In the past I had published my Missional Matters blog in two sites - here and on my web site - www.imissional.org - due to some errors in posting. However, since these postings are redundant and my web site no longer has posting errors, I refer you to my web site at www.imissional.org to follow my weekly postings. Thanks for reading and commenting.
- Roland
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Vol 3:30 Mission and Leadership: Misunderstanding What It Means to be a Strong Leader
A few weeks ago I found myself in a consultation with a
number of pastors listening to and giving guidance to a pastoral team who were
struggling. In the course of the
conversation one of the consulting pastors stressed that what was needed was
for this pastoral team to display strong leadership. By this was meant casting vision, shaping
ministry, taking charge, make things happens – lead!
As I was listening, I realized that this was a very
different sense of power than I would support as a Mennonite pastor. One of the pastor’s commented after I made a
comment that this is what happens when you invite a Mennonite to be part of the
group – they have a very different perspective on power.
My comment about “strong leadership” was different from what
had been expressed. I stated that coming
from an Anabaptist perspective that I have a very different understanding of
what constitutes strong leadership. For
me a strong leader is one who is able to come alongside his or her community
and help them discern God’s leading in their midst, to see where God is active
in their lives and in their communities, to have ears to hear what God is saying,
to have eyes to see what God is doing, to encourage the congregation to
participate with God in God’s mission.
To be strong is not to be above the community, but to walk alongside the
community, to be with the community, to be among the community leading them to
give attention to God through prayer, engaging Scripture and participating in
spiritual conversation. In fact, the
strongest leaders in a real sense become invisible in the community because the
members of the community are giving their attention to God. A pastor has exercised strength of leading
when the pastor is no longer noticed, but God in Christ becomes the primary
focus, when the community has the courage to participate with God in God’s
redemptive mission in the world. In
fact, strong leadership would confess with John the Baptist regarding
Jesus: “He must become greater, I must
become less” (John 3:30).
A few weeks later I was leading a didactic session for a
group of CPE chaplains at a local hospital sharing on the ministry of
paraclesis (ministry of walking alongside and with those we are called to
serve) and a student mentioned that there is such a strength in this that
brings the presence of God into a hospital room while lessening the presence of
the chaplain.
I think we need to reframe what we understand by “strong
leadership.” God says to Joshua to be “strong
and courageous” in the context of being careful to obey and meditate upon the
law of God Paul reflects saying, “I will
boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest
on me. That is why for Christ’s sake, I
delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in
difficulties. For when I am weak, then I
am strong” (2 Cor. 12:9-10).
When we come across the term “strong” or “strength” we often
fill it with what we understand by these terms and engage in exerting the
strength of our own character. Too much
of leadership has done this and we still are not fully aware of what harm we
have caused in the church by leading in this way – we have done violence to
those whom God has called us to serve.
Being strong has little to do with our strength and
everything to do with the presence and power of God being manifested through
us. It is not about us, even as leaders,
it is always about what God is doing in our midst, within the community, within
God’s people to advance God’s purposes so that in participating with God in God’s
mission, we participate in demonstrating the presence of God’s reign in the
world.
Therefore, the strongest leaders are not ones who are
visible to the community, but those who become invisible as the community
becomes more aware of God’s presence with them – where Christ Jesus and his
mission become greater, and we become less.
When it becomes about us or our strength of character, it has less to do
with exalting Jesus Christ and less to do with discerning and participating in
God’s mission with God.
So, I encourage us to rethink what strong leadership entails
– may we lead in ways which make us invisible and makes God more visible.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Vol 3: 29 What Does Salvation Have to Do With Being Missional?
I have discovered that a number of people have a difficult
time with the concept of salvation, especially if it is to be understood as
Jesus dying on the cross for our sins in order to satisfy God’s wrath against
sin (someone’s got to pay for the penalty of sin?) or paying a ransom for
humanity being “kidnapped” by the power of sin and death. The problem with these understandings, it
seems, is that if God requires the death of his Son to bring about humanity’s
salvation, then God is violent and abusive God guilty of divine child
abuse.
The reason I am focusing upon the relationship between
salvation and missional is that the community, in which I serve, is exploring
the idea of salvation in the letter to the Hebrews. How do we understand the concepts of save and salvation, not as a “four-letter word,” but as life-giving and
integrated with God’s missional purpose of making all things new? How do we not read into the text but allow the
text to speak to us? In doing so, we are
able to hear the story of salvation in a different way.
One of our conversation partners in this exploration is J.
Denny Weaver’s work, The Nonviolent
Atonement, in which he portrays God as not being violent, nor requiring the
death of his Son for either satisfying God’s wrath, or as a ransom
payment. Weaver expresses a view of the
atonement which he names narrative
Christus Victor. Narrative Christus
Victor embraces not just the act of the cross in salvation, but embraces the
whole of Jesus’ life, ministry, death, and resurrection in coming to an understanding
of Jesus as the atonement – i.e., in Jesus we are restored to relationship with
God because Jesus came to bring life; Jesus did not come to die. (It is worth reading his book to get the
whole extent of Weaver’s compelling argument).
The missional ramifications of salvation are important. If God is about making all things new, how
are we as humans being transformed in order to participate in the fullness of
God’s reign – how are we established as a new humanity, a new community in
which we live being sign, foretaste, and instrument of God’s present and coming
reign?
Salvation, it seems to me has more to do with transformation
than it has to do with whether there is a need to pay for the penalty of
sin. This paying the penalty for sin was
more Anselm’s idea in the 11th century, than it is a biblical
one. What Scripture tells us is that
while we were enemies of God, opposed to God, not aligned with God nor God’s
purposes giving allegiance to the non-reign of God, “Christ died for us”
(Romans 5:8).
The text in Romans expresses, “while were still sinners,
Christ died for us;” it does not say that “because we were sinners, Christ died
to pay the penalty for sin” – there is more to salvation than paying a “fine.” Paul in Romans describes that God’s love for
us involved Jesus confronting the principalities and powers that enslaved
humanity (cf. Romans 6 for a fuller explanation of this) and Jesus did this
with all of his life, through his whole life and ministry. Jesus’ ministry was explicitly one of
bringing life, of re-creating life in the hearts of humanity and within the
structures of human relationships. In
John’s Gospel Jesus declares that he has come to bring life and life
abundantly, whereas the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy (cf. John
10:10). Salvation, then, has more to do
with revealing and bringing the life, peace – the shalom – of God so that humanity
might be restored to relationship with God.
So, how does death enter the picture? Jesus in confronting the powers, rather than
using coercive or violent force to overcome the powers, takes the violence
meted out by the powers upon himself for the sake of humanity. And Jesus did this while we were still complicit
with the powers, giving our allegiance to the powers, being enemies of God, not
giving allegiance to God (which is a great definition of sin) – Christ suffered
the death and violence of the powers because of his love for us – “for
us.” Not only did his death on the cross
reveal the insidiousness of the powers and disarm the power of the powers by
making a spectacle of them, and so triumphing over them (cf. Colossians 2:15),
but especially through his resurrection it is revealed that death no longer,
will never, have power over life ever again.
In Jesus we are set free. In
identifying with Jesus we are set free from the power of sin, the power of
death. In Jesus, we are made new, we are
a new creation. In radically connecting
to Jesus, by believing Jesus, Jesus’ allegiance to God and God’s reign becomes our
allegiance. In Jesus, our allegiance is
no longer to the non-reign of God, but now we are set free and enabled to give
allegiance to God and God’s reign by the power of Jesus’ Spirit.
Jesus’ life and ministry, brings about salvation because it
disarms the principalities and powers which hold humanity captive. In Jesus, we are set free to embrace life and
be embraced by life, rather than death having any kind of lasting hold on us. Salvation through Jesus is all about restoring
us to the shalom of God – being in right relationship with God, with others,
and with ourselves. Indeed salvation is
at the core of God’s mission in making all things new because Jesus is at the
core of our becoming new, creation becoming new, all things becoming new.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Vol 3: 28 How Does God Act When God Acts Missionally?
