How Was Your Trip?

I recently returned from 10 weeks in Europe. 8 weeks were spent at The Salvation Army International College for Officers. I met some great people who will be with me in spirit for the rest of my life. The memories will be indelibly etched on my mind and heart for years.

As I have returned, people have asked me, "How was your trip?" I find that a difficult question to answer. I missed family and friends. I have thought about how much things changed at home and in my ministry while I was gone. Relationships changed. Procedures changed. Some of these changed for the better. Janet and I got much closer. Some of the other relationships and procedures are difficult to adjust to again. They are different.

I have begun to realize that my trip was bigger than a vacation or just a time away. It was a journey in a way. Trips have a beginning and ending point. They are for a set amount of time. Journeys tend to be longer, they are more about enjoying the scenery, the company and the time for reflection.

I took a journey. The company was great. The scenery was the learning experiences and the reflection time was plentiful. I have felt more as if I am on a trip with deadlines and restoring relationships since I have been back. It is not that they have been broken; they have just changed.

The fact is that journeys change people. They take people through depths of despair and also bring them to the peaks of delight.

The one thing I am learning on my journey is the real need for companions. We need each other desperately. As Americans, we value self-motivation, self-gratification and rugged individualism. I am not sure that those are necessary Christian values. As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "We are one body."

I think the problem with our movement and the Church in general, is that we are in a hurry to get from Point A to Point B. We rarely stop to enjoy companionship or friendship. I think maybe it may be a trust issue. Maybe we are trying to get "results" from the latest Christian fad or mission slogan.

Whatever it is, I think that far too many people are taking the quick trip and not enjoying the journey.

So, what is that will enhance our journeys? How can we be the body that Christ wants us to be?

I think it is simple. It is about being vulnerable. It is about being accountable. In short it is about sharing the journey with friends and companions, not just having acquaintances.

Well those are my thoughts. Do you think too many of us are taking trips and not journeys? Do you think it is a trust issue that prohibits us from sharing the journey? Are we scared to be vulnerable because we are more about rugged individualism than community?

What do you think?

Independence Day?

This weekend, we celebrated the birthday of our country here in the States. There were cookouts, parades and fireworks. There were people who travelled to be with family. Folks sang patriotic songs.

We value independence here in the States. We honor people who fulfil the America dream, by hard work, pulling themselves up from bad situations and make their mark in the world.

It seems to be a value of people to be that way in the Church. In evangelical circles, people seem to love to hear the testimony of those who are "trophies of grace." We love to honor them for their hard work and marvel at the work of God in the individual.

I just heard a good sermon this morning. The sermon was on the "body of Christ." It was based on the passage in 1 Corinthians 12. It was clear that there is a deep abiding necessity for community. Those who would take this independent view of Christianity, over-emphasizing personal salvation as the be all and end all seem to missing the boat. In other words, my salvation depends solely on me.

We have used the word "community" over and over again as a Christian buzz word for the past several years. Yet, there continues to be a fraying of community. We have few family members in the Church it seems and more acquaintances. The lack of deep relationships in the Church I believe leads to shallow Christianity, since there is little in the way of challenge or discipleship in the vacuum of independent living.

This idea of independence, I believe is overrated. We live in such an interconnected world. With the advent of facebook, twitter, blogger and youtube, we are living in world where it is virtually impossible to be independent of relationship. The world economic situation makes it virtually impossible for a country to stand alone economically. Even politically, we have learned in recent years that an isolationist policy is incredibly bad for a country.

If in the secular world, independence is evaporating, I wonder why I see us only paying lip service to community in the Church. There does seem though to be a movement toward ecumenism

I wonder if it is true that salvation cannot take place outside of the Church? Is the idea of denominationalism dead? Is independence an idea that may be extra-biblical?

So as with all my other posts, I ask...What do you think?

Perception is reality?

Perception is reality. I have often heard this phrase used as a part of a conversation in assessing a person's veracity or personality.

In conversation with a friend recently, I heard what I felt was a really disturbing comment on the way perception is given so much power in the way people are viewed. For sure, we want to be around people who are charming, well-spoken and in general "present well." Yet, I wonder if that really shares the depth of a person.

I have made many acquaintances, who dress the right way, can say all the right things and even have some talent, but their depth is questionable. The only way to get to the depth of a person is to have conversation and spend time with them.

I was recently reminded of quote that I have used often over the past few years, "God is not necessarily looking for more talented people, or more intelligent people, but deep people." These past weeks I have been in community with some deep people.

Honestly, when I first met many of these people, an unholy sense of superiority came over me. I had to repent of some pride, because I made some judgements on perception. Over the past weeks, I have had opportunity to explore the depths of the souls of these people. Some have surprised me with their depth.

How does this impact our church and our movement? I think that we need deep people, deep leaders who will not be satisfied with the status quo. I submit that we have to look deeper to the heart and to the mind of a person. I would also submit that we can learn much from the dissenters in our midst.

