This made me chuckle:
"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.
While I was at church this Sunday I started thinking about the ways people approach change. I liken it to swimming. When I was a kid I used to just dive right in, but when I became a teenager I switched to slowly wading in. Now, as a full grown man I do both: sometimes I dive in and sometimes I slowly wade in. Getting into a pool or lake is the courageous act of changing one's environment . . . and the metaphor works for change in general.
Our church got a new pastor this summer. Pastor Kelly is very charismatic and creative. When he came in he changed a lot of things and quickly! Quick change can produce tension and anxiety and I admit I felt some of these feelings myself. I talked to several people who also felt this way and we had a few families actually leave the church. For a few Sundays it was kind of depressing to look out in the sanctuary and see fewer people. But many of the changes that our new pastor introduced were not just different, but good changes and the new approach while repelling a few has attracted many more. This Sunday we were packed and there was positive energy which was invigorating. The quick change had borne good results.
Rapid change is exciting but carries it with a higher element of risk and a higher element of reward. Sometimes it seems the best way to do things. On the other hand, slow change can also be good - introducing change by slowing wading in to a new experience of things. Neither is more right (or wrong). All I know for sure is that embracing change is essential to growth. One way or another we need to get off the beach and into the water. Some people say "I fear change" but not changing is an illusion - we and our environment are always changing whether you want it to or not.
Most likely you either like quick changes or slow ones. The danger is when you try to universalize your experience - demand or expect that those around you should change the way you do. I sometimes do this with my kids; "Just jump in!" I say and get impatient as I wait for them out in the water. The loving thing to do is simply this; encourage people to change and allow them do it at their own pace, even if their pace is different from yours. Trust me, your relationship will be alot better if you don't impose your own change style upon them.
I really liked this post:
Stuff Christians Like: Praying something bad will happen to so someone so they'll see how good God is
I admit, I've done it. Not recently, but I am guilty none the less. You?
I guess I never saw how terrible it is to pray pain onto someone. Sure we have "good" motives but that kind of "the end justifies the means" is not really Christian. This kind of praying definitely breaks the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Yikes! It's funny (and scary) how easily one's concern for someone's well being can be corrupted into attempts to pray that bad things will come upon them . . .
Just a quick post to say I'm speaking this Sunday at Mennville Church so if anyone wants to pray for me, feel free. I'd really appreciate it!
P.S. My speaking will be somewhat different from Mr. Spurgeon's (at right). Nice pulpit though, wouldn't you agree?
At our church on Mother's Day, the church gives the mom's little gifts to mark the occasion. But this church appears to be taking things to the next level:
Church Blesses Fathers With Beer
Apparently Concerned with the lack of men attending services, the Church of England is now offering new incentives: free beer, bacon rolls and chocolate bars!
Men at St Stephen’s church in Barbourne, Worcester, will be handed bottles of beer by children during the service. A prayer will be said for the fathers before the gifts are distributed.
The Ven Roger Morris, archdeacon of Worcester, who will be leading the service at St Stephen’s today, said that it was a practical way of sending a message to fathers.
“I don’t see any other time that we can stop and remember fathers, and this is a gesture saying ‘Here’s something that will bless you,’” he said.
“Posies of flowers are given to mums on Mothering Sunday and we wanted to give a laddish, blokeish gift to the men. A bottle of beer hits the mark. The whole of life is to be celebrated in church.”
In early 1965, Martin E. P. Seligman and his collegues, while studying the relationship between fear and learning, accidentally discovered an unexpected phenomenon while doing experiments on dogs. Many years earlier Pavlov discovered that if a ringing bell or tone is repeatedly paired with the presentation of food to a dog, the dog salivates. Later, all you have to do is ring the bell and the dog salivates.
In Seligman's experiment, instead of pairing the tone with food, he paired it with a harmless shock, restraining the dog in a hammock during the learning phase. The idea, then, was that after the dog learned this, the dog would feel fear on the presentation of a tone, and would then run away or do some other behavior.
