Ordinary Radical?
Well, I am only about a month into my new ministry and I have found that I must have an eye for detail. In fact, I must be meticulous (as witnessed by the fact I nearly messed up my first big presentation. Don't worry JoAnn and Larry. Fixed it before it was sent.) People have told me I need to develop this more because I am a now a "processor." Man that hurts.
While I understand that processes are important, I really have always questioned most processes until I understood why they were put in place. When I found out, I usually questioned more.
The point is processors are important in the work-a-day world. We need processors. We need people who can keep things moving. We need the bean counters and the policy people. I know I have to have some of this in me, but I would rather be an "oridnary radical."
This term was coined by Shane Claiborne in his most recent book. It is a book about ordinary Christians who question the status quo, the most accepted thinking to get to the heart of what the Master is calling us to do. These people are not malcontents. They are people who just want the deepest answers to the simplest questions They want the best for the Kingdom and will sacrifice procedure, policy and power to get it.
They will stand up to government. They will submit to Godly authority but with an eye for challenging group-think, which often leads to rote answers and extra-biblical living. They are not comfortable with the way everything has been done.
I am fighting being a processor - alone. I think I want to be a radical. I am not comfortable with a suburban Christianity. I am not happy with Christian T-shirt theology. I am not happy with the far right setting the evangelical agenda, or telling me I am not Christian if I oppose theirs'
I want to be a radical. I won't grow my hair, live in a box and carry protest signs. (well maybe not live in a box and grow my hair.) I know one thing I don't want to get caught up in process. That would be the ordinary person Process without a personal touch and a powerful encounter with God has killed many a good person.
I just want to be an ordinary person who will change his world with God's grace. The only question can one in our organization be an ordinary radical?
What do you think?
PS. On vacation for the next two weeks. The ocean calls!!!!!!!
While I understand that processes are important, I really have always questioned most processes until I understood why they were put in place. When I found out, I usually questioned more.
The point is processors are important in the work-a-day world. We need processors. We need people who can keep things moving. We need the bean counters and the policy people. I know I have to have some of this in me, but I would rather be an "oridnary radical."
This term was coined by Shane Claiborne in his most recent book. It is a book about ordinary Christians who question the status quo, the most accepted thinking to get to the heart of what the Master is calling us to do. These people are not malcontents. They are people who just want the deepest answers to the simplest questions They want the best for the Kingdom and will sacrifice procedure, policy and power to get it.
They will stand up to government. They will submit to Godly authority but with an eye for challenging group-think, which often leads to rote answers and extra-biblical living. They are not comfortable with the way everything has been done.
I am fighting being a processor - alone. I think I want to be a radical. I am not comfortable with a suburban Christianity. I am not happy with Christian T-shirt theology. I am not happy with the far right setting the evangelical agenda, or telling me I am not Christian if I oppose theirs'
I want to be a radical. I won't grow my hair, live in a box and carry protest signs. (well maybe not live in a box and grow my hair.) I know one thing I don't want to get caught up in process. That would be the ordinary person Process without a personal touch and a powerful encounter with God has killed many a good person.
I just want to be an ordinary person who will change his world with God's grace. The only question can one in our organization be an ordinary radical?
What do you think?
PS. On vacation for the next two weeks. The ocean calls!!!!!!!
posted by Larry at 2:59 PM
15 Comments:
I hope so! I think the key is in what you have said "a personal touch and a powerful encounter with God" It can be seen. People know...if you are just processing the papers or if it is somehow more...turning the ordinary into the sacred.
see you in OOB!
Good post.
There is a problem with people who are not content with the status quo and ask a lot of questions . . . they often intimidate insecure leaders and are sometimes labeled.
Credibility is essential. People who have a history of success will more likely be “heard” than someone who contributes to the wellspring of mediocrity.
Seeking God’s wisdom and grace as we challenge the status quo and ask hard questions is a necessity.
Prov 25:11-12 says, “A word aptly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver. Like an earring of gold or an ornament of fine gold is a wise man's rebuke to a listening ear.”
Blessings,
Bret
Can one in our organization be an ordinary radical?
I so, so hope that's possible, but at nearly every turn, it's difficult. Processes and systems fight against a radical lifestyle. sometimes, it's just easier to give in and let the river carry me in its current, instead of always feeling as though I am swimming upstream. I can't help thinking tonight that Jesus said to us, follow me - the SA says to us, follow our rules, follow our ways - there's the tension. My friend said to me tonight (only somewhat tongue in cheek) - if only you weren't so responsible . . .