I think that one of the reasons we work so much on perception is that relationships take work. It may mean making our hard positions vulnerable and up for scrutiny. It would may also mean that we as leaders would need to make ourselves vulnerable. That is something that may be the hardest thing of all.

So, is it perception or reality that counts? How can we know the difference? Are we in a perception dominated culture or are we to the point where we make decisions based on strong, deep relationships?

What do you think?

By Narrow Minds or Prison Walls Restrained?

Today, I had the privilege of sitting under the ministry of General John Larsson and his wife Commissioner Freda Larsson. The afternoon was well worth it.

My colleagues and I spent an afternoon singing some of the great songs that the famous duo of Gowans and Larsson composed. We heard the stories behind the compositions and were inspired by narrative of the musical genius of these two men.

Now many of you will understand that my style of musical taste really does not fall in line with what I heard today. I am more a Linkin Park type of guy. I do enjoy the music of Tim Hughes, Matt Redman, my boy Phil Laeger (I know Phil don't get a big head) and other writers of the new hymnody of our day.

Today, was a different day though. We sang some of the songs I sang as a teen and a guy in my early twenties as an officer. One of the songs we sang was "I'll Not Turn Back." The chorus is famous, but there are incredible lines in the verses which stick out to me.

You will know that I pride myself on the fact that I tend to be somewhat unconventional. My viewpoints are less than traditional and sometimes, I think people see me as bordering on the heretical.

As we sang today, a line struck me with incredible force from the song..."If doors should close then other doors will open. The Word of God can never be contained. His love cannot be finally frustrated, by narrow minds or prison walls restrained." I am not sure of the whole story behind these words. Yet, my eyes met with a friend of mine in the room as we sang this. We both had a similar emotional reaction. We wept. I cannot speak for my friend, but I think I know that I have struggled in recent years with implementation of grand visions for the expansion of gospel, because there seems to be a refusal to see beyond common sense and protocol. I admit, I have fallen into that trap as well.

I was given assurance that God's word is powerful and creative. It is even unconventional. I have no right to try to tell God how to operate. Protocols cannot get in His way either.

I was given a vision for what can and must be done in my life and in my ministry. I had my conscience pricked today about how narrow our minds have gotten when it comes to mission and the economic crisis we now face. We see dry bones but God sees an Army. We see doom and gloom and no resources, but God sees that He has storehouses of resources.

Our narrow minds and polity often act as impediments to what the Word of the Lord wants to accomplish. Yet, scripture reminds us that the Spirit moves as and when He wants. Finally, if we don't do it, He will find someone who will agree to His plan.

I heard an illustration recently. I think it might even have been one that General Larsson used. The speaker talked about how neat and orderly his office was. He talked about how papers were just so on his desk and in his file. It was easy to do business that way. Life was precise, predictable and contained. In other words, the focus was very narrow.

The speaker went onto say that on very hot day he opened a window. As is often the case, a pretty brisk wind picked up and began to gust in his office. He returned after a meeting to see that the papers had blown all over the place. Life was not orderly, but the wind had refreshed the space and made it cool and bearable, in a very unbearable and orderly place.

In Scripture, the Holy Spirit is likened to wind. He blows in where he wants. I see it this way. As stewards of the Word, we can either keep everything neat and manageable or we can trust the Spirit to refresh, while maybe messing up our protocols and pushing the Word forward. "His love cannot be finally frustrated, by narrow minds or prison walls restrained."

So friends, do you think as I do that we have tended to let common sense and protocol rule us too much? Has our polity become an impediment or a practical help to the Gospel? Is it time that we escape our narrow focus (I speak to myself here) and allow Spirit to really show us how to operate? Have we just hemmed God in? Will His word really not be frustrated?

What do you think?

Very Rank?

Well, this one has been simmering for a bit. Several years back then General John Gowans asked whether or not we should flatten the rank system. He did somewhat, by changing the Lt. designation.

I have struggled to see a theological defence for the system. I have come to the conclusion that it is part of our polity. In other words, it is part of our organizational structure. There are ranks.

I have also struggled though with rank being a very prideful thing for many people. Some would argue that rank affirms people and there ought to be more ranks. I am thinking there might be a bit of insecurity and misplaced values if you need a title to affirm you as a person.

Some would say that rank is not important. I agree. So if they are not important, why do we place such an emphasis on them? I also wonder why we use them to refer to each other in meetings especially in those business meetings where we have known each other as friends for years.

Some say that it is a matter of respect. I am not sure that is accurate. People are respected not positions. I have had people wonder why I don't require people to use my rank (even kids) when referring to me. I am not really fussed about my rank. I know what I do, who I am and know my designation. It matters little to me if people know or care about that as long as we can connect on a personal level and converse about the Kingdom.

Then there is in the Western world a somewhat negative reaction to the militaristic metaphor. I think the scriptural metaphor of war is accurate, but the militaristic metaphor is something different. It worked really well in our founding days. I think, especially in the States it worked well to attract people because of the culture of the day. Civil War vets would march behind a flag and band and they could relive old glory days. As the years have gone on, I believe people on the outside now see it as an oddity. I might be wrong. I am just reacting on this anectodally.

As you can tell, titles are not a big deal to me. What I do is. I am still not sure where I stand on this whole rank system. There are some days I do see its use, other days I am not sure it is a good thing.

Is it a prideful thing? Is a piece of our polity whose day has past? Is it something that I should not even worry about? I am interested to know....

What do you think?

Liberal or Loving?

This may be one of my most controversial posts. I have long tried to understand the life style of people of homosexual orientation. Frankly, ten years ago, I was very much of the point of view that homosexuality was sin.

Recently, some of us have been discussing this issue. We really are trying to discern whether this is an orientation that comes naturally or that comes through nurture. Many of the group who discussed this really believe this is built into the nature of some people. This is a difficult thing for those of us who have a rather conservative theology to swallow. Yet, anecdotally, I believe it to be true.

That leads me to my dilemma. I believe that the Bible teaches that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. I think it is quite clear. I don't think the hermeneutic has changed with the change of culture. I also don't believe that as some would assert that the early writers of scripture were biased toward homosexuals. Therefore, I cannot endorse gay marriage.

It is difficult for me to say this because, I want people to know intimate, loving relationships. It appears to me that scripture then indicates that the only way for people to have total intimacy, especially sexually, is through marriage. That means a man and a woman. It would appear that is what God ordained.

This also poses a second dilemma for many people. I know many celibate hetro-sexual and homosexual people who choose this life style for many reasons, not the least of which is to devote their total intimacy to God. These people also want to serve in ministry. There is rarely an eye batted when a hetro-sexual single wants to minister. There are usually large objections raised when a homosexually oriented person wants to serve.

I believe the key is celibacy here. It appears that we as evangelical Christians seem to single out homosexuality as a pet sin. We seem to wink at other sins. I had one associate say that there is such a backlash because "they" are so militant. As with any other group there is a minority of people who take a militant point of view. However, even if people are militant, it does not make it right for us to take a hateful stance. We should not lower standards either.

My view is simple. If people are celibate, even if openly homosexual, they should be able to serve. It should not bar them from service. I know several who do with distinction and grace.

For my view, I have been called "liberal." I see it as being loving. Actually, the person who called me liberal thought it was a good stance as well.

We all struggle. We all have dark places in our lives. Maybe we ought to love liberally.

Well, I think the reaction will vary here. As with all my posts, I ask

What do you think?

Leadership or Lordship?

I am away for a time of study in England. Over the last few days, we have spoken much about leadership. I am intrigued as we have discussed the various aspects of leadership as to the differing definitions. Certainly, culture does play into the definition, but not necessarily the way you would think it would.

I am here with people from several countries. There is some cultural shading in the way people think leaders should act. I found it interesting that as we spoke of Christian leadership and our movement's leadership structure, that it was very corporate in its nature. I know the movement is large and needs structure and some protocols built in. It is a given. The layers of structure are amazing and complex.

Yesterday, we had a very challenging lecture and discussion on servant leadership. This model is based on Phil 2:5-11. It is based on Jesus and his willingness to lead, but serve and sacrifice for the good of the mission and the people who followed him. It does not mean weakness. It does mean firmness with grace.

We also looked today at leadership styles and building good functioning teams. We examined the structural leadership of the movement. The lecturer rightly pointed out that there could only be one true leader, Jesus. He also pointed out that the lowest man in the corporate structure could go right to the "Boss."

It has been interesting to me to see how corporately we think as a movement. There are great differences between corporate and kingdom leadership. The leader who recognizes these differences and can balance the two for the good of the Kingdom, is a great one. I did sense in our discussion a real tendency toward judgement instead of grace. That attitude definitely, when unfettered, is not of the Kingdom.

Kingdom leadership, uses influence and grace to get people on board with mission. It communicates directly and effectively. Kingdom leaders also are emboldened and empowered by the Lord himself. Theirs' is a sacrificial style.

Leaders on all levels though can have an identity problem. They often think for whatever reason, their word is law and that respect is given by their position and not their person. In today's culture that is not the case. Actually, it probably never has been. They can be a boss. But leaders get people to follow because they want to follow. They don't have to remind people that they are the leader.

The worst leaders act as lords in a feudal sense. Their style is incredibly autocratic. They exclusively own the mission and use people to fulfill their purposes without consultation and grace.

I began to wonder, "Do I practice leadership or lordship?" I could point to examples of lordship in leaders with whom I have been associated. Or should I say bosses? I have more often, thankfully, seen leadership which is caring, graceful and kind.

I wonder though, if our structure and culture leads more to lordship or leadership? Are we born with a tendency for one or the other? Or are we nurtured into "hammering people?" Is it better to influence or direct?

What do you think?