Considering Making All Things New

Making All Things New by David Powlison is largely a view of sexual brokenness and renewal from 20,000 feet.

The book is unusual in that it addresses both groups of the sexual broken, those who sin and those who’ve been sinned against. And the truth of the matter is that those groups have a large overlap. The addicted and the abused not only share a soiled view of sexuality, but the abused can often become addicted in response to their abuse. The time, unfortunately, is not evenly divided. More focus is given to the addicted when he does pull in for a closer look at the problems.

“Our sexuality was designed to be a willing servant of love. It becomes distorted by our willfulness or our fear. It is being remade into a willing servant of love.”

My use of “the addicted and the abused” points to vast amount of similar alliteration in the early chapters. He uses a few literary devices like that to help people get the point. Perhaps adapted from lectures, this stands out early on.

“There is one gospel of Jesus Christ, who came to make saints of all kinds of sinner-sufferers and sufferer-sinners, whatever our particular configuration of defections and distresses.”

Powlison does focus on the big picture of God’s work of renewing our sexuality. This doesn’t mean there isn’t practical advice. There is plenty of that as he swoops down for closer looks.

Some of the most helpful material is in chapter 4 which is appropriate entitled Renewal is Lifelong. There is often pressure, internal, relational and ecclesiastical, to be renewed in short order. While abuse may have taken place in an instant (in some circumstances), the patterns we developed as a result have been developing for years. Patterns of sexual license have developed and been in place for years. These things don’t change overnight.

This is not to be soft on sin, but realistic about sanctification. As a conservative Presbyterian, I’m often discouraged by how often our confessional views are ignored in this area. While God may grant great change at conversion, or thru sanctification, we never arrive to where we should be until glorification. It isn’t just our sexual renewal that will take the rest of our lives but our renewal, period. Therefore, it is more helpful to think of sanctification as a direction. As we think of ourselves, or talk with a congregant, we should focus on direction. Are they wandering or continuing to fight the good fight? Setbacks happen and treating them like the end of the world is one of Satan’s devices to discourage toward depression and despair.

He also is particularly helpful in the next chapter, Renewal is a Wider Battle. We are prone to focus on the sex, the visible sin. His metaphor of a movie theater is helpful. There are other things going on in our lives that, unknown to us, are resulting in sexual temptation or sin. Often sex isn’t just about sex. For instance, we can be disappointed or angry with God and act out sexually. Tracking patterns is one of the useful things he discusses in that chapter and the one that follows, Renewal is a Deeper Battle.

The tendency of individuals and churches, is to focus so much on the sexual aspect that the larger issues in the person’s life go unaddressed. Sex is only the tip of the ice burg. Beneath the surface lie bitterness, envy, anger, betrayal and more.

One thing that isn’t here (it is a short book!) is how early sexualization thru either abuse or chosen experiences inhibit emotional growth. The person suffers relationally as a result. They will often struggle with anger, boundaries etc. Until these areas are addressed they can come across as the children they may be emotionally.

This is a great little book to prompt discussion and help in some big picture items. If you want to get into the trenches resources like The Wounded Heart (and workbook), False Intimacy or Breaking Free are a good place to turn.

Read Full Post »

Considering Introverts in Church Leadership

The next topic in Adam McHugh’s book, Introverts in the Church, is leadership. This was a painful one for him, I imagine, since he so often questioned his call as a result of his introversion and comparing himself to others. Lest some misunderstand, I’ll say this out front, he is saying that there are characteristics for good leadership that may be found in greater measure among introverts. He’s not saying leaders should be introverts.

I’m being self-conscious here for some have seen me as singing the praises of the introvert at the expense of the extrovert. That is not the point of McHugh’s book, not my blog posts. My point has been to better understand how introversion may affect church life. This includes how people tend to view introverts, the wounds some carry as a result, and how introverts participate in church life. I think churches have personalities, often rooted in the original formation of the church (DNA) as well as experience (nurture). Churches that are comprised of many introverts tend to be … introverted. How those churches view ministry will be different. Not better. Not worse. Different.

He begins with a story of one morning in the office. He and the Sr. Pastor came in at the same time. The Sr. Pastor was greeting all the staff, making talk small and large. He was quietly getting his horrible tasting coffee and slipping into his office where his copy of Calvin’s Institutes awaited him. Couldn’t get any more stereotypical than this, but it happens. As the pastor of a smaller church, the office is where I go to work. Were I the pastor of a larger church, I’d spend more time talking with staff as I made my way deeper into the bowls of my building to get to my office.

