In February, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died. One of the things that came up in all the news stories afterwards was his close friendship with fellow justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. The irony was that you had a close friendship between possibly the most conservative justice and one of the most liberal, and it was a friendship based on mutual respect, not just mutual interests, compatible personalities, or whatever. They fought on opposite sides for their views, but remained friends. Some people found that hard to fathom and though it was mentioned in news reports, the great controversy over his replacement completely overshadowed what may be a very important topic for today.
I'd say that one of the most dangerous tendencies in the current American political and cultural climate is a loss of mutual respect for those that we may disagree with. Watching the process for the party nominations for presidential candidates over the last few months has been eye-opening to say the least. There are many things that have happened that I would never have imagined for our nation. The fact that we have differences and that sometimes those differences may be over very important issues and may produce emotional responses has always been true. But, our nation was founded on what united us more than what divided us. Today, the tendency is to label opponents, not just as 'wrong' but as 'bad,' 'stupid,' 'failures,' etc.
Government is an institution and institutions, even very conservative and traditional ones, are living entities because, no matter how they are structured and organized they are, they are made up of living beings. People are always growing and changing and our culture is always changing. Every generation has been influenced not only by the generation before, but by the historical events that occur around them. As people change, as culture changes, so do the institutions. But, recently we may be undergoing some fundamental changes at a more rapid rate than ever before.
The United States was from the beginning a revolutionary experiment. There had been democracies before. There had been many revolutions before but most just changed from one bad situation to another one, from one despot to a different one. However, this one was set off in a different direction from the beginning.
Christians like to believe that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and that is true to some extent, but there was also a mixture of humanist and Enlightenment principles. The fact is that most of our founding fathers were not Christian as we Evangelicals would define them. The most popular belief at the time was Deism, the belief that there was a god who created the universe, but that this god was not personal and not involved in the universe. It was more like he created a machine and then stood back to watch it work. Many would have been atheists if they could have imagined a way that this universe could have existed without a god.
Certainly that was not true of all. Washington espoused Christianity, though he was not very active in the church. John Adams was a devout Christian and Alexander Hamilton was also a Christian. But, most of the famous names that we know of were not. We have all heard of Jefferson's 'Bible' in which he cut out what he didn't like and just kept some of the moralistic principles.
Our Constitution was written in the midst of this tension between different worldviews and the conflicts of the different personalities of those involved. But, it's important to note that our forefathers very pointedly didn't want "democracy" in the sense that many people think nowadays. The rebellion was against despotism and not for democracy. They most feared a distant power in control where they had no say nor recourse. But, even more, they feared any person or institution having too much power. The initial Articles of Confederation went too far in giving a national government too little power. The Constitution that replaced it is an ingenious document that made us a true nation, but still built in strong provisions that placed great limits on that power.
What we sometimes ignore is the fact that they didn't set up a pure democracy. They didn't set up a system where everyone could vote. In most states, only male property owners could vote. They feared the rule of the masses almost as much as the rule of a king. Jefferson famously wrote, "I have ever observed that a choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom." As time has passed, we've become more and more "democratic" but that's not the principle that they started from. That's why we have a Senate and a House of Representatives, both with different rules and giving States different representation. That's why the President isn't directly elected, but is chosen by an Electoral College. That's why the judiciary is appointed and not elected, and why they serve for life.
They didn't just fear a government that was too powerful. They also feared letting any one person, or any one group or party have too much power. They purposely didn't set up an efficient government. They were afraid of too much efficiency because it put too much power into the hands of whoever was in charge at the time. I remember my high school Civics teacher talking about checks and balances and that I never fully grasped what she was talking about. They feared a strong man taking over and being able to do too much. They were liberals in their day, who were also conservatives in that they desired to set up a conservative system of government--not conservative in the sense of today's party politics, but conservative in the sense of making it hard to change the system and hard to get some things done. Making it too easy to make major changes brings with it the risk of losing our system of government by all of the people and going back to some form of despotism.
We often miss this point. Our founding fathers didn't believe in true majority rule. The majority never had full power. They wanted to force our leaders to compromise. Now, many politicians are complaining about this (and not just the conservatives), and many people are looking for someone who can "get things done" and who is not a "politician." Compromise has become a dirty word, a sign of weakness and even a lack of moral standards.
The lessons of our Constitution has been overlooked in so many nations that have set up democracies, only to see them degenerate into democratic facades of one-party-states or presidents-for-life. We've seen some examples of that even in the last few years when leaders felt that a majority vote meant that they could ignore the 49%. Democracy is fragile and stands only when there is a mass of trust in both people and the system, a willingness to compromise, and a commitment to the legal process. When any of those start to fall, we risk losing it all.
We've forgotten what really made America great. It's not capitalism. It's not our great research institutions. It's not our great manufacturing ability. It's not our culture of creativity and the lack of class barriers that close off some people because of their background so that anyone can make it. It's not even great leaders, at least not what some people think of as great leaders. In fact, some of these things that we believe are not as true as we might wish (for instance, we aren't as 'class-free' as we like to think). These are important in their own way, but they are results of something else.
I believe that what made America great is that we were given a system of government that forced compromise. No one could get anything done simply because they got elected to a position. They needed to get others on board, and sometimes that even meant at least some of the 'opposition.' We weren't a nation of a majority that rules, tolerating the rest who could live among us if they cooperated. It was a nation united, for the benefit of all. We have forgotten the motto--e pluribus unum ("out of many, one")--on our seal, adopted by an act of congress in 1782.
Compromise is not bad, not weak, and not a lack of commitment or moral standards. It's a respect for the system, and commitment to inclusion, a recognition no one, no group, and no movement is always right. It's a recognition that even those who may be "wrong" in our eyes, are people who deserve respect and deserve space to live their lives according to those beliefs as long as they don't impinge on the rights of others. Certainly there are limits to what we can allow people to do, and laws define those limits, but there are also limits to what the law could limit. But freedom, inclusiveness, and mutual respect are the foundation of the Nation and the Constitution that we love and that so many have given their lives for.
The desire to look for a strong man to get things done, to overthrow the establishment, to look for purity, is a danger to our system. The desire for making our government more efficient (I'm not talking money, but in getting things done and making quick changes) is a fundamental change from the views of the founders. But, more than that, the demonization of opposition and the dividing line between parties, beliefs, those who aren't like us raises the possibility of us losing the freedoms that we all have taken as unassailable.
We need to remember what really made America great, and it's not what is being espoused by so many today. We have been made strong by being inclusive, by adapting to change, by accepting others and their beliefs even when we disagree. That's what has given us the greatness that we hold dear, the leadership that we've had in so many areas around the world. It's made us leaders in the world's economy, in science, in medicine, in business, in research, and in world influence. Certainly there are other great countries with greatness in all of those areas, but America has dominated that last century. Let's keep America great.
Showing posts with label individualism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individualism. Show all posts
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Sunday, July 5, 2015
1776
Americans are celebrating Independence Day, the 4th of July, this weekend. Even for people who consider themselves to be anti-American, it was one of those turning points in history that had not just a local effect but a worldwide one. July 4, 1776 is the day Americans celebrate that turning point.
However, even turning points are not just one point in time and are not just one event but the confluence of many events, decisions, and 'accidents' over the course of years. Americans also would be wrong to think of independence as an event. That's the day when the declaration was officially considered to be made, but it was the confluence of a long period of debate and struggle and even for the declaration, the last signature was not placed on the parchment until August. Even more, it was only a declaration. It was only words on paper. Obviously the British government didn't agree, but actually, even a third of the American colonists didn't agree, or at least didn't support it. It took many years to make it a reality and though the independence is complete, the creation of the nation continued and, some might say, is still in process today.
But, back to the independence, it was only after years of war that this was achieved, but even then, the meaning of that was not at all clear. It's important to remember that before that, there had been just a collection of colonies in the Americas. These colonies were under the sovereign crown of Britain and governed ultimately by Britain, but they answered to Britain independently, each under separate governance. They had differing institutions and laws and had hugely different personalities. The colonies were started for vastly different reasons and had already existed for more than a century. There was no strong loyalty to each other. They had vastly different economies. Some were even relatively multicultural. Don't forget that New York was originally New Amsterdam. The main thing that brought them together was intense dissatisfaction with King George III and the British Parliament.
