I was talking to a deacon in our church yesterday. He had the understanding that church leadership should be political. He said that I needed to find out what the church wanted and then find a way to give that to them. He said the answer was compromise.
Without giving out the details of the disagreement, his position was that I should give the church what they wanted, with the caveat (between the leadership) that it be in name only. In other words, the church really wants this extra biblical thing and as leadership it is not what we are proposing, but in order to get them on our side, let's give it to them. We know that there is no extra authority that comes along with it. We know that it will not change the way that we operate. We know that it wields no special power. Yet the church will accept our proposal because they will have this thing to look at that they think is what they want. How can that hurt? If we try and teach them that they are wrong we will cause division. We are called to be gatherers, and telling people that they are wrong is being a scatterer. Yes, there may be heart issues, but who doesn't have heart issues? We need to keep them happy.
Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 8They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Was the calf that Israel fashioned a real god? Did the calf have any real power, or was it just perceived? Did the calf have the ability to do anything on it's own?
What would God think?
Exodus 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: 10Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men. (Mark 8:33)
I couldn't say it any better than that.
2 comments:
Whoa! Church leadership should be political? How 'bout, more aptly put, church leadership has become political. Also, giving the church the appearance of giving them what they want and intentionally doing something different (though maybe theoretically it fits in context) is underhanded, dishonest, and quite frankly undermines the leadership itself. Shouldn't leadership be teaching the church to be happy in the Lord, not making them happy in comfort of what they want.
It is this 'politicalization' of the church that causes her to follow traditions and constitutions, rather than following the Bible. Is this why the church teaches all these black and white stances on many issues rather than Christian liberty in gray areas (and how to decide based on Scripture). Don't get me wrong, there are some definite black & white issues, but not near as many as some churches want to teach. We will never, on this earth, have 'arrived' as an individual nor as a church. We should always be learning, willing to change where God is directing. Sometimes the Lord will show us that a position held for a long time is really not truly Biblical, but extra Biblical.
Show me where in the Bible it says that church leadership is political. Sadly, I see the church getting its example from man. And tell me again why we use "Robert's Rules of Order" in a deacon / church setting. Is it implementing another man-made system? Why don't we also create campaign rallies and parties for those 'running' for deacon if we are going to 'represent' a certain group in the church. Won't even go into that issue of deacons with power. nor whether it is truly wise to be congregation ruled.
D.P.
As churches go, we probably are not that far from running campaign rallies.
Post a Comment