He then moves into a study, cited by Olsen Laney, which was repeated three times. All three times, both extroverts and introverts preferred extroverts as both their own ideal self and their ideal leader. Apparently, rather than being arrogant, introverts have serious self-esteem issues. They wish they were more extroverted (just as their extroverted friends long them to be).

At this point I wondered about our “shadow”, which is a part of Jung’s psychology but not often mentioned in discussion of personality type. This shouldn’t be taking as a sinful “shadow”, hiding in the darkness to deceive. But it is the “face” or personae we put on to function in the world for short periods of time. At least that is how I’m using it. I sometimes feel that way; that I have to be my opposite to fulfill some functions. That’s not wrong. It’s putting on your big boy pants and doing your job. It’s moving out of your comfort zone (the very thing some seem to think this series advocates against).

One of the wounds he points out is the general perception that introverts aren’t leaders and leaders aren’t introverts. For instance, he points to Richard Daft who cited numerous studies to arrive at his “Big Five personality dimensions”, one of which is …. extroversion. This can be seen as charisma, gregariousness, driven (better than dominance which he used) and “superstardom” or the person who seemingly excels at all they put their hand to.

Sadly, this has sifted down into the church. He notes the J. Oswald Sanders’ classic book Spiritual Leadership paints Paul as quite the extrovert because he had significant relationships with so many people. It shows up in expectations of congregations regarding pastors. You pretty much have to be awesome at everything (this is actually what team ministry is about whether the staff or the Session). There is little awareness that “we aren’t strong here, so we need a guy who is strong here, but we’ve got these things handled pretty well ourselves and he doesn’t need to be as strong.” This list would kill any mere mortal, and their marriages!

“Further, this model of leadership only validates the common, unbiblical expectation that pastors play the role of benefactor while everyone else in the congregation is beneficiary.”

I’ve known some great leaders who started great movements (no, I’m not dropping names). Some had great personal charisma. You wanted to be with them. Others, no so much. Or maybe they just didn’t like me or notice me. Yeah, I often wonder if people actually like me or just put up with me.

What happens when an organization, or church, depends on the personality of its central leader? Take away the leader and it falls apart. It may not cease to exist, but it shrinks and doesn’t know what to do because they’ve always just done what the “big guy” said. The church never learned to think biblically and implement biblical principles in leading. They either find another “big guy” or end up in ruins.

In Good to Great, Jim Collins explains that while charismatic leaders attract people, they tend to be “less effective at drawing people to the mission and values of the organization itself.” They are committed to the “man” not the mission. Paul’s friends were committed to the mission, not the man. They weren’t “Paul is so awesome”, but they were working with Paul to fulfill Jesus’ mission. That mission was clear. Great leaders aren’t about the short-term but the long-term.

Collins, in a book that is on my shelf but hasn’t been read yet, pushes back against the common understanding of leadership. His “Level 5” leaders are not charismatic but have “compelling modesty, are self-effacing and understated.” They are “more plow horse than show horse.” They also set up others for success.

There are people who are good at getting the job, and those who are good at doing the job. Sometimes they are one in the same. But I’ve seen too many people get hired who are ultimately lousy at doing the job, and people who are really good at the job struggle to get hired because they aren’t good at selling themselves (which is the opposite of Christian character, by the way). Humility, self-sacrifice and a commitment to something besides personal glory don’t show up well on a resume or that initial interview.

Collins isn’t alone. Drucker also notes that character matters more than charisma. Charisma creates an initial, unearned success that can make leaders inflexible and arrogant. They have figured it out, they think.

“Character in a leader is the quality that has the ability not only to draw others but also to maintain their loyalty. Character is more than personal integrity and ethical decision-making, though it certainly includes those elements. The central component of character is authenticity.”

McHugh mentions that leaders in the Scriptures were noted for character. Not perfection (they had plenty of imperfections). But they were “admirable and consistent”. This is true whether introverts or extroverts.

“True leadership is not cultivated in the limelight; it’s won in the trenches. Character is something that is built. Thus, the mark of godly leadership is not a magnetic personality; it is discipline, because discipline develops character.”

Back to business. I struggle with all the references to books on business, but I see this as revealing the glaring lack of work done in this within the church. So he draws on Peter Senge and The Fifth Discipline, which discusses the learning organization. It is one that includes “processes of reflection and evaluation into their organizational systems”. They don’t just do what they’ve always done but evaluate it. This means, McHugh notes, that people who listen and think before acting can be quite effective leaders. Introverts often have these qualities.

There is the blessing and the curse. I can tend to over-analyze. I can waste time going over conversations, meetings and decisions. I can’t just turn it off when I want to. The reason I was blogging this before 7 am is that I woke up early thinking about a few things. But decisions our Session makes are not impulsive and we are (I hope) implementing more reflection and evaluation in our processes.

Back to the Bible. He rightly notes that office is not something that is earned but rather a gift from God. The God who calls is also the God who equips. God does not call people based on personality type. He actually delights in reversing expectations. He chose Jacob, not firstborn Esau which was customary. He chose a disgraced former member of Pharaoh’s family to lead Israel out of bondage to Egypt. He chose the “runt” of the litter to displace big, handsome Saul as a king after His own heart. He put Jesus in the home of a humble carpenter in the backwoods of Galilee instead of a prominent family of Jerusalem.

So, some of the leaders God chooses and uses are introverts.

Read Full Post »

Considering the 2017 Red Sox

It was a long, frustrating season. There were many times I wanted to give up on them. Mostly I wanted to fire Farrell. But the frustration of this season doesn’t lie at just at Farrell’s door.

1. The Missing Papi. Yes, his play was missed. More than that was probably his presence. Some of those young players needed him in tough times. It is hard to know but I suspect things would be different in the clubhouse controversies.
2. Clubhouse Controversies. Price was seriously out of control. The fans just want you to perform as you have for years. It really isn’t complicated. But he thinks he can act like Ted Williams. I understand him being frustrated with the media, but not the fans. I didn’t think he was a good fit here, and still don’t think he was. He treatment of Eck was similar to Manny’s antics that got him gone. Part of me hopes he’s gone. Pedroia struggled with leadership during the Machado events, and not reigning in Price.
3. Injuries. There were the guys who missed serious time, especially the starting pitchers. Stephen Wright missed the season. Rodriquez was not right even when he was pitching. Price was in and out. Fister actually had some good starts, but that you had to rely on him was crazy. But when your depth keeps getting hurt or can’t throw strikes this is what happens. But it was the injuries that hampered guys: Bogaerts, Betts and Moreland all had injuries that put them in prolonged slumps. Pedroia was having a good season before his knee became too much of a problem. Hanley’s shoulder had an unknown effect on his play.
4. Sloppy Baseball. There were too many “error repeaters”, guys who kept making the same mistake. I love Benintendi but he ran into too many outs. He wasn’t the only one. There was some sloppy defense at times.
5. Farrell, Farrell, Farrell. He “protected” players. Fine. But he needed to correct players. He didn’t need to protect Price in the Eck incident. He made so many mysterious moves. He’d play guys who struggled for guys who were playing well. Too many mystifying moves, and not just in the playoffs. You play Devers and put Marrero in late for defense. But Farrell plays Marrerro based on the “match ups” despite the actual statistics that screamed, play Rafael.
6. Dombrowski. The Sale move was great. Moreland played well, but this team had no power. The pen needed help due to injuries from last season, which should have been addressed. His was a mixed report card.
7. The B’s regressed. Some of it was injuries. Some was struggling to get out of funks or the sophomore wall. I think we’ve seen the best of Bradley. Betts and Bogaerts had injuries and should be better next year. Benintendi worked through the problems and likely learned some important lessons. But their missing production was a serious problem for this team.

This will be an interesting off season. It began with a bang. Finally Farrell was fired. He was never Dombrowski’s man. But you don’t fire a guy who just survived cancer. They should have let him go after last year’s sweep and kept Luvollo. But he lost the clubhouse in addition to the bonehead moves that probably had Dombrowski throwing darts at his picture.

1. New manager. Looks like it will be either Alex Cora, Brad Ausmus, or Ron Gardenhire. I’m surprise Gabe Kapler isn’t in there. Of those three, I only want Cora. I’ve wanted him as manager for a few years now. He’s smart, articulate, gets analytics and builds relationships. He seems to have good EQ. Gardenhire apparently has good EQ as well, but is old school and doesn’t like the analytics that Farrell seemed to ignore or his book was a  few years old. Ausmus has a low EQ and struggles in dealing with the press. We don’t need Farrell part 2. Cora, please. Whomever it is they need to build a good staff. Perhaps Butter got complacent but they didn’t seem to fix fielding problems. Too many hitters had prolonged slumps and Porcello never quite got his mechanics figured out this year. That shouldn’t be happening. Update: Gardenhire was hired by the Tigers.
2. New slugger. I’d like J.D. Martinez, but that would necessitate a move like trading Bradley. Both Benintendi and Betts can play center field. Bradley may help get you pitching. Hosmer is another option and he’d fill the hole at first. But they need a solid veteran slugger who can help change the club house culture like in 2013.
3. Surgeries have begun. Ross was first, and the least significant. E-Rod’s surgery was overdue and hopefully will resolve his issue with the balky knee so he can trust it again. Hanley’s shoulder surgery was probably overdue. Perhaps he returns to a fearsome hitter instead of the shell of himself he was this year. Pedey should have one on his knee but it may be a problem going forward. This does create some short-term issues. E-Rod won’t be ready to begin 2018. This means you need Wright and Price healthy and ready to go. Assuming you keep Price after sitting him down and telling him he’s been an ass. Who knows when and for how long Pedroia will be healthy. They need a good back-up plan for him. Nunez would be a great one, if you can convince him to come back.
4. Good-bye Chris Young. He was pretty useless this year. Does this mean Castillo gets another chance? Or does Brentz finally get a chance? Brentz may add some power to the line up. If you go for Martinez, you have Sam Travis ready to play first. He’s not really a power bat, at least yet. Unless you want to move Devers there instead of Chavis. Devers and Chavis would give you 2 power bats at the corners. I’m not sure Chavis is ready for the big leagues, so now you need Devers at 3rd with Marrero as the utility/defensive replacement. Tough decisions, to be sure.All of this is why you need a manager who can work with the young players, unlike Farrell.
5. 6-man modified rotation? Having Wright is a big advantage if he’s healthy. He could give you one start per starter per month. Sale could get some rest throughout the season so he’s ready to dominate when you need him too. Not May but September and October. In between those irregular starts, the knuckleballer can provide long relief. Now that Farrell is gone he won’t be a pinch runner and messing up his shoulder on slides.
6. The Unexpected Moves. Dombrowski can’t stand pat. They barely beat the Yankees, but that doesn’t mean they are the better team. The Series-bound Yankees have figured out what the Red Sox haven’t in 2 tries: how to win in the post-season. Their many young stars are progressing. The Sox have to get better too.

This is a crossroads kind of off-season. They will either get better or worse. If better they will be in contention for championships. Worse, and the next few years will be just as frustrating as this one, or more. Now is when Dombrowski has to earn his keep.

Read Full Post »

Considering Love for God

We struggle to love God. We struggle with knowing what it means, or looks like to love God.

I wonder how many Christians avoid the Old Testament. I wonder if they avoid it because they don’t understand what Sinclair Ferguson calls “gospel grammar”. They read it as law, isolated from gracious realities. In their minds they still hear the law’s loud thunder.

Here is what I read to begin my personal devotions this morning:

“You shall therefore love the Lord your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always. Deuteronomy 11

Love for the Lord involves warm & fuzzy feelings. It isn’t less than that, but it is far more. Love does something. If I love YHWH as my God, as my Father, it means I’m moving toward obedience. It doesn’t mean I perfectly obey, because in this life I can’t. But God is restoring me and that reveals itself in obedience.

“Wait!” some may say. “What about the Gospel? Be done with this talk of obedience.

When we read Deuteronomy 11, we should hear the voice of Jesus in John 14.

¹⁵ “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

And His disciple John in his first letter.

⁴ Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, ⁵ but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: ⁶ whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. 1 John 2

Love for God will produce the fruit of obedience in our lives. Love moves us down the road of sanctification so our inner experience and our outer actions become increasingly aligned. They also become aligned with God’s law as a reflection of God’s character. Love is not vague, shapeless, obscure, hard to pin down.

When Paul nailed it down he brought the Roman Christians, and us, back to the law.

⁹ For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. Romans 13

This discussion is missing something so far. Why do we love God in the first place? The answer is the same in the Old and New Testaments: because He first loved us. Now we’ve recovered Gospel grammar if we behold this.

⁶ “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth. ⁷ It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, ⁸ but it is because the Lord loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers,… Deuteronomy 7

Why were they holy, or set apart, or devoted to God? Because God chose them as his treasured possession. Why did he choose them or set his love on them? Because he loved them. It all goes back to God’s love, a love we can’t explain, nor can he really explain to us. But it is a love that revealed itself tangibly in redemption. There is no understanding the law properly for the Israelite apart from Ex. 20:1 and Deut. 5:6. He redeemed them from Egypt!

Gospel grammar means that we understand the commands of Scripture in light of what God has done for us. Obedience is a response to God’s love and acceptance, not the cause for God’s love and acceptance. A grace that doesn’t result in growing obedience would be a counterfeit or cheap grace (Edwards & Bonhoeffer respectively). Which is the whole point of 1 John. Union with Christ changes us. Calvin speaks of the “double grace” received in our union with Christ. In justification our status is changed. In sanctification we are changed, progressively. We receive both because we receive the whole Christ in our union.

Egypt was intended to pay the way for the greater Exodus from sin.

¹⁰ In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4

God loved us => we love God in return => we grow in love & obedience => experience more love

“Wait, where’d you get that last bit?”

⁹ As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. ¹⁰ If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. John 15

If we aren’t careful, we can lose sight of the gospel grammar here. Jesus is not to be understood as earning God’s love and acceptance. We see the distinction between union and communion here. United to Christ we are loved and accepted. United to Christ we have power & desire to grow in obedience. As we grow in grace we grow in our experience of communion or fellowship with God. We experience more of his sweet dew and sunshine as one hymn puts it. We grow in assurance, for instance. We subjectively experience more of what we have objectively through our union with Christ.

We see this all the time in other relationships. My wife and I are married. We are united whether we like it or not at any given moment. Our communion, intimacy with one another, fluctuates depending on how we treat each other. Our union is not changed. It is static. Communion is dynamic.

The gospel holds these together. If we let go of union we fall into legalism, constantly feeling the need to gain approval. If we let go of communion, we fall into license where our love doesn’t matter and grace is cheap. The gospel is that we are united to Christ by grace through faith and fully loved and accepted by God who has taken us as his children. Growing in my love for God as I grow in my understanding, I grow in obedience. I’m not more or less loved and accepted, but I know more of the Father’s pleasure. All of this is love that is reflected in a human father’s love. They are always my children, but sometimes they experience my pleasure and others my displeasure. They never cease to be my children, even the adopted ones. As they mature and understand the many ways I’ve loved them, their love to me grows and changes them.

What does love to God look like? Growth in obedience (which includes engaged worship). How does love to God grow? By remember how God loved and loves me. Gospel facts (indicative) leading to gospel implications (indicatives or commands). Love and law are not opposed in gospel grammar, but have their proper place. If we reverse the grammar, we really mess things up.

Read Full Post »

Considering Introverted Community and Relationships

The next subject McHugh covers in Introverts in the Church is that of community and relationships. He notes that this is the chapter he didn’t want to write. Contrary to some people’s opinions, introverts have relationships. They participate in community. They often feel the burdens of community, pressure to engage early and often.

“I cannot escape the fact that growth inevitably involves the messiness of genuine human contact and the struggles of intimacy.”

The goal is love because God is love. The commandments hang on the frame of love: love to God and love to one another. Love requires relationships. Many of the fruit of the Spirit require relationships because they are aspects of love. For humans like us, this means relational struggles so we can learn how to forgive, be patient, long-suffering, perseverance etc.

Different cultures have different understandings of the individual and the community. In modern western culture we focus on the individual: self-identity, self-actualization, self-fulfillment. In Ancient Near East cultures, the community took precedence. The individual didn’t cease to exist, but understood himself within the context of community and the roles & responsibilities they had as a result. We misunderstand the Bible if we try to interpret it from our American individualistic point of view. Why? We misunderstand the author’s intention and original meaning since they weren’t writing to “me” so much as “us” (contemporary English obscures this by not differentiating between the 2nd person singular & plural).

This means that much of Evangelical Theology and practice has been shaped by individualism. We neglect the communal emphasis of the Bible. This is one of the presuppositions that drives many people’s understanding of baptism. The New Covenant didn’t do away with “you and your children” (see Acts 2 for instance) or a focus on the people of God. We see it with Good Shepherd having a flock, the church as the Body of Christ, and a living temple. The Bible isn’t just about you & Jesus but about you, Jesus and everyone else united to Jesus (commonly called the communion of saints in older creeds and confessions).

This means there will necessarily be a culture clash between western society and the church (if we are faithful to Scripture). We will be counter-culture to modernist individualism and post-modern communalism. We see unity and diversity in the Body of Christ!

In terms of introverts, they often belong to churches that view belonging in external ways: attendance at corporate  worship, small group etc. Those can be manifestations of belonging and maturity. But they aren’t absolute manifestations. You can attend lots of things but really not belong or really not be mature. Your reason for attending can be erroneous- social or business- rather than an expression of your union with Christ.

The converse can be true too. You can belong and/or be mature in Christ even if you aren’t there every time the doors are open. As a pastor, I confess I want measurable things to know if I’m doing my job. It can be difficult to trust God is at work in ways you cannot see.

“Too often churches ask introverts to change, rather than stretching their own understandings of participation.”

Another way churches can measure belonging is “vulnerability”. Usually that is in a particular setting, like small group. In an earlier post I noted that for introverts there is a smaller circle of people with whom they are vulnerable. We can’t expect people (introvert or extrovert) to be vulnerable in the settings we want them to be vulnerable.

I think I’m pretty vulnerable. A friend calls me “King of the Over-share” and teases me that I wear this moniker with pride. But there are things about me I don’t share with just anyone. It’s my story to tell, and I don’t tell many people. Need to know basis stuff. I should get all this. But sometimes I struggle with the vulnerability or lack thereof in our small group. I need to remind myself they won’t share their secret sins unless this group is their closest group of friends. You can’t demand it. But some churches essentially do.

Introverts share like I get into a swimming pool. One step at a time, slowly. I don’t like cold water. Introverts often gauge how you handle information to see if you are safe. If you are, they will trust you with a little more. Little by little they reveal themselves to you. If they sense danger, they will pull back.

McHugh notes the “introvert spiral”. I’ve seen this in some people, but certainly not all introverts. They spiral in and out of the community depending on whether or not they are overloaded. This dynamic is about trust and their personal limits. They move in and pull back, rather than slowly moving in. To others it may look like they are double-minded.

“Sometimes introverts need to step outside of a community for a period of time, even after years of faithful participation.”

This can also be described as a rhythm in which they engage and then retreat. Like a dance. For the more pronounced introverts “too much time in social interaction, no matter how satisfying, is disruptive and disorienting”. They need to get some space to “rediscover a sense of identity.” Every relationship includes togetherness and apartness. Each person has a different blend that works. Introverts need more apartness. Sometimes they can lose their sense of self in community and need time to regain it so they can reengage.

Like extroverts, introverts have gifts to offer. God has gifted them. How they utilize or offer those gifts will look different. They are likely to be used behind the scenes, and they won’t necessarily tell others when making small talk. Ironically, some of those gifts are born out of their self-awareness: compassion and insight, for instance. Instead of acting, they may be observing and have a better idea of what is going on.

Introverts, who like space, are more likely to give space to others. This shows up in conflict, where they don’t press in hard but give others room to think (whether they want it or not, or know how to use it). I wonder if this fits in with my distaste for micromanagement as both employee and supervisor. If I need direction I’ll ask, and expect employees to do the same. I want space to work, and give space to others to work.

Space is also given to people to talk. Since they take time to formulate thoughts, they don’t fill every opening because the other person may be formulating a thought. This means that an introvert among extroverts can feel left out since they may not leave room for him/her to think and speak.

He offers a few ways in which introverts can find their way into community easier. I’ve discovered some of them on my own. But one is to identify the influential people. This is not to gain influence for yourself, but this person will connect you to others. They network for you. It is also helpful to identify a role you can play. You have a sense of responsibility within the community which also enable interaction with others.

“While some introverts are attracted to smaller communities, others are drawn to the resources and anonymity of larger churches.”

In those larger communities, it is helpful to join a group. This regular interaction with a smaller pool of people helps build relationships. This can be a SS class, small group, ministry team etc. When working with others, talk through your process and not just your conclusions. This may feel pointless or boring (and at times it may be) but it helps others see how you arrived there and may increase buy in.

He then notes some relational challenges. Introverts are prone toward enmeshment- when your identity gets intertwined with another person. We can become overly dependent on them, or surrender our interests to theirs. Introverts can also fall prey, so to speak, to relational parasites who take and don’t give. All of the relational energy flows in one direction. Many introverts struggle to think on their feet (not so good in interviews!) which makes conflict difficult when it involves quick-thinking extroverts. Introverts are better at replaying the conflict and realizing what they should have done than actually doing it.

Most introverts need to remember that extroverts prone to speak first and think later. They regret more of what they say (introverts regret more of what they failed to say). Give them room to back up, and forgiveness when they realize what they said was hurtful.

Introverts were made for community. This is because they are made in the image of God too. How they experience and engage in community will be different. This provides challenges for both introverts and extroverts. Love doesn’t avoid these challenges but presses on despite them. Both introverts and extroverts needs to flex. It is not just one or the other. Whenever we think only one side must flex, conflict will destroy both parties.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering Keeping the Heart

It has been a while since I invested in one of the “dead guys”. When I saw Keeping the Heart: How to Maintain Your Love for God by John Flavel, I thought I should read that. I am glad that I did buy it and read it.

This relatively short book is only comprised of 4 chapters. The great bulk of the book is the 3rd chapter. I read the book “devotionally”, after my daily time in Scripture. In the large chapter on the special seasons in life I would read one of the 12 at a time.

This is a typical Puritan work. This means Flavel looks at the subject from a variety of angles, dissecting it to pieces. If you aren’t used to this, it can feel wearisome but the repetition is important to driving the point home. This particular edition doesn’t give all the Scripture references to his quotes and illusions. That is unfortunate since it isn’t always obvious to the modern reader. This edition does have an introduction by J.I. Packer prior to Flavel’s own introduction.

If you think of the Christian life as one of dependence and discipline, this book focuses on the discipline while assuming the dependence. He does make some comments about our utter dependence upon God but you need to keep this in the forefront of your mind or you’ll take a very man-centered, fleshly approach to what he says. His focus is on our devotion, and at times he could do a better job reminding us of our gospel dependence or the gospel context that he assumes.

He begins with What the Keeping of the Heart Supposes and Imports. Since Adam’s rebellion humanity has been a rebellious creature prone to self-deception. Even the Christian, though regenerate, is still a sinner and prone to wander as the song goes. Keeping the heart presupposes regeneration. You can’t keep a heart of stone. It must be a heart of flesh. “Yet sin often actually discomposes it again; so that even a gracious heart is like a musical instrument” that needs to be tuned. This presupposition of regeneration is why I say he assumes the gospel thru much of the book. It is like the first verse of Exodus 20 which must not be forgotten while you read the rest of Exodus 20. Regeneration sets the gracious framework we are so easy to forget.

Keeping of the heart includes observing the frame of our heart, humbling ourselves for our sins and disorders (including our sinful desires), persistent prayer for purification, the making of vows to walk more faithfully, a constant zeal for the condition of our hearts and knowing that we live before the face of God.

The second chapter deals with some reasons why we should keep our hearts. Such reason include the glory of God (would he be a Puritan without starting here?), the assurance of salvation (tied to the sincerity of our profession of faith), the beauty of our conversation or sanctified living, and a different focus on the assurance of salvation focusing on the witness of the Spirit. God doesn’t assure wayward hearts. Implied here is the distinction between union (unchanging) and communion (changing). Keeping the heart is also essential to the improving of graces in our lives (seeing our need we pray and grow, for instance), and greater stability in times of temptation and testing.

As I said, the bulk of the book is concerned with particular seasons in life when keeping the heart is most difficult and yet necessary. Our circumstances do matter. We live out our faith in changing circumstances. Some of these circumstances require more attention on our part. Each of us is prone to greater weakness in some circumstances than others. Those circumstances include prosperity, adversity, trouble among God’s people, public distraction, outward deprivation, and more. 12 of them to be exact. He also lays out reasons why we should take heart in the midst of these circumstances, as well as the dangers presented by them. We often live like all seasons are the same. They aren’t. Differing seasons uncover different sins in our hearts. We need to engage our hearts in these circumstances to know the graces we need in our times of trouble or ease.

When in the midst of our circumstances, we would benefit from going back to that section of the book to remind ourselves of our great need and danger in those circumstances.

The final, and brief, chapter focuses on “improving and applying” the subject. He laments the weakness of the church of his day (what would he say about ours?), which indicate the great need of this book and its message. He largely focuses on revealing our need for grace so we will seek it from Jesus, the fountain of grace.

Modern writers don’t write books like this. And it is a shame. So it is important to read these older books that do address these spiritual subjects our time neglects (at its peril). This is a book most living Christians should read. They would find it helpful for keeping there heart before God, seeking His gracious Son.

 

Read Full Post »

Considering Introverted Spirituality

So far, I can safely say this was my least favorite chapter of Introverts in the Church.

Possibly most dangerous book in the chapter.

How introverts approach their faith will be different, generally speaking. These are not absolutes, hermetically sealed chambers we are considering. I’d say tendencies.

Introverts will tend to shun the public expressions of faith for the personal or private expressions of faith. They buy the worship music and listen to it alone for private worship. They are more likely to meditate upon Scripture. I like to play my guitar, listening to the words of the song in my head, expressing my heart to God. These are things extroverts do too, just differently.

But that isn’t where Adam McHugh took us. He took us to monasticism. Yes, I think introverts are more drawn to monasticism. I’m not convinced that is a healthy thing. But more disconcerting was he took us to mysticism.

I’m not one to go “that’s Catholic” to write off an ancient practice that may be helpful. But I’m leery of mysticism precisely because it bypasses the mind. Bypass the mind and there are not boundaries to protect yourself from false and destructive spiritual experiences.

I’m no “devil in every bush that rustles” guy, but I do believe there are unclean spirits willing to deceive people who separate Word and Spirit.

God spoke to us. He used words, precisely because He wanted to be understood and not simply experienced in some vague way. I agree with guys like John Calvin and John Owen that the Spirit works and speaks through the Word. And so we should be engaged with the Word, asking to Spirit to work, as we read it, meditate on it, sing it, pray it, listen to it etc..

McHugh, following Benedict, wants to eschew words. Yes, there may be times of silence but I’m thinking words. Silent prayer, meditation, singing, etc. But he says “Words, rather than issuing from a well of reverence and wisdom, often betray ignorance and immaturity.” “Often” is the caveat, but still. Jesus, the Word Incarnate, used words in His personal devotion to the Father. This we know.

Yes, there are dangers to technology and their effects on our brains. How we think, process and live. We are overstimulated. His critique here is warranted.

In discussing contemplative spirituality he contrasts apophatic spirituality from kataphatic spirituality. Those are two terms you don’t hear often. “Apophatic spirituality focuses on what cannot be grasped about God through rational thought, words or images. It emphasizes the hiddenness of God.” As such, it seeks to go beyond what God has revealed.

Calvin very much emphasized Deuteronomy 29:29 in his theology and practice.

²⁹ “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The secret or hidden things belong to God, not us. What He has revealed belongs to us to ponder and enjoy. In other words, we should reject speculation in such matters. We recognize there is mystery, there are boundaries to our knowledge. But we respect that rather than trying to penetrate the veil. This is why “evangelical theology is grounded in revelation”. This is a good thing, not a bad thing like McHugh seemingly wants to make it. Yes, it can only take us to the borders of mystery. But that is only as far as we are supposed to go!

He encourages the examen, or spending the end of the day considering the day. This is helpful as we compare our decisions, actions and affections to God’s commands and ask for forgiveness. It is helpful as we see our weakness & ignorance and ask for strength and wisdom. It is processing your day, and this is generally a good thing. We should consider our desires and what lies beneath them more.

People tend to live on the top of the iceberg. We experience desires but rarely consider what drives those desires. Often there is a legitimate longing at work that we are seeking to fulfill illegitimately if legitimate avenues are blocked. This is about ourselves, not God. This is about self-understanding. For Calvin the knowledge of God and self are connected. If I know God better, I’ll understand my longings better and how my corrupt heart distorts legitimate longings.

I know I largely live within routines of rhythms of life. When I get outside of my pattern I’m uncomfortable, discombobulated. For instance I just had 3 “short” weeks. Labor Day made for a short work week. The next week I went to a ball game with another pastor on a Thursday, shortening my week. The 3rd week was Presbytery. I felt very much like I haven’t had time to do my work. Tasks have been left undone and that bugs me tremendously.I can agree that when my rhythm suffers, I suffer. I’m irritable and confused.

So he advocates an introverts’ rule to create such rhythms or routines. He doesn’t advocate one for all, but offers questions to help you sort out one that works for you so you are regularly engaging with God to equip you for life in His world.

While he makes a few good points, I find some of what he says here dangerous because any spirituality, introverted or extroverted or ambiverted, should not deviate from a biblical spirituality.

 

Read Full Post »