastors who would rather be trail blazing – to continue to work within traditional church communities to lead them out into missional-incarnational space.
Whichever road is taken will require sacrifice for God’s kingdom dream. I hope you will pray for this sandwich generation of pastors.
Nov 13, 2012
On Partnering with Para-church Ministries: A Model for Discernment
When Jesus prays for us directly in John 17:21, He asks the Father that we as believers would be one just as the Father is one. Jesus asks the Father that we, the broader body of Christ, live in complete unity to let the world know that the Father has sent Jesus – to see God`s glory! Clearly it is in God’s interest that we partner with other Christians and work together.
John Wesley, in his sermon on the catholic spirit, cites 2 Kings 10:15, ‘if your heart is as my heart then give me your hand’. Thomas Oden explains that Wesley’s major thesis on the catholic spirit is that ‘being of one heart, even though not of one opinion, reaches beyond human antipathies and cultural differences’. People who are shaped and formed with divergent modes of thinking can still be united. Wesley recognizes that ‘how we think’ is formed by our circumstances and cultural experiences.
While Wesley was unquestionably committed to the essentials of classical Christianity, ‘he resisted the notion that they could be captured in a single unalterable linguistic form’. He urged followers to operate within the dictates of our own conscience. When seeking truth, confessional statements are limited. So Wesley raised questions that ask whether one has become ‘personally accountable to the core of Christian teaching.’ If believers are opening their hearts to the transforming work of God and open to that self-examination, then Wesley would say, ‘extend to me your hand’. In light of this Wesleyan ethos, we seek to live in that unity with Christian partners.
We also seek to be discerning in developing relationships that help us optimize partnerships for God’s glory. But, Scripture and experience also tell us that sometimes there is real wisdom in not partnering. In Acts 15:35-40 we see an example of such wisdom when two key leaders who had been working closely together, developed different visions about how to best move forward. Rather than feel they must stay together in the same locale, they saw that for the sake of the gospel, it would be better for them to not work so closely together. There is no implication of anything wrong in this realization. In fact, both ministries seemed to be optimized apart from each other.
Wise discernment often depends on asking the right questions. The following questions are intended to be a tool for churches and church leaders as they consider partnerships with para-church organizations and other Christian groups.
Confessional Compatibility
Is there anything within the organization’s doctrine or statement of faith that conflicts or contradicts historical orthodoxy?
Is there anything about their beliefs and emphases that contradicts our Free Methodist Articles of Religion
and our collective convictions about the Christian life (The Christian Life in the Manual)? Would an outsider think that our church believes or emphasizes things we do not if their first or only contact with us was through this group?
Discerning the Spirit
Does the mood &/or ethos of the organization complement ours?
Is there anything about this group/person that raises flags in those in your church known for having the gift of discernment?
Are there any concerns morally, ethically, financially, legally that plague the organization?
Even if there are concerns that are flagged, what elements/truths might be benefit your ministry – or at least need to be incorporated, even if you do not develop a formal relationship with them?
Would I be comfortable with my church or my personal identity being associated publicly with this ministry? I.e. How would I feel about a caption with the two names together on the front page of a local paper?
Is there a good chance that this group/person is so different from us that divergent visions/priorities may well raise questions and debates that will take everyone’s attention away from central Gospel priorities?
Is the leadership of my church prayerfully on board with this association?
Who has endorsed this organization or ministry publicly in their marketing materials?
Is there anything that makes me feel uncomfortable in working with this organization or association?
Seeking the wisdom of others (Prov 15:22)
Have I consulted with my peers in my network, accountability partner, LISTSERV or NLT to thoroughly reference the association or organization?
Who can I contact personally to further reference this ministry?
Objectives and outcome of partnership
What are the parameters, benchmarks or guidelines, we need to put in place for this association to best function
What long term benefit will this bring to our local church vision?
What long term benefit will this bring to the spiritual maturity/discipleship/sanctification of our church?
