Basic Unit of Mission

They Depend on Me, I Depend on Them

When we boil things down to the basic unit for mission, be it in business, the military, or in the church it begins with the individual. Our bodies are made up of cells. It could be said the cell is a basic unit of the body. Each cell has a particular function. Each cell is differentiated from other cells. Cells join together to fulfill a particular function in the body as an organ. Each organ as a particular differentiated function in the body. The body depends on each organ fulfilling its function. Each organ depends on the body in order to fulfill its function.

I shift metaphors. On a football team, since it is that time of the year here in the States, each player has a particular function. Players joint together in differentiated squads: defense, offense and special. The squads can be broken down in to particular units: defensive line, offensive line, safeties, linebackers, receivers, quarterback, and so on. To carry out a successful play each single member must do their part in the functioning of the whole squad. Each squad must do its particular function for the team. If a team were composed only of people who can function as a quarter-back the team would be in total chaos. Yet, every individual player, every squad, relies on the success of the team.

Let’s move to another realm, the church. Individual believers join with other individual believers to form a congregation. Each individual fulfills a particular function/role within the congregation contributing to the well-being of the congregation. The congregation contributes to the well-being of each member through corporate worship, various programs, government, discipline and participation in mission in the congregation’s particular context. Congregations are the basic unit of mission. Because the Mission of God it larger than a particular congregation can fulfill congregations frequently join efforts for effective mission within a larger geographic context. The larger body contributes to the well-being of the individual congregