Faithfulness?
Yesterday, a friend challenged me on several levels. The question went to faithfulness to my Lord and calling.
Most of it centered on the way I present myself. I tend not to be a "buttoned-up" kind of guy. I know how to be polished and professional. I can be when it is called for. Mostly, I try to be faithful to who I believe God has made me in personality and in my approach to things. I am not so sure that I am called to what many would be considered the proper image of an officer.
I am also a person who is built to reach out to others. That means I put my heart on my sleeve and often, go to places others wouldn't for the sake of relationship. I think often it is misinterpreted as not keeping a professional distance from people I mentor or even supervise. Frankly, I am not sure what "professional distance" really is. I think often it is a way of insulating ourselves from those who need our caring touch and love. I am not so sure I am called to be faithful to a profession.
I have also taken a different path in the way I try to live out my officership. Over the past 10-12 years in particular, I have found myself really asking if all the Army tells me to do is what God is telling me to do. Therein lies the struggle. My friend and boss Bill LaMarr calls this choice intentional obedience to the Army because of covenant relationship. But, I wrestle with obedience to the movement and obedience to God.
If the prophets (I am not claiming to be one) had been satisfied with the status quo and been obedient to the religious movement of their day alone, revival would not have taken place. If Jesus had not been obedient to the call of the Father on His life and gone with the flow and tried to change a dying world from within, where would we be? What if William and Catherine had stayed faithful to the denomination in which they were serving? Where would we be? If friends like Geoff and Sandra Ryan had continued with the status quo, where would The Army be? The dynamic movement in the Army they along with others, like my friend Phil Wall helped birth would not be in existence and we may not have the faint flickers of missional revival burning as they are now.
On the other side of this is that there are many who claim a prophetic rite and really have a selfish agenda. Even though they may be convinced they are apostolic or prophetic in their authority, in time, it becomes apparent that they are clearly not within obedience to God but in rebellion to any authority. I think there needs to be some confirmation in the Body to what we feel is our calling. This has to be more than a cult following. Even Jesus convinced some of the religious leaders of His time that what He was doing was of for the Kingdom of Heaven.
So what happens when you believe your vision and style of life you are called to live seems so dramatically different from what you see the movement you believe you are called to seems to advocate or to be heading? Where does faithfulness fit in? Must I be faithful to God or the Army? I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Am I just being rebellious or am I actually being faithful to a call to work within this movement in a non-traditional way? Where does this all lead? I have invested my life in the Army, now my faithfulness is being questioned in some respects. Maybe my friend was a voice from the Lord to talk to me about heading down the road to rebellion. I am not sure.
Are we unfaithful if we take a stand by lifestyle or by even disobedience to an organization, if we feel that God is calling you to a different way? This is some of my struggle today.
I think some of you are struggling with this in the same way. I would love to hear from you.
What do you think?
Most of it centered on the way I present myself. I tend not to be a "buttoned-up" kind of guy. I know how to be polished and professional. I can be when it is called for. Mostly, I try to be faithful to who I believe God has made me in personality and in my approach to things. I am not so sure that I am called to what many would be considered the proper image of an officer.
I am also a person who is built to reach out to others. That means I put my heart on my sleeve and often, go to places others wouldn't for the sake of relationship. I think often it is misinterpreted as not keeping a professional distance from people I mentor or even supervise. Frankly, I am not sure what "professional distance" really is. I think often it is a way of insulating ourselves from those who need our caring touch and love. I am not so sure I am called to be faithful to a profession.
I have also taken a different path in the way I try to live out my officership. Over the past 10-12 years in particular, I have found myself really asking if all the Army tells me to do is what God is telling me to do. Therein lies the struggle. My friend and boss Bill LaMarr calls this choice intentional obedience to the Army because of covenant relationship. But, I wrestle with obedience to the movement and obedience to God.
If the prophets (I am not claiming to be one) had been satisfied with the status quo and been obedient to the religious movement of their day alone, revival would not have taken place. If Jesus had not been obedient to the call of the Father on His life and gone with the flow and tried to change a dying world from within, where would we be? What if William and Catherine had stayed faithful to the denomination in which they were serving? Where would we be? If friends like Geoff and Sandra Ryan had continued with the status quo, where would The Army be? The dynamic movement in the Army they along with others, like my friend Phil Wall helped birth would not be in existence and we may not have the faint flickers of missional revival burning as they are now.
On the other side of this is that there are many who claim a prophetic rite and really have a selfish agenda. Even though they may be convinced they are apostolic or prophetic in their authority, in time, it becomes apparent that they are clearly not within obedience to God but in rebellion to any authority. I think there needs to be some confirmation in the Body to what we feel is our calling. This has to be more than a cult following. Even Jesus convinced some of the religious leaders of His time that what He was doing was of for the Kingdom of Heaven.
So what happens when you believe your vision and style of life you are called to live seems so dramatically different from what you see the movement you believe you are called to seems to advocate or to be heading? Where does faithfulness fit in? Must I be faithful to God or the Army? I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Am I just being rebellious or am I actually being faithful to a call to work within this movement in a non-traditional way? Where does this all lead? I have invested my life in the Army, now my faithfulness is being questioned in some respects. Maybe my friend was a voice from the Lord to talk to me about heading down the road to rebellion. I am not sure.
Are we unfaithful if we take a stand by lifestyle or by even disobedience to an organization, if we feel that God is calling you to a different way? This is some of my struggle today.