John Wesley, in his sermon on the catholic spirit, cites 2 Kings 10:15, ‘if your heart is as my heart then give me your hand’. Thomas Oden explains that Wesley’s major thesis on the catholic spirit is that ‘being of one heart, even though not of one opinion, reaches beyond human antipathies and cultural differences’. People who are shaped and formed with divergent modes of thinking can still be united. Wesley recognizes that ‘how we think’ is formed by our circumstances and cultural experiences.
While Wesley was unquestionably committed to the essentials of classical Christianity, ‘he resisted the notion that they could be captured in a single unalterable linguistic form’. He urged followers to operate within the dictates of our own conscience. When seeking truth, confessional statements are limited. So Wesley raised questions that ask whether one has become ‘personally accountable to the core of Christian teaching.’ If believers are opening their hearts to the transforming work of God and open to that self-examination, then Wesley would say, ‘extend to me your hand’. In light of this Wesleyan ethos, we seek to live in that unity with Christian partners.
We also seek to be discerning in developing relationships that help us optimize partnerships for God’s glory. But, Scripture and experience also tell us that sometimes there is real wisdom in not partnering. In Acts 15:35-40 we see an example of such wisdom when two key leaders who had been working closely together, developed different visions about how to best move forward. Rather than feel they must stay together in the same locale, they saw that for the sake of the gospel, it would be better for them to not work so closely together. There is no implication of anything wrong in this realization. In fact, both ministries seemed to be optimized apart from each other.
Wise discernment often depends on asking the right questions. The following questions are intended to be a tool for churches and church leaders as they consider partnerships with para-church organizations and other Christian groups.
Confessional Compatibility
Is there anything within the organization’s doctrine or statement of faith that conflicts or contradicts historical orthodoxy?
Is there anything about their beliefs and emphases that contradicts our Free Methodist Articles of Religion
and our collective convictions about the Christian life (The Christian Life in the Manual)? Would an outsider think that our church believes or emphasizes things we do not if their first or only contact with us was through this group?
Discerning the Spirit
Does the mood &/or ethos of the organization complement ours?
Is there anything about this group/person that raises flags in those in your church known for having the gift of discernment?
Are there any concerns morally, ethically, financially, legally that plague the organization?
Even if there are concerns that are flagged, what elements/truths might be benefit your ministry – or at least need to be incorporated, even if you do not develop a formal relationship with them?
Would I be comfortable with my church or my personal identity being associated publicly with this ministry? I.e. How would I feel about a caption with the two names together on the front page of a local paper?
Is there a good chance that this group/person is so different from us that divergent visions/priorities may well raise questions and debates that will take everyone’s attention away from central Gospel priorities?
Is the leadership of my church prayerfully on board with this association?
Who has endorsed this organization or ministry publicly in their marketing materials?
Is there anything that makes me feel uncomfortable in working with this organization or association?
Seeking the wisdom of others (Prov 15:22)
Have I consulted with my peers in my network, accountability partner, LISTSERV or NLT to thoroughly reference the association or organization?
Who can I contact personally to further reference this ministry?
Objectives and outcome of partnership
What are the parameters, benchmarks or guidelines, we need to put in place for this association to best function
What long term benefit will this bring to our local church vision?
What long term benefit will this bring to the spiritual maturity/discipleship/sanctification of our church?
Sep 4, 2012
When Helping Hurts
I am realizing that my formation to this point in life has rather poorly equipped me for serious obedience to the concern throughout scripture that God’s people share themselves and their resources with the poor. Sometimes, I have tried to be gracious about it, and said, “That’s something another part of Christ’s body does well.”
As well, I have seen attempts at helping, which seemed, even to me, to likely be counterproductive in the long haul.
How good, then, to learn of a wonderful introduction to the matter which strikes me as:
- biblical (with a special focus on Christ as King and Christ’s Kingdom, and on the over-arching grand Story of the Bible)
- humble (the authors admits many of their own errors, and are gracious throughout); there is tremendous humility here!
