Archive for the ·

Leadership

· Category...

October 20, 2013 5:11 pm

Second-guessing: the death of conversation

no comments
by    in Leadership

A blog post has been doing the rounds on the Internet recently. It describes the experience of someone who was the target of healing prayer. It’s a thought-provoking article, especially for  those of us who have been involved in outreach events. The question it raises for us hinges on this consideration:

Are the people we’re talking to/praying for/offering hot chocolate to seen primarily as potential converts, apologetics/prayer practice, or primarily as the individuals they are?

Just as importantly, is that how we are perceived? I remember going out to give ice lollies to people on campus one summer, with people from a local church. One person, wondering about our motives, first asked if they were laced with Rohypnol, and then jumped to the conclusion we were Christians, out to convert them.

agenda

Photo: Pava, reused under CC License

Second-guessing other people’s purposes. We do that all the time. School workers in France were recently asked to reflect on the shape education should take. Some took the view that this consultation was carried out in order for the government to look like it was listening, but that all decisions had already been taken; and that they would take any admission of failure as an excuse to give less funding.

Just so with the author of the blog post. She second-guessed the intentions behind the healing-prayer offer. She might have been right, but it could also be that the gentleman was moved by a genuine desire to see her healed. It could also be that he had a desire to get to know her, and to welcome her into the local church family, which he did by not tiptoeing around an obvious issue. The thing is, we cannot know; and the author of the blog post cannot know. Because in second-guessing the purpose of the conversation, in her head, that conversation could only end in one way: there was no room for genuine listening and for genuine conversation.

The same goes for every single time we second guess other people’s motives. If you see a stall of Christians with hot chocolate and assume they’re just there to shove the Gospel in your face and not interested in you as a person, then you’re not going to be able to listen to them OR to talk to them. If you assume that the government is out to justify cost-cutting measures, you’re going to make sure that you give them nothing – and conversely, they’re going to stop listening. Communication breaks down.

In communication, there are two main responsibilities: talking honestly (i.e., not hiding your motives) and listening genuinely. The latter involves trying, as much as possible, not to second guess what the other is trying to achieve.

tags: , , , , ,
No comment?
October 6, 2013 10:00 pm

Finding a new church

2 comments
by    in Leadership

At Warwick university, term has only just started again. For lots of freshers, this means settling into new communities and, of course, finding a new church. There are many ways to face this challenge.

churches

Photo: Wikimedia user Tarquin Bina, under CC License

1. Non-committed: I’ll never get involved with a church here. My real church is at home, that’s where I’ve got my friends. So, yeah, maybe I’ll go to church here ‘cos, you know, I still need some teaching to get me going. Or maybe I’ll be content with CU meetings. But I won’t get stuck into a church.

2. Church-hopper: Oh this is exciting! There are soooo many churches to choose from! I need to select the one that fits ME the closest. Hang on a minute, that other church might actually be a tiny bit better. I won’t settle into a church until I have found THE one. And because, of course, no church is perfect (well, except for mine) I won’t settle at all.

3. Forceful Visionary: Well, this church shares a name/denomination/vague resemblance with my home church, so I will go there. But, hang on, it isn’t exactly like what I know from back home. Never mind that, I will soon change that: I’ll talk to the incumbent to let him or her know that the way we do things back home is sooo much more efficient and Christ-like

4. Fanboy or fangirl: I have chosen this church. Because of this, it is bound to be the best church around (because obviously, I cannot make mistakes). This means that anyone I meet should be convinced to come to my church.

5. Disappointed fanboy or fangirl: I had chosen this church, but got sorely disappointed, either because I couldn’t change it to what I wanted it to be or because of something else. Therefore, that church is bad and I’ll let everyone know about it being bad.

—

There may be more reactions – and I’m looking forward to reading about them in the comments. But these five have two things in common: firstly, that I have been (and to some extent still am) guilty of them at some point or other; and secondly, that they betray a vision of church as an object that serves us, rather than as the bride of Christ that is to be served.

An approach to the local church as only a place of service to me as a worshipper is one which is intricately individualistic and bound to disappoint. And there are two ways  to look at a church in such a way: one is to see local churches as unchanging and the object of a choice. This means the church will see no growth other than in numbers, and I don’t think that can bring about the Kingdom. The other way is to see yourself as unchanging and the church as molding itself around you; and that means the only growth you can expect personally is the type of growth that fits your pattern. I have come to learn that growth does not tend to come in expected ways.

So here’s what I suggest: when going to a new church, stop and listen. Listen to the community it embodies, listen to its needs as well as to its leadership. Try to empathise with the leadership and to understand why they might be doing what they are doing. This takes time; and it takes commitment: the first two options aren’t open to us. It takes open-mindedness to realise that the local church is here to serve more than just our individual selves, and it takes humility to realise that it is here to serve and challenge us too.