So when the independence was won 7 years later, that didn't mean that there was a "United States." It wasn't one nation. It was a collection of 13 nations (that's what the word 'state' normally means). The the first tendency was to go back to something familiar and similar to the old order. The 13 colonies were now independent from Britain and had become states, but there was a strong pull towards independence from each other as well. They feared a strong central government would just be moving Parliament from London to a place closer to home.
They did recognize the need for some cooperation to keep their independence, but they wanted that cooperation to be minimal. That's why they chose to be a confederation (and in some ways, the civil war was an attempt to return to that, though the drive behind that was the desire to preserve the system of slavery). And, there was also the issue of the other lands to the west and extending to the Mississippi River that they had won from Britain that were not a part of any colony. Beyond a few roving trappers and some tiny settlements, the residents of these lands were the Native Americans, but the peace agreement with Britain turned this area over to these new United States. Ironically, part of what kept the 13 states together was that they had inherited an empire.
But, there was an inherent distrust in strong government and even some who espoused anarchist principles, seeing government as a temporary measure that would potentially get weaker and weaker as mankind improved. That's much of the basis for the great prominence of individualism in the US. There has always been a tension between the government and the individual which has been a part of the American psyche from the beginning. By the end of the decade, there was finally a recognition of the need for more than a confederation and the current Constitution was drawn up.
With that constitution there was finally a United States that was now one nation, but it originally wasn't all 13 states. Two States didn't join util a year later. There had been a lot of fighting over what that constitution should be, but in the end, they recognized the need for a strong central government but held in check by strong individual rights, which was the focus of the first ten amendments (which we call the Bill of Rights) that were accepted in 1791.
What resulted was a republic, not a pure democracy. There was no concept of one person one vote, or even one man one vote. And, even that was "rigged" to avoid a winner take all situation. There were two houses of Congress, one with proportional representation (the House of Representatives), but which was, in some ways, the lesser house. The other was meant to make sure that the interest of the smaller states would not be overrun, giving each state two votes, no matter the size of the state and that was the house that in essence had more power (the Senate) with a name that takes one back to the Roman Senate and the sense of a ruling elite.
The founding fathers were very afraid of anything that put too much power in one person or even in one institution. There was a complicated system of checks and balances that were designed to make sure that no person or institution would have too much power. That's what makes our government so inefficient and slow. It also makes it much more conservative (not politically, but in the sense that makes change harder to accomplish).
But, they were also tremendously afraid of giving too much power to the masses. They saw the masses, especially the uneducated, as to easy to manipulate and unable to make good decisions. That's something that we've gradually, but fundamentally, moved away from.
There are two things that I believe have made this system work so well for so long and both are deeply rooted in Christianity, but I will be dealing with those later. For now, it's time to celebrate the nation that has had such a huge impact on the world in so many ways.
Happy 4th.
However, even turning points are not just one point in time and are not just one event but the confluence of many events, decisions, and 'accidents' over the course of years. Americans also would be wrong to think of independence as an event. That's the day when the declaration was officially considered to be made, but it was the confluence of a long period of debate and struggle and even for the declaration, the last signature was not placed on the parchment until August. Even more, it was only a declaration. It was only words on paper. Obviously the British government didn't agree, but actually, even a third of the American colonists didn't agree, or at least didn't support it. It took many years to make it a reality and though the independence is complete, the creation of the nation continued and, some might say, is still in process today.
But, back to the independence, it was only after years of war that this was achieved, but even then, the meaning of that was not at all clear. It's important to remember that before that, there had been just a collection of colonies in the Americas. These colonies were under the sovereign crown of Britain and governed ultimately by Britain, but they answered to Britain independently, each under separate governance. They had differing institutions and laws and had hugely different personalities. The colonies were started for vastly different reasons and had already existed for more than a century. There was no strong loyalty to each other. They had vastly different economies. Some were even relatively multicultural. Don't forget that New York was originally New Amsterdam. The main thing that brought them together was intense dissatisfaction with King George III and the British Parliament.
So when the independence was won 7 years later, that didn't mean that there was a "United States." It wasn't one nation. It was a collection of 13 nations (that's what the word 'state' normally means). The the first tendency was to go back to something familiar and similar to the old order. The 13 colonies were now independent from Britain and had become states, but there was a strong pull towards independence from each other as well. They feared a strong central government would just be moving Parliament from London to a place closer to home.
