Mark, I hardly know what to say about your article. While appreciating your great concern and empathy for disabled people, I think you are perhaps focussing only on one side of the equation. Remember that Jesus said to John the Baptist something like, the Messiah has come to cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the blind to see. I think this is true in both a figurative and a literal sense. Whether we are blind physically or whether we do not see spiritually, Jesus can heal us. It is not a dimunition of disabled people to know that Jesus heals.
There is not a great deal of difference between someone who cannot walk, and someone who has terminal cancer, and someone who must wear glasses or a hearing aid. (and I really wish I did not have to wear glasses...) All can contribute, all can be spiritually enriched and help others in spiritual ways. Sometimes the disability, the sickness, or the life-changing horrors of war and abuse, can enable a deeper empathy or spiritual contribution (I'm reminded of Corrie Ten Boom and her message, or Paul and Silas in prison, or Joni Erickson-Tada). But in spite of the possible richness of experience and the potential contribution because of it, I don't think we ought to be diminishing the healing of Christ, whether spiritual or physical.
Christ died to make us new! We shall be like him! We shall see Him as He is! And to some extent, we are already somewhat like him if we trust in him, knowing that Christ too had to suffer physical pain and anguish and death for us. But Christ arose. Resurrected! New again! Therefore we can be content in all circumstances, recognizing that our weaknesses and problems, whether propensity to disease or disability or suffering from persecution, can still be used for good. And sometimes these weaknesses provide us with a special light, such as from those blind musicians who are able to concentrate their effort on their music and praise God in a way that is difficult for many sighted people. Or the boy with down's syndrome who can lead us in musical sign language, which I never have learned. And we thank God for those and similar blessings.
It is also true as you say, that physical perfection will not make us more Christ-like if our spirits are not Christ-like.
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
I would suggest that it is not really the denomination's role, although the denomination can assist of course when possible. It is more a role of the seminary perhaps, but even there, it is really the role of the seminary to provide the education, not the job. The denomination does not have a responsibility to make sure that the number of candidates matches the number of opportunities. It is not a union or a professional organization. The call to ministry is not first of all a call to an occupation. The completion of seminary education may provide an opportunity for a specific job that pays something. But it may simply be a tool to live ones life and calling in whatever place we live.
It might a wonderful thing to always have twice as many or three times as many seminarians graduating as there are churches to specifically call them to pastoral work. It might help the elders and deacons more in many churches. Something like having every young man first spend two years in ministry/missions/bible education before he goes on with whatever regular job he might pursue.
Mark, Jesus was quite clear that the disabilities of some people were not due directly to the sin of the person or their parents, nor to their lack of faith. And the converse is also true, as in the question of the psalmist who asked, "why do the wicked prosper?" And the question about faith to heal is headed in the wrong direction. Jesus healed to demonstrate that he was the Christ. The apostles healed in Christ's name, to demonstrate that they were showing Christ's mercy and message. Faith to demonstrate Christ, is different than the faith to heal. Jesus did not heal everyone and neither did the apostles. And I believe the reason is found in the book of Job, which demonstrates that we cannot understand why for the present time, suffering must still occur.
I wouldn't worry too much about those who suggest that parents do not have enough faith for their children to be healed. Ask them if they have enough faith themselves to heal your daughter? None of us has enough faith, and no one needs to have a false pride about that. While some of my prayers are answered, other prayers are answered in the negative, and other times I do not even have enough faith to pray for some things. But I trust God knows what He wants to do, that He loves me, and that he turns evil for good, including imperfect eyesight and declining hearing.
I very much doubt that Lucado is suggesting that a person's sin, or lack of faith is the cause of his sickness or disability. Do you seriously think that he would be thinking that they are less Christian or less Christ-like?
If we do not all realize that we are all diminished in the present in some way, we are missing out on the glorious transformation that God has in store for those who love Him. Disabled people may be diminished in some ways that are more obvious, but they are no more diminished in reality than any of the rest of us. Their physical problems are merely a metaphor for the things that disable us, whether it is our lack of understanding, our temper, our desires, our laziness, or our poor perception. And the ways that physically or mentally disabled people deal with their problems are often an example and a teacher to us, to realize that they and we are forgiven sinners, and can rejoice in God's grace.