- in touch with “systems” thinking
- aware of how “culture” works in human life
- clearly “both/and” in tone
- nuanced (i.e. they do not pretend that issues are simpler than they are)
It is: Steve Corbett & Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts: How To Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor (Moody Publishers, 2009).
Jun 4, 2012
Being Watchmen - or Women
Having asked what we as a church can do for the community, a local high school principal replied, “Be a watchman to the community.” She explained that the church was needed to help with acceptance of diversity in our neighbourhood and educate against prejudice as this region has faced changing demographics from immigration.
I ran across the word watchman recently in Ezekiel. God says to Ezekiel, “I have appointed you a watchman to my people.” The radical nature of Ezekiel’s commission means that God makes his tongue stick to the roof of his mouth until He gives him a message, at which time it is loosed!
OT prophets, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, shared in a commission that was in fact intercession. OT scholar, Donald Leggett tells us that “a prophet is one who speaks from God to people and to God concerning people.” The prophet is “intoxicated with God” and lives deeply that connection. When people insist on living in defilement, whether it be prejudice or lack of appreciation for God’s gift of diversity, or any sin that dishonours God`s creation, God reluctantly gives us over to those desires. The prophet lives God’s pain through tears and pleas for God’s people and to God’s people.
The prophet’s connection with God is deep but so is the tension. Jeremiah speaks about that tension in chapter 20:9, “But if I say I’ll never mention the Lord or speak in his name, his word burns in my heart like a fire. It’s like a fire in my bones! I am worn out trying to hold it in! I can’t do it!” The prophet’s driving passion is deeply imbedded to motivate to action. That`s also what happens with Peter (John 21). But before Peter can be commissioned to action, Jesus leads him to his driving passion by first bringing him to a place he doesn`t want to go.
N.T. Wright helps us picture this moment between Jesus and Peter. The disciples are shivering, tired and hungry from fishing all night. As they approach the shore, they breathe in the welcoming smell of bread and fish already simmering on the hot coals. There was Jesus, smiling with an open invitation to join Him for breakfast. This is the third time Jesus appears following His death and resurrection. It’s an intimate gathering with friends.
You can imagine how Peter must be feeling. He hasn’t been alone with Jesus since before His death. Peter is probably reflecting on his determined and emphatic promise to follow Jesus to death in chapter 13… and then his terrible attempt when given the opportunity in chapter 18 – when Jesus is being tried and intended for the crucifixion and Peter denies him three times. Peter is fully aware that Jesus knows what happened – that Jesus is aware of how he messed up. Now, Peter is alone facing Jesus.
And Jesus in His wonderful way, crafts the moment for the deep healing of memories and extension of forgiveness. Three times Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him and probably not coincidently, three times Peter confesses that he does. Commentators discuss how Peter’s three denials in chapter 18 match Jesus asking three times whether he loves Him as a sign of completion. Probably the most profound part of this exchange is that Jesus goes to where the pain is. It’s that place that we instinctively want to resist but without going there we can’t move on and be commissioned. It’s like people who resist going to the dentist even though they can’t bear the toothache anymore; like the virus-ridden software on a hard disk that needs to be removed for it to run at maximum efficiency.
Jesus helped Peter find love through hurt and past failures and gave him a chance to express that love. That’s what He does for all of us when we let Him. Our connection with God is our response of love by going to those places of resistances and, just like the prophets, becoming “intoxicated with God.”
That`s how we become watchmen and women.
Henri Nouwen describes it as “responding to personal struggles, family conflicts, national calamities and international tensions with an articulate faith in God’s real presence. It’s about us saying no to every form of fatalism, defeatism, accidentalism and incidentalism.” Our task is to discern, to discover and then to announce to the world how God is working through our church, our community, our world.
Once Peter lets Jesus lead him to those places of resistance, Jesus gives Peter an opportunity to share in the same commission that was given to Him. “As the father sent me, I am sending you.” Sending us. That’s the commission Jesus gives.