In asking this question, this is not so much a question
about whether God acts missionally – Scripture is pretty clear that God acts in
such a way as to bring about God’s redemptive purposes of making all things new
– rather, this question is asking: in what way or how does God act when God
acts missionally? How does God relate to
us? As an aloof deity or as One who is
engaged with us? And in being engaged
with us, is God stoic with “stiff upper lip” or is God capable of expressing
emotion? And if God is capable of
expressing emotion, does God express emotion?
And if God is emotional, how does that shape our understanding of God in
relationship with us and we being in relationship with God?
These questions are on my mind this week for two
reasons. One I was asked if I was
available to lead a lecture I have developed on the nature of the missional God
this weekend in which I talk about how God’s missional nature is all about the living
God engaging us relationally, personally, and second, reading a recent article in
which theologian Kevin Vanhoozer asks “does God’s love entail emotional change
(for example, suffering?)” (Vanhoozer, “Does a Red-Faced God Sing the Blues?” Trinity Magazine, Fall 2012, p. 19).
Though I have more questions than answers, here are some of
my questions and thoughts.
In any relationship to be real and for there to be growth in
relationships people need to engage each other openly, revealing and sharing
themselves. As we talk about being in
relationship with God and God relating to us, it seems that it not only
involves our opening ourselves to God, but God revealing and being open and
transparent with us – for we can only know God as God reveals himself to us.
In the past, theology has sought to describe God in
non-anthropomorphic terms – i.e., God does not have human traits – form or emotions,
yet, Scripture often gives expression to God’s hand or arm being powerful
enough to save, etc. – Scripture seems more comfortable with describing God in
humanly understood ways. In describing
ourselves as human beings made in God’s image, I wonder to what extent our
beingness and our emotions are indeed not only a mark of our humanity, but indeed
an aspect of our being created in God’s image?
What in God has led us to be creatures who have emotion and act
emotionally? I do not believe it is only
a result of our rebellion – we were created to be emotional beings by a God who
is aware of his own emotions. Emotion, as
Vanhoozer describes, is a cognitive state, a state of awareness (cf. Vanhoozer,
p. 21). Emotion, then, is not only a
vital part of our being open and transparent with one another as we seek to
develop our relationship with one another, it is also an attribute or
characteristic of God being the Living God.
So, if growing in relationship with one another involves
submitting ourselves to one another – as we are called to do in Ephesians 5:
21, then in what way does God in being in relationship with us submit to us in
being in relationship with us as God’s people, as disciples of Jesus? For any relationship to be a relationship a
mutual submission needs to take place.
For me, recognizing that God walks with us, that God engages
us, that God indeed has emotion does not diminish the holiness nor the
magnificence of God for me, rather it leads me to even deeper worship because I
begin to see God as One who takes the risk of being emotional, the risk of being
real, in order to be in a real relationship with me. I think this is what is unique about God
known as Yahweh which sets God apart from all other depictions or
manifestations of God.
Also, if Jesus is the exact representation of God, how is
Jesus in his humanity also an expression of the “humanity of God?”
I realize my thoughts here are merely crude theological
expressions of God as an emotional being.
But perhaps we struggle with the idea of God being emotional because
when we are emotional we seem to be out of control of our own actions or
responses – and so we think that God loses “control” when God responds and acts
emotionally.
But what if it is not about “control” but about being
responsive? What if God’s emotions are
not unbridled, “out of control” passions, but expressions of God’s love and
concern in relationship creating ways? Taking
control seems to be more of an aspect of our rebellion against God, our wanting
not to be in relationship with God – wanting to be in charge of our
destinies. But I believe God never
intends to “control” us – God is continually described in Scripture as one who
is with us, walks with us, comes alongside of us, converses with us – God speaks
to us, God initiates with us, and God responds to us. Being in relationship is not about control,
it is about responding. It is our desire
to be in control that we harm not only our relationship with God but with one
another as well.