I think some of you are struggling with this in the same way. I would love to hear from you.
What do you think?
posted by Larry at 6:53 AM
7 Comments:
St. Patrick had this same struggle Larry.
After planting over 700 churches, and ordaining over 1000 priests across Ireland, St. Patrick’s “faithfulness” to the church was called into question because the Irish Celts, even after claiming salvation, were not becoming Roman in culture. They wrote worship songs with a Celtic sound, wore hair styles that weren’t Roman, and still spoke in their indigenous Celtic tongue rather than in Latin. Instead of building monasteries where monks could go and live a life of solitude, they built monastic communities where they lived and worked together, and invited local pagans to join them with the hopes of introducing them to the gospel. Patrick really took a beating over the fact that, rather than spending his time administrating the churches across Ireland and serving as a chaplain to the faithful, he continued to spend his time with the sinners, hoping to persuade them with the gospel.
What’s amazing is that, while the Roman church spent its time trying to control the Celtic wing and make it more Roman, the Roman wing of the church had come to an absolute stand still as far as growth. Meanwhile the Celtic wing was exploding all over Europe. By this time the Irish Celts were literally sending missionaries abroad, the only missionary movement taking place during this time. But the Roman church kept at it, even sending clergy to Ireland to teach them Roman songs, help them build more Roman looking cathedrals, and to bring over Roman art to hang in those cathedrals. By the time Rome finally got control of the Celtic wing of the church, it too had come to a standstill. In fact, it would be another 500 years before the church would accept indigenous language and culture into local congregations, and that only came about as a result of the reformation splitting the church. It wasn’t until Vatican II before the Roman Catholic Church finally got a clue.
Any of this sound familiar? We’ve got a near identical thing taking place in major denominations all across the world, including ours. While we remain bogged down, arguing over traditions like songs and dress codes that we made up, local non-denominational churches are popping up everywhere and blowing us out of the water. They’re not bound by the same things we’re bound by. There’s nothing there to negotiate. If it doesn’t relate and it’s not a commandment, they don’t do it. Plane and simple. If it’s not immoral or unscriptural, and it relates the gospel to the local culture, they put it into practice. What’s really heartbreaking is that many of them are even taking up the cause of social action simply because nobody else in town seems to care about it. Wasn’t that suppose to be our thing?
In his book, The Celtic Way of Evangelism, Dr. George G. Hunter III says that the church’s historical mission has always hung on two terms: “Christianizing” and “Civilizing”, with the only argument being which came first.
Evidently, some things never change.
Carry on Larry, carry on. The spirit is forever renewing and what I have been reading in all these blogs has, personally and spiritually, been a blessing to me. I've given myself over to the army church as it exists today, and I love it and serve it with all my heart. I think more from memory of days past than what is actually inspiring me today. But where do I come for renewal and spiritual refreshment and hope? Not only to the real Jesus, but to these forums. I for one believe you are right where you need to be. Right where God has you. To herald in the emerging Army. If there is to continue be a Salvation Army, it will be this one.
It will have to be intensely sincere, questioning, and intensely spiritual to withstand the emerging world culture which will crucify anything that is not real, filled with power and of the true Jesus.
I'm pretty sure having your faithfulness questioned puts you in pretty good company.
Good post . . .
I have struggled with as well . . . I used to think that Because God had called me to the Army then He has called me to submit to the “rules” and authority of the Army.
However, my position has changed in the last few years. God has not called me to the Army. He has called me to the mission of the Army. God has called me to mission. The Army is vehicle. Presently, the vehicle needs new engine.
So, for me, if I leave the Army I must do so in obedience to God and faithfulness to Him and my calling. However, I still believe that as long as I am an officer I am obligated to submit to its rules and authority. If I leave and go to another organization then I have new rules and authority to submit to.
My decision to remain an officer is because of mission. If I leave officership, even though I have a lot of negative reasons for doing so, my main goal would be to fulfill my calling.
My “calling” and the Army are not necessarily synonymous.
Tim,
Reading the Confession of ST. Patrick, I agree with you. I am hoping for an Army that will adapt, but hold onto fundamental principles of mission. Unfortunately, too many people see what is on the horizon as "not Army." I don't think anything could be further from the truth. I think what we have done in many respects is domesticate our calling so tht we can live in our comfortable homes and talk about living a life of sacrifice for mission.
Jeff,
So glad you are back. Like you, I am called to the Army. Like Brent, I am called to its mission. It has not always been that way. My calling continues to evolve. Thank God I am not who I was 12 years ago. When I made the intentional choice to be obedient to my individualism within the Army, it was freeing.
Now that I am in a more conservative part of the country, I am becoming keenly aware that my brand of Salvationism does not fit everyone. It does not make me better, just different. I hope that as the Church continues to emerge, that we will transform with it. Many of the more traditional people are godly, just in a different way. Does that make them more faithful? No. Does it make them less faithful? No. The sadness that comes to my heart is when we try to force our brand of Salvationism and faithfulness on each other. Our callings are as different as we are.
Larry,
Have you read the book Metamorpha - Jesus as a way of life by Kyle Stroble? I'm reading now, I think it may be one you'd enjoy.
http://www.jesusasawayoflife.com/
Larry,
Just found out that you are friends with Dave & Brian...need I say more? They are joining us for Youth Councils this weekend. I'm expecting a great time!
Larry~ Praying for you.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb 11:1
Post a Comment
<< Home