Around hundreds of thousands of Thanksgiving dinner tables, millions of Americans will take a moment and share with one another what they are thankful for in the past year. Because Thanksgiving doesn’t require any particular confession of faith, it’s close to a universal experience for Americans, and one that most of us treasure more and more as the years go by.
As Christians, we understand that thankfulness is a deep pillar of character in the Christian life. As Henri Nouwen said…
Gratitude goes beyond the “mine” and “thine” and claims the truth that all of life is a pure gift. In the past I always thought of gratitude as a spontaneous response to the awareness of gifts received, but now I realize that gratitude can also be lived as a discipline. The discipline of gratitude is the explicit effort to acknowledge that all I am and have is given to me as a gift of love, a gift to be celebrated with joy.
Thankfulness is both a “do” and a “be” in the Christian vision of the good life. A sovereign and wise God orders life and we learn to respond in every circumstance with praise and gratitude.
And, if you haven’t noticed, that’s not an easy calling. As Americans, we posit our own quests and maps for happiness in the midst of the Christian story, and we discover that we all have a level of addiction to our definitions of happiness that stand in the way of simple, trusting thankfulness to God. Repentance from moral vices is relatively easy when compared to repentance from addiction to what we believe absolutely MUST BE in order for us to be happy, blessed and normal.
We live by an ethic that frees our desires from the judgment of the Gospel. We assume that the Lord of the universe is signed on to make us happy by filling out our little lists of wants. We are consumers and we are socialized to believe that we judge all things- including God- as consumers.
Christianity is not a faith of consumption, but a call to discipleship and Trinitarian fellowship/community. Can we be thankful when we don’t have what we want, or when we do not recognize God’s way with us as “the good life?” Can we find the true note of thankfulness that Paul expressed when he said
Not that I am speaking of being in need, for I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. (Philippians 4:11-13)
. . . I have a wonderful wife, two incredible children and a great new son-in-law. I have my health (and a wonderful doctor.) I have a job that provides everything from housing to insurance to free food. I have classes to teach, sermons to preach and a community that includes me as a valuable member. I have a thousand reasons a day to be happy in God and for his blessings. I have friends all over the world and opportunities in the Kingdom of God that few people anywhere could ever imitate. I have no debts and a dependable car without payments. I sleep at night and look forward to every day. The generosity of those who support my ministry enriches my life every day. I have made it through a mid-life crisis that could have destroyed me, and I love the God and Father of Jesus more than ever. The Gospel makes me cry with joy, and I want more and more of it.
It is my American nature to focus on where things have not gone according to my plan. I realize that God’s incredible faithfulness should stand over every part of my life where fear and anxiety challenge my definitions of happiness. It’s exactly in those places I need to proclaim to myself the goodness and the generosity of the Lord. True contentment is not related to the events of the day, but grows out of the Gospel and from being in covenant with God himself.
So on this Thanksgiving weekend, join me in a hymn of praise to the One to whom we can always be thankful.
Sing praise to God Who reigns above, the God of all creation,
The God of power, the God of love, the God of our salvation.
With healing balm my soul is filled and every faithless murmur stilled:
To God all praise and glory.
What God’s almighty power hath made His gracious mercy keepeth,
By morning glow or evening shade His watchful eye ne’er sleepeth;
Within the kingdom of His might, Lo! all is just and all is right:
To God all praise and glory.
The Lord is never far away, but through all grief distressing,
An ever present help and stay, our peace and joy and blessing.
As with a mother’s tender hand, God gently leads the chosen band:
To God all praise and glory.
Thus, all my toilsome way along, I sing aloud Thy praises,
That earth may hear the grateful song my voice unwearied raises.
Be joyful in the Lord, my heart, both soul and body bear your part:
To God all praise and glory.
Let all who name Christ’s holy Name give God all praise and glory;
Let all who own His power proclaim aloud the wondrous story!
Cast each false idol from its throne, for Christ is Lord, and Christ alone:
To God all praise and glory.
I’m in Nashville and feeling a little sporty today. How do you like this hot little number from 1966? Sweet, huh? We’ll have to take turns riding together, but I’ll be glad to have anyone who wants a wild ride to join me for a ramble this Saturday. I’ll take anyone, but my wife gets the first ride, since it’s her birthday today. Let’s ramble!
Today, we feature a heavyweight insult bout between two of the 16th century’s great wordsmiths: Martin Luther and Will Shakespeare. Martin’s at a bit of a disadvantage because he can’t use his punchy German in this venue, but I think you’ll agree he can hit pretty hard in translation too. However, he could be in trouble; few can match the Bard’s skill at dressing down an opponent.