It’s hard not to judge the local church – and there’s a time and a place for challenging leadership. But that time can only come after the acceptance of their greater wisdom – or we’re not speaking in  the church at all, we’re speaking to it as outsiders.

tags: , , , , ,
2 comments!
September 29, 2013 8:51 pm

When is a sermon not a sermon?

no comments
by    in Bible,Leadership

“That wasn’t a sermon” – that’s a criticism I’ve heard about sermons a few times (including my own). We all have ideas about what a sermon should be. Why? What makes a sermon sermon-like?

The Oxford English Dictionary gives some ideas: it is, for our context, a talk on Christianity. In written form, it could then, be this blog. But this blog is not a collection of sermons – with the exception of two posts. Let’s read a bit further: it suggests sermons are long and tedious.

sermon

Image: Wikipedia (Public domain)

Maybe we shouldn’t complain, then, when we don’t hear a sermon. More seriously, though, there is one thing that makes a sermon a sermon: that it is given as part of  a church service. In other words, that it has the label “sermon” all over it (after all, podcasts of sermons are still sermons). So if you heard it at church, it is a sermon. The thing is, a church service is a full and well crafted (hopefully) set of parts, whose aim is worship and edification. A church service is not simply a sermon with some padding around it, nor is it some liturgy with a homily thrown in the middle: it is a dynamic set with a purpose. So a sermon should fit into that set and lead the audience (and the preacher!) to be imitators of Christ, rekindle in them a passion for God and open their hearts. If that’s missing, then it might as well be a secular talk!

Bible based?

That a sermon is not “Bible based” is the big argument of those who say “That is not a (good) sermon”. As if being Bible-based were the only hallmark of a good sermon! Matthew Henry’s commentary is Bible-based – very much so, indeed – but it’s not a sermon. Because it is looking at the Bible as an object to be studied, rather than as a source that  talks to us. Those last two word are important, because this is where we remember that a sermon takes place with an audience.

The most useful tip I’ve heard so far for sermon-writing is this: “Can you tell me in one sentence what you are trying to achieve with this sermon?” It’s not about what point we might be driving through the sermon, it is about recognising the transformative nature of a relationship with Christ and mediating that to the congregation, as best as we can.

Sometimes, that goes through close exegesis. Sometimes that goes through less Biblical sources – talking, say, about the Internet is hard to do when you’re Bible-bound. And so, as long as the aim remains firmly to get people’s hearts turned towards God, then I don’t think being Bible-based is a necessity for a sermon. In most cases, it helps. In some cases, it is even necessary because the sermon will be the only time in the week the congregation touches the Bible. Still, as a hard-and-fast rule, it detracts and leads to cherry-picking some verses to “make a sermon Bible-based”, when all the sermon does is drive a pre-determined point. And when that happens, well, it’s a bit of a scam.

So remember: a sermon takes place in a specific context. It is by that context that it can be judged – not independently of it. And sometimes, the surprise of a new type of sermon might do just what a sermon should do: refresh our love for God.

 

tags: , ,
No comment?
August 18, 2013 5:32 pm

The Christian View

3 comments
by    in Leadership

What’s the Christian view on homosexuality? What’s the Christian view on female leadership? What’s the Christian view on war?

ChristianView

Texture from Premium Pixels, where it comes with a very permissive free license

Sometimes, people ask these questions with a genuine desire to understand the worldview of their Christian friends. Sometimes, people ask these questions to be able to judge and label specific groups as homophobic/antiquated/liberal/hippies. People tend to be far too ready to answer these questions.

For the more controversial cases, some will call it the “Biblical view” – cunningly suggesting that those who do not hold the same view are automatically Bible-shunning heretics. In doing so, they are using the Bible to shut down a conversation, where it could be use to spark one. Others will suggest that the issue at hand is “secondary doctrine”. But calling something secondary is making a statement: you wouldn’t expect a Catholic to think of transubstantiation as secondary doctrine.

The three questions that I have started this post with have different levels of dissension within the mainstream Christian church. Same-sex marriage has been welcomed by Quakers and others, but adamantly fought against by some Evangelicals. Anglicans are a divided house when it comes to female episcopate. Quakers would see pacifism as part of their identity, but C.S. Lewis points out there is such a thing as just war. I would never dream to seriously suggest that Quakers, Evangelicals, Anglicans, C.S. Lewis, or Catholics aren’t Christians.

Does that mean that, in a post-modern way, there is no ultimate truth? Certainly not! Jesus says of himself he is the truth. Singular truth. There is no doubting, then, that there is one single truth. Some will say the Bible, as originally given, is the ultimate authority on matters of behaviour. But that is assuming that our access to the “original Bible” is unbiased and, somehow, superior to others’. Isn’t that both a display of pride and of judgement of others?