Here’s the thing. Peter is already a follower of Jesus before this encounter in John 21. He has already been invited to follow and even been referred to as the rock on which Jesus will build His church. This encounter brings a fresh commission.
Being a watchman or woman is established and rooted in a foundational love for Jesus and then being privileged for commission.
I ran across the word watchman recently in Ezekiel. God says to Ezekiel, “I have appointed you a watchman to my people.” The radical nature of Ezekiel’s commission means that God makes his tongue stick to the roof of his mouth until He gives him a message, at which time it is loosed!
OT prophets, such as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, shared in a commission that was in fact intercession. OT scholar, Donald Leggett tells us that “a prophet is one who speaks from God to people and to God concerning people.” The prophet is “intoxicated with God” and lives deeply that connection. When people insist on living in defilement, whether it be prejudice or lack of appreciation for God’s gift of diversity, or any sin that dishonours God`s creation, God reluctantly gives us over to those desires. The prophet lives God’s pain through tears and pleas for God’s people and to God’s people.
The prophet’s connection with God is deep but so is the tension. Jeremiah speaks about that tension in chapter 20:9, “But if I say I’ll never mention the Lord or speak in his name, his word burns in my heart like a fire. It’s like a fire in my bones! I am worn out trying to hold it in! I can’t do it!” The prophet’s driving passion is deeply imbedded to motivate to action. That`s also what happens with Peter (John 21). But before Peter can be commissioned to action, Jesus leads him to his driving passion by first bringing him to a place he doesn`t want to go.
N.T. Wright helps us picture this moment between Jesus and Peter. The disciples are shivering, tired and hungry from fishing all night. As they approach the shore, they breathe in the welcoming smell of bread and fish already simmering on the hot coals. There was Jesus, smiling with an open invitation to join Him for breakfast. This is the third time Jesus appears following His death and resurrection. It’s an intimate gathering with friends.
You can imagine how Peter must be feeling. He hasn’t been alone with Jesus since before His death. Peter is probably reflecting on his determined and emphatic promise to follow Jesus to death in chapter 13… and then his terrible attempt when given the opportunity in chapter 18 – when Jesus is being tried and intended for the crucifixion and Peter denies him three times. Peter is fully aware that Jesus knows what happened – that Jesus is aware of how he messed up. Now, Peter is alone facing Jesus.
And Jesus in His wonderful way, crafts the moment for the deep healing of memories and extension of forgiveness. Three times Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him and probably not coincidently, three times Peter confesses that he does. Commentators discuss how Peter’s three denials in chapter 18 match Jesus asking three times whether he loves Him as a sign of completion. Probably the most profound part of this exchange is that Jesus goes to where the pain is. It’s that place that we instinctively want to resist but without going there we can’t move on and be commissioned. It’s like people who resist going to the dentist even though they can’t bear the toothache anymore; like the virus-ridden software on a hard disk that needs to be removed for it to run at maximum efficiency.
Jesus helped Peter find love through hurt and past failures and gave him a chance to express that love. That’s what He does for all of us when we let Him. Our connection with God is our response of love by going to those places of resistances and, just like the prophets, becoming “intoxicated with God.”
That`s how we become watchmen and women.
Henri Nouwen describes it as “responding to personal struggles, family conflicts, national calamities and international tensions with an articulate faith in God’s real presence. It’s about us saying no to every form of fatalism, defeatism, accidentalism and incidentalism.” Our task is to discern, to discover and then to announce to the world how God is working through our church, our community, our world.
Once Peter lets Jesus lead him to those places of resistance, Jesus gives Peter an opportunity to share in the same commission that was given to Him. “As the father sent me, I am sending you.” Sending us. That’s the commission Jesus gives.
Here’s the thing. Peter is already a follower of Jesus before this encounter in John 21. He has already been invited to follow and even been referred to as the rock on which Jesus will build His church. This encounter brings a fresh commission.