And yes, now you know what the Internet was invented for. You’re welcome.
World and local events force me to start with something serious today.
This week, I found another reason to say I’m embarrassed to live in Indiana, where our governor makes decisions resulting in consequences like these:
Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy welcomed to his state Wednesday a family of Syrian refugees diverted from Indiana because of security concerns raised by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence.
“It is the right thing, the humane thing to do,” Malloy told reporters. “Quite frankly, if you believe in God, it’s the morally correct thing to do.”
The family of three fled from Syria to Jordan when their 5-year-old son was less than 1 and is the first family to be redirected after 26 governors objected this week to accepting Syrian refugees, according to The New York Times.
The status of a family of four that was supposed to arrive Dec. 10 in Indianapolis, where they have friends, is in limbo as Catholic Charities weighs how to respond to Pence’s request that the family be directed elsewhere.
“There’s still just a lot of information that we’re all waiting on,” said Heidi Smith, director of refugee services for Catholic Charities Indianapolis. “In the meantime, there’s refugees that have no control of their lives and no place to go and nobody wants them. And we have to think about what it would be like to be in their shoes.”
The state Division of Family Resources sent a letter Tuesday to Exodus Refugee Immigration and to Catholic Charities Indianapolis asking that all Syrian arrivals be “suspended or redirected to another state that is willing to accept Syrian placements until assurances that proper security measure are in place have been provided by the federal government.”
“It’s heartbreaking. It’s a really sad week for Hoosiers,” said Carleen Miller, executive director of Exodus. “I don’t think this represents Hoosiers, as we’ve been overwhelmed with calls from supportive people wanting to help Syrian refugees. We need to have a welcoming message for refugees in this state.”
By the way, on Thursday French president François Hollande announced that France will continue to resettle refugees. Over the next two years, Hollande said that France would welcome 30,000 refugees from Syria and Afghanistan, among others. This is even more than his September commitment of 24,000.
Catholics were legally barred from living in Virginia by a 1642 law that was soon imitated by Puritan Massachusetts.
In 1835, Lyman Beecher, a prominent Presbyterian preacher and president of Cincinnati’s Lane Seminary, publicly advocated the exclusion of Catholics from any western settlements as Americans moved in increasing numbers beyond the eastern seacoast.
In 1842 a Catholic convent in Charlestown, Mass., was set on fire, and there were other acts of violence directed against Catholics, including an 1844 riot in Philadelphia that resulted in the deaths of 13 people and the destruction of two Catholic churches in William Penn’s “City of Brotherly Love.”
When Bishop Francis Kenrick of Baltimore, the most prominent Catholic theologian and biblical scholar of his time, objected to Catholic children’s using the King James Bible in public school, the American Protestant Association was formed and denounced the “principles of popery” because they were “subversive of civil and religious liberty.”
Kristallnacht, the anti-Jewish pogroms in Germany and Austria, took place in Nov. 1938. While President Franklin Roosevelt decried Kristallnacht, he announced there would be no change in America’s harsh immigration laws. Strict numeric quotas would remain in place, effectively closing the nation’s doors to the large number of Jews seeking refuge.
In February 1939, Sen. Robert F. Wagner, D-N.Y., and Rep. Edith Nourse Rogers, R-Mass., co-sponsored a bill permitting 20,000 German Jewish children, a modest number, to enter the U.S. as nonquota immigrants. Eleanor Roosevelt unsuccessfully urged her husband to support the bipartisan Wagner-Rogers bill. Anti-Semites and isolationists attacked the legislation, as did the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the bill died in committee. FDR’s cousin Laura Delano Houghteling, whose husband was the U.S. commissioner for immigration and naturalization, opposed the Wagner-Rogers legislation, declaring: “Twenty thousand charming children would all too soon grow into 20,000 ugly adults.”
Six senior officials of Singapore’s City Harvest megachurch have been jailed over a $50m Singapore dollar ($35m; £23m) fraud case.
The evangelical church’s pastor and founder, Kong Hee, was jailed for eight years – others received between 21 months and six years.
The court ruled last month the group had misused church finances to fund the music career of Kong’s wife, Sun Ho.
All denied the charges – the church had supported them during the trial.
State prosecutors said before sentencing it was “the largest amount of charity funds ever misappropriated in Singapore’s legal history”.
Known for its slick image and wealth-focused brand of Christianity, City Harvest Church (CHC) has some 17,500 members in Singapore and branches around the world.
A business is a business is a business, religious or not. And if you don’t run your business right, you’re gonna get in trouble. Just because you call yourself “Christian” and your business a “church” doesn’t put you above the law.
Those words not about Mick Jagger. Or Cat Stevens. Or James Taylor.
They are about Warren Beatty. What she said specifically is that verse two refers to Beatty, while the other two verses refer to two as yet unnamed gentlemen.
You had me several years ago when I was still quite naive Well you said that we made such a pretty pair And that you would never leave But you gave away the things you loved and one of them was me I had some dreams, they were clouds in my coffee Clouds in my coffee, and…
You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you You’re so vain, I’ll bet you think this song is about you Don’t you? don’t you?
Of course, she also confirmed that Beatty thinks the whole song is about him.
Next Thursday is Thanksgiving, my favorite holiday of the year for being with family, feasting, and simply relaxing. We’ll be with my wife’s family in Nashville, TN. It will be a big week for us. My nephew is getting married today, which also happens to be my wife’s birthday. Then comes Thanksgiving and my daughter’s birthday a couple of days after that. We should be quite a bit more fat and poor by the time the next Saturday Ramblings roll around.
My two favorite Thanksgiving movies are “Hannah and Her Sisters,” “Broadway Danny Rose” and “The Big Chill.” Anything you plan to watch (besides football)?
If you’re traveling to New England, you can go HERE and “experience the traditions of an early 19th-century New England Thanksgiving. Learn about 1830s dining etiquette and watch the men of the Village compete in a post-dinner target shoot. Smell the scents of roasted turkey and pies warming by the fire. Learn about Native American food traditions and customs and hear the minister talk about the true meaning of Thanksgiving in the Village’s historic Center Meetinghouse. Learn how preparations were made for this holiday meal, and learn about wedding preparations of the 1830s, as marriages often took place on the Thanksgiving holiday.
Or, if you’re going to New York, you can get a room at the Marriott with a great view of the Macy’s parade and other Thanksgiving treats.
If you’ll be in the U.S. and plan on celebrating the holiday, how about if you tell us something about your plans for Thanksgiving this year?
Finally, last week in music history . . .
By 1987 on last week Dire Straits had set a UK album sales record with their album, Brothers in Arms. It remains one of the world’s best selling albums of all time, surpassing 30 million in sales. I was going to post this last weekend, my favorite music video of all time, at the end of a week when people marked both Remembrance Day in the UK and Canada, and Veterans Day in the U.S.. But I’m going to play it anyway today, a week late, because I also think this melancholy lament of the war we make on each other is appropriate given the violence and conflict that have been so much on our minds in recent days.
Now the sun’s gone to hell And the moon’s riding high Let me bid you farewell Every man has to die But it’s written in the starlight And every line on your palm We’re fools to make war On our brothers in arms
I have written several posts on the subject of pastoral visitation and the importance of church communities taking seriously the responsibility for the personal care and tending of their members.
In a comment I received to one of those posts, a church leader wrote that some pastors should not be considered responsible for pastoral care or visitation because they serve in an “apostolic” role rather than a pastoral one. The commenter wrote:
I believe pastors who lead multi-campus ministries effectively have an apostolic gift. J. Robert Clinton defines apostleship as “the gift to have the leadership capacity to move with authority from God to create new ministry structures to meet needs and appoint leadership in those structures.” While the apostles in the early church were responsible for the church they were not obligated to do personally all of that for which they are responsible.
He then stated his desire to be “an apostle” someday so that he could devote most of his time to prayer and the ministry of the Word, instead of the “waiting tables” ministry he was in when he wrote.
Here is a part of my response:
With all due respect, I think you are reading an awful lot of contemporary culture back into the Bible. Peter was not the great CEO who holed up in his office, study, and prayer closet and then came forth to “cast vision” and delegate the ministry to others. These are American business concepts, not reflections of the way Peter and the apostles actually lived day by day in down-to-earth ministry.
Peter may have had apostolic responsibilities (which by the way, were on an episcopal level beyond the local church, not a local “church staff” level), but this did not release him from “tending the sheep,” as Jesus had commanded him (John 21:15-17).
Case in point: Let’s follow the Apostle Peter around for a few days.
Acts 9:32: The text says that “Peter went here and there among all the believers.” Despite his honored position as a leading apostle, Peter spent his time with “the common folks,” visiting with them and enjoying their fellowship. He did not remain aloof. He did not delegate personal ministry to others. He worked at building relationships with all the believers in the churches.
Acts 9:33-35: While visiting with the members of the congregation in Lydda, Peter took the time to visit the home of a man who had been bedridden for eight years from paralysis. By God’s grace, the man received a healing and was able to arise.