Perhaps I appear too callous or un-caring when I suggest that yes, disabled people have problems. But it is naive and nonproductive and essentially uncaring to think otherwise. I say this having dealt with severely disabled people in different ways, to the point of building ramps for a wheelchair to enter our house. Of course there are additional problems. But that's okay. To hide this fact is to make the person less real, or to make the problem even more significant than it really is. Just as me having to make sure I wear my glasses, and having an extra pair with me, is more of a problem than for those who do not need glasses. So what? We all have our problems, even those who think they don't have problems. Maybe especially those who think they don't.
There is great joy in being able to help people with problems, regardless of what those problems are. To lessen their burden. To find joy in this life as a gift from God. To realize their problems are not insurmountable. To realize that their problems are not forever. That God is bigger than their/our problems, both in this life and the next. Sometimes those problems bring people closer together, precisely because there are problems and things are not so smooth. Sometimes they allow the expression of a love that would otherwise remain hidden.
If I can no longer walk, I would not want someone telling me I don't have a problem. I would want a wheelchair, and someone to help me up the steep slopes. Nice words will simply leave me at the bottom.
I believe Chad, that you are right about the guidance of the confessions. That is also why most people did not want the Belhar adopted as another confession or form of unity, because they saw it as non-essential - at least debatable. Many church order items also seem not to fall into the "essentials", which is why they can be relatively easily changed. Ironically, the idea that the non-essentials such as church order should not be debated outside of "proper" channels, is perhaps also debatable.... or is that idea also buried in our confessions somewhere?
Mark, I agree we should be considerate of our language. But over the years I have also found it an onerous and impossible task to avoid what some regard as insensibility in language. This has been particularly true for the racial issue. The terms white and black and colored are used in very strange ways. At times I am offended by being referred to as white. It puts me into a presumed category which may not apply in every instance. But I know that in general, it is a waste of time to be offended by it.
When homosex people got the right to marry, I then no longer wanted to be identified as married, since I felt the term had become sullied, and had lost its meaning. But, what term can one use instead?
Last night we watched a video on Mother Teresa working in India. Her weathered skin was as dark as that of many of the East Indians and Pakistani people, yet she was referred to as "white", by the Indians. The afro-americans are often referred to as "black" in USA or "colored" in South Africa. But whether the term is a problem, is usually in the ears of the hearer, and sometimes in the intentions of the speaker. Most afro-americans in the USA are not black but brown or in many cases tanned. But the colors become a euphenism for their racial background. I find it an impossible situation to satisfy all the feelings associated with the nuances of various designations.
In the aboriginal situation in Canada, they were originally called Indians in english. Then they wanted to be called "Natives" or "First Nations", both terms which offend me, especially "Natives". (as if I was not a native, but they are...therefore suggesting that perhaps I do not belong in this country... ) "First Nations" is simply presumptious (to me), as if to suggest that perhaps Quebec was a second nation, and Canada a third nation. And of course, how many "First Nations" were there, and of those, how many exist today? But the point is political, to suggest that they are still viable or valid nations with the possibility of governance, on a par with Canada, and perhaps superior to the provinces. And, since their ethnicity is enshrined in our constitution, they want to maintain their racial distinctiveness, whatever it is called, since it gives them all sorts of entitlements that the average Canadian does not have.
So the main reason I have problems with the usage of words, is when they convey a lie, an untruth, or attempt to paper over the reality of the situation. Thus using the terms of a deaf mute or a wheelchair bound individual is only problematic if not true. Provided that we realize that deaf mute people are people, and can still communicate in other ways, and are still valuable to God, and to us.
Trying to suggest that disabilities are not diseases, may be technically true, but misses the point. Sometimes diseases cause great disabilities, such as polio causing lameness, or cancer causing colostomys, or flesh-eating disease or diabetes causing amputations, meningitis causing other problems, cataracts causing blindness, etc. Whether a disability is caused by a disease, or by an accident, or by genetics, or by gestational problems, does not really matter in the effect of the disability. The disability still causes problems, and we are called to help, to love, to care, not to ignore or dismiss.
