Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Evangelism’


No, I’m not talking about belly buttons. And neither is Mike Bechtle.

He moves into the different tendencies among introverts and extroverts as the next chapter in Evangelism for the Rest of Us. He begins with a helpful illustration of shopping for ski goggles with his son. They chose different colored lenses. Then discussed the color of clothing. They couldn’t agree because the colored lens affected all they saw.

While not necessarily as obvious because you’ve always worn them, the “lenses” of introversion and extroversion color how you see the world, people, events and, well, everything. They form part of the way we view life. It is one of our presuppositions through which we filter information.

Like McHugh, Bechtle notes that the majority of people are extroverted. As a result, many introverts hear the message that their is something wrong with them, and they have to change (we ALL have to change!).

He brings up another real life example to help us see this. He was at dinner with a very extroverted friend. They saw a man eating alone. His friend felt bad for this solitary diner and wished he could just go sit with him and keep him company (apparently he hadn’t thought to invite the man to their table). Brechtle thought “Lucky guy, a peaceful meal.” He wouldn’t want someone to come over to “keep him company.”

The day before I read this I experienced a miscommunication and sat alone in a restaurant waiting from someone who wouldn’t show. I enjoyed the peace and quiet. I thought. I called my dad to wish him “Happy Birthday”. I was good with dining alone and would have struggled to find time for that call otherwise.

He taught a SS class about the differences between introverts and extroverts. “The class was receptive to these concepts and was friendly to the discussion about the place of quiet personalities in evangelism, but the extroverts were the ones participating in the discussion.” Many of their comments were about the introverts changing, not discovering how God can use them as He made them.

He reminds us that we are talking about a sliding scale. Introversion and Extroversion are on a continuum, not hard & fast, sealed categories. Most people are not at the extremes but grouped toward the center. There are few “pure” introverts or extroverts. Most of us will find we share some characteristics of both, but more of one.

It could look like this:

Introvert ——————–Ambivert———————– Extrovert

Or this:

Introvert ————————————-

————————————–Extrovert (WordPress won’t let this look right, only some overlap_

“But most of us aren’t at either of those extremes; we’re somewhere in between.”

He offers a 2 page self-test that looked a bit different than the ones I’m used to seeing. He then briefly describes the categories of results.

“Introverts don’t need therapy- they need renewal.”

He digs slightly deeper into personality theory, briefly describing the formation of the Myers-Briggs personality indicator. He also brings in the temperments developed by David Keirsey. There are 4 different continuums, not simply introversion/extroversion.

  1. Extroversion (gaining energy from people) or Introversion (gaining energy from being alone).
  2. Sensing (taking in information through the senses)  or Intuiting (seeing patterns and possibilities)
  3. Thinking (making logical, objective decisions) or Feeling (making intuitive, personal decisions)
  4. Perceiving (recognizing a banana) or Judging (deciding the banana would taste good). (pp. 39)

So you end up with 16 different personality types. Many people find this information helpful. Some don’t. But “we’re a unique combination of temperament traits.” Those traits shape how we see and interact with the world and people around us. This means our personality impacts how we evangelize. It is not the only thing, but it is an important thing. As a result, in evangelism training, some attention should be paid to understanding and apply all this.

You will tend to evangelize in certain ways. Instead of finding a method that is “foreign” to you, develop the one that “fits” you. Think of it as throwing a ball with your non-dominant hand. Why would you do that except in emergencies? Don’t do it in evangelism.

This also means that the people you meet know have different personalities. How the gospel is presented to them matters. They will have a harder time hearing it from people with radically different personalities. Obviously God can choose to work above and beyond means, but He generally chooses to work with ordinary means. Different people will reach different people.

The church, being made up of differing personality types, works together to bring people to Christ (again, speaking of God’s ordinary means). You aren’t alone and aren’t expected to reach everyone or see anyone through the entire process. Some may be gatherers, making the initial connections, while others better at clarifying the truth and pressing it home to make the choices clear.

Too bad he limited himself to only one continuum! I’m intrigued at who the 16 personality types (8 of which would be introverts and yet quite different) would shape how we make Jesus known. Because they would!

