Socks, what if we take a step back, and ask the question without the idea of "leadership"? What Belle was saying about a leader recognizing the strengths or gifts of others and even themselves serving in a "shared" way, doesn't that illustrate in living color the people that Jesus said were "greatest of all"?
The stepped-back question asks "what is the church."
I think that's a great idea anotherDan. Rattle off a few thoughts, some relevant, some not -
My sense from observation, participation and indeed using the Bible as a reference, is that the most effective thing a person can do for anyone else is 1.) keep their own chit together 2.) participate in a cooperative way with their immediate associations (family, friends, neighbors) where the interests of others are considered and 3.) Look for ways to help others succeed in life with their endeavors.
I think the requirements from Timothy mentioned provide a baseline for what a person seeking involvement with others should aspire to, if not meet.
When I look at what Timothy lists in these terms there's some specific mention of a person who watches over and looks out for others within their community. In fact it's really no big whoopdee doo, when you look at it on the one hand, it's a person who would by most evaluations be a pretty good dude or dudette, but they don't have to have halo's or a list of Certified Miracles to their credit. They're just good people, reasonable, honest, loving people.
Those people are those things already and would be with or without being designated in an "official" capacity. They're the people they are and those things make them good candidates for any number of things. But they don't put on their Good Cap to be a "leader". Certainly in the scenario that Timothy and Titius point to that person would be all the more mindful of the need to keep it right and real.
I feel that some people will feel a particular "calling" or purpose in their life to dedicate some or all of their lives to continued service and involvement with others.
Key and critical to that endeavor is the personal vision and passion if you will that the person has. People enter positions for all kinds of reasons, not all bad ones. The motivation in any case shouldn't be personal gain though. It should be fulfillment. A passion is something that a person does regardless of what comes back to them. They do it because they want to, love to, "have" to.
When we work one-to-one with each other if someone screws something up, you say so. A helper may need help. A "leader" may need direction and guidance.
When a person is set off from the group they're involved with and is placed in a position "higher than they ought", that person's dead meat if it cuts them off from the day to day interactions with people that allows for honest communication between everyone.
To my eye the real potential to be of service to others is in the day to day interactions. If the "preacher" or pastor of position isn't involved in the day to day lifestyle and culture of his community he or she is at a disadvantage, their interactions may not be real, authentic but instead be manufactured - meetings, counselling sessions, teaching events. That stuff may have it's purpose but it's removed from the day to day activities of the group. People leave what they're doing and do those things. That's fine but those kinds of things serve a specific purpose. Life isn't a series of scheduled special events. A a lot of good - maybe the most good - is done throughout normal daily life. It's really just common sense IMO.
I agree that the "ordinary" is often where it's at, day after day. Nothing wrong with the extraordinary, of course. The close relationships are of primary importance... (if a man can't take care of his own household, etc.) Christianity is lived in our roles as fathers, sons, brothers, neighbors, co-workers, citizens, etc. -- or it ought to be. "Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands..."
Great followup on Belle's mention of leadership recognizing and facilitating the gifts and strengths of others.
I don't know if I'd use the term "fulfillment" for the motivation to service, unless it was defined as fulfillment of God's purposes for His children -- even Jesus. Today's self-actualization / self-fulfillment paradigm is (as usual) the world's idea at cross-purposes with the will of God. The way of the world's "fullfillment" is just another form of "personal gain" -- it's just not money. It's recognition, a nice warm (smug) feeling, or whatever. I know you know this, as your next statement shows, regarding passion -- a person gives regardless of what comes back.
Quiet (unshowy --- even secret) sacrifice seems to be what can be gleaned from Jesus' teaching on the mountain. "And your Father, who sees in secret..."
Having visited many churches, I'm often struck by the architectural element... most Protestant churches are rows of benches all facing a podium. And I'm sympathetic to that model, but it's not the only model. The Quakers, for example, often have the benches facing each other, the arrangement representing their conviction that there is no priest between the believer and God (the Light), and that all may prophesy.
Well, we see Jesus choosing fishermen , tax collectors, regular "folks". In His day Jesus would have been looked on by many as a Rabbi, a teacher with students, followers. Interestingly, He chose his followers initially and they told others. Jesus lived with these people and formed an extended community around His activities. They travelled, ate, slept, came and went, carried on their affairs from day to day.
Later His followers followed the same model of a community, sharing and living cooperatively around their faith. They looked amongst themselves and chose others to serve as needed. When the community grew to be large they determined collectively to find amongst themselves people who could help. The help was needed in direct service to those in the community who needed it - elderly, widows, those who had no means of support, no family to assist them.
Basically they looked out for and took care of each other, "fellowshipping" around their common faith and belief in God and Jesus Christ His son, the risen Redeemer.
The key leaders that get written about in Luke's Acts were, in fact, men and women of personal conviction who were personally committed to the message they taught of Christ.
f you believe it as written, there's a huge difference between what they lived and what a lot of church leaders live today, namely that theirs weren't primarily "teaching" ministries. Yes, they taught but that was a means of spreading the basic message of Christ. The "work" of the "ministry" wasn't solely teachers and maintenance of the material. There was a lot of action around their building and living as a community, a group of people with interests and needs.
Paul did the same, his travels were to spread the "gospel" and to help establish a growing and diverse group of churches.
I don't think Acts is the "only" way to do things, it's the way they did things. it does form a history though where we can see how this whole thing got started.
To my mind the expansion of the message of the gospel is slowed down and can even be hindered if all the effort expended by a church and it's "leadership" is on the business affairs of setting up a "church". That can be done but it shouldn't become a purpose in and of itself.
If the primary function is to "spread the gospel" you don't need a huge physical operation to do that IMO. People spread the gospel, always have. The "church" business should primarily focus on the cooperative effort of all the participants in helping and assisting the community of people that make it up in real, tangible ways - socially, economically, spiritually. There is also the capability for each participant to share directly with their extended community that way, the people that a church is actually trying to reach - real, tangible expressions of the love Jesus said would exemplify His followers. Feed the hungry, help the poor, relieve the sick, lift the spirit. There's a 1,000 ways to lead and no one has to appoint or train or follow. They just involve helping.
A true leader doesn't have to accumulate followers. I posted a thread awhile back about a guy who started a banking system which gave out small loans to needy people. Little loans, pea shooter loans, 10-20 bucks apiece. This was in another country where 20 bucks is a lot. There were small amounts loaned to people, primarily women, so they could start these little businesses, buy some stuff, candy, food, whatever and resell it on the street. Or buy produce and resell it, or materials to make clothes and sell them. "Micro loans". He was awarded a Nobel prize this last year.
He doesn't promote this form of banking as a way to make huge sums of money and knows it probably won't work well for the huge financial institutions. But it does work to help people who won't get any help otherwise. And people for the most part paid it back, with the small interest rates his bank required. If they didn't they couldn't get another loan and had to pay it back and get right before trying again. They got assistance and some direction so they could succeed. I think I read he said over 90 per cent of the loans were paid back.
This was a way to leverage the large equities a formal bank could manage into the hands of the people in the most dire of circumstances, who really need it. I mean really need help. They can get started. They may never own a Levi Strauss or a Costco sized operation but they get a leg up starting out.
To start, this guy travelled out into the rural areas of the country to reach people. He went to them, months, travelling, getting this thing started. His goal wasn't to make billiions, it was to try something radically different and moderately insane by most standards - reach out to those who really need it and do something that will actually help everyone, because if people can become self-sufficient they won't be a burden to the rest of the system around them.
So he took people who weren't even on the face of the earth for practical purposes and helped to make them people, with a future, a roof over their heads. A shot.
A phrase that fits any leader - "Be something to someone". Count. Do what you do best, to the end the work stands for something and someone. That's a profile I'd like to have.
Yes. And Paul's understanding of that community was that Christ was at the head of it, and everyone in it was a "member in particular" of his body. Still today, it seems a fresh and perfect way to see the "called out." What may begin as an authentic out-working of sincere and eyes-opened members of that body can and have become sham "ministries" with other "heads."
Recommended Posts
anotherDan
Belle, thanks for your answer. Good stuff.
Socks, what if we take a step back, and ask the question without the idea of "leadership"? What Belle was saying about a leader recognizing the strengths or gifts of others and even themselves serving in a "shared" way, doesn't that illustrate in living color the people that Jesus said were "greatest of all"?
The stepped-back question asks "what is the church."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Gee, I was told the definition was Preach on Sundays and Shop on Mondays!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think that's a great idea anotherDan. Rattle off a few thoughts, some relevant, some not -
My sense from observation, participation and indeed using the Bible as a reference, is that the most effective thing a person can do for anyone else is 1.) keep their own chit together 2.) participate in a cooperative way with their immediate associations (family, friends, neighbors) where the interests of others are considered and 3.) Look for ways to help others succeed in life with their endeavors.
I think the requirements from Timothy mentioned provide a baseline for what a person seeking involvement with others should aspire to, if not meet.
When I look at what Timothy lists in these terms there's some specific mention of a person who watches over and looks out for others within their community. In fact it's really no big whoopdee doo, when you look at it on the one hand, it's a person who would by most evaluations be a pretty good dude or dudette, but they don't have to have halo's or a list of Certified Miracles to their credit. They're just good people, reasonable, honest, loving people.
Those people are those things already and would be with or without being designated in an "official" capacity. They're the people they are and those things make them good candidates for any number of things. But they don't put on their Good Cap to be a "leader". Certainly in the scenario that Timothy and Titius point to that person would be all the more mindful of the need to keep it right and real.
I feel that some people will feel a particular "calling" or purpose in their life to dedicate some or all of their lives to continued service and involvement with others.
Key and critical to that endeavor is the personal vision and passion if you will that the person has. People enter positions for all kinds of reasons, not all bad ones. The motivation in any case shouldn't be personal gain though. It should be fulfillment. A passion is something that a person does regardless of what comes back to them. They do it because they want to, love to, "have" to.
When we work one-to-one with each other if someone screws something up, you say so. A helper may need help. A "leader" may need direction and guidance.
When a person is set off from the group they're involved with and is placed in a position "higher than they ought", that person's dead meat if it cuts them off from the day to day interactions with people that allows for honest communication between everyone.
To my eye the real potential to be of service to others is in the day to day interactions. If the "preacher" or pastor of position isn't involved in the day to day lifestyle and culture of his community he or she is at a disadvantage, their interactions may not be real, authentic but instead be manufactured - meetings, counselling sessions, teaching events. That stuff may have it's purpose but it's removed from the day to day activities of the group. People leave what they're doing and do those things. That's fine but those kinds of things serve a specific purpose. Life isn't a series of scheduled special events. A a lot of good - maybe the most good - is done throughout normal daily life. It's really just common sense IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Good stuff, my beautiful-footed friend!
I agree that the "ordinary" is often where it's at, day after day. Nothing wrong with the extraordinary, of course. The close relationships are of primary importance... (if a man can't take care of his own household, etc.) Christianity is lived in our roles as fathers, sons, brothers, neighbors, co-workers, citizens, etc. -- or it ought to be. "Study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands..."
Great followup on Belle's mention of leadership recognizing and facilitating the gifts and strengths of others.
I don't know if I'd use the term "fulfillment" for the motivation to service, unless it was defined as fulfillment of God's purposes for His children -- even Jesus. Today's self-actualization / self-fulfillment paradigm is (as usual) the world's idea at cross-purposes with the will of God. The way of the world's "fullfillment" is just another form of "personal gain" -- it's just not money. It's recognition, a nice warm (smug) feeling, or whatever. I know you know this, as your next statement shows, regarding passion -- a person gives regardless of what comes back.
Quiet (unshowy --- even secret) sacrifice seems to be what can be gleaned from Jesus' teaching on the mountain. "And your Father, who sees in secret..."
Having visited many churches, I'm often struck by the architectural element... most Protestant churches are rows of benches all facing a podium. And I'm sympathetic to that model, but it's not the only model. The Quakers, for example, often have the benches facing each other, the arrangement representing their conviction that there is no priest between the believer and God (the Light), and that all may prophesy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nero
I think we all know what happens when squirrels go to church:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_067ahbXfg
Was that you Mr. Ham?
Edited by NeroLink to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
That must be the same church that has the big golden finger on top pointing to heaven (instead of the cross).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, we see Jesus choosing fishermen , tax collectors, regular "folks". In His day Jesus would have been looked on by many as a Rabbi, a teacher with students, followers. Interestingly, He chose his followers initially and they told others. Jesus lived with these people and formed an extended community around His activities. They travelled, ate, slept, came and went, carried on their affairs from day to day.
Later His followers followed the same model of a community, sharing and living cooperatively around their faith. They looked amongst themselves and chose others to serve as needed. When the community grew to be large they determined collectively to find amongst themselves people who could help. The help was needed in direct service to those in the community who needed it - elderly, widows, those who had no means of support, no family to assist them.
Basically they looked out for and took care of each other, "fellowshipping" around their common faith and belief in God and Jesus Christ His son, the risen Redeemer.
The key leaders that get written about in Luke's Acts were, in fact, men and women of personal conviction who were personally committed to the message they taught of Christ.
f you believe it as written, there's a huge difference between what they lived and what a lot of church leaders live today, namely that theirs weren't primarily "teaching" ministries. Yes, they taught but that was a means of spreading the basic message of Christ. The "work" of the "ministry" wasn't solely teachers and maintenance of the material. There was a lot of action around their building and living as a community, a group of people with interests and needs.
Paul did the same, his travels were to spread the "gospel" and to help establish a growing and diverse group of churches.
I don't think Acts is the "only" way to do things, it's the way they did things. it does form a history though where we can see how this whole thing got started.
To my mind the expansion of the message of the gospel is slowed down and can even be hindered if all the effort expended by a church and it's "leadership" is on the business affairs of setting up a "church". That can be done but it shouldn't become a purpose in and of itself.
If the primary function is to "spread the gospel" you don't need a huge physical operation to do that IMO. People spread the gospel, always have. The "church" business should primarily focus on the cooperative effort of all the participants in helping and assisting the community of people that make it up in real, tangible ways - socially, economically, spiritually. There is also the capability for each participant to share directly with their extended community that way, the people that a church is actually trying to reach - real, tangible expressions of the love Jesus said would exemplify His followers. Feed the hungry, help the poor, relieve the sick, lift the spirit. There's a 1,000 ways to lead and no one has to appoint or train or follow. They just involve helping.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well first i was getting kind of bored or bummed with the church talk
but when i saw this
i liked it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I'm glad. :)
A true leader doesn't have to accumulate followers. I posted a thread awhile back about a guy who started a banking system which gave out small loans to needy people. Little loans, pea shooter loans, 10-20 bucks apiece. This was in another country where 20 bucks is a lot. There were small amounts loaned to people, primarily women, so they could start these little businesses, buy some stuff, candy, food, whatever and resell it on the street. Or buy produce and resell it, or materials to make clothes and sell them. "Micro loans". He was awarded a Nobel prize this last year.
He doesn't promote this form of banking as a way to make huge sums of money and knows it probably won't work well for the huge financial institutions. But it does work to help people who won't get any help otherwise. And people for the most part paid it back, with the small interest rates his bank required. If they didn't they couldn't get another loan and had to pay it back and get right before trying again. They got assistance and some direction so they could succeed. I think I read he said over 90 per cent of the loans were paid back.
This was a way to leverage the large equities a formal bank could manage into the hands of the people in the most dire of circumstances, who really need it. I mean really need help. They can get started. They may never own a Levi Strauss or a Costco sized operation but they get a leg up starting out.
To start, this guy travelled out into the rural areas of the country to reach people. He went to them, months, travelling, getting this thing started. His goal wasn't to make billiions, it was to try something radically different and moderately insane by most standards - reach out to those who really need it and do something that will actually help everyone, because if people can become self-sufficient they won't be a burden to the rest of the system around them.
So he took people who weren't even on the face of the earth for practical purposes and helped to make them people, with a future, a roof over their heads. A shot.
A phrase that fits any leader - "Be something to someone". Count. Do what you do best, to the end the work stands for something and someone. That's a profile I'd like to have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
anotherDan
Yes. And Paul's understanding of that community was that Christ was at the head of it, and everyone in it was a "member in particular" of his body. Still today, it seems a fresh and perfect way to see the "called out." What may begin as an authentic out-working of sincere and eyes-opened members of that body can and have become sham "ministries" with other "heads."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.