They did recognize the need for some cooperation to keep their independence, but they wanted that cooperation to be minimal. That's why they chose to be a confederation (and in some ways, the civil war was an attempt to return to that, though the drive behind that was the desire to preserve the system of slavery). And, there was also the issue of the other lands to the west and extending to the Mississippi River that they had won from Britain that were not a part of any colony. Beyond a few roving trappers and some tiny settlements, the residents of these lands were the Native Americans, but the peace agreement with Britain turned this area over to these new United States. Ironically, part of what kept the 13 states together was that they had inherited an empire.
But, there was an inherent distrust in strong government and even some who espoused anarchist principles, seeing government as a temporary measure that would potentially get weaker and weaker as mankind improved. That's much of the basis for the great prominence of individualism in the US. There has always been a tension between the government and the individual which has been a part of the American psyche from the beginning. By the end of the decade, there was finally a recognition of the need for more than a confederation and the current Constitution was drawn up.
With that constitution there was finally a United States that was now one nation, but it originally wasn't all 13 states. Two States didn't join util a year later. There had been a lot of fighting over what that constitution should be, but in the end, they recognized the need for a strong central government but held in check by strong individual rights, which was the focus of the first ten amendments (which we call the Bill of Rights) that were accepted in 1791.
What resulted was a republic, not a pure democracy. There was no concept of one person one vote, or even one man one vote. And, even that was "rigged" to avoid a winner take all situation. There were two houses of Congress, one with proportional representation (the House of Representatives), but which was, in some ways, the lesser house. The other was meant to make sure that the interest of the smaller states would not be overrun, giving each state two votes, no matter the size of the state and that was the house that in essence had more power (the Senate) with a name that takes one back to the Roman Senate and the sense of a ruling elite.
The founding fathers were very afraid of anything that put too much power in one person or even in one institution. There was a complicated system of checks and balances that were designed to make sure that no person or institution would have too much power. That's what makes our government so inefficient and slow. It also makes it much more conservative (not politically, but in the sense that makes change harder to accomplish).
But, they were also tremendously afraid of giving too much power to the masses. They saw the masses, especially the uneducated, as to easy to manipulate and unable to make good decisions. That's something that we've gradually, but fundamentally, moved away from.
There are two things that I believe have made this system work so well for so long and both are deeply rooted in Christianity, but I will be dealing with those later. For now, it's time to celebrate the nation that has had such a huge impact on the world in so many ways.
Happy 4th.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Who's The Man?
Jeff Hawkins replied to my previous post:
I certainly have to agree. A few weeks ago I turned on CNN as I was eating a snack and listened to Piers Morgan interviewing Joel Osteen and his wife. Besides all the problems with his theology and view of God, what struck me was how he was clearly the center of a church and a financial empire. While he talked about God, everything was really about him.
That is an extreme example, but, though maybe more subtle, not really all that uncommon. We don’t have to look far to see many examples of this and in fact, there are times in almost every church when you can at least see shades of this. In many churches, no one questions the pastor, and if they do, it becomes a huge and divisive issue. There is a Chinese saying that you might hear in a Taiwan church which roughly translates as “To be submissive is to be blessed (祝福就是夢福)”. In other words, we'll all be better off if we just do what the pastor says. Leaders lead, the rest follow.
But, is this really the way it is supposed to be? I remember a quote by Peter Jensen to the effect that God is sovereign and he does not delegate and I think that is true. It’s not that God doesn’t give us the privilege of serving and even the privilege of some kind of authority. The issue is what that means.
Do we really believe that we are sinners; that we really are depraved? Do we really believe that this sin nature has affected every facet of our selves? Or, do we think that this is somehow changed when a person becomes a pastor? I can't see anything in the Bible that would imply this and all we have to do is look at so many examples of “fallen” pastors to know that this isn’t the case. Pastors fall just like everyone else at times and it’s a bit disingenuous to think that this is because they are somehow not real or something like that. If we truly believe in a sin nature that is common to all, then no matter how good our intentions are, no matter how strong our faith is, we must keep that in mind. We are still sinners and if so, we cannot completely trust any decision or action that we (or others) make.
I don’t in any way mean that we should become suspicious people, no more than we should be suspicious or our own selves. But, maybe that’s a key to understanding the concept of servant leadership. We know that we ourselves are not always perfect (unless we are a bit psychotic). We know that our motivations are not always the best. We know that we make mistakes and some are big (and embarrassing). We know that we are not always completely honest. That doesn’t mean that we don’t trust ourselves (otherwise we wouldn’t argue our points so forcefully and defend our views or ourselves), but it does mean that our trust is tempered with reality. It means that we study “experts.” It means that we ask others’ opinions about things. We even define “smartness” sometimes by saying things like “smart people are people who know what they don’t know.” We know that we need other people to get by and make progress.
So, why would we build a church around a single man? In a sense, to the extent that a church does that, it is to that extent setting itself up for failure. But, even if we leave out the possibility of catastrophic failure, anyone time we give one person too much power or influence in an organization, we then limit that organization so that it can never grow beyond that person’s limitations. It will develop along the lines of his strengths and those are the things that may be most obvious in the beginning, but it will also build in his weaknesses. The longer this goes on, the more “warped” the organization or church will become.
I think that’s why we need to go toward a type of team leadership. That doesn’t mean that we lead by consensus or that there can’t be one person in charge. Those mistakes are recipes for failure or at least mediocrity. But, leadership is not absolute and untempered. It's not enough to say that the leader must depend on the Lord to guide him. Certainly that is true, but the reality is that no one ever fully depends on the Lord, and we need the help of others. A man who cannot follow has forfeited the potential to lead.
There are Bible passages dealing with this that I think we sometimes overlook or explain away. Paul includes in his exhortations on submission to authority the statement that we are to be submissive to one another. Even leaders have to submit. Jesus mentions the Gentile rulers who rule by authority and power and then tells his disciples that they can't do that. He destroys the argument "but I'm doing this for their own good" by a little aside that these Gentile rulers consider themselves to be acting out of benevolence. It's not enough to have good motivations. You can't be like that. He uses the example of a servant (who might have some authority over another servant, but still are quite limited) and then to make sure that we don't explain that away, he mentions the example of a small child.
We need to think seriously about leadership and what it means in the church. I'm afraid we've taken our own understanding of leadership and read that into the Bible. The problem is not just pastors who make themselves the center or who don't listen to others. The problem is maybe even more that this is what we expect and what we promote.
Children, especially in the society that Jesus lived in when he spoke to his disciples, were not allowed the room to express any of the traits that we would normally associate with a leader. But, Jesus told his disciples that they needed to be more like a small child and even that the more they took on the position of a child, the greater they were.
It may not make sense to us, but we can't dismiss it just because it doesn't make sense. These are the words of Jesus, not just the words of a disciple. He said it. Do we understand? The more we try to explain it away, or the more it doesn't make sense, the more it means that we are off the mark. Maybe we are clueless, but we need to look at this further.
Your thoughts?
"Personality Cult leadership is a HUGE factor in the church today. Churches are built around a "man" and not THE Man, Christ Jesus. New Testament pattern of "plurality" in leadership is crucial...."Jeff went on from there, but I wanted to focus on this topic first.
I certainly have to agree. A few weeks ago I turned on CNN as I was eating a snack and listened to Piers Morgan interviewing Joel Osteen and his wife. Besides all the problems with his theology and view of God, what struck me was how he was clearly the center of a church and a financial empire. While he talked about God, everything was really about him.
That is an extreme example, but, though maybe more subtle, not really all that uncommon. We don’t have to look far to see many examples of this and in fact, there are times in almost every church when you can at least see shades of this. In many churches, no one questions the pastor, and if they do, it becomes a huge and divisive issue. There is a Chinese saying that you might hear in a Taiwan church which roughly translates as “To be submissive is to be blessed (祝福就是夢福)”. In other words, we'll all be better off if we just do what the pastor says. Leaders lead, the rest follow.
But, is this really the way it is supposed to be? I remember a quote by Peter Jensen to the effect that God is sovereign and he does not delegate and I think that is true. It’s not that God doesn’t give us the privilege of serving and even the privilege of some kind of authority. The issue is what that means.
Do we really believe that we are sinners; that we really are depraved? Do we really believe that this sin nature has affected every facet of our selves? Or, do we think that this is somehow changed when a person becomes a pastor? I can't see anything in the Bible that would imply this and all we have to do is look at so many examples of “fallen” pastors to know that this isn’t the case. Pastors fall just like everyone else at times and it’s a bit disingenuous to think that this is because they are somehow not real or something like that. If we truly believe in a sin nature that is common to all, then no matter how good our intentions are, no matter how strong our faith is, we must keep that in mind. We are still sinners and if so, we cannot completely trust any decision or action that we (or others) make.
I don’t in any way mean that we should become suspicious people, no more than we should be suspicious or our own selves. But, maybe that’s a key to understanding the concept of servant leadership. We know that we ourselves are not always perfect (unless we are a bit psychotic). We know that our motivations are not always the best. We know that we make mistakes and some are big (and embarrassing). We know that we are not always completely honest. That doesn’t mean that we don’t trust ourselves (otherwise we wouldn’t argue our points so forcefully and defend our views or ourselves), but it does mean that our trust is tempered with reality. It means that we study “experts.” It means that we ask others’ opinions about things. We even define “smartness” sometimes by saying things like “smart people are people who know what they don’t know.” We know that we need other people to get by and make progress.
So, why would we build a church around a single man? In a sense, to the extent that a church does that, it is to that extent setting itself up for failure. But, even if we leave out the possibility of catastrophic failure, anyone time we give one person too much power or influence in an organization, we then limit that organization so that it can never grow beyond that person’s limitations. It will develop along the lines of his strengths and those are the things that may be most obvious in the beginning, but it will also build in his weaknesses. The longer this goes on, the more “warped” the organization or church will become.
I think that’s why we need to go toward a type of team leadership. That doesn’t mean that we lead by consensus or that there can’t be one person in charge. Those mistakes are recipes for failure or at least mediocrity. But, leadership is not absolute and untempered. It's not enough to say that the leader must depend on the Lord to guide him. Certainly that is true, but the reality is that no one ever fully depends on the Lord, and we need the help of others. A man who cannot follow has forfeited the potential to lead.
There are Bible passages dealing with this that I think we sometimes overlook or explain away. Paul includes in his exhortations on submission to authority the statement that we are to be submissive to one another. Even leaders have to submit. Jesus mentions the Gentile rulers who rule by authority and power and then tells his disciples that they can't do that. He destroys the argument "but I'm doing this for their own good" by a little aside that these Gentile rulers consider themselves to be acting out of benevolence. It's not enough to have good motivations. You can't be like that. He uses the example of a servant (who might have some authority over another servant, but still are quite limited) and then to make sure that we don't explain that away, he mentions the example of a small child.
We need to think seriously about leadership and what it means in the church. I'm afraid we've taken our own understanding of leadership and read that into the Bible. The problem is not just pastors who make themselves the center or who don't listen to others. The problem is maybe even more that this is what we expect and what we promote.
Children, especially in the society that Jesus lived in when he spoke to his disciples, were not allowed the room to express any of the traits that we would normally associate with a leader. But, Jesus told his disciples that they needed to be more like a small child and even that the more they took on the position of a child, the greater they were.
It may not make sense to us, but we can't dismiss it just because it doesn't make sense. These are the words of Jesus, not just the words of a disciple. He said it. Do we understand? The more we try to explain it away, or the more it doesn't make sense, the more it means that we are off the mark. Maybe we are clueless, but we need to look at this further.
Your thoughts?
Sunday, March 28, 2010
My mission?
I don’t know when I heard the term Great Commission for the first time, but I’m sure it was early on in my Christian experience. What I do know is that it seemed to always be expressed as a directive to some individuals and that's what I assumed. It was normally a challenge to missions. Does God want you to be a missionary, or not? Does God want you to fulfill the great commission, or not? Should you go or should you stay?
I realize that I’m exaggerating a little, and making it a little more black and white than it usually is. Still, the impression was, and often is, that this great commission is something that is given to individuals to carry out; and it’s a challenge for some of them to go, but of course not everyone. It's expanded sometimes to say that if you're not called to go, then you're called to give.
However, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to realize that it is not individualistic at all. Those last few days before Christ ascended were spent not just with the 12 apostles, but with all of the key disciples who were committed to Him. This was the climax just as Jesus was about to ascend to heaven. The emphasis was not on the individual, but on this new body that was being called out. Jesus' focus was corporate.
My experience as a missionary has only emphasized this even more. I believe that we need to look at the great commission less in terms of the individual. It shouldn't be passive, waiting on whether God might be leading someone to become a missionary. Rather, we need to look at the Great Commission in terms of the church. In a sense, this is the founding purpose of the church. If the apostles were writing a constitution for the church as an organization, this probably would have been in the preamble as its purpose clause. The church exists to carry all this out. The church should see this as their number one responsibility–making disciples of all peoples.
Instead, the Missions program has been something that is extra, peripheral to the main ministry of the church. In many churches, the Missions budget is separate. It is set through extra pledges (faith promises) and extra giving. You can give to the missions budget as long as that comes after your tithe to the church. It's not a part of the church budget.
Some of that is changing. There already is less emphasis on waiting to see who God may call into missions, and then leaving that person to run around getting support from churches and individuals. But, we haven't gone far enough at all.
I think that the church should put more effort into thinking about what their role could be in making disciples of all nations, and then coming up with a strategy for how to do so. Of course, that is not just the overseas component that we often call "missions." It’s an overall plan that includes our neighbors, the people on the other side of the town, other nations and cultures across the sea. It's comprehensive. The key point is that the responsibility belongs to the church, and not just individuals. Missions and evangelism are certainly individual in that it is individuals who are the ones who are on the contact edge between the church and the unbelieving world. However, the individuals are part of a strategy, a vision and a mission of the church. We need to be less inward thinking and more outward thinking.
Missionaries can fall into a similar rut. One problem (issue) in missions is that missionaries are often independent and individualistic in spirit. It's easy for us to just drop into the mold of thinking about "my mission" or "but, God called me here to..." Sometimes we can forget that we are all part of a team with our sending churches and our coworkers in the plan to make disciples of all nations starting in the part of the world where we have been sent.
But, the mission is far greater than any individual and it is far greater than any mission organization. Missionaries are sent and are part of the "mission" of the church.
I realize that I’m exaggerating a little, and making it a little more black and white than it usually is. Still, the impression was, and often is, that this great commission is something that is given to individuals to carry out; and it’s a challenge for some of them to go, but of course not everyone. It's expanded sometimes to say that if you're not called to go, then you're called to give.
However, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to realize that it is not individualistic at all. Those last few days before Christ ascended were spent not just with the 12 apostles, but with all of the key disciples who were committed to Him. This was the climax just as Jesus was about to ascend to heaven. The emphasis was not on the individual, but on this new body that was being called out. Jesus' focus was corporate.
My experience as a missionary has only emphasized this even more. I believe that we need to look at the great commission less in terms of the individual. It shouldn't be passive, waiting on whether God might be leading someone to become a missionary. Rather, we need to look at the Great Commission in terms of the church. In a sense, this is the founding purpose of the church. If the apostles were writing a constitution for the church as an organization, this probably would have been in the preamble as its purpose clause. The church exists to carry all this out. The church should see this as their number one responsibility–making disciples of all peoples.
Instead, the Missions program has been something that is extra, peripheral to the main ministry of the church. In many churches, the Missions budget is separate. It is set through extra pledges (faith promises) and extra giving. You can give to the missions budget as long as that comes after your tithe to the church. It's not a part of the church budget.
Some of that is changing. There already is less emphasis on waiting to see who God may call into missions, and then leaving that person to run around getting support from churches and individuals. But, we haven't gone far enough at all.
I think that the church should put more effort into thinking about what their role could be in making disciples of all nations, and then coming up with a strategy for how to do so. Of course, that is not just the overseas component that we often call "missions." It’s an overall plan that includes our neighbors, the people on the other side of the town, other nations and cultures across the sea. It's comprehensive. The key point is that the responsibility belongs to the church, and not just individuals. Missions and evangelism are certainly individual in that it is individuals who are the ones who are on the contact edge between the church and the unbelieving world. However, the individuals are part of a strategy, a vision and a mission of the church. We need to be less inward thinking and more outward thinking.
Missionaries can fall into a similar rut. One problem (issue) in missions is that missionaries are often independent and individualistic in spirit. It's easy for us to just drop into the mold of thinking about "my mission" or "but, God called me here to..." Sometimes we can forget that we are all part of a team with our sending churches and our coworkers in the plan to make disciples of all nations starting in the part of the world where we have been sent.
But, the mission is far greater than any individual and it is far greater than any mission organization. Missionaries are sent and are part of the "mission" of the church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)