My mind also ran down the rabbit trail of the three-fold office of Christ and our gifts as prophet, priest and king. Surely those affect how we approach evangelism.

But he’ll spend the rest of the book pondering how introversion matters in God’s great mission.

 

 

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


I’ve been studying the subjects of introverts and evangelism. How introverts evangelize to be precise. I want to help the introverts in our congregation to bear witness. This quest led me to Evangelism for the Rest of Us: Sharing Christ withing Your Personality Style by Mike Bechtle. So, if you are tired of reading about introversion, read no more. But I invite you anyway so perhaps you’ll recognize their faithfulness that went unnoticed by you before.

Bechtle begins with his own relationship with the Great Commission. Some of the stories are funny (I’d probably enjoy having lunch with him). Like many of us, he went to evangelism training seminars, had to do evangelism at Bible College, participated in campaigns to evangelize etc. It all didn’t “feel right” or seemed so very unproductive. He experienced increasing dissonance.

“But something didn’t make sense. I knew God wanted me to witness- but I always dreaded it. I knew God was supposed to give us power and boldness if we asked for it, but it never seemed to help.”

So, much of his evangelism was motivated by guilt. Been there? Most of us have.

He didn’t “relish the idea of an impending conversation with complete strangers.” Some people feel that way. Some people love those conversations. If we think THAT is evangelism, well ….

He also thought about those moments when Christians came to share their faith with him. He wondered if non-Christians felt that way when we shared our faith with them (some do, some don’t). He didn’t want others to feel the way he felt (a thought that often comes to me as an application of the Golden Rule). Maybe we should evangelize in the way we’d want to be evangelized (which doesn’t include anger-filled debates for most of us). But I get ahead of myself, and Bechtle.

“I wondered how many other people put up thicker emotional walls against Christians because of the evangelism encounters they’d endured.”

So he wondered. For himself, and for many other people.

“The seed was a simple thought: What if the problem isn’t obedience? What if the things I’ve always been taught about evangelism aren’t the full picture? What if there’s more to it than I’ve been told? What if God has a variety of ways we can share our faith- ways that are different from the traditional methods we’ve been taught?

His goal isn’t to dismiss the methods he’d been taught. His goal is to say there are other effective means too. That effectiveness is rooted in being appropriate for each of us based on who we are as the evangelist. Faithful effectiveness will look differently since each of us is different. There is no one-size-fits-all method of evangelism. He wants each of us to discover ways in which we can engage in evangelism in a way that honors who we are and the people we evangelize so we do see people coming to Christ.

His second chapter focuses on how function follows form. We are not talking about inventing something to fulfill a function. We want to be faithful in light of who God made us (and His work of sanctification in renewing us in His image- Belchte overlooked that part). Life goes better when all works as it should. When we use the right tools to do what they were designed to do. God makes us like snowflakes. Not to melt under heat, but uniquely.

There are moral absolutes. And there are differing methods to fulfill many commands. We are to sing in worship. We can sing in many styles, keys, notes etc. We can sing accompanied by a variety of instruments, or not. How your church worships is not how every faithful church worships. How you evangelize is not how every faithful Christian has to evangelize.

“We’ll find our greatest fulfillment and joy in doing the things God designed us to do and the greatest frustration when we work outside our unique, God-given design.”

Part of our creation is being introverts and extroverts. These parts of who we are affect how we evangelize. This book explores that. This chapter notes common themes he encountered as he talked with Christians.

  1. I really want to evangelize.” The problem is that method they learned, or what they think it means to evangelize is intimidating or poorly suited for who they are.
  2. It would be easier if I were more outgoing.” Like Adam McHugh, he notes that western civilization seems to be structured around extroversion. When it comes to evangelism, many introverts feel like square pegs being forced into a round hold.
  3. I’ve tried, but I don’t see any results.” While he doesn’t include God’s providence, there is that factor. But it can also be that we are using a method that is not the best method for us.
  4. I don’t know how to lead someone to Christ.” Some people have never experienced training. They don’t know how.
  5. There has to be a better way.” This is what drives the book, finding better ways for each of us to bear witness to Christ, His sufferings and subsequent glories.