Next, they put the conditioned dog into a shuttlebox, which consists of a low fence dividing the box into two compartments. The dog can easily see over the fence, and jump over if it wishes. So they rang the bell. Surprisingly, nothing happened! (They were expecting the dog to jump over the fence.) Then, they decided to shock the conditioned dog, and again nothing happened. The dog just pathetically laid there! When they put a normal dog into the shuttlebox, who never experienced inescapable shock, the dog, as expected, immediately jumped over the fence to the other side. Apparently, what the conditioned dog learned in the hammock, was that trying to escape from the shocks is futile. This dog learned to be helpless! These observations started a scientific revolution resulting in the displacement of behaviorism by cognitive psychology. What you are thinking, determines your behavior (not only the visible rewards or punishments).
The theory of learned helplessness was then extended to human behavior, providing a new model for explaining depression, anxiety, people staying in abusive situations, etc. It was also applied to systems. I was thinking about this yesterday as I was reflecting on my church. I have a theory that some churches (like mine) have learned (or been taught) that if you don't have a pastor to lead the church then the church is essentially helpless. You can't function without a senior pastor! A pastorless church is like a ship without a rudder. Now I agree that it is nice to have a senior pastor, but is it a necessary condition for a healthy, growing church? I think it is - but only if that is your perception. My personal perception is that team leadership works just as well and since every church has some leadership team, pastorless churches are far from helpless. In fact, I think it's good for a church to be without a senior pastor for awhile - a lot of growth and maturing can happen during those times. Church leadership teams need that kind of a shakeup every so often so that they don't get too lazy and keep on thinking for themselves. The whole idea of a senior pastor who wields ultimate power and authority in a church isn't really Biblical anyway.
Learned helplessness is an acquired sense that you can no longer control your environment—so you quit trying to. Do you believe that you helpless about any areas in your life? How did you learn it? The good news is that you can teach people to "unlearn" their helplessness. We do it in counselling every day.
“The worst crime is faking it.” -Kurt Cobain
I was at a wedding this past weekend (which was really fun - seeing my past students getting married is always encouraging) and as I was watching people milling around the thought occurred to me "How many of these people are faking it?" By "it" I mean the positive and happy spirit that is punctuated by a "Great!" when asked how they are doing.
The reality is that being less then forthright about how we are doing at a public function is not necessarily terrible but it says something about our character. When someone asks us a direct question like "How are you?" you have 3 basic choices:
1. Be really honest. Ex/ "My spiritual life is in the toilet and we are $30k in debt - how do you think?"
2. Don't lie but don't share all (be vague). Ex/ "Could be worse," "Alright," "Not too bad."
3. Fake it. Ex/"Great! Couldn't be better! Can't complain about anything!"
Eventually faking it always gets us in trouble. It is deception and deception is wrong. In the above example the effects are minimal - we usually just feel deceptive which makes us feel worse about ourselves and more alone. But faking it in ministry is very bad. Faking it as a worship leader, faking it as a pastor, faking it as a (cough, cough) counselor - eventually it catches up with you. Living deceitfully always takes it's toll. Sometimes it results in moral failure, frequently it is burnout, depression, or losing one's faith.
Personally, I am tempted to fake it because it gets immediate results. We like not being real: we get to keep our job/ministry, people still think well of us, we avoid the awkwardness. But such rewards sacrifice long term health for short term gain.
I'm not saying we should be vulnerable and true with everyone but everyone should be vulnerable and real with someone. Vulnerability is not a sign of weakness - instead it's a sign of strength and courage. Vulnerability is a form of self-love and love for others. We need to realize that when we are in community fakeness affects everyone. When someone is fake it encourages others to be fake - when someone is real it encourages others to be real. One should also not use vulnerability as a way to get attention or to manipulate others - I have seen that happen and that is not good either. But fakeness eventually hurts everyone - you, me, our community, and eventually the body of Christ. Is there an area where your fakeness is hurting you/others? What can you do to change things?
