In my experience with professional organizations, mentors are sometimes appointed for a time for new initiates into the professional organization, although this is not a hard and fast rule. But this only relates to the general conditions of qualifying as a member of the professional organization, not to the supervision of daily work.
Supervisors of daily work and workers, almost always have the responsibility of providing and overseeing and changing workloads, of developing and managing evaluations and appraisals, as well as recommending salary changes or promotions or new job descriptions. Ultimately supervisors have the ability to hire and fire, although they may require the approval of their own supervisor for these actions. So I would be very, very careful about using that type of terminology. It is the wrong term in this case.
My warning is that we will lose the spiritual leadership of these positions and callings if we make too many analogies to careers and professional organizations. It is quite different and important to realize that scripture itself is your best mentor and supervisor, and prayer and bible reading your best discussion with your supervisor. Losing the scriptural focus in any group mentoring or personal leadership mentoring will run the risk of gaining smooth operations with a loss of spiritual impact.
I wonder if we should be thinking about this a bit differently. Wouldn't an organism (people of God) be what builds the instititute? Of course, there is another meaning to institute, such as in "God's institutes his Church". God builds His church, both the organism and the organization. But the church as an institute seems to be the formal trappings, the ceremony, the order, the procedure and facilities, the organization. The church as organism (as simply the people of God) must exist first in order to impliment all of this, to start it or initiate it, to write confessions and songs, to organize services, to provide facilities or locations, before it can become an organization or an institute.
Then there is this: that an institute or organization is more or less dead without the organism. The organism is what lives.
I listened last night to a speaker (on video), a psychologist, a christian who talked about christians having "authority", referring to power in general, but specifically to casting out demons, to shutting up the demons and sending them away. I thought it was a good speech, very biblical, but I have no idea what institute he belonged to, nor what denomination, or even what city. To me he was part of the organism more than part of the institute, if that makes sense. He was more concerned about Christ and about the battle between heaven and hell, between God and Satan, than about what organization anyone belonged to.
The institute or organization as we look at it is mostly earthly, while the organism is the body of Christ, and is eternal.
There is nothing wrong with asking for money and prayer and other support for ministry, including mission fields. It is not begging, unless the missionary is not doing any actual work. Otherwise it is asking for support to do the work. While it is not wrong to ask for money and prayer and support, it is also nice if it comes without asking for it. However, whether a plea goes to the board of missions, or directly to other supporters, it is still a plea.
There is the added benefit of trusting in the Lord more directly when faced with the uncertainty of direct support from members , rather than transferring this trust to a board of directors, or and executive director, etc. And with this benefit also comes a greater direct sharing of the mission, its joys and sorrows, with actual people, face-to-face.
The facts depends on who reports them, and some of them are out of date. The Rom Cath church reports what they have on membership rolls. But according to Wikipedia, a self-identified affiliation reported in 2007 that 47% are rom Cath, 38% are evangelical protestant, and 14% are other.
Jack, I actually agree with you. I was not comparing youth to older leaders so much as emphasizing that authority without wisdom will lead to problems. And yes, I agree that older leaders are also often "people pleasers" rather than "Christ followers". I am thinking that older leaders were once young, and if they did not learn wisdom earlier, they often do not gain it later. I think most of our problems with leadership is that we often assume that they can obtain wisdom after they obtain authority. Sometimes that happens. But it is better if they learn Godly wisdom first.
Classis has some potential for partnerships, cooperation. The less it tries to impose its "authority", and the more it works in unity and partnerships and cooperation to achieve its objectives such as church planting, the more effective it will be.
One example, it should not encourage a church to be called an "emerging church for ten years. After four years, it is a church, or it is not there. (generally). IMHO
Thanks for this article. I think we often underestimate the capacity of children to learn. They actually learn much faster than adults, with the right motivation and expectations. So learning is very important, because doing without learning, often leads to "doing" for its own sake, rather than for the Lord's sake. Any robot can do things without learning. It is easily possible for grade five students to memorize the 66 books of the bible, for example. Even grade one students have the capacity to memorize an entire chapter of the gospel, for example, Luke 2, with enough coaching and perseverance. Learning how to apply the scriptures to life is one of the most valuable things any child can "do", so learning and doing are inseparable. In our church education programs, we should probably remember that our "doing" needs to reinforce and not replace our "learning".
Ray, youth can certainly be leaders, with or without our help. The question is, how will they be good leaders rather than bad leaders? While giving them authority is necessary, giving them wisdom is even more important. Helping them to understand how to make decisions that are pleasing to God, rather than decisions and plans that are just pleasing to people, is a good place to start. Without that focus, it won't matter whether they are leaders or not. Without that focus, they will simply lead others down the path to perdition, instead of to the glory of God.
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.
Posted in: Do Pastors Need Professional Supervision?
In my experience with professional organizations, mentors are sometimes appointed for a time for new initiates into the professional organization, although this is not a hard and fast rule. But this only relates to the general conditions of qualifying as a member of the professional organization, not to the supervision of daily work.