I know a person who must continually wear a brace (even while swimming) to support his back, which is severely bent and mishaped from birth. He can still get around, and can drive, and has a marvelous sense of humor, and I like him. He knows his problem, but he also knows it doesn't have to stop him from being a person who can do what he can do. He faithfully visited his mom in the nursing home until she died, even though she barely knew him. He visits different churches almost every week, mostly I think to see who he can cheer up, and as a way of bringing people together (at least that's how I see it). I've never heard him whine or complain.
I know a teenage girl who has cerebral palsy, and had spina bifida. She has a good mind, but it does not connect well to any part of her body, and so it is difficult for her to speak or write. But she can speak if you are patient enough to listen. She has a motorized wheelchair and loves to race around on the grass with it, or pull kids behind her in a cart. Is she disabled? Does she have problems? yes! major problems. Sometimes she has pain. Can't feed herself (or barely), can't walk, can't bathe herself or bring herself to the wc. It's a lot of work getting her around, using lifts and hoists, sometimes, (but I can still carry her up and down the stairs, and frankly, I don't mind. ) But she has still learned much, has a good memory, and knows when and how much medicine she needs to keep her muscles from binding up too tight, she can read, and she has a sense of humor too. She takes up a bit more space in our church, but that's okay. Maybe she reminds us to be thankful for our small problems. She teaches us to be patient, and when we think of building improvements or renovations, she is always on our mind. And we don't mind.
I know a fellow who lost his hand and wrist in an accident. It causes him some problems, but he works hard every day at a physical job, and figures how to get aound his disability and minimize its effects. But it's an in your face kind of disability, that he also turns into a kind of humor from time to time. I also know a young girl born with a missing hand and wrist, who took her situation for granted, but was quite pleased to meet the older fellow with the missing hand. (She is also "black" or "colored" or something.) They had a great time doing the "high-five" with the short arms!
What am I trying to say? Maybe the same thing as you. That people with disabilities are people first. That disabilities are part of who they are. That some disabilities descibe a person almost as much as their occupation, or the color of their hair, or their nationality, or their ancestry. I am glad you are concerned for them.
I wonder. Yes if we delight in God, then we will be compelled to share the gospel. But maybe the real thing is simply to experience God in our lives. It may be delight; it might be a sorrowful experience; it might simply be inspiring. But perhpas it cannot be merely theoretical delight. It needs to be as real as cutting your finger or spraining your knee or eating your desert. It needs to be real. And we have to make ourselves vulnerable. Pride, vanity, self-consciousness, fear must all disappear or be overcome. Your trust in God to provide must be real, if you lose your job, or if you lose chance of advancement or if you lose acceptance by peers. Remember Christ's suffering for us. (compared to that, our risks are very small).
Good point about offerings. It is essential that the local church decides, and is encouraged to decide where to send money, and for whom to take offerings. This is part of their spiritual growth, and if the decision is apparently taken away, or seems to be taken away, it will discourage spiritual growth.
I sense the frustration that Mister B has. (I am sorry about this frustration.)
I just want to reiterate a couple of things I mentioned before. First, the calling must wait on the Lord. It is not the job of any particular church to provide a job for a candidate or any other preacher. The task is for the preacher to serve the church, to enhance the service of that church to love God and to serve God. It is a misnomer to say that a church without a full-time preacher is vacant. The church is not vacant, since presumably the congregation is still there, elders still lead and serve, services are still held, God's word is still preached, and people still worship. God's spirit is still there, and thus the church is not vacant, even without an official "pastor".
It is in thinking that the church is vacant, that the problem lies. The candidate may be vacant without a church....
How can a hired full-time preacher enhance the ministry? That is the question. That is what must be specifically answered and not taken for granted. It should not try to address the question of a quasi-vacancy, but should answer the question of purpose. That is the question that congregations are asking themselves, I think.