Here is a story I have heard way too often:
A pastor is doing well at his church. The ministry is thriving, the people like him, and real fruit is being shown in his ministry. As good as things are though, they are not perfect and some of his ideas are not being received well by someone in the church leadership team. Maybe the annoyed party is another pastor (if it's a large church) or someone on the board/elders team. Perhaps they feel threatened or perhaps they disagree with the pastor's approach or theology. For whatever reason instead of the annoyed person talking directly to the pastor in open dialogue, they instead bully the rest of the leadership team (or the pastor directly) to quit. A covert campaign is established (gossip, manipulation, and outright deception) and eventually the pastor can't take it any more and is forced out.
As bad, as evil as that is, what really bothers me is what often happens next. The church leadership team - heavily influenced by the church bully - tells the pastor that, "for the good of the church," to leave quietly. In some cases financial considerations (compensation) are attached to the pastor leaving quietly without "raising a stink" about what happened to them. The pastor believes the lie that if he would let the people in the church know about the underhanded and terrible way that he was treated that this would "wrong." He worries that it could divide the church, that he would be doing it out of bad motives, and that it would just be too much trouble and bring up the bad feelings that he is trying to bury. So he agrees not to say anything. The people are confused on why the pastor is leaving (except those in the know) and he exits the church defeated, angry, bitter, and disillusioned. The average churchgoer has no idea of the dysfunctional element in their leadership and the cycle begins again with the new pastor.
Depressing, isn't it?
What bothers me the most is not that church bullies hurt good pastors (although the tolerance of church bullies is a whole other rant which I will share another time) but the fact that the dysfunction within the church is not brought up to the light. Pastors justify their lack of sharing the truth with the congregation by believing the idea that they are saving the church from further strife and division, but really they are just prolonging the dysfunction. And the members of the leadership team, even if they don't agree with what happened, become part of the code of silence to "protect the church." Someone needs to tell the church the truth if there is to be any hope to fixing things! Someone needs to have the courage to stand up and say "Yes, I know this will be disturbing to you, but this is what happened to me and it was not right." Instead the pastors feel the noble thing to do is fall on their sword. They are encouraged in this by the dysfunctional leadership team and their misplaced concern for the well being of the church. Yet Paul was not afraid to publicly call Peter and the church of Jerusalem on their sinful actions, and neither should we. Could bringing to light what is happening in the church result in terrible things for you, your family, and your ministry? Absolutely, and it is a decision that must be weighed carefully. But to choose not to expose sinful actions in the church is nothing short then collusion with evil.
It is like being abused by your father and not telling your family because you don't want it to "create strife" or "damage your mother." But if you choose not to tell about the abuse, someone else in your family has a good chance of being abused as well . . . and I don't think they would be happy knowing that you knew and didn't warn them. Essentially this is what too often happens in churches - I know several that have dysfunctional leadership teams who have burned through several pastors, damaging them while the congregation was completely unaware. And these congregations would be outraged to know how these pastors were really treated, but they don't know if know one tells them, right?
Standing up and telling the congregation the specific things done to them that were sinful is not an easy thing to do. You may get great results or you may not. But at least you tried, and yes, you did the right thing. Whether you are a pastor or just a member of your congregation, we need to stand up for what is right. We need to call it as it is, no matter the consequences. The church, the system, depends on it.
We live in a townhouse on a bay. It is almost like it's own little village and all the kids on the bay get to know each other. The other day, some of them built a fort (and a club) which both our kids were invited to join. All was bliss - for about a day.
Yesterday I found out that both my kids had been kicked out of the club. Ouch! Both had come crying to our door, hoping Mom would make it better. The reasons for the expulsion from the club weren't really important. The fact is when you have a club it seems infinitely more fun if some people aren't allowed in it. It is our human nature and sometimes that nature takes something positive (a group of people getting together) and wrecks it (denying people access, kicking them out, blackmailing them, etc). This is the lesson about human nature that my kids learnt. We all want to belong and when we get the message that we don't . . .ouch.
I was intrigued with Trinity's reaction though. She came crying to the house but when Jobina started to reassure her that is was OK, Trinity interrupted her and said "I don't really want to be in their club anyway." Then she grabbed a friend and went and did her own thing. I think she was wise to see that the rewards for belonging to that particular group weren't worth it for all the pain it would cause. She chose to let it go.
Sound familiar? We may all be older, but I think we still have the tendency to want to belong to our exclusive clubs. What group are you trying to get in to (or trying to stop from being kicked out of)? Even churches and ministries can get like this, which is ironic. I was thinking about how at my church I have sometimes felt like for the past two years I have not been in on any "clubs" (mostly my own fault) and how that felt. Now suddenly I feel like I am in some clubs, and I'm worried that I'll start unconsciously keeping people out. Why would I do this? Because it's our human nature - even in the church. I challenge you - are you at a place where you are someone who is letting people in or keeping them out? Or maybe you need to say "I don't really want to be in their club anyway" and go find other friends to play with. If this resonates with you, do something about it.
May Light increase!
I was working at Turning Point the other day (where I do some contract counselling) and saw an old issue of "New Man Magazine," the official magazine of Promise Keepers. Now I'm not a big PK guy, but I was bored and the cover looked interesting so I picked it up. Inside there was an article called The Unsafe Life which was about men, risk, and living as a Christian man. One thing that immediately caught my attention was the following:
"It's a life that requires kingdom risks, standing up for righteousness, having a confrontational side and a willingness to lay down your life for God, family and beliefs. Listen to a growing number of Christian men's ministry leaders and they'll tell you such a life is not only biblical, but it's also crucial to a man's well being.
The only problem? Men won't hear that message at most local churches. In fact, the leaders New Man spoke with say far too many churches promote a quiet, non confrontational life that tells men to be passive and nice. It's a message that commonly accompanies an unbiblical portrait of Jesus as a weak and mild Savior. Such teaching, leaders say, is like man-repellent and hurts the church as badly as it does men."
The article goes on to say that the Church emphasizes the gentle, loving, kind virtues of Jesus (which are fantastic) but when it misses other virtues such as boldness, righteously angry, courageous, obeying sacrificially, etc, we are missing out on other important parts of the Gospel that resonate with men. The also note that sermons and especially worship reflect this dynamic and put off a lot of men who find it difficult to only connect with the "nice" side of Christ and ministry.
I have actually been thinking about this idea for awhile. Is the church/my church/your church not man-friendly? I think there is some truth to this. I often feel that church is too nice. Perhaps this is why man churches are having difficulty engaging men into leadership and ministry. Is it possible the church is missing men's hearts and emasculating the Gospel? Is our music and teaching (style and content) more appealing to women (and offputting to men)? I'm curious to hear what other people think about this topic.
P.S. Here's some tips (pdf) on how to make your service man-friendly.
May Light increase!
Have you ever seen the famous episode of Seinfeld where George and Jerry come up with the pilot for a new show? When people ask them what it's about they gleefully respond "It's a show about nothing!" "Well what do the main character's do?" the exasperated television people ask them. "That's the beauty of it; nothing!" George and Jerry model the show on their own lives and think it's genius.
At our small group on Tuesday we stopped for a few minutes and I asked everyone how they felt the small group was going and asked them if we needed to tweak or change anything. I asked this because if you'd ask me what the topic of our small group is, the answer is "nothing." We don't have a topic or anything to study. We don't really have an agenda. We just get together talk and usually pray. Often we eat stuff. That's it! We basically just "do life together," kind of like on Seinfeld. We're a small group . . . about nothing.
This kind of group is an experiment for me. I had this idea that because small groups are supposed to be about fellowship (common sharing) that maybe we didn't need to have a teaching/learning time to go with it. What would happen if we just shared each other's lives? I don't think this group would be for everyone and it depends on everyone valuing the power of fellowship (and getting their discipleship needs met elsewhere) but I think that it's working. No one seems to want to make any changes. I guess nothing is something after all.
