Even though every sermon any of us have ever heard about peace—particularly if that sermon originates from Galatians—has told us that peace is not the absence of conflict. The idea here is that we can be people of peace, and have communal and individual peace even when everything around us is in the midst of tumult. This is a Biblical view of peace, but in reality the way we practice peace in the church is about trying to get to a place of peace as the absence of conflict.
This often comes when a church is looking to replace or hire a new staff member. Churches are replete with stories about one minister being too active or too controversial then leaving for another church or being fired and the very next minister being the most uninspiring, milk-toast, oatmeal talking person ever. Churches tend to swing from one side of the pendulum to the other. In this example, the new pastor comes in and gives the church what it wants in terms on not upsetting or challenging anyone, then the next thing you know, the church looks up and wonders why nothing is going on, why they’re not growing and why no new strides are being made. The reason is peace as the absence of conflict.
Some in the church have bought into the idea that peace, as the absence of conflict is always good. I seriously question that proposition. Like I said before, the transformative process by nature is not peaceful.
The church is supposed to call people away from the kingdoms of this world. Those kingdoms are the very air we breathe. We are bathed in it. We can’t escape it. That’s why the church cannot afford the absence of conflict. This, I think, is what Jesus meant when He said that He came not to bring peace, but a sword. The Savior is not interested in senseless violence, but rather He knows that to live as He is calling us to live, we would naturally be set apart—and set at odds—from the kingdoms of this world.
For example, white churches in the south repeated implored Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement to simple wait for equality and not cause domestic disturbance. This—as the absence of conflict—is peace. Yet, their position was not right. If someone had gone into a southern white church in the 1950’s and said, “Hey, we should everything we can to bring about equality for all races,” then he or she would probably have been run out of town. Yet it is the process of disrupting the peace that advanced the kingdom of God and made both the society and the church a truer reflection of the heart of God.
Peacekeeping is often opposition to God.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Peace Keeping --2
Peace is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong, I like peace and think that the church above all people groups should work for peace. What I’m aiming at is spiritual cowardice and poor leadership being masqueraded as “peace keeping.”
Here’s a typical example: A church I know was considering making some changes in terms of the use of women in worship. Many church members had been patiently asking for an open study of the issue. Church leadership decided to pursue it, but then—before the first Bible had been opened—the leaders responded to the backlash and opted not to broach the subject at all. The reason they gave was that it would cause division in the church. Clearly this was not a decision made out of conviction; either conviction to honor honest seekers with genuine questions nor conviction to make decisions based on an earnest examination of Scripture. My point here is not that this particular community needed to make some kind of change, but rather that the illusion of maintaining peace trumped what Christians should be doing—searching the Scriptures.
Yet this is frequently the way the church approaches things. This, I think, is what the pastor from the previous post was speaking to. Churches, to be healthy and a reflection of the heart of God must maneuver from a place of conviction and earnest belief. Anything less is other than what the ministry of Jesus indicated. Was Jesus concerned about peace keeping? I’m sure he was, but that took a back seat when he rebuked the religious leaders, chased the moneychangers out of the temple, and consistently provoked the Pharisees. Jesus comes to earth as a revolutionary and his ministry reflects it. He is a truth-teller and whatever comes from that telling is what comes. In fact, Jesus is so bad at keeping the peace that he upsets enough people that they eventually kill him.
What Jesus did do was call God-seekers to a higher ideal. He called them to Kingdom living that surpassed what they were already doing and he called them to a vision of the world that was different than what they had been taught. He called them to re-orient their lives, which is naturally tumultuous! Transformation, by nature, contains upheaval and disorientation, which people, by nature, do not like. Transformation is not a peaceful experience! Therefore, if church leaders focus on peace, when we know that upheaval and disorientation are part of the transformational process, then we are curtailing opportunities of growth for those under our care. While we think we are being Godly, in truth we are keeping people from experiencing the nature processes of spiritual formation and development. It’s what Erwin McManus refers to as “excessive nurture.” What McManus means is that churches are often so concerned with nurture—and peace is part and parcel with nurture—that they fail to mature and develop people. Where insufficient nurture leaves the back door of the church open, excessive nurture creates a logjam at the front door—to use McManus’ words. In short, sometimes the peace we wish to keep is the thing keeping us from becoming the people God wants us to become.
Here’s a typical example: A church I know was considering making some changes in terms of the use of women in worship. Many church members had been patiently asking for an open study of the issue. Church leadership decided to pursue it, but then—before the first Bible had been opened—the leaders responded to the backlash and opted not to broach the subject at all. The reason they gave was that it would cause division in the church. Clearly this was not a decision made out of conviction; either conviction to honor honest seekers with genuine questions nor conviction to make decisions based on an earnest examination of Scripture. My point here is not that this particular community needed to make some kind of change, but rather that the illusion of maintaining peace trumped what Christians should be doing—searching the Scriptures.
Yet this is frequently the way the church approaches things. This, I think, is what the pastor from the previous post was speaking to. Churches, to be healthy and a reflection of the heart of God must maneuver from a place of conviction and earnest belief. Anything less is other than what the ministry of Jesus indicated. Was Jesus concerned about peace keeping? I’m sure he was, but that took a back seat when he rebuked the religious leaders, chased the moneychangers out of the temple, and consistently provoked the Pharisees. Jesus comes to earth as a revolutionary and his ministry reflects it. He is a truth-teller and whatever comes from that telling is what comes. In fact, Jesus is so bad at keeping the peace that he upsets enough people that they eventually kill him.
What Jesus did do was call God-seekers to a higher ideal. He called them to Kingdom living that surpassed what they were already doing and he called them to a vision of the world that was different than what they had been taught. He called them to re-orient their lives, which is naturally tumultuous! Transformation, by nature, contains upheaval and disorientation, which people, by nature, do not like. Transformation is not a peaceful experience! Therefore, if church leaders focus on peace, when we know that upheaval and disorientation are part of the transformational process, then we are curtailing opportunities of growth for those under our care. While we think we are being Godly, in truth we are keeping people from experiencing the nature processes of spiritual formation and development. It’s what Erwin McManus refers to as “excessive nurture.” What McManus means is that churches are often so concerned with nurture—and peace is part and parcel with nurture—that they fail to mature and develop people. Where insufficient nurture leaves the back door of the church open, excessive nurture creates a logjam at the front door—to use McManus’ words. In short, sometimes the peace we wish to keep is the thing keeping us from becoming the people God wants us to become.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Peace Keeping -- Part 1
This post is one in a series dealing with the beauty and and pitfalls of "keeping the peace" in the church.
--------------------------------------------------
Could it be that peace is overrated? Please know I am committed to peace – in its true meaning and practiced correctly. As the apostle Paul writes, I try to do everything to “live at peace” with those around me and in the world. However, there are times when peace is the enemy to both progress and discipleship.
How? Let me explain.
A frequent occurrence in the church is for leaders to make reverse decision or change direction because of peace. We want to “keep the peace” or “work for peace” or “live in peace” with one another. On the surface this sounds good, ideal even. The problem with peace keeping in the church arises because “peace” is often code for “keeping the status quo.”
Imagine a scenario when a church is considering a major change in its structure or mission. Meetings are held, perspectives considered, Bibles studied etc…. But as soon as the folks in the pews get wind of a certain change the pushback begins. Congregants with deep pockets start saber rattling, long time members who disagree start talk of “leaving if…” and private and secret meetings occur. Next church leaders begin having lunches and meetings with people who are upset in the hopes of mediating some kind of mutual agreement. This doesn’t always work, though, and then church leaders must make a decision about what to do. And often the decision is to maintain the status quo or put forth some watered-down, pseudo-interesting version of what God may have placed on the hearts of the leaders in the first place.
The reasons for re-visioning the initial change are myriad: keeping power, fear, over-sensitivity to criticism, whatever. But the articulated reason is usually “peace.” We want the church be peaceful.
And this hyper-privileging of “peace” is killing the church of Jesus! It gives influence to those of the church ranks that are the least mature and allows them to remain so. At the same time, the church becomes focused on offering insiders a comfortable community and becomes disengaged from reaching out because the peace within must be maintained.
A friend of mine tells a story about a preacher of a large church from my non-denomination meeting a nationally known pastor who ministers to a large church in Atlanta. As the two spoke, the pastor explained to the preacher that our non-denomination was mostly churches with memberships of under 100 people (which is true), a significant number of churches around 200 people (which is true), and occasionally we might have a church blossom to around 5,000 members (which is true), but never really more than that. The reason, this pastor posited, was that because the way leadership works in our churches we were incapable of growing larger congregations. He stated the reason this way: “Your leaders go to work all day and do battle all day and when they come to church they want peace. And you can’t lead when peace is privileged over evangelism and transformation.”
(More to come…)
--------------------------------------------------
Could it be that peace is overrated? Please know I am committed to peace – in its true meaning and practiced correctly. As the apostle Paul writes, I try to do everything to “live at peace” with those around me and in the world. However, there are times when peace is the enemy to both progress and discipleship.
How? Let me explain.
A frequent occurrence in the church is for leaders to make reverse decision or change direction because of peace. We want to “keep the peace” or “work for peace” or “live in peace” with one another. On the surface this sounds good, ideal even. The problem with peace keeping in the church arises because “peace” is often code for “keeping the status quo.”
Imagine a scenario when a church is considering a major change in its structure or mission. Meetings are held, perspectives considered, Bibles studied etc…. But as soon as the folks in the pews get wind of a certain change the pushback begins. Congregants with deep pockets start saber rattling, long time members who disagree start talk of “leaving if…” and private and secret meetings occur. Next church leaders begin having lunches and meetings with people who are upset in the hopes of mediating some kind of mutual agreement. This doesn’t always work, though, and then church leaders must make a decision about what to do. And often the decision is to maintain the status quo or put forth some watered-down, pseudo-interesting version of what God may have placed on the hearts of the leaders in the first place.
The reasons for re-visioning the initial change are myriad: keeping power, fear, over-sensitivity to criticism, whatever. But the articulated reason is usually “peace.” We want the church be peaceful.
And this hyper-privileging of “peace” is killing the church of Jesus! It gives influence to those of the church ranks that are the least mature and allows them to remain so. At the same time, the church becomes focused on offering insiders a comfortable community and becomes disengaged from reaching out because the peace within must be maintained.
A friend of mine tells a story about a preacher of a large church from my non-denomination meeting a nationally known pastor who ministers to a large church in Atlanta. As the two spoke, the pastor explained to the preacher that our non-denomination was mostly churches with memberships of under 100 people (which is true), a significant number of churches around 200 people (which is true), and occasionally we might have a church blossom to around 5,000 members (which is true), but never really more than that. The reason, this pastor posited, was that because the way leadership works in our churches we were incapable of growing larger congregations. He stated the reason this way: “Your leaders go to work all day and do battle all day and when they come to church they want peace. And you can’t lead when peace is privileged over evangelism and transformation.”
(More to come…)
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Style in Ministry
Thought these thoughts from Mark Driscoll were appropriate. One of the struggles I constantly face is dealing with people who have no clue about being in the culture. Many folks I know want people to convert more to the conservative, white Christian sub-culture than convert to Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