On your blog I have seen the following terms.
1. "Radical Christian"
2. "Ordinary Radical"
Those terms sound like labels to me!
Just a thought .... and I am still giving up Steve Bussey's blog for lent. (24/7)
There is a chance to be a radical, I think you may have a deeper challenge defining "ordinary". Someone who carries about their life, washes their dishes, picks up their neighbor's mail, processes the daily amount of paperwork, all of these can be done to the glory of God in His grace. Serving other people. Giving a physical touch. No arrow sign pointing out the good deed for the day, or banners displaying the changing total each time one is acknowledged. It requires so much stamina to keep on keeping on, being biblically radical.
More power to you testimony today!
I am not sure where I fall yet in the final judgment of what I am about to describe, but I have been working this month with a local community center (non-Army) that was started by neighbors wanting to be there for each other. It was started in 1950 and has continued ever since. They are now at a point in their experience where they may have to close their doors. The reason? They have never been successfull in the development of any systems to help in the accountability of all that has been entrusted to them. And, as is almost always true, things left to themselves, with no accountability, deteriorate.
We have been asked, as The Army, to come in and take over because of our perceived trustworthiness. I keep hearing people say that we have systems that make our handling of resources transparent. (I know this statement could be challenged with stories of people in the Army being less than trustworthy, but I think you understand.)
I guess my question is this: Why can't we have both? Why do those who are more radical question the validity of the systems and why do those whose strength lies in systems look with suspicion upon the radicals?
Afterall, if we all listened and became like the radicals, wouldn't they have to change their label? But then again, if we all agreed then there wouldn't be a need for controversial blogs. Lastly, why do I need so many words to make a point?! Carol put it so much more succinctly.
Don't you think the Army let's us change the status quo if we want to. If we have an idea to "radically change" the order of service and it works I don't think the Army leadership would have a problem with it. The idea that we now have to have Salvation Meetings has caused quite a stir amoungst some. Maybe, this gives us another chance to be creative in our worship. Maybe it's a chance to get Corps together to worship and fellowship. We seem to think it's a negative when if look at it as a chance to do something radical we just might start reviving.
I personally don't think I could do what Larry is called to do. But then again maybe God will get "radical" and call me to serve at DHQ..... on second thought God's probably not that crazy!
Blue,
You suggested that that the Army would let us change the status quo . . .
One of the problems with that is that the Army is so personality driven. It all hinges on who’s in charge. One leader could champion accountability and mission and see the Army begin to make a slow turn. But then the next guy comes in and champions fund raising and public relations. Then another only champions the building of his own name.
And so the story goes . . . about every four years or so the personality changes. It’s very difficult to institute change in an environment such as ours. Any changes made could be changed again if the “new guy” doesn’t like it.
True?
There are so many issues that feed into this that we would almost need a post for each one. I completely agree with Bret though. Stability and sustainability are at the heart of any movement that wants to make an impact, even a radical one.
I would like to argue against the idea that “radicals” (and I’m not sure we’ve agreed on any kind of a definition for this term) don’t like systems. I consider myself to be one who isn’t very happy with the status quo. But when I think of status quo, I don’t think of systems. To me, systems are the basic machinery of any organization. However, anybody who would call a worship service, or evangelism, or discipleship (for example) a system, is somebody that I immediately have a problem with. To me the systems are our accountability. They are the way we handle our money, for instance. But worship, and discipleship, and mission and even social action cannot be a system. The minute they are a system, they are outdated. Which leads us to the Army.
Not only do we have too many systems in place when it comes to the four areas of ministry listed above, but even a statement suggesting that “changing the order of service” would be radical is testimony to just how far we’ve fallen from being a radical movement. Radical would be replacing the service all together. Changing the order of service is something you do in a rest home to keep the senior adults engaged and to keep them from dropping over dead. Not changing the order of service is something you do with people who are autistic and need schedules, and patterns, and familiarity to keep them from losing their minds. I can’t imagine going to a person who doesn’t like church and saying, “Yes but we’ve changed the whole order of the service man. Now we do the announcements just after the offering!”
Radical is a Corps in my division who, once a month on a Sunday, go out and serve the community as their act of worship. Rather than gathering in a church hall (which they don’t have), they go out and pick up trash, and paint houses, and plant flowers (etc.). They have double the attendance on that day every month. People who wouldn’t step foot in a church service are coming along side them as they serve. And, included in that time of service, is a time for prayer and a reminder (from the scriptures) of why they serve. People have been joining them for this day, each month, and have been slowly trickling into their cell groups and times of worship. Now that’s radical!