What then? Are we to shirk away from making any absolute statement? By no means! If you feel it is the case, do say that women should or should not be in leadership in the church. Do say that the Bible is against homosexuality, or is pointing towards acceptance of homosexuality. After all, what you believe may well be the truth! But in all cases, be prepared to listen to the other point of view; and in no case declare a view to make its holder non-Christian. Exclusion from the body of Christians is Biblical, but it always happens in conversation with the potential non-Christian. 

What is, then, the Christian view? It is a submissive worldview that sees Christ as King and Saviour. I am unwilling to restrict the Christian worldview by elaborating further on this. Yes, the Westboro Baptist Church share that view (I think). As do Christadelphians, Unitarians, Mormons, Anglicans, Catholics, Evangelicals. This minimal approach might not allow us to dissociate ourselves from those who seem to behave in a way that seems so unloving to us (although it does not mean we should seek to worship with them – other criteria come into play there); and so it might not be quite as comfortable. But it will, I’m sure, bring us closer to the truth.

tags: , , ,
3 comments!
August 11, 2013 4:03 pm

The art of being interruptible in 8 steps

2 comments
by    in Leadership

Modern life seems to have turned into a dichotomy between being busy (generally, “too busy”) and being bored (or at best idle). An empty slot on the schedule needs to be filled, and everything needs to be timetabled.

That means, generally, that genuine interruptions are not welcome. I’m guilty of this: there are many times I have turned someone away, saying “I’m busy”. But there have also been a few times where I haven’t, and they have on occasion proved to be life-changing, both for me and for the person who was interrupting.

whiterabbit

Illustration: Sir John Tenniel, in the public domain

Being interruptible is good – I am utterly convinced of that. But it’s not easy when you live in a culture of strivers and achievers. It’s not easy to stop seeking busyness; and that means it’s not easy to be interrupted. So here are 8 things you can do to become interruptible.

1. Build interruptibility into your entire day. Keeping specific hours clear for any interruptions is not sufficient: you don’t know in advance when you’re going to be interrupted. Otherwise, you could have scheduled it!

2. Don’t compensate for interruptions by working longer.  If you do, all those little interruptions are going to nibble away at what you think you can do without. Prayer. Personal time. Family time. Entertainment. Ultimately, you’re going to hate all the interruptions because they mean losing out on what you enjoy. But in order to not have to compensate, you will have to anticipate that some tasks will take longer, or that you will need longer to recharge your batteries than you think. Ultimately, it might mean taking on less than what you could take on. Be happy with mediocrity: not because it’s good in itself, but because it allows you to welcome interruptions.

3. Be sensible about it. If you’re teaching, or leading a study, or in a meeting, the interruption is going to affect more people than you. In those cases where other people directly suffer from the interruption (and there’s no helping it), don’t allow interruptions. But if you’re planning a lesson, or writing a financial report, or a thesis, or carrying out any form of solitary work, you can finish that later – as long as you had planned extra time for it during the day/week.

4. Appear to be interruptible. There’s a massive difference between someone frenetically typing away at his computer, chain-drinking coffee, with headphones on; and someone who frequently moves and offers to make cups of tea for others, and engages in conversation. Keep your door open or ajar if you have your own office. If people think you’re never doing any work, or don’t know what that work entails even though they spend a significant amount of time with you, it’s working. It isn’t that pleasant when people joke about your apparent idleness, but it’s worth it.

5. Know when to cut the interruption short. There are at least two reasons to stop the person who’s interrupting you. One of them is inevitable work or personal commitments. The other is where you find you’re not helping the person who’s interrupting you: either you’ve been going in circles for a long time, or the issue requires your full attention and should really be scheduled. The issue with apparent idleness is that your interrupters think you have an infinite amount of time to offer them; so it becomes difficult to do stop the interruption graciously. The “I’m working” line gets dismissed, so I find I have to say it with a bit more anger than I would like to. If you have any pointers on that, please leave them in a comment.

6. Prioritise. Some people are more prone to interrupt you than others. It may be down to the seriousness of the issue, but it may also be that you’re going around in circles. Or the interrupter may be using your conversation as a way to avoid their own work, or for other secondary purposes, where there is no serious issue to be dealt with. Being interrupted for a friendly chat or a cup of tea is fine, but if it happens too often, others won’t be able to interrupt you when they need to.

7. Have backup plans for emergencies. There will be times when you won’t be able to deal with the interruption. It could be that you just don’t have the time, or that you find it too emotionally straining. Have a network of people who are ready to take over from you.

8. Don’t use interruptions as an excuse. Don’t seek out interruptions as a way to avoid doing the work you’re meant to be doing and still feel good about yourself.

tags: , , ,
2 comments!
« Newer Posts
Older Posts »