Acts 9:36-42: At the request of some believers in a nearby town, Peter made a death visit to the home of a well-known Christian woman named Tabitha (Dorcas). There Peter comforted the widows who had been her friends. Peter took the time to offer prayers for this woman, and God raised her up. Peter personally took her hand, raised her up, and restored her to her fellow believers.
Acts 9:43: While in Joppa, he stayed in home of a fellow Christian, Simon. Luke includes the interesting detail that Simon was a tanner, and that he lived by the sea (a common location for those in this profession, see 10:6, 32). This gives several interesting indications about Peter. First, he was willing to stay in the home of a tanner, a profession Jews considered unclean because of the constant exposure to dead animals. Luke’s little remark thus prepares for the story about Cornelius and Gentile salvation that follows, and suggests that Peter was already learning to view the ceremonial laws through new eyes. Secondly, to stay in a tanner’s home must have been unpleasant, for the smells would have been foul and the presence of animal carcasses repugnant, especially to a Jew. Thus, in this verse we see Peter’s humility and willingness to dwell in less than ideal circumstances to be with an individual believer in his home.
Acts 10: The chapter tells the story of Peter’s vision and the conversion of Cornelius. This was a significant event, for it shows how the Gospel broke through boundaries and came to the Gentiles. But what is interesting for our purposes today is that this happened in Cornelius’ home as the result of a personal request for a visit (and an impressive vision from God himself!). Peter and a few Christian friends made the call. There, in the home, Peter took the opportunity to answer Cornelius’ questions and proclaim the Good News of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit fell upon those who heard, bringing the entire household by grace into God’s family.
I love these stories. Imitating his Savior, Peter’s ministry bore the personal touch. He walked among people, visited people’s homes, touched and talked with individuals and small groups of people in intimate settings, gave pastoral care to the sick, comforted the grieving, entered places others would avoid, and responded to requests to go where people lived in order to minister to them.
Sure, Peter was an apostle. Sure, he and the other apostles delegated some tasks when appropriate (as in Acts 6). Sure, the apostles had episcopal-level responsibilities to keep the “big picture” in mind and make decisions involving the overall mission of the church.
All of that.
But none of it displaced or replaced personal, pastoral ministry.
I concluded my response to my commenter with these words:
Christian ministry is face to face, person to person, and house to house, meeting people personally where they are, or it is not the kind of ministry Christ and the apostles exemplified for us.
If we’re going to call our leaders “pastors,” this is not optional.
One thing I have noticed about people who promote church growth ideology, and the pastors who who “lead” churches by its principles:
They really don’t like pastoral care.
And yet, they still want to be called pastors.
Take the eight-point list on why churches don’t grow by Carey Nieuwhof that we referenced yesterday. The first and last entries are both specifically directed at pastors who make pastoral care a priority. He says churches won’t grow because:
the pastor is the primary caregiver, and
the pastor suffers from a desire to please everybody.
This is his portrait of a pastor who makes pastoral care a priority. Such a minister thinks he has to do it all, and he thinks that way because his main concern is pleasing people, not leading them. Listen to his words:
When the pastor has to visit every sick person, do every wedding, funeral and make regular house calls, he or she becomes incapable of doing other things. That model just doesn’t scale. If you’re good at it, you’ll grow the church to 200 people and then disappoint people when you can’t get to every event any more. Or you’ll just burn out. It creates false expectations and so many people get hurt in the process.
. . . Many pastors I know are people-pleasers by nature. Go see a counselor. Get on your knees. Do whatever you need to do to get over the fear of disappointing people. Courageous leadership is like courageous parenting. Don’t do what your kids want you to do; do what you believe is best for them in the end. Eventually, many of them will thank you. And the rest? Honestly, they’ll probably go to another church that isn’t reaching many people either.
While he may have a valid point or two hiding in there (stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason), Nieuwhof’s words represent a typical disdainful attitude toward pastoral care. You get the idea that, to “leaders” who see it as their mission to “grow” churches, pastoral care is a necessary evil, one that shouldn’t tie up the “leader’s” time and energy. You’re too important for that. Pass it on to someone else. Organize it away. You are the visionary, the builder, the preacher (“vision-caster”). You can’t afford to take time with the sheep. You are a rancher, not a shepherd. You’ve got to set yourself up high, away from the mud and the shit and the bleating, where you can keep an eye on the big picture and direct your underlings to do the real work of ministry.
In case this isn’t explicit enough in Carey Nieuwhof’s list, he has followed up with an entire article called “How Pastoral Care Stunts the Growth of Most Churches,”where he writes, “The pastoral care model of church leadership simply doesn’t scale.”
But it’s not enough for him to simply recognize a potential organizational barrier that might be handled in a number of different ways. He has to make clear his distaste for pastoral care:
Many pastors I know are people-pleasers by nature. Wanting to not disappoint people fuels conflict within leaders: people want you to care for them, and you hate to disappoint them.
In some respect, pastoral care establishes classic co-dependency. The congregation relies on the pastor for all of its care needs, and the pastor relies on the congregation to provide their sense of worth and fulfilment: the pastor needs to be needed.
As a hospice chaplain, I work with many who are Roman Catholic. We have about 130 parishes and missions in the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, with a Catholic population of nearly 225,000. That’s an average of about 1700 people per parish, though of course some are very small and others quite large. I work with a handful of those parishes on the south and east sides of the city, along with a few downtown and others in suburban areas. Many are thriving, well attended, with schools and a variety of ministries and outreach projects.
Here’s my point: As a chaplain I have never — not once — been unable to get hold of a priest from one of those parishes when I’ve had a pastoral care need. And I have never — not once — had a priest fail to respond and make a personal visit to the home or hospital or nursing home, usually the same day or night, but always within 24 hours or when the family needed him.
A robust embrace of pastoral care by the pastor has not hampered these Catholic parishes or kept them from growing and furthering their mission. Indeed, those churches would never stand for the kind of neglect I see in evangelical churches all the time. The priests I know have a profound commitment to caring for the people in their parishes based on a theology of pastoral ministry that has stood the test of time.
And here is an important point: the Catholic church has found ways of organizing the life and ministries of the community with that in the center, not as a peripheral extra or necessary evil. Nor do the priests do it all. There are pastoral care ministers, deacons, eucharistic ministers that take communion each week to the homebound, care groups, and so on. The priests leadby giving faithful pastoral care, and they also equip others for caring ministry.
On the other hand, I have a number of comments about Carey Nieuwhof and his approach.
His “theology” of pastoral ministry is not theologically or biblically rooted at all but based on corporate organizational wisdom.
Even though organizational wisdom can be a valuable tool for churches, it must remain subservient to theology and not overtake it, otherwise a “church” is no longer a church and its leaders are no longer “pastors.”
I agree with him that is right and necessary to think in terms of building strong organizations and lasting institutions. Indeed, I think we often fail to appreciate the importance of this. But the evangelical model of having the “Senior Pastor” or “Executive Pastor” be the leader (i.e. CEO) and at the same time be viewed as an actual working “pastor” is untenable.
I have come to appreciate the difference by my work in healthcare over the past 10-11 years. There is management (the business side) and there are clinicians (the patient-care side). I am a clinician and that is where my priorities lie. I value those who keep our business sustainable (however much I might grumble at their decisions) because without the context they provide, I cannot do my job. But my job is not theirs, and they don’t try to tell me how to do mine. I’m not “the face” of the organization — I don’t address the entire network to tell them what we’re doing and my face is not on the commercials we use to reach out to the community. We work in partnership. The CEO and leaders and administrators try to make sure we have a sound and growing company that is following our vision and values. My job is to live out that vision and those values on street level: to meet face to face with patients and care for them along with others who do the same with different specialities.
Pastors are not and were not meant to be executives or “leaders” in the business sense. Those in the church who do have such gifts of administration should be valued and churches should organize themselves so they can help build sound organizations and lasting institutions. But they are not “pastors.” They are not “in ministry” in the same way as the one who gives you word and sacrament, who visits you at home and in the hospital, and who helps you mark the major events of your life with sacramental blessing.
People who call themselves pastors and yet disdain pastoral care or think it should be passed on to others as the primary caregivers are not pastors in any true sense of the word. Being a pastor means being a person who provides pastoral care.
Pastoral care is not a problem. Pastoral care lies at the heart of what the church is all about.
Church growth thinking is alive and well, and in the eyes of many, successful. And I suppose it is from a certain perspective. Here is Outreach Magazine’s list of the ten largest churches in the U.S. in 2014:
If my calculator is right, these ten churches claim that nearly 244,000 people are affiliated with them. That’s equivalent to a city the size of St. Petersburg, Florida or Norfolk, Virginia attending just ten local congregations.
In an article in Christianity Today from 2013, Ed Stetzer made the point that even while many decry the megachurch and suggest its day is done, the number of large churches in our country continues to grow at a rapid pace. Stetzer notes:
The number of megachurches in America has nearly doubled during every decade over the last half century.
In 1960, there was 1 megachurch for every 7.5 million Americans. In 2010, there was one for every 200,000 Americans.
There are as many megachurches today in the greater Nashville area as there were in the entire country in 1960.
I have an idea where at least some of this growth might be coming from. In another CT article from 2014, an estimate was quoted that “every day in the United States, nine churches shut their doors forever.” Whatever might be said about how many people large churches “reach,” in my admittedly observational and anecdotal experience the amount of transfer growth that has occurred from historic traditions, mainline Protestant churches, and small churches that lack the resources (and pizzazz!) of the megas has been staggering.
I’m not here today to talk about megachurches as much as I am to come back again to one of the “church growth” and “leadership” mantras that keeps getting written about, which in essence berates pastors for being pastors and thus not “growing” their churches the way some think they should.
Carey Nieuwhof is the pastor of Connexus Church north of Toronto, Canada. His megachurch is not in the U.S. but it does partner with the North Point family of churches (see #1 on the chart above). According to his bio page, Nieuwhof’s church tells the story of many congregations today. They left their denomination, took up church growth methods, and now run a multisite church with two locations where over 1000 people are involved each weekend.
According to an article he wrote called, “8 Reasons Most Church Never Break the 200 Attendance Mark,” Nieuwhof puts his finger on the central problem in such churches: They organize, behave, lead and manage like a small organization. He goes on to list the eight characteristics that reveal this problem:
The pastor is the primary caregiver.
The leaders lack a strategy.
True leaders aren’t leading.
Volunteers are unempowered.
The governance team micromanages.
Too many meetings.
Too many events and programs that lead nowhere.
The pastor suffers from a desire to please everybody.
This may surprise you, but you know what? I agree with him.
The main reason churches don’t “grow” is that they have an organizational problem. We’ve learned a lot about the characteristics of organizations in the past century or so. We pretty much know what makes them tick, what makes them successful, what kind of leadership works and doesn’t work, and how we should go about making them successful. Of course, organizational wisdom isn’t perfect and there are always factors that can bring an organization down even when its leaders do everything by the book. And that’s why so many books keep getting written! That’s why business people are forever attending seminars and workshops and having webinars and trying to stay on the cutting edge. That’s what church leaders do too.
No, I agree. If you want to build an effective, well-run organization there is plenty of wisdom out there, a tremendous stockpile of resources, and a lot of help.
I just have two problems with all of this, however, when we start talking about churches.
First, who said the goal is to build an organization with a mission and vision and strategy to fulfill that mission? Is that really the church?
Second, even if it is, who said “the pastor” is the person who should “lead” that effort?
Tomorrow, I want to come back to this and look at one particular aspect that Nieuwhof addresses in his list and in another more recent article.
For your meditation and contemplation today, this parable told by Ron Rolheiser:
In his autobiography, the renowned writer Nikos Kazantzakis shares a conversation he had with an old monk named Father Makários. Sitting with the saintly old man, Kazantzakis asked him: “Do you still wrestle with the devil, Father Makários?”
The old monk reflected for a while and then replied: “Not any longer, my child, I have grown old now, and he has grown old with me. He doesn’t have the strength . . . . I wrestle with God.”
“With God!” exclaimed the astonished young writer. “And do you hope to win?”
“I hope to lose, my child,” replied the old ascetic. “My bones remain with me still, and they continue to resist.”
The Beatitudes Jesus taught come to us in two parts.
The first four Beatitudes describe the surprising recipients of God’s favor.
Blessed are the poor in spirit
Blessed are those who mourn
Blessed are the meek
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for justice
These are the ones most people consider at the bottom of society’s pecking order. They represent people who are on the fringes, whose life seems destined for sorrow and failure, who find themselves without power, and who are crying out for justice in their unjust circumstances. The systems of this world are stacked against them. Nobody wants their life. Nobody makes it their ambition to go down the path they’re on. They are empty, bereft, powerless, and oppressed. No one would consider them life’s “winners.”
When Jesus pronounces them blessed, he evokes the mission he proclaimed in Luke 4:18-19 —
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.
Though the world neglects them, God has set his attention upon them. Though the powerful ignore them, God has come to walk with them in Jesus. Though life and its structures seem to offer them little hope, God is acting to redeem them and make their lives new. Though religion has taught them that righteousness would bring them blessing and prosperity, they haven’t seen a pay-off. They remain poor, sad, weak, and exploited. Nevertheless, God has destined them to receive his favor.
In other words, the first part of the Beatitudes is the gospel, good news directed particularly at those who have nothing but bad news in their lives.
This is the surprising thing about these sayings. One might have expected that Messiah would come to the religious leaders, to the powerful, the gifted, those with the resources and connections to “make things happen” in the world, so that God’s Kingdom could come in power and glory. However, from the beginning Jesus surprised the people in authority by directing his message to the most unlikely to succeed. To be sure, Jesus came for everyone, but he came with a special focus on the poor to reveal the extent of God’s love, grace, and transforming power and to undercut the false messages of glory that were (and remain) pervasive.
That brings us to the second part of the Beatitudes. These have a different focus.
Blessed are the merciful
Blessed are the pure in heart
Blessed are the peacemakers
Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake
No longer is Jesus talking about those who are poor and oppressed. Instead, he is speaking to those who are trying to do something about the poor and oppressed. He is addressing those who are trying to make the world a better place, to bring healing and comfort to the kinds of people who are mentioned in the first half of the Beatitudes.
But the thing is, they are not doing it from positions of power and authority. They are not using the methods and tactics of the world to try and solve the world’s problems.
Instead of pronouncing judgment, they are exercising mercy.
Instead of focusing on the faults of others, they are trying to keep their own hearts pure.
Instead of fighting, they are working to make peace.
And as a result, instead of being honored, they are being ridiculed and even persecuted for trying to do what they think is right.
Jesus is pronouncing blessing on the prophets of this world who have always found themselves outside the system, without access to the halls of power. They have the ability to make the powerful uncomfortable because they see through the B.S. and the false agendas and manipulations inherent in the “accepted wisdom.” Instead, they see straight to the heart and focus their efforts on the heart of the problem. The world takes little notice of them except to laugh at them and consider them “ineffective” because they do not wield power and authority. If they become too much of a nuisance, however, it’s a different story. Then the world starts to pick up stones. Or hammers and nails.
In these Beatitudes, Jesus joins their company as the last and greatest of the prophets, the merciful, pure, peacemaking King who was persecuted, suffered, and died.
In other words, the Beatitudes are about:
the unlikely people Jesus came to bring good news to, and
the unlikely way in which he (and others) would bring them that news.
I’m struck especially by the second point today.
The engines of power and violence seem to be revving up a bit more around the world after last week’s horrific events throughout the Middle East and Europe. I’m not smart enough to know what to do about any of that.
But I know what Jesus wants me to do today. He set the pattern: Bring good news to the poor. Be merciful. Keep my heart pure. Make peace.
Oh, and I guess from what he says I’d better watch my back too.
Today in chapel, one of my co-workers told his life story. That’s pretty common at our ministry, but this was anything but common.
Doc [not his real name] came to us about three years ago, along with his new bride. Middle-aged and a recent Bible college graduate, looking for a beginning in ministry. Of course, one look at Doc and you know Doc is different. He looks like he survived a war, or a major car accident, or both.
One arm barely works. One eye is non-functional. One leg is almost immobile. He’s deaf in one ear. One side of his head is terribly scarred. He’s a soft-spoken, gentle man, but obviously life has not been gentle with him.
Doc is one of those people who loves to serve. He was a houseparent for a while, but some of his mobility issues hampered his effectiveness. Now he teaches in our tutoring lab, working one on one with students who have learning issues and need to relearn very basic skills in math and language.
Most men don’t like the tutoring lab work, but Doc does his job with joy. His wife is still a houseparent, and when he’s done at 3:30 he goes to the dorm and spends time with the boys till his wife is off work.
Last week, he stopped by to talk to me about ministry opportunities. I discovered that he was leading a boys devotional in the dorms on Friday night, and wanted to know what else he could do to serve. We discussed one of his loves- counseling- and I’m going to have him learn the job of one of our primary counselors who works with students with spiritual issues and questions.
I knew Doc, but I didn’t know his story. So I asked him to give his testimony in chapel. He said he’d be glad to.
So today he walked to the pulpit, with all his usual obvious difficulty.
The child of a Marine alcoholic and a loving Christian mom, he knew the good and bad of growing up in a home of mixed values.
When he was seven, a relative was using a power saw to build a porch. The saw slipped from his hand and ran across Doc’s body. It cut him through his intestines, across his ribs and chest, all the way to his arm
On the way to the hospital, he asked his mom if Jesus really loved him, as she’d always told him. She assured him that he did. he believed her, and years later, he gave his life to Christ and determined to follow and serve.
At age 23, Doc was deer hunting with a friend when he slipped and fell into a direct shot. The shot entered the back of his head and came out under his eye. The picture- which he didn’t show- is of a man with a massive head wound, obviously affecting the brain, vision and mobility.
He shouldn’t have survived, but he did. Multiple surgeries and major expenses followed, but God supplied his physical, financial and emotional needs. He not only lived, he walked and was able to return to a normal life. Now blind and deaf on one side, with immobility because of brain damage, he met and married another hospital patient. She had MS.
After ten years of caring for her, Lori, Doc’s first wife died. In the midst of grief, his pastor directed him toward Bible college, and he took the opportunity. Three years later he was graduating and married again to his current wife. Now both serve with us.
When I hear this kind of story, it is almost more than I can take. My faith is small and my tolerance for pain and loss is low. Questions of suffering and loss are not easy for me to contemplate. What would I do? Would God keep me? Would I despair, quit, abandon faith?
And here is Doc. Standing in front of our students, saying again and again that God is good. His suffering and loss can’t be measured, but his faith has grown every step of the way. In his gentle, Minnesota accent, he says over and over, “God is good. I’m so thankful.”
What is a testimony like Doc’s worth in this world? Maybe nothing to some. Maybe a priceless amount to others. I do not know. What I do know is that Doc is untroubled by the problem of evil. He is untroubled by the questions of theodicy. He doesn’t know the answers of the philosophers. If he has thought about the objections of the atheists, it was long ago. He isn’t a Calvinist and he won’t be lecturing on the comforts of various theories of God’s Will. He’s simple. He is, today, a grateful man.
Doc is the work of God in a world of absurd suffering. Whatever has been taken from him has not left him empty and bitter. He is full of the love of God, and bitterness is nowhere to be seen or heard.
He ended his talk by saying that where the human eye sees half a man, God sees a whole person. Made whole by Christ.
Instead, we urge silence and prayers for our friends in France, who have suffered tremendously over the past 24 hours.
Sadly, we could do this every week, because it seems that every moment somewhere in the world peace-loving people are under attack.
Prince of Peace, have mercy on us.
• • •
O God, do not keep silence; do not hold your peace or be still, O God! Even now your enemies are in tumult; those who hate you have raised their heads.
See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
• Matthew 10:16
• • •
Christians are naive, maybe hopelessly naive. Failing to heed Jesus’ counsel to be wise as they traverse the minefields of the world, we end up playing and looking the fool time and time again. In an age of social media and other dis-localized forms of communication and advocacy for various causes, the dangers are only multiplied.
It remains to be seen to what extent the following story will provide yet another cautionary tale, but at first glance it certainly should remind us that life is more complex than headlines and memes.
Since September 2012, American citizen and Christian pastor Saeed Abedini has been imprisoned in Iran. For the past three years his wife Naghmeh has advocated for his release and many Christians around the world have taken up the cause, using the internet as a primary forum for keeping his case visible.
In two emails to supporters, Abedini revealed details of her troubled marriage to Saeed Abedini, an American citizen and pastor imprisoned in Iran since September 2012.
Those troubles include “physical, emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse (through Saeed’s addiction to pornography),” she wrote. The abuse started early in their marriage and has worsened during Saeed’s imprisonment, she said. The two are able to speak by phone and Skype.
Touring the country to advocate for Saeed’s release while coping with marital conflict proved too much, she wrote. She told supporters she’s withdrawing from public life for a time of prayer and rest.
“It is very serious stuff and I cannot live a lie anymore,” she wrote. “So, I have decided to take a break from everything and seek the Lord on how to move forward.”
She cancelled plans to speak at a recent religious liberty conference in Iowa and at the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Nashville next spring. Abedini also plans to stay off social media for several months.
In an ironic turn of events, she now is asking that people will give her and her family privacy.
Life is always more complicated than we imagine, isn’t it?
These revelations don’t change the fact that Saeed’s arrest and detainment in Iran should be protested and his release still sought.
But it does burst the mantle of righteousness and saintliness that Christians have tried to foist upon someone they know very little about. And it complicates the narrative of “persecution” many try to maintain.
Pastor Saeed may well be a victim of injustice. But, surprise! he is apparently no super-hero.
Whatever all the facts are, and you can be sure there is an entire galaxy of facts that few if any of us know, this story should cause us all to remember that knowing and being known is a face-to-face process. It’s time for Christians to stop being so damn gullible and to accept the fact that there are no easy issues, no easy answers for complex matters.
Your little memes and Facebook quotes don’t cut it.
We’ve been talking about megachurches in the U.S. this week, and thanks to Damaris, here’s 
In his autobiography, the renowned writer Nikos Kazantzakis shares a conversation he had with an old monk named Father Makários. Sitting with the saintly old man, Kazantzakis asked him: “Do you still wrestle with the devil, Father Makários?”
The Internet Monk Archives 