I remember when my daughter was going through some troubling
times she was wondering why I was not getting angry with her. I remember my response to her: “Would that help? I express frustration, anger over stupid
stuff, like forgetting to take care of something, or leaving the car lights on,
or you doing some bonehead kind of thing in which you were not thinking – but what
you are going through now requires us to walk together over the long haul.” My response to her was deeply emotional,
though not an irrational outburst. Often
times when we read about God’s emotion I wonder if we interject our own
irrationality upon God, rather than seeing God expressing emotion, concern,
love, care – as the waiting Father did patiently waiting for the prodigal son’s
return (cf. Luke 15:11-32), we think that all emotion has to do with not being
in control of our feelings. My being
emotional in this way with my daughter healed and strengthened our
relationship.
This lack of control of our feelings, I believe, has more to
do with our thinking that being rationalistic is the best way to comport
ourselves in situations – but that is to deny an essential aspect of who we
are, of who we are as ones created in God’s image. What if we respond to one another and to God,
with our whole beings – our minds, our hearts, our souls, and our bodies –
rationally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically? Likewise, I believe God leads us and responds
to us with God’s whole Being – rationally, emotionally, spiritually, and even
physically (incarnationally in Jesus Christ).
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Vol 3: 27 Being Missional When I Don’t Feel Like Doing Missional
Being missional is more than doing something different. Sometimes I just don’t feel like doing
another missional thing.
Being missional ought to affect not only how we go about
engaging in ministry, engaging in participating with God in God’s bringing
about shalom, but also how we are with God with whom we participate in making
all things new. Too often, however, I
have discovered that we have traded a frenetic pace in doing ministry in
non-missional ways to doing missional things in a similar frenetic pace. Is that being missional?
Missional is an attitude before it is an action.
Sometimes, we do become weary in doing good – no matter how
much Paul encourages not to lose heart (cf. Galatians 6:9). A colleague of mine at a pastor’s gathering
in response to the question of “what good thing is going on in your church?”
responded with “Nothing much good is going on.”
Sometimes we find ourselves in the desert, like Moses, with the people
of God griping for 40 years – it is hard at times to see and to express
something that is “good.”
It is in the midst of such times that we need to step back
from all the doing of missional to rediscover what it is to be missional. Missional is more than a set of agenda that
we bring to our frenetic engagement of ministry – I don’t think I have ever
read in the Gospels Jesus expressing, “so much to do and so little time”
running around like the White Rabbit in Alice
in Wonderland. Rather, there was a
certain non-anxiousness about Jesus’ manner of ministry, his manner of
engaging, his manner of embodying the reign of God, in his being
missional.
His doing of missional was the fruitful action of his being
missional.
I am observing among a number of my colleagues who are challenging
the North American church to embrace being missional, that their pace of life
and ministry has not changed much from the days when they strived to be the
right kind of leader in leading their church to grow. The focus may have changed, their strategy
may have changed, but they are still getting tired and discouraged as ever.
When I find myself living in these “old tapes” of ministry,
I am reminded that being missional is a journey, a process that requires
ongoing repentance, ongoing metanoia – because we quickly fall into the mindset
that it is up to us to bring about the changes, the transformations that we
espouse that we believe God is doing in the world. We forget, in such times, that God calls us
to walk with him. We are not called to
walk ahead of God. It is only when we
walk with God that we can listen and be open to the Spirit’s engagement of us –
open to receive refreshment and renewing of our lives. And rather than these times being far and few
between – coming in the nick of time before burnout takes hold of us – these times
are to be the regular rhythm of our lives.
Because if they are not the regular rhythms of our lives –
we will be about our missions, rather than God’s mission in the world. We may do what looks like mission – yet we
will be far from being missional. We may
say the right missional words and even do the edgy missional thing, but our
lives will reveal that we are about our own mission, our own agenda, our own
purposes.
So, it is in such frenetic times, times of walking on the
hard trodden path where the seed of God’s word does not have much of a chance
of growing, that I am reminded to set aside my doing of missional in order to
rediscover being missional – because walking in the plowed up soil where God’s
seed germinates and bears fruit slows us down enough to notice God again and
what God is about in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)