Let us consider ways to share our faith that may feel more “natural” to us, and be more effective.

Read Full Post »


Finally! This was the reason I really bought the book. I’ve been pondering on how to foster evangelism among the members of my congregation, many of whom are introverts. Our congregation could be identified as “introverted.”

This does not relieve the congregation of the responsibility to bear witness to Christ. Jesus won’t say, “Oh, it’s okay. I know you are an introvert.”

But introversion will often shape how such a person and a congregation bears witness and evangelizes.

The term “evangelism” often strikes fear in the hearts of introverts. This is frequently due to false assumptions about what it must look like. We may picture open air preaching, or going door-to-door to talk to complete strangers. We think it means engaging the person next to us on the airplane. We think it requires the mental dexterity, speed of thought (not thoughtfulness) many of us lack.

For some people it does mean those things. Most of those people are quite extroverted. We see them doing their thing on YouTube, and they write the books on evangelism that make most of wish for the 2nd Advent, now.

“Truthfully, most introverted Christians I know would be delighted to bless the evangelistic efforts of extroverts and return to their lives of solitude and contemplation with a sigh of relief.”

In Introverts in the Church, McHugh notes that introverts must be wary of falling into a private understanding of our faith. But neither should we assume that we must evangelize like Billy Graham, the local expert in Evangelism Explosion or some other gifted evangelist you know. God doesn’t want you to be them, He wants to use YOU.

Evangelism isn’t about being the best “used car salesman” and closing the deal. I know people who seem to be “closers”, but most of us aren’t. We are ordinary people trying to be faithful and trusting that God is working thru, above and beyond our meager efforts.

McHugh proposes that we be people willing to explore mystery together rather than the salesman pitching salvation to people who didn’t think they needed it. This reveals some of his more emergent leanings (based on names he dropped earlier in the book). So it is difficult to differentiate between how he thinks introverts share the gospel and his postmodern leanings at times. Particularly this one.

There is also some confirmation bias for me. His approach is more relational, which confirms much of what I’ve been thinking. Introverts generally don’t talk to strangers, but as we grow in relationship we share more of ourselves, including our faith. Our faith is not shared out of our strength, but often out of our weakness. This treasure is in jars of clay. Our weakness often reveals the connection point for the gospel. This means witnessing is less confrontational (the gospel still confronts them even as it invites them).

“Our deepening friendships with seekers involve a deepening process of intimacy and vulnerability. … The gospel paradox is that when we reveal our own weaknesses, we come in touch, and put others in touch, with the One who has the ability to heal. … We subject ourselves to the same questions we pose to others, and as we traverse them together, we may arrive at surprising conclusions we could never have reached when simply trying to defeat another’s logic.”

His understanding of evangelism ends up looking very much like spiritual direction. He notes much changed for him when he started to realize he was not initiating spiritual conversations so much as responding to how God was already at work in that person’s life. It became about “cultivating spiritual awareness.” As I ponder this, the entry points may often be the places where they are emotional (angry, glad, anxious) or depressed.

Bearing witness to Christ, his sufferings and subsequent glories (1 Peter 1) can take different forms. At times it is confrontational as a person’s double-mindedness draws forth the bluntness of the Gospel (choose you this day…). I’ve had those conversations. At some point the person must believe or not, leaving their excuses behind. But leading up to that, you can leave plenty of hints or bits and pieces rather than a packaged gospel presentation.

In my own evangelism I should remember the lessons I should have learning in my counseling training. When encountering resistance, point it out. Don’t try to plow thru it with “shock and awe”. Rather, “you seem to be putting up some walls right now. What’s going on?”, inviting them to share their fears, doubts or whatever is going on, if they want to.

McHugh notes the quote often erroneously attributed to Francis of Assissi- “preach the gospel at all times- if necessary use words.” He fully affirms the need for words. He also reminds us that our words often need to be backed up by actions that adorn the gospel and make it attractive. We love them. After all, didn’t God love us when we were ungodly, weak, enemies and sinners (Romans 5)? Isn’t the gospel that God loved us first and sent the Son as an atoning sacrifice (1 John 3)? As a result, we can and should embrace a holistic approach to evangelism. Some may call that a “social gospel” but only if the goal isn’t the gospel. Many conservatives are allergic to “justice” or “mercy” as a part of evangelism. We are showing them justice and mercy so they will have a better grasp of who God is, not making justice and mercy the gospel. Nor calling them to justice and mercy apart from Christ who is just  and One in whom the ungodly are justified.

He has told you, O man, what is good;
    and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
    and to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6

McHugh offers some more practical suggestions at the end of the chapter.

  1. Narrow your focus. Instead of trying to share the gospel with everyone you meet, develop a few relationships you already have. These are people you’ll be friends with whether or not they come to faith. But share that part of your life with them.
  2. Ask open ended questions. Don’t do it out of the blue or in a heavy handed fashion. They can be natural out-growths of your conversation or current events.
  3. Ask for time when you don’t have a good answer. It is okay if you need to research a question they ask. It shows humility, that you don’t have it all together and expect them to have it all together.
  4. Don’t accept the premise of their question. He gets this from Leo McGarry (West Wing chief of staff). This has to do with accusatory questions. Flip the question to challenge their premise. The example he gives is flipping “How can you possibly believe in a God who would condemn people to hell?” to “Perhaps the real question is how could humans rebel against a God who created such a beautiful world?” Not really the best example. Perhaps, “What do you suggest God do with wicked people?”
  5. Find a comfortable environment. You could invite them to Christianity Explored, or a Bible Study that investigates the claims of the gospel. Maybe discussion boards. Don’t debate. Explore.
  6. Know your role. You may not bring that person from darkness to light. You are, or should be, a part of a community of faith. Getting them in touch with your community is a great thing. A healthy body will contribute to the process according to each person’s gifts and strengths.

As I noted, much of this confirmed what I was thinking already. That might be helpful. I could have done without the postmodern approach at times. I’m not advocating modernism. But we can’t assume a person has a postmodern world view. Or that the best way to grasp the gospel is thru the postmodern lens. The Bible, and the gospel, transcend philosophical frameworks and actually challenge them. But that is a different discussion.

 

 

Read Full Post »


A recent meeting of our missions team discussed the generally introverted nature of our church, something I’ve mentioned to our congregation before. We have some extroverts, and would like more extroverts. We want to be a faithful church. How that looks for us may not be the same as how it looks for an extroverted congregation.

One of the books I found to help me think through all of this is Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Church by Adam McHugh. I will be blogging through this book. Perhaps much of this will be helpful for the slim majority of people who are introverted. Our context is a Reformed and (dare I say) evangelical church. Evangelical churches, in particular, appear to be largely extroverted in how they understand the faith and how they expect it to be lived out.

One problem is our view of Jesus. Studies indicate that most people consider Jesus to be extroverted. This is probably due to the number of large groups before whom He spoke. This is to overstate the case. We do see that Jesus would retire to quiet places to pray. He also invested Himself primarily in the Twelve and others in the group that traveled with Him (which included a number of women too). My thinking, for quite some time, was that neither introverts nor extroverts could claim Him. Jesus is the perfectly balanced person since He was a perfect man. He was equally comfortable with the masses and small groups with deep, meaningful friendships as well as alone with the Father.

McHugh notes the three evangelical anchors that contribute to the extroverted priority of evangelical churches: a personal relationship with God, priority on the Word of God as our authority, and the Great Commission. McHugh does issue a disclaimer of painting in broad strokes (which is an unavoidable element of the process). Not all evangelical churches are extroverted, or act in these ways. But many do such that many introverts feel devalued, out of place and shamed for not being extroverted. This should not be the case, but sadly it often is.

God is a relational God, revealed to us in a Trinity of Father, Son and Spirit in an eternal community of love. Introverts are also relational, don’t get me wrong. But it looks differently for introverts than extroverts. (One weakness at the beginning of the book is not really drilling down on what these two terms mean.)

Personal Relationship with God

In America, one of the great influences on evangelicalism is the Great Awakenings. These put a priority on public displays of this personal relationship with God. The biblical call to community is often seen through a lens in which everyone in the congregation is your friend (an impossibility). Extroverts are very comfortable with a large number of friends, and a number of activities. Introverts prefer a smaller number of closer friends, and can find the busy church very draining.

“… for some churches spirituality is equated with sociability.”

Introverts can often be shamed for not being fully invested or involved. They can be shamed for appearing (key word) to be self-involved. I remember one of my extroverted friends years ago calling the rest of our group to get out the Windex and be open with one another. Their personal relationship with God is more personal, meaning more private. They don’t necessarily share the dynamics of this (often deep) relationship with many people. They will share it, but more likely with their closest friends. Even as an introvert myself, I can forget this because my calling includes sharing some of my relationship with God publicly.

“By no means are introverts against intimate relationships; indeed, we are motivated by depth in our relationships. … in community we prefer interactions with smaller numbers of people with whom we feel comfortable.”

For instance, I am closest to those with whom I work most closely (the officers) and my community group. I need to stretch myself in doing this. Sometimes introverts can be called to stretch themselves. But extroverts can expect them to become extroverts as though that is what godliness really looks like.

Centrality of the Bible

God communicates with us through the Word. The gospel is communicated, primarily through words. Evangelicalism places a priority on words. Extroverts have more words to share than introverts. Introverts are often more thoughtful about their words. Their hesitancy can be misunderstood as an unwillingness to talk. Their reluctance to make small talk should not be confused with an unwillingness to relate.

Personal Evangelism

Evangelicalism is rightly concerned with the proclamation of the gospel. The focus on many church is not on “Word and sacrament” as the ordinary means of God’s calling sinners to Himself, but on personal evangelism. Extroverts don’t meet many strangers, but rather future friends. Introverts hear “evangelism explosion” and recoil in fear. Talking to complete strangers in of itself induces terror. Talking about their most personal relationship increases it exponentially. Our evangelism methods are “often tilted toward extroversion, and when we conflate our values with our methods we run the risk of alienating introverts.”

Surely introverts can be stretched and move out of their comfort zone. But the constant drumbeat can often discourage them as if they don’t measure up. How they do evangelism will look differently. For them it will not be with strangers, but with those they have let in. It may tilt more toward inviting people to church to hear the preaching of the gospel, or to sharing appropriate sermons (one benefit of technology), or a book on the particular struggle of a friend. Their efforts at spreading the good news should be applauded too. They may be likely to adorn that gospel with love, as it ought to be. One of our members recently told me that our smaller church tangibly loved her through crises in a way she never experienced before in other churches. Such love is the gospel in action, as faith expresses itself in love (Galatians 5:6).

Contemporary evangelical culture focuses on the immediate and the relevant. We see the rise of megachurches in which people worship nearly anonymously. These churches do have lots of programs to keep people busy. I’m not sure which came first, the consumerist congregant or the consumerist congregation.

“At its worst, it has produced a superficial, consumerist mold of Christianity that has sold the gospel like a commodity.”

There is a move to create “comfortable” environments with coffee houses, a lack of mystery and a removal of the sacred. The pace is fast, and the service is a production. There is little space for reflection that introverts prefer. The pastor is often an big personality who can draw big crowds, show up at all kinds of social events and shake hands.

“Human limitations often lead pastors forming congregations in their own image, presenting a picture of Jesus and of discipleship that matches their own patterns. It is not surprising that extroverted pastors are prone to encourage extroversion in their churches.”

I was called by a church that was generally introverted. My thoughts on ministry appealed to them. The simple church model resonated with me. But not because I wanted them all at home reading theology. I wanted people to have space to serve their communities through parachurch ministries, build relationships and share the gospel. I probably need to make that explicit more often, particularly with visitors and extroverts considering membership. I don’t expect our church to meet all of the members relational needs. I want them to serve one another. I also want those with extra energy for people to serve the community in various ways.

“They love their people, but after expending a tremendous amount of emotional energy to preach, they would prefer to disappear in their offices than mingle.”

That’s me. I don’t hide, but I’m wiped out. I like studying, and am told I deliver deep, meaningful sermons. I’m sure some would disagree. But I am more reflective, not dumping my sermon & text because of a current event that “must be addressed”. I may reference it, but want to let the Word address those things in the ordinary course of ministry.

The introverted church gets a bad rap. McHugh provides a few quotes to make his point. The introverted church is confused with the isolated church, the disobedient church. This is because some confuse methods with values.

“In their minds, the ‘introverted’ version of the church lacks missional identity; it is self-preoccupied and exclusive, worried about polishing the walls that separate it from the world, rather than seeking to tear down the walls that distance people from the love of God. God the ‘extrovert’ has his eye on all the world, and therefore the mark of his true people must obviously be extroversion.”

This view devalues the faith of the introverted. It devalues the practice of the introverted.

“If we are broadly defining the extroverted church as “outwardly oriented’, then a wholly extroverted church is liable to lose its center, lapsing into spiritual compromise and excessive cultural accommodation. Just as a church that is turned in on itself is stunted, a community that is thoroughly turned outward could lose its internal cohesion and disintegrate.”

The Church, and particularly congregations, need both introverted and extroverted people. A church should grow in depth as well as numbers. This will require thoughtful people and out-going people valuing one another for the common goal: maturity in Christ. That maturity should not be defined as either introverted or extroverted. But in the Body of Christ both are needed so the church grows up into Christ.

“I believe that the truly healthy church is a combination of introverted and extroverted qualities that fluidly move together. Only in that partnership can we capture both the depth and the breadth of God’s mission.”

A church can be busy. But it should also accommodate those with a slower, thoughtful pace of life too. Often these are its teachers. Not exclusively, obviously. But a deep, meaningful community requires deep and thoughtful people (this often takes time alone) as well as those who build community through friendship and service. We shouldn’t expect extroverts to become introverts, not introverts to become extroverts in order to really love God. We each love God, according to His Word, in a way that fits how the creative Creator has made us. God loves introverts. God loves extroverts. God uses both!

 

Read Full Post »


One of the books I’ve been reading is Feminine Threads: Women in the Tapestry of Christian History by Diana Lynn Severance. In discussing the early church she has a section on deaconnesses.

There is some debate about whether Phoebe is a servant of the church (Serverance), or held the office of deacon in the church (Calvin).

As Severance has studied the history of the Church, she believes that as an office or position probably developed from the order of widows. These women likely performed the same duties as the widows. This means that they were responsible for “nursing the sick, caring for the poor, dispensing the alms of the Church, and evangelizing pagan women.” (pp. 54) Their ministry was to other women in light of Titus 2. There was also the problem of widows being taken advantage of in many ways (including financially) by predators.

In the 3rd century, the Didascalia provided a “specific ritual for the consecration of widows and deaconesses. A principle work of the deaconesses was to help prepare women for baptism.” (pp. 55). This work continued with the actual baptism of the women. They also counseled women about marriage. Since the early Church often separated the sexes during worship, deaconesses would help the elders distribute communion to women, at church and at home.

We should remember that “the deaconesses worked primarily with other women and under the authority of the presbyter.” (pp. 55) They were women under authority. They exercised shepherding gifts, pastoral gifts, as well as diaconal gifts but did not exercise authority and were not instructing men. They instructed women. Considering their duties, there was no need for female priests contrary to the suppositions of feminist.

The Church became more structured over time, and the widows were placed under the responsibility of the deaconesses. By the 5th century, widows as a position seems to have been abandoned. But the position of deaconess continued for a few more centuries.  Severance notes that in the 6th century, the staff of St. Sophia in Constantinople included “60 priests, one hundred deacons, forty deaconesses and ninety sub-deacons. By the eleventh century, however, the position of deaconess had virtually disappeared.” (pp. 55)

We see the existence of deaconesses as well in ordination services for them. So, at least in this period of church history, while the office of elder and deacon were not open to women, ordination was not limited to men.

Once the institutionalization of the church happened, most baptisms were infants, not converts. The need for deaconesses decreased. The popularity of cloistered societies also decreased the need for deaconesses as well. Eventually this “ordained” office fell into disuse and obsolescence.

Read Full Post »


It is easy to look over the fence, so to speak, and see how another church is better. When we are feeling smug and self-righteous we usually see how they are worse. But we can look and get discouraged.

I pastor one of 4 churches of my denomination in our city. We are the oldest, and the smallest. It is easy to look at them and go “why are we the small church?” We don’t simply want growth from people who move to town, we want to see conversion growth. Aside from our children we are not seeing much of that. Our gifted evangelist had been sick for years and died a year ago. Evangelism is a struggle for us.

It isn’t for a lack of trying, at least in some ways. In my series on John I emphasized His mission and therefore ours. I’ve done a SS class on evangelism in the past. We’ve done an outreach the last few years. But the bottom line seems to be we are generally introverted and busy people.

I want us to change, and pray for us to change. That is a good thing. I don’t want us to be disobedient to Christ.

But I also don’t want us to be filled with envy (look at those churches) or discouragement (from beating ourselves up).

Old SpurgeonEnter Spurgeon. I’m reading Morning and Evening this year. I didn’t bring it with me on vacation so I’m reading 2 days’ worth to catch up. Almost there! But I read July 18th today.

In the morning he covered Numbers 2 addressing the location of Dan in the camp. They took up the rear, but were not to be discouraged about their position in battle formation. He notes that they experienced all of the same spiritual blessings as the rest of the tribes.

They might have thought themselves useless as a result. Kinda like Grimes in Black Hawk Down whining about being the one who always makes the coffee and doesn’t go out on missions.

Spurgeon notes they had a useful place. As the “stragglers” they picked up lost property. He expands:

“Fiery spirits may dash forward over untrodden paths to learn fresh truth, and win more souls to Jesus; but some of a more conservative spirit may be well engaged in reminding the church of her ancient faith, and restoring her fainting sons.”

In other words, every church has a place in the kingdom but a different place. Some are gifted evangelistically and it shows, and some are not. But they can be a refuge for Christians who have been burned out or used up, hurt or …. introverts and doctrinally oriented folks.

Spurgeon notes that they are the rear guard, which is also a place of danger. Dan suffered attack from Amalek, for instance. All churches are vulnerable to spiritual attack, to false teaching and habitual sins.

Just because your congregation isn’t on the “cutting edge” or growing quickly doesn’t mean your church isn’t a disobedient or bad church. It may just be a different church.

In the evening he looks at Joel 2:8 and talks about balance. He mentions how the virtues should all be there- we don’t focus on one at the expense of others. But just as importantly the same is true for duties. We can not become preoccupied with one duty and neglect others. It is easy for a church that isn’t growing quickly to obsess about it and neglect their other duties.

“We must minister as the Spirit has given us ability, and not intrude upon our fellow servant’s domain.”

We tend to think of this within congregational life, which is true. We should enable all to serve according to their gifts, abilities and passions. None of us can do everything. But in the Body of Christ everything gets done.

The same is true on a larger scale, I suspect. No one church can do everything- though the bigger they are the more they can do. Smaller churches live with greater limits. This can be frustrating to members (and pastors) who see we aren’t doing something and think we should. It requires wisdom in accessing abilities, gifts and resources.

Some of us are Type-A Christians. We always want more. The answer is not to attend a Type-A church. Smaller churches do need a push, someone who calls them out of complacency. But there is a balance must be sought. We can’t help our congregations be the best they can be in light of who God has made them. And God has not given all churches the same gifts, abilities and resources. As part of a larger Body we recognize our place in the Body, the function we are to perform which means our church won’t be like other churches who have different functions to perform.

Don’t be embarrassed to be like Dan, in the rearguard. But rejoice in Christ who has made you a part of the Body and given you a role to fulfill in that Body. Seek to understand that role your congregation plays instead of trying to be a congregation you aren’t- by the providence of God.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »