More Worship Service
Sunday evening worship service = Margaret and Miranda helping some friends paint their house. I “cooked” dinner for them: McDoubles and Fish Filet sandwiches.
Tuesday evening worship service = helping our friends hang a light fixture. Unfortunately, we were not able to complete the project. But, maybe we’ll be able to soon.
There is something fundamental about fellowship
So, I seem to be on a “unity” kick lately, huh? I’m probably thinking more about unity because I’ve been reading John H. Armstrong’s book Your Church is Too Small. But, actually, I’ve been thinking about and writing about unity for quite some time.
Three years ago, I wrote a post called “There is something fundamental about fellowship.” This post casts our unity with one another in the language of fellowship. Our fellowship with one another (or lack of fellowship) is a demonstration of our fellowship with God (or lack of fellowship).
——————————————-
There is something fundamental about fellowship
Fellowship… There is something about fellowship that makes it fundamental to the church. When Jesus was asked to name the greatest commandment, he answered:
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets. (Matthew 22:37-40 ESV)
There are at least two amazing things about this passage. First, Jesus did not stop with the commandment to “Love the Lord your God”. It would seem that commandment would be enough. Instead, he said there is a second command that is like it. Similarly, Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets depend on both of these commandments. Again, the Law and Prophets do not just depend on “Love the Lord your God”. The Law and the Prophets also depend on the commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself”.
There seems to be a fundamental connection between our relationship with God and our relationship with other people. John said something similar in his first letter:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. (1 John 4:7-8 ESV)
This seems very simple. If we love God, we will love others. If we do not love others, that demonstrates that we do not love God. The two are fundamentally connected.
In the prologue to his first letter, John also discussed our relationship with God in terms of our relationship with one another:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life – the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us – that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship (κοινωνία) with us; and indeed our fellowship (κοινωνία) is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3 ESV)
When we have fellowship (κοινωνία – koinonia) with one another, we are demonstrating our fellowship with God. Verse 3 could even be translated as follows: “… that you too may have fellowship with us, and that fellowship of ours is truly with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ.”
We cannot separate our love for God from our love for other people. We cannot separate our fellowship with God from our fellowship with other believers. Fellowship is fundamental in the life of a believer and in the inter-connected lives of a group of believers.
But, just as we cannot create love for God and others, we cannot create fellowship either. Instead, the Spirit creates a bond between His adopted children that humans cannot create on their own. The fellowship (“sharing”) that we have in common is the presence of the Holy Spirit. And, this fellowship exists between all believers. Certainly relationships can be deep or shallow, intimate or surface-level, but fellowship between believers is created by the Spirit, not by our interaction with one another. Relationships that are based on this Spirit-created fellowship should be nurtured, strengthened, encouraged, and sought through continued interaction. But, those relationships must be built fundamentally on Spirit-created fellowship.
What does it mean for fellowship to be fundamental to believers and the church? Here are two examples:
Discipleship depends on fellowship…
When we recognize that discipleship is more than simply teaching facts to someone, then the fundamental role of fellowship becomes clear. Discipleship requires sharing life together. Without fellowship, discipleship is reduced to the transfer of information, which is not true discipleship at all.
Discipline depends on fellowship…
When a brother or sister is living in unrepentant sin, we are taught to disassociate with that brother or sister. In modern times this has been reduced to preventing attendance at certain activities. However, if there is true fellowship involved, then discipline requires the rupture of vibrant relationships: like divorce in a family, back when divorce was not an accepted option.
Fellowship… There is something about fellowship that makes it fundamental to the church. I want to learn more about fellowship. Perhaps others could share what they’ve learned about Spirit-enabled, Spirit-created, Spirit-driven fellowship…
Another Wednesday Night Worship Service
Tonight, “Wednesday night worship service” = being taken out to dinner by our good friends. They thought they were doing this to thank us, but really they were doing this because we wanted to spend time with them. Don’t tell them though.
A Theology of Y’All
My presentation of “A Theology of Mutuality” at SECSOR 2010 went pretty well. I started having allergy problems yesterday. (Welcome back to Georgia!) I had a little trouble breathing, watery eyes, and a scratchy throat while delivering my paper. But, I made it through, and even had a few good questions. One person suggested I turn the presentation into a book.
A new friend, Neil Carter, from the blog “Christ in Y’all” and author of the book Christ in Y’all, sat through my presentation. Neil gave me a copy of his book, and we were able to talk together for a while. Meeting Neil was a great bonus to this conference, because I’ve been following his blog since before I started my own blog.
So, today went very well overall. Tonight we’ll have dinner with my family, and tomorrow after our drive home, our friends have invited us to have dinner with them. Opportunities for more “mutuality”… or “Y’all”.
Disagreements without Separation
I had a very encouraging conversation yesterday with a brother concerning Romans 14:1-15:7. We were talking about how to disagree with brothers and sisters without separating from them. Here are some points from our discussion:
- Start with our agreement, primarily in the person and work of Jesus Christ, in our common relationship to God and to one another. When we start with our agreement we can recognize that most of our disagreements are insignificant compared to the greatness and immensity of our agreements.
- When we finally discuss our disagreement, we do so as brothers and/or sisters. Thus, we treat one another with respect.
- We also hold our beliefs (even strong beliefs) with humility, recognizing that God can always teach us through our brother or sister.
- While discussing our disagreements we never say anything or do anything that would cause our brother or sister to stumble or to hinder their growth in the faith. We also regard our brother or sister as more important – even more important than showing our views to be right.
- Even if we fail to agree and even if we continue to hold our own beliefs (being convinced in our own consciences), we live in a way that honors our brother or sister.
- Even if we fail to agree, we end with a reminder of our mutual relationship to one another through Christ. If God has accepted us in Christ, then we must accept one another.
- If the brother or sister chooses to separate from us, we do not have to react by separating ourselves from him or her. We cannot choose how another persons acts toward us, but we can choose to be loving in return.
What do you think? What would you add?
(And, by the way, yes, there are disagreements that can cause us to separate. We read about some of these in Scripture. But, they are usually well beyond what usually causes us to separate from brothers and sisters.)
Partners in the Good News
In Philippians 1:5, Paul thanks God for those in Philippi who were partners with him in the task of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ! The word “partner” and the idea of “fellowship” (same word in this case) are very important to Paul and the other authors of the New Testament.
I’m planning to go to Ethiopia this summer as part of a group led by Dave and BeckyLynn Black. One of the things that I’ve been struggling with over the last few weeks in how to go to Ethiopia as a partner, not as a specialist. How can I go in a way that engenders mutual learning, fellowship, and discipleship?
While I’m continuing to work out these issues, I was excited to read Dave Black’s latest essay called “Missions as Partnership.” Here is one paragraph:
Becky and I view our relationship with the Ethiopian churches as a partnership. Indeed, partnership is a very important word to us. Daniel Rickett, in his book Building Strategic Relationships: A Practical Guide to Partnering with Non-Western Missions (p. 1), defines partnership as “a complementary relationship driven by a common purpose and sustained by a willingness to learn and grow together in obedience to God.” Such is our desire everywhere we go in Ethiopia. Our goal is to establish partnerships between autonomous bodies in the U.S. and Ethiopia. This is one reason we prefer to work at the local church level rather than at the denominational level. A parallel commitment of ours is to develop a sense of interdependence among the churches we work with both in the States and in the Horn of Africa. We might call our work a joint venture between full partners.
This is very much in line with my study of mutuality. I am very excited about partnering together with brothers and sisters in Ethiopia. Not only do I hope and expect to help the churches of Alaba, Ethiopia, I also expect the churches of Alaba, Ethiopia to help me and the churches in my area. It’s a partnership.
The people that God brings into my life
God has surrounded me with some great brothers and sisters! I thought I would introduce you to two of them through something they’ve written recently on their blogs.
Jason at “Fight the Good Fight” wrote about “The Importance of Meeting Together.” First, he tells about a man he knows named Manesh who lives in a section of India that is hostile to Christians. Then, Jason says,
On Sunday we spent our meeting time talking about a trip to Ethiopia that two of our members will be taking this summer. Our discussion led to the topic of community and the privilege of meeting together. Ryan commented on Bonhoeffer’s discussion of community and meeting together and how just the very fact that we are able to meet together as a body of believers is a privilege and a blessing. And it is only by the Holy Spirit that we are able to commune together as the body of Christ. Manesh, I think, fully understands the importance of meeting together, in his case, for the sake of the Gospel, and in many ways the same is true for us. Manesh earnestly prays for the meeting to be something that influences the people around him. Are we praying for, and conducting our meetings in such a way that honors Christ, shows desire for those around us to know Christ, and cherishes the privilege of meeting together?
Very important things to think about indeed!
Also, Jonathan (who hasn’t named his blog?) wrote a post called “Information vs People.” He writes in part:
Modernists place a higher priority on information than on people. As the church has good reasons to reject post-modern sensibilities, it is also highly modern. I think the best illustration of this is the advent of denominationalism. New denominations form by a group of people leaving a denomination because that denomination has its facts about God and the Bible wrong. In essence, they forsake all of the relationships they had built in order to maintain their loyalty to the correct information. This point was made clear to me in my Baptist History class. 400 years of petty bickering and parting ways over who was more “right”.
hmmm…. loyalty to correct information. That’s a good way to put it.
I really appreciate both Jason and Jonathan and the many other people that God uses in my life every day!
As simple as knowing, hearing, and responding
Felicity at “Simple Church” wrote a very succinct, but thought-provoking post called “The One Key Skill in Simple Church.” She begins with this:
One of the main paradigm shifts within this movement of simple churches is the belief that ordinary men and women hear God. They can be entrusted with the affairs of the Kingdom. It does not need specially trained people to manage the church. The Holy Spirit is able to run the church by speaking directly to His people.  He will do a far better job of it than our organizations and denominations ever can.
Within simple church, we like to say that church is as simple as knowing God, hearing His voice and responding to what He tells us. Jesus is head of His church, and if we believe that we are to take this literally, it means that both at an individual and at a corporate level, He desires to communicate with us. It also presupposes that we have the ability to recognize His voice when He is speaking to us.
What Felicity is saying here is very similar to what I said in my post “Justification and the Church Meeting.” Those who have been saved, justified, indwelled, born again, etc. have everything necessary to be a functioning part of the church and even to take part (speaking and serving) in a church meeting.
In fact, most Christians would agree with what Felicity said… in theory. But, when it comes to practice, many feel that they must protect the church from themselves. That someone may say or do something wrong… unhelpful… selfish… heretical… etc. Therefore, only certain people are allowed to speak / serve when the church meets.
When I read Felicity’s post, I began asking myself these questions: Do I really trust God with his people and his church and his kingdom? Do I really believe that Jesus can build his church better than I can? Do I really believe that the Spirit can use any of God’s children to speak to or serve me and others in a way that helps me grow in maturity?
And finally this question: Is my life with my brothers and sisters in Christ demonstrating that I REALLY believe these things?
Transforming leadership is mutual leadership
In my research on the topic of mutuality, I’ve recently come across an article by Mary Miller called “Transformational Leadership and Mutuality.” (Transformation 24.3-4 (July-October 2007), 180-92) This is the abstract of her article:
What does leadership research and literature have to say about the mutuality of transforming leaders, and is being transforming synonymous with being charismatic? Transforming leadership and charismatic leadership are two distinct and different theories in the field of leadership research, so understanding the distinctive between these theories is essential. Importantly, the definition of ‘charismatic’ leaders within a church context is completely different from use of the term within leadership research. The discussion thus identifies the conceptual basis for the term ‘charismatic’ leadership within leadership research. The conceptual basis of transforming leadership within theory provides a frame from which mutuality between the leader and others can be understood. (p. 180)
There are a few definitions that are important to understand. For example, leadership research uses the term “charismatic leadership”, but the term “charismatic” does not indicate spiritual giftedness as it often does in theological discussions. Miller describes “charismatic leadership” as follows:
Charismatic leader takes time to enhance how they are perceived so they receive recognition from followers. This is because the charismatic leader is seeking for an emotional appeal, so his or her aura is the deciding factor of being a charismatic leader. It is through and from the use of emphasizing their personhood and their gifts that the charismatic leader has impact on the follower….
Central to the definition of charismatic leadership is the perception that the leader is exceptional in some way, and the charismatic leader has the ability to make followers believe in them. The belief in the charismatic leader is the main means of impact and influence on the follower….
The charismatic leader’s focus is on their own abilities as a charismatic leader to formulate, articulate, and motivate followers to join with him or her in fulfilling the vision. (p. 182)
What about “transforming leadership”? This is the way Miller describes “transforming leadership” from leadership research:
Transforming leadership was conceived… as leaders who valued a learning process, specifically leaders who were able to learn from others. The fact that the leader seeks to receive from the follower, in Burns’s definition, profiles the transformational leader as a learner, not the one who has all the answers. It is this modelling of learning that impacts the follower to perceive that they, as followers, are also learners and as such can enter into a free exchange with the leader.
The emphasis on mutuality [in transforming leadership] allows the follower to help frame her/his own vision as part of the overall vision setting process, as well as impacting the leader to further develop the vision. (p. 185)
Next, Miller compares and contrasts “charismatic leadership” and “transforming leadership”:
The process that is used by charismatic and transformational leader also has substantive differences. The charismatic leader is the ‘head of the show’, ultimately responsible to not only articulate his/her vision clearly, but also gain agreement and commitment to that specific vision. The transforming leader has openness to follower input and impact of the vision, which involves power sharing and participation….
The charismatic leader is responsible for ‘buy in’ of followers for the vision that s/he establishes. The dynamic in this type of process is leader focused. It is the leader’s responsibility to continue to stimulate and envision. In contrast, the transforming leader operates on the assumption that followers have vision and need to be able to have a context where that vision is allowed to come forward. There is respect towards the follower’s contribution to articulating the vision. (p. 185-86)
Don’t let the nomenclature become confusing. All leaders in the church have some type of charism and charisma, and all leaders desire to see lives transformed. But, that is not the point of the article above. Notice the definitions and distinctions between “charismatic leaders” and “transformational leaders” described above.
I can see how these different understandings of “leadership” come to play in our interpretation of Scripture. If the apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders, teachers, and other leaders in Scripture are to be “charismatic leaders” (as described above), then their leadership styles and methods and processes and goals will be different than if they are to be “transformational leaders” (as described above).
As far as I can tell, in order to determine how leaders in the church are to acts (i.e. as “charismatic leaders” or “transformational leaders”) we must answer the following question: Is the leadership that we see modelled and taught in Scripture a sole leadership style or a mutual leadership style?
According to Miller, transforming leadership is mutual leadership. If the Scriptures indicate a mutual leadership style (and I think they do), then we should see more of the “transformational leadership” style as described above. However, I think we primarily see the “charismatic leadership” style (as described above).
If you agree that we primarily see the “charismatic leadership” style, but should see the “transformational leadership” style, what suggestions would you have for churches to begin to see more “transformational leadership”?
If you primarily experience “transformational leadership,” share how leadership is mutual in the church.
If you disagree, and think that the “charismatic leadership” style is right for churches (that leadership should not be mutual), what brings you to this conclusion?
For better or for worse (but not about marriage)
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their love or lack of love by the way that they treat (for better or for worse) people who are different from them.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their sevant’s heart or lack thereof by the way that they serve (for better or for worse) others when they are at their neediest.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their fellowship or lack of fellowship by the way they share with one another (for better or for worse) when people are hurting and their lives are messy.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their hospitality or lack of hospitality by how they share their possessions and time (for better or for worse) when they have very little to share.
Individual believers and churches demonstrate their unity or lack of unity by how they accept others (for better or for worse) when they are not accepted themselves.