I miss spoke when I said "order of service", what I intended to say was "standard of meetings" I just couldn't think of the proper terminology. So Tim if you will please forgive me. I really didn't intend for you to get wadded up. However, it did give you a chance to voice your displeasure with me.
What is happening at your Corps there in England is what I was speaking of. My point is someone had that vision. Maybe a Corps Officer or someone else but the Army gave them a chance to do it. It seems at least in your writings that it is working.
Bret,
It can be frustrating to change so often. Longer stays and sustainability are extreemly important. But at the same time, as frustrating as it may be that shouldn't quell our call to do what needs to be done at the time and place God wants us to do it. You are right. But when we get to a new place we can't lose sleep over what is taking place at our old location.
I agree blue, we can't constantly be looking to what is behind because we might fall flat on our face in the present. But I don't think that's what bret was saying. With new thinking and approaches to ministry now "moving up the ranks" (I hated even typing that) and slowly having a greater influence on the Army...maybe we will begin to see a slight change in thinking across the board. Positive thinking? It's the only thing that keeps me pushing forward in the fight against stagnant faith and practices.
I agree Nicole. My concern, however, is that when those “progressive types” finally do reach “the top of the ranks”, they’ll need to lead by getting other creative people out at the forefront of things. My fear is that they won’t. They’ll be so happy to finally be in charge that they’ll want to lead. Only their ideas will be outdated.
One of my greatest fears in life is one day being the old guy in a church and saying to the worship leader, “hey, if it ain’t done with guitars, it ain’t worship!”
I think the same thing is going to happen with some of our current friends who finally “make it to the top”. They will have to be willing to put others out front or they’ll not be any more successful than their predecessors.
Btw, I don’t mind typing things like “top of the ranks” and “make it to the top”. I like to remind those in charge of the reality of the situation. We can pretend all we want that things are more spiritual than that. But the reality is that we’re a church firmly grounded in ranks and hierarchy.
Btw blue, while I can see how you might have taken my last comments personally, they weren’t actually aimed at you.
I think we’re all on the same page . . . Tim, I hope that doesn’t happen to us (us=on this page). As much as I love the guitar, I honestly can’t see myself restricting or limiting ministry to only one way. I really do have a very open mind (of course I say that now, you’ll need to ask me this again when I’m 60).
I am in the process of developing a rap ministry. I’m meeting with a few local rappers tomorrow. My vision is to have concerts once a month, a rap style worship gathering once a week, purchasing & renting/borrowing DJ equipment and conducting a “rap school” a few times a year and I have plan for discipleship that is slowly moving forward . . . we’ll see what doors God opens. This field is RIPE for the harvest.
The problem will come when that ever dreaded phone call comes. Not that I have a problem with looking back, but it is really discouraging to suffer for making the tough calls, to be slandered because we hold people accountable, and kill ourselves trying to move a very unhealthy church forward just so they can move us again to another spiritually impoverished place to start all over . . .
The short tenure of officers promotes instability and spiritual immaturity. A lack of accountability and low expectations is the norm in many Corps. To tell you the truth, I’m not so sure anyone even cares (that is, in my church, division & territory). Some may, but if they do, they certainly aren’t telling me.
Sorry to ramble.
Tim,
I do agree with what you said in your last post. That's where you and probably myself come into play. Who will remind the "progressive types" of their progressiveness? I will speak for myself, I need to have the guts to remind them from whence they came and their once held beliefs.
I have been called on my shortcomings from time to time so in return I have no problem with calling those who are in charge on theirs. Tactfully of course. Actually tactfully is not in my lexicon. But nonetheless I would try to be civil. Actually, civil is not in my lexicon either so they "who ever they may be" would just have to take it for what ever it's worth.......
I too am on the way to the beachfront amoungst the blue suits in the northeast......
Wait a second... Did Larry just say he'd grow his hair and live in a box? What would happen to Mr. GQ?
I think Larry should give up hair product for lent! ;)
To be honest, I think that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I know being a 'bean-counter' doesn't sound as fun as 'radical,' but Jesus seemed to have bean counters (Matthew/Zach.) and radicals (a couple of zealots) in his closest circles... what I find interesting is that he takes the extremities of their positions and moves them toward the center - providing the road of quiet suffering for the political activist and abundant generosity for the banker...
I think Jesus seemed to get this right. My deepest concern is that we give up the costs of discipleship to fuel what is the natural bent of our personalities.
Post a Comment
<< Home