It is kind of nice to be able to agree with everyone, with Jim, and Henry, and Bev and Michael Bentley, all at the same time. Experiencing truth, and delighting in it! Henry's statement that he lived in the shadow of the church all his life.... how about maybe you lived in the warmth and security of the church, in the sunlight of God's Word all your life? Same life, same experience, but different perception of that experience, and thus a different experience....
It sounds like there is a bit of a mixup on expectations.... The candidacy committee keeps track of candidates the way some councils keep track of members?... In any case, in my experience, most candidates have some contacts who are promoters, as in the example you gave. They help to connect congregations and situations with certain candidates or pastors looking for a call. It is necessary to make contacts, to discover appropriate potential situations, and put out feelers or let them know you are interested. This is especially true now when congregations have become much more picky about who they want as a pastor or preacher, and they will not necessarily trust that simply anyone will do as their pastor. As in most occupations, word of mouth and personal connections have a much bigger impact on obtaining a job than a simple add in the paper or a simple resume. \you may have to find or cultivate some promoters. So that is the practical side.
The other practical and spiritual issue is that there must be a sense of purpose beyond merely filling a role. What is it that God has called you to do beyond what any other preacher might do, or beyond what the elders might do. Why would you think that God called you to a particular situation? Why is it necessary for you to pay your student loans back by being a preacher rather than a carpenter or a tent-maker or an electrician or computer technician? I know that is what you expected, but what is God expecting from you?
Maybe a church plant? Maybe it is your task to call others to Christ rather than waiting for someone to call you to do something? I am not saying what it is, since i don't even know you but i am suggesting some possibilities. Maybe patience, but that can be difficultl. Anyway, i hope you find what God wants you to find.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Mark, I hardly know what to say about your article. While appreciating your great concern and empathy for disabled people, I think you are perhaps focussing only on one side of the equation. Remember that Jesus said to John the Baptist something like, the Messiah has come to cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the blind to see. I think this is true in both a figurative and a literal sense. Whether we are blind physically or whether we do not see spiritually, Jesus can heal us. It is not a dimunition of disabled people to know that Jesus heals.
There is not a great deal of difference between someone who cannot walk, and someone who has terminal cancer, and someone who must wear glasses or a hearing aid. (and I really wish I did not have to wear glasses...) All can contribute, all can be spiritually enriched and help others in spiritual ways. Sometimes the disability, the sickness, or the life-changing horrors of war and abuse, can enable a deeper empathy or spiritual contribution (I'm reminded of Corrie Ten Boom and her message, or Paul and Silas in prison, or Joni Erickson-Tada). But in spite of the possible richness of experience and the potential contribution because of it, I don't think we ought to be diminishing the healing of Christ, whether spiritual or physical.
Christ died to make us new! We shall be like him! We shall see Him as He is! And to some extent, we are already somewhat like him if we trust in him, knowing that Christ too had to suffer physical pain and anguish and death for us. But Christ arose. Resurrected! New again! Therefore we can be content in all circumstances, recognizing that our weaknesses and problems, whether propensity to disease or disability or suffering from persecution, can still be used for good. And sometimes these weaknesses provide us with a special light, such as from those blind musicians who are able to concentrate their effort on their music and praise God in a way that is difficult for many sighted people. Or the boy with down's syndrome who can lead us in musical sign language, which I never have learned. And we thank God for those and similar blessings.
It is also true as you say, that physical perfection will not make us more Christ-like if our spirits are not Christ-like.
Posted in: Dealing with Death and Dying
Having thought about the question as to whether we would see our friends and relatives again, I found it easy to over-spiritualize or to think that our human relationships would be non-existant (no giving in marriage, etc.). But in reality, even Moses and Elijah were recognized when they came back to earth briefly with Jesus on the mount. God saved and saves real people, not transparent clones. Although our relationships will be somewhat different, with less difference between friend and stranger, and less remembrance of sin, yet it would not make sense with God's love for us, nor with what scripture indicates, for us not to know and recognize people.
Posted in: Waiting Pastors, Counting Sheep and Counting Shepherds
I would suggest that it is not really the denomination's role, although the denomination can assist of course when possible. It is more a role of the seminary perhaps, but even there, it is really the role of the seminary to provide the education, not the job. The denomination does not have a responsibility to make sure that the number of candidates matches the number of opportunities. It is not a union or a professional organization. The call to ministry is not first of all a call to an occupation. The completion of seminary education may provide an opportunity for a specific job that pays something. But it may simply be a tool to live ones life and calling in whatever place we live.
It might a wonderful thing to always have twice as many or three times as many seminarians graduating as there are churches to specifically call them to pastoral work. It might help the elders and deacons more in many churches. Something like having every young man first spend two years in ministry/missions/bible education before he goes on with whatever regular job he might pursue.
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Mark, Jesus was quite clear that the disabilities of some people were not due directly to the sin of the person or their parents, nor to their lack of faith. And the converse is also true, as in the question of the psalmist who asked, "why do the wicked prosper?" And the question about faith to heal is headed in the wrong direction. Jesus healed to demonstrate that he was the Christ. The apostles healed in Christ's name, to demonstrate that they were showing Christ's mercy and message. Faith to demonstrate Christ, is different than the faith to heal. Jesus did not heal everyone and neither did the apostles. And I believe the reason is found in the book of Job, which demonstrates that we cannot understand why for the present time, suffering must still occur.
I wouldn't worry too much about those who suggest that parents do not have enough faith for their children to be healed. Ask them if they have enough faith themselves to heal your daughter? None of us has enough faith, and no one needs to have a false pride about that. While some of my prayers are answered, other prayers are answered in the negative, and other times I do not even have enough faith to pray for some things. But I trust God knows what He wants to do, that He loves me, and that he turns evil for good, including imperfect eyesight and declining hearing.
I very much doubt that Lucado is suggesting that a person's sin, or lack of faith is the cause of his sickness or disability. Do you seriously think that he would be thinking that they are less Christian or less Christ-like?
If we do not all realize that we are all diminished in the present in some way, we are missing out on the glorious transformation that God has in store for those who love Him. Disabled people may be diminished in some ways that are more obvious, but they are no more diminished in reality than any of the rest of us. Their physical problems are merely a metaphor for the things that disable us, whether it is our lack of understanding, our temper, our desires, our laziness, or our poor perception. And the ways that physically or mentally disabled people deal with their problems are often an example and a teacher to us, to realize that they and we are forgiven sinners, and can rejoice in God's grace.
Perhaps I appear too callous or un-caring when I suggest that yes, disabled people have problems. But it is naive and nonproductive and essentially uncaring to think otherwise. I say this having dealt with severely disabled people in different ways, to the point of building ramps for a wheelchair to enter our house. Of course there are additional problems. But that's okay. To hide this fact is to make the person less real, or to make the problem even more significant than it really is. Just as me having to make sure I wear my glasses, and having an extra pair with me, is more of a problem than for those who do not need glasses. So what? We all have our problems, even those who think they don't have problems. Maybe especially those who think they don't.
There is great joy in being able to help people with problems, regardless of what those problems are. To lessen their burden. To find joy in this life as a gift from God. To realize their problems are not insurmountable. To realize that their problems are not forever. That God is bigger than their/our problems, both in this life and the next. Sometimes those problems bring people closer together, precisely because there are problems and things are not so smooth. Sometimes they allow the expression of a love that would otherwise remain hidden.
If I can no longer walk, I would not want someone telling me I don't have a problem. I would want a wheelchair, and someone to help me up the steep slopes. Nice words will simply leave me at the bottom.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
I believe Chad, that you are right about the guidance of the confessions. That is also why most people did not want the Belhar adopted as another confession or form of unity, because they saw it as non-essential - at least debatable. Many church order items also seem not to fall into the "essentials", which is why they can be relatively easily changed. Ironically, the idea that the non-essentials such as church order should not be debated outside of "proper" channels, is perhaps also debatable.... or is that idea also buried in our confessions somewhere?
Posted in: Good Intentions Gone Awry
Mark, I agree we should be considerate of our language. But over the years I have also found it an onerous and impossible task to avoid what some regard as insensibility in language. This has been particularly true for the racial issue. The terms white and black and colored are used in very strange ways. At times I am offended by being referred to as white. It puts me into a presumed category which may not apply in every instance. But I know that in general, it is a waste of time to be offended by it.
When homosex people got the right to marry, I then no longer wanted to be identified as married, since I felt the term had become sullied, and had lost its meaning. But, what term can one use instead?
Last night we watched a video on Mother Teresa working in India. Her weathered skin was as dark as that of many of the East Indians and Pakistani people, yet she was referred to as "white", by the Indians. The afro-americans are often referred to as "black" in USA or "colored" in South Africa. But whether the term is a problem, is usually in the ears of the hearer, and sometimes in the intentions of the speaker. Most afro-americans in the USA are not black but brown or in many cases tanned. But the colors become a euphenism for their racial background. I find it an impossible situation to satisfy all the feelings associated with the nuances of various designations.
In the aboriginal situation in Canada, they were originally called Indians in english. Then they wanted to be called "Natives" or "First Nations", both terms which offend me, especially "Natives". (as if I was not a native, but they are...therefore suggesting that perhaps I do not belong in this country... ) "First Nations" is simply presumptious (to me), as if to suggest that perhaps Quebec was a second nation, and Canada a third nation. And of course, how many "First Nations" were there, and of those, how many exist today? But the point is political, to suggest that they are still viable or valid nations with the possibility of governance, on a par with Canada, and perhaps superior to the provinces. And, since their ethnicity is enshrined in our constitution, they want to maintain their racial distinctiveness, whatever it is called, since it gives them all sorts of entitlements that the average Canadian does not have.
So the main reason I have problems with the usage of words, is when they convey a lie, an untruth, or attempt to paper over the reality of the situation. Thus using the terms of a deaf mute or a wheelchair bound individual is only problematic if not true. Provided that we realize that deaf mute people are people, and can still communicate in other ways, and are still valuable to God, and to us.
Trying to suggest that disabilities are not diseases, may be technically true, but misses the point. Sometimes diseases cause great disabilities, such as polio causing lameness, or cancer causing colostomys, or flesh-eating disease or diabetes causing amputations, meningitis causing other problems, cataracts causing blindness, etc. Whether a disability is caused by a disease, or by an accident, or by genetics, or by gestational problems, does not really matter in the effect of the disability. The disability still causes problems, and we are called to help, to love, to care, not to ignore or dismiss.
I know a person who must continually wear a brace (even while swimming) to support his back, which is severely bent and mishaped from birth. He can still get around, and can drive, and has a marvelous sense of humor, and I like him. He knows his problem, but he also knows it doesn't have to stop him from being a person who can do what he can do. He faithfully visited his mom in the nursing home until she died, even though she barely knew him. He visits different churches almost every week, mostly I think to see who he can cheer up, and as a way of bringing people together (at least that's how I see it). I've never heard him whine or complain.
I know a teenage girl who has cerebral palsy, and had spina bifida. She has a good mind, but it does not connect well to any part of her body, and so it is difficult for her to speak or write. But she can speak if you are patient enough to listen. She has a motorized wheelchair and loves to race around on the grass with it, or pull kids behind her in a cart. Is she disabled? Does she have problems? yes! major problems. Sometimes she has pain. Can't feed herself (or barely), can't walk, can't bathe herself or bring herself to the wc. It's a lot of work getting her around, using lifts and hoists, sometimes, (but I can still carry her up and down the stairs, and frankly, I don't mind. ) But she has still learned much, has a good memory, and knows when and how much medicine she needs to keep her muscles from binding up too tight, she can read, and she has a sense of humor too. She takes up a bit more space in our church, but that's okay. Maybe she reminds us to be thankful for our small problems. She teaches us to be patient, and when we think of building improvements or renovations, she is always on our mind. And we don't mind.
I know a fellow who lost his hand and wrist in an accident. It causes him some problems, but he works hard every day at a physical job, and figures how to get aound his disability and minimize its effects. But it's an in your face kind of disability, that he also turns into a kind of humor from time to time. I also know a young girl born with a missing hand and wrist, who took her situation for granted, but was quite pleased to meet the older fellow with the missing hand. (She is also "black" or "colored" or something.) They had a great time doing the "high-five" with the short arms!
What am I trying to say? Maybe the same thing as you. That people with disabilities are people first. That disabilities are part of who they are. That some disabilities descibe a person almost as much as their occupation, or the color of their hair, or their nationality, or their ancestry. I am glad you are concerned for them.
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
I wonder. Yes if we delight in God, then we will be compelled to share the gospel. But maybe the real thing is simply to experience God in our lives. It may be delight; it might be a sorrowful experience; it might simply be inspiring. But perhpas it cannot be merely theoretical delight. It needs to be as real as cutting your finger or spraining your knee or eating your desert. It needs to be real. And we have to make ourselves vulnerable. Pride, vanity, self-consciousness, fear must all disappear or be overcome. Your trust in God to provide must be real, if you lose your job, or if you lose chance of advancement or if you lose acceptance by peers. Remember Christ's suffering for us. (compared to that, our risks are very small).
Posted in: How Helpful are Disagreements?
Very wise words, Al, that you have given here!
Posted in: Wag the Dog
Good point about offerings. It is essential that the local church decides, and is encouraged to decide where to send money, and for whom to take offerings. This is part of their spiritual growth, and if the decision is apparently taken away, or seems to be taken away, it will discourage spiritual growth.
Posted in: Waiting Pastors, Counting Sheep and Counting Shepherds
I sense the frustration that Mister B has. (I am sorry about this frustration.)
I just want to reiterate a couple of things I mentioned before. First, the calling must wait on the Lord. It is not the job of any particular church to provide a job for a candidate or any other preacher. The task is for the preacher to serve the church, to enhance the service of that church to love God and to serve God. It is a misnomer to say that a church without a full-time preacher is vacant. The church is not vacant, since presumably the congregation is still there, elders still lead and serve, services are still held, God's word is still preached, and people still worship. God's spirit is still there, and thus the church is not vacant, even without an official "pastor".
It is in thinking that the church is vacant, that the problem lies. The candidate may be vacant without a church....
How can a hired full-time preacher enhance the ministry? That is the question. That is what must be specifically answered and not taken for granted. It should not try to address the question of a quasi-vacancy, but should answer the question of purpose. That is the question that congregations are asking themselves, I think.
Posted in: Why Are Believers Not Declaring the Gospel?
It is kind of nice to be able to agree with everyone, with Jim, and Henry, and Bev and Michael Bentley, all at the same time. Experiencing truth, and delighting in it! Henry's statement that he lived in the shadow of the church all his life.... how about maybe you lived in the warmth and security of the church, in the sunlight of God's Word all your life? Same life, same experience, but different perception of that experience, and thus a different experience....
Loved all your comments!
Posted in: Waiting Pastors, Counting Sheep and Counting Shepherds
It sounds like there is a bit of a mixup on expectations.... The candidacy committee keeps track of candidates the way some councils keep track of members?... In any case, in my experience, most candidates have some contacts who are promoters, as in the example you gave. They help to connect congregations and situations with certain candidates or pastors looking for a call. It is necessary to make contacts, to discover appropriate potential situations, and put out feelers or let them know you are interested. This is especially true now when congregations have become much more picky about who they want as a pastor or preacher, and they will not necessarily trust that simply anyone will do as their pastor. As in most occupations, word of mouth and personal connections have a much bigger impact on obtaining a job than a simple add in the paper or a simple resume. \you may have to find or cultivate some promoters. So that is the practical side.
The other practical and spiritual issue is that there must be a sense of purpose beyond merely filling a role. What is it that God has called you to do beyond what any other preacher might do, or beyond what the elders might do. Why would you think that God called you to a particular situation? Why is it necessary for you to pay your student loans back by being a preacher rather than a carpenter or a tent-maker or an electrician or computer technician? I know that is what you expected, but what is God expecting from you?
Maybe a church plant? Maybe it is your task to call others to Christ rather than waiting for someone to call you to do something? I am not saying what it is, since i don't even know you but i am suggesting some possibilities. Maybe patience, but that can be difficultl. Anyway, i hope you find what God wants you to find.