Being a watchman or woman is established and rooted in a foundational love for Jesus and then being privileged for commission.
May 16, 2012
Wrestling with Thoughts about Things that Hinder
by Beverly Kay
One of the congregations in our region recently went into transition. When the pastor came here, his family had to find accommodations because this local church had felt the need to sell their parsonage at one point. Churches without a parsonage are no longer an unusual situation. Actually there was a season when pastors were strongly encouraged to buy their own homes so that they had some equity when they came to retirement. Fine, but this is now one more thing for pastors and their families to consider when in the process of seeking God’s direction for their ministry and life – the sale or rental of their house, carrying a mortgage.
Okay, so maybe that is life in the 21st century. And I will grant that with or without owning one’s home there is always risk and an element of faith in picking up and moving, trusting God to meet all one’s needs in the process. And it is true that pastors are not the Levitical Priesthood who were not to have an inheritance of their own land, but were to receive the LORD God Himself as their inheritance, trusting the provisions for their needs to come from the rest of God’s people. But somehow in trying to make sure that we rightly provide for the retirement years of our pastors and missionaries, I have this feeling that we have been too easily motivated by fears rather than faith. Often choice seem to have been birthed out of old hurts and resentments, rather than out of a life fully surrendered to the good and perfect will of God for our lives.
There seem to be more things that have snuck in to keep a pastor’s family from openly and honestly seeking God’s direction for their ministry and that of their congregation. I have often heard concerns about where children are in their education and an unwillingness to up root them. I have seen some refusing to leave a position yet because of a spouse’s great job with benefits and pension they weren’t willing to let go of. Others have looked to move to a particular region because of a desire to be closer to aging parents. Where is the faith factor; the willingness to forsake all to follow whenever and wherever God leads us, trusting that He will supply all our needs and those of our family? Aren’t we called, as Disciples of Christ to seek first His Kingdom and His Righteousness, not worrying about the things that the unbeliever chases after? Aren’t we called to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and follow Him? Aren’t we encouraged to throw off everything that hinders (along with those sins that so easily entangle) to run the race set out before us (not the path we have chosen) while we let Christ be our leader, our example of the fully surrendered life?
How can we have healthy, fruitful churches if our spiritual leaders are tied down by earthly bonds? How can we disciple others to follow after Christ if we are following our own goals and dreams, rather than submitting them to the Father’s will? Maybe we need to return to letting the Bible dictate how we lead rather than common business practices of our day. Just some thoughts as I wrestle with where we are at as Pastoral leaders in this post-modern era.
One of the congregations in our region recently went into transition. When the pastor came here, his family had to find accommodations because this local church had felt the need to sell their parsonage at one point. Churches without a parsonage are no longer an unusual situation. Actually there was a season when pastors were strongly encouraged to buy their own homes so that they had some equity when they came to retirement. Fine, but this is now one more thing for pastors and their families to consider when in the process of seeking God’s direction for their ministry and life – the sale or rental of their house, carrying a mortgage.
Okay, so maybe that is life in the 21st century. And I will grant that with or without owning one’s home there is always risk and an element of faith in picking up and moving, trusting God to meet all one’s needs in the process. And it is true that pastors are not the Levitical Priesthood who were not to have an inheritance of their own land, but were to receive the LORD God Himself as their inheritance, trusting the provisions for their needs to come from the rest of God’s people. But somehow in trying to make sure that we rightly provide for the retirement years of our pastors and missionaries, I have this feeling that we have been too easily motivated by fears rather than faith. Often choice seem to have been birthed out of old hurts and resentments, rather than out of a life fully surrendered to the good and perfect will of God for our lives.
There seem to be more things that have snuck in to keep a pastor’s family from openly and honestly seeking God’s direction for their ministry and that of their congregation. I have often heard concerns about where children are in their education and an unwillingness to up root them. I have seen some refusing to leave a position yet because of a spouse’s great job with benefits and pension they weren’t willing to let go of. Others have looked to move to a particular region because of a desire to be closer to aging parents. Where is the faith factor; the willingness to forsake all to follow whenever and wherever God leads us, trusting that He will supply all our needs and those of our family? Aren’t we called, as Disciples of Christ to seek first His Kingdom and His Righteousness, not worrying about the things that the unbeliever chases after? Aren’t we called to deny ourselves, to take up our cross and follow Him? Aren’t we encouraged to throw off everything that hinders (along with those sins that so easily entangle) to run the race set out before us (not the path we have chosen) while we let Christ be our leader, our example of the fully surrendered life?
How can we have healthy, fruitful churches if our spiritual leaders are tied down by earthly bonds? How can we disciple others to follow after Christ if we are following our own goals and dreams, rather than submitting them to the Father’s will? Maybe we need to return to letting the Bible dictate how we lead rather than common business practices of our day. Just some thoughts as I wrestle with where we are at as Pastoral leaders in this post-modern era.
Oct 21, 2011
A City of Refuge, a Priestly Inheritance
I've been thinking a lot these days about the levitcal cities of refuge described at the end of the Book of Numbers (chpt 35).
In case it's been a while since you waded through the Book of Numbers, let me refresh your memory. It's right at the end of the desert wanderings, and the new generation of Israel is about to enter the Promised Land, Israel's ancient inheritance. So the Lord gives Moses instructions about the boundaries of Canaan, and some general directives on divvying up the land to the 12 tribes. Namely: they are to assign the land by lot to the nine and a half tribes of Israel entering Canaan (keeping in mind that two and a half tribes have already received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan).
But then Numbers 35 reminds us that the tribe of Levi isn't going to be getting an allotment in Canaan because, as 18:20 has already indicated, Aaron (and by extension, the whole tribe of Levi with him) will have no inheritance in the land. Instead, the Lord himself is going to be the priestly tribe's inheritance among the Israelites. Rather than receiving a portion of the land, Levi is to receive simply "towns to live in from the inheritance of the [other] Israelites." These towns are scattered evenly throughout the Promised Land, seeding (in effect) a priestly presence in-and-among the whole people of God.
You can read in Joshua 20:1-9 how this command is carried out, but what strikes me here is that the Lord specifically identifies six of the Levitical towns as "cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee." The idea is quite simple: in the case of murder, tribal codes of the sort especially prevalent among a nomadic society like Moses' Israel would require a blood relative to maintain tribal honour by avenging a murdered family member (see Genesis 34 for dark evidence that such codes were well known among nomadic Israelite society).
But such tribal customs and the violent blood feuds they inevitably perpetuate are deeply at odds with a civil society like the one Israel will become, as she stands at the threshold of the Promised Land and looks ahead to her future. In civil society, justice must be carried out by an impartial assembly according to a standard code of law; retaliation and vigilantianism has no place in a society governed by God's Shalom.
So God sets aside six of the Levitical towns as cities of refuge-- cities of asylum to which an accused killer can flee until he has stood trial and his case has been heard; and cities of shalom, where the innocent can escape the tribal custom of honour killings.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this, but here's what I can't get off my mind today: the priestly tribe had no inheritance in the land other than a special place in the Lord's plan to mediate his Shalom to the people. And with this inheritance came the cities of refuge; and with them came a calling to be a people among whom the accused found shelter, where the guilty found asylum and the harried found refuge until God's Shalom had obtained in their lives (in this case in the form of a fair and impartial trial).
And you can't reflect on all this very long before you remember that 1 Peter 2:5-9 specifically identifies followers of Jesus Christ as the priesthood of believers that the tribe of Levi prefigured and foreshadowed in the Old Testament. And if it's true, what Peter says about Christians there, and it's true what Numbers says about the inheritance of the priestly tribe here, then it would mean that in Christ we have inherited a calling to be "cities of refuge." Our communities are to be places where the accused, the guilty and the harried can find shelter so that the Shalom of God can obtain in their lives (in this case in the form of the unmerited, all-gracious justification of God through faith in Christ); what's more, this calling specifically and directly precludes any material inheritance "in the land" (i.e. the comfort, wealth, privilege and security that such an inheritance would have meant for an ancient Israelite).
And the obvious questions are staring me in the face: am I part of a community of faith that has traded in the wealth and security of its "inheritance in the land" for the privilege of being a "city of refuge" like this? And harder still: Am I willing to belong to such a community of faith? And hardest of all: what's my role in helping my church be the city of refuge that God in Numbers 35 is calling it to be?
In case it's been a while since you waded through the Book of Numbers, let me refresh your memory. It's right at the end of the desert wanderings, and the new generation of Israel is about to enter the Promised Land, Israel's ancient inheritance. So the Lord gives Moses instructions about the boundaries of Canaan, and some general directives on divvying up the land to the 12 tribes. Namely: they are to assign the land by lot to the nine and a half tribes of Israel entering Canaan (keeping in mind that two and a half tribes have already received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan).
But then Numbers 35 reminds us that the tribe of Levi isn't going to be getting an allotment in Canaan because, as 18:20 has already indicated, Aaron (and by extension, the whole tribe of Levi with him) will have no inheritance in the land. Instead, the Lord himself is going to be the priestly tribe's inheritance among the Israelites. Rather than receiving a portion of the land, Levi is to receive simply "towns to live in from the inheritance of the [other] Israelites." These towns are scattered evenly throughout the Promised Land, seeding (in effect) a priestly presence in-and-among the whole people of God.
You can read in Joshua 20:1-9 how this command is carried out, but what strikes me here is that the Lord specifically identifies six of the Levitical towns as "cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee." The idea is quite simple: in the case of murder, tribal codes of the sort especially prevalent among a nomadic society like Moses' Israel would require a blood relative to maintain tribal honour by avenging a murdered family member (see Genesis 34 for dark evidence that such codes were well known among nomadic Israelite society).
But such tribal customs and the violent blood feuds they inevitably perpetuate are deeply at odds with a civil society like the one Israel will become, as she stands at the threshold of the Promised Land and looks ahead to her future. In civil society, justice must be carried out by an impartial assembly according to a standard code of law; retaliation and vigilantianism has no place in a society governed by God's Shalom.
So God sets aside six of the Levitical towns as cities of refuge-- cities of asylum to which an accused killer can flee until he has stood trial and his case has been heard; and cities of shalom, where the innocent can escape the tribal custom of honour killings.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this, but here's what I can't get off my mind today: the priestly tribe had no inheritance in the land other than a special place in the Lord's plan to mediate his Shalom to the people. And with this inheritance came the cities of refuge; and with them came a calling to be a people among whom the accused found shelter, where the guilty found asylum and the harried found refuge until God's Shalom had obtained in their lives (in this case in the form of a fair and impartial trial).
And you can't reflect on all this very long before you remember that 1 Peter 2:5-9 specifically identifies followers of Jesus Christ as the priesthood of believers that the tribe of Levi prefigured and foreshadowed in the Old Testament. And if it's true, what Peter says about Christians there, and it's true what Numbers says about the inheritance of the priestly tribe here, then it would mean that in Christ we have inherited a calling to be "cities of refuge." Our communities are to be places where the accused, the guilty and the harried can find shelter so that the Shalom of God can obtain in their lives (in this case in the form of the unmerited, all-gracious justification of God through faith in Christ); what's more, this calling specifically and directly precludes any material inheritance "in the land" (i.e. the comfort, wealth, privilege and security that such an inheritance would have meant for an ancient Israelite).
And the obvious questions are staring me in the face: am I part of a community of faith that has traded in the wealth and security of its "inheritance in the land" for the privilege of being a "city of refuge" like this? And harder still: Am I willing to belong to such a community of faith? And hardest of all: what's my role in helping my church be the city of refuge that God in Numbers 35 is calling it to be?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)