Supervisors of daily work and workers, almost always have the responsibility of providing and overseeing and changing workloads, of developing and managing evaluations and appraisals, as well as recommending salary changes or promotions or new job descriptions. Ultimately supervisors have the ability to hire and fire, although they may require the approval of their own supervisor for these actions. So I would be very, very careful about using that type of terminology. It is the wrong term in this case.
My warning is that we will lose the spiritual leadership of these positions and callings if we make too many analogies to careers and professional organizations. It is quite different and important to realize that scripture itself is your best mentor and supervisor, and prayer and bible reading your best discussion with your supervisor. Losing the scriptural focus in any group mentoring or personal leadership mentoring will run the risk of gaining smooth operations with a loss of spiritual impact.
Posted in: Church: Institute, Organism, or Something Else?
I wonder if we should be thinking about this a bit differently. Wouldn't an organism (people of God) be what builds the instititute? Of course, there is another meaning to institute, such as in "God's institutes his Church". God builds His church, both the organism and the organization. But the church as an institute seems to be the formal trappings, the ceremony, the order, the procedure and facilities, the organization. The church as organism (as simply the people of God) must exist first in order to impliment all of this, to start it or initiate it, to write confessions and songs, to organize services, to provide facilities or locations, before it can become an organization or an institute.
Then there is this: that an institute or organization is more or less dead without the organism. The organism is what lives.
I listened last night to a speaker (on video), a psychologist, a christian who talked about christians having "authority", referring to power in general, but specifically to casting out demons, to shutting up the demons and sending them away. I thought it was a good speech, very biblical, but I have no idea what institute he belonged to, nor what denomination, or even what city. To me he was part of the organism more than part of the institute, if that makes sense. He was more concerned about Christ and about the battle between heaven and hell, between God and Satan, than about what organization anyone belonged to.
The institute or organization as we look at it is mostly earthly, while the organism is the body of Christ, and is eternal.
Posted in: Church: Institute, Organism, or Something Else?
Good comment and good article by Van Reken, Steve.
Posted in: Which "If" Is It?
Great little unexpected message!
Posted in: Support Raising: Begging or Biblical
There is nothing wrong with asking for money and prayer and other support for ministry, including mission fields. It is not begging, unless the missionary is not doing any actual work. Otherwise it is asking for support to do the work. While it is not wrong to ask for money and prayer and support, it is also nice if it comes without asking for it. However, whether a plea goes to the board of missions, or directly to other supporters, it is still a plea.
There is the added benefit of trusting in the Lord more directly when faced with the uncertainty of direct support from members , rather than transferring this trust to a board of directors, or and executive director, etc. And with this benefit also comes a greater direct sharing of the mission, its joys and sorrows, with actual people, face-to-face.
Posted in: 5 Lessons From Honduras on Short-Term Missions
The facts depends on who reports them, and some of them are out of date. The Rom Cath church reports what they have on membership rolls. But according to Wikipedia, a self-identified affiliation reported in 2007 that 47% are rom Cath, 38% are evangelical protestant, and 14% are other.
Posted in: Youth Youth Leaders
Jack, I actually agree with you. I was not comparing youth to older leaders so much as emphasizing that authority without wisdom will lead to problems. And yes, I agree that older leaders are also often "people pleasers" rather than "Christ followers". I am thinking that older leaders were once young, and if they did not learn wisdom earlier, they often do not gain it later. I think most of our problems with leadership is that we often assume that they can obtain wisdom after they obtain authority. Sometimes that happens. But it is better if they learn Godly wisdom first.
Posted in: Who is Paul Vander Klay and What's He Hoping to Do?
Classis has some potential for partnerships, cooperation. The less it tries to impose its "authority", and the more it works in unity and partnerships and cooperation to achieve its objectives such as church planting, the more effective it will be.
One example, it should not encourage a church to be called an "emerging church for ten years. After four years, it is a church, or it is not there. (generally). IMHO
Posted in: What Do We Want Them To Learn?
Thanks for this article. I think we often underestimate the capacity of children to learn. They actually learn much faster than adults, with the right motivation and expectations. So learning is very important, because doing without learning, often leads to "doing" for its own sake, rather than for the Lord's sake. Any robot can do things without learning. It is easily possible for grade five students to memorize the 66 books of the bible, for example. Even grade one students have the capacity to memorize an entire chapter of the gospel, for example, Luke 2, with enough coaching and perseverance. Learning how to apply the scriptures to life is one of the most valuable things any child can "do", so learning and doing are inseparable. In our church education programs, we should probably remember that our "doing" needs to reinforce and not replace our "learning".
Posted in: Youth Youth Leaders
Ray, youth can certainly be leaders, with or without our help. The question is, how will they be good leaders rather than bad leaders? While giving them authority is necessary, giving them wisdom is even more important. Helping them to understand how to make decisions that are pleasing to God, rather than decisions and plans that are just pleasing to people, is a good place to start. Without that focus, it won't matter whether they are leaders or not. Without that focus, they will simply lead others down the path to perdition, instead of to the glory of God.
Posted in: Running Together With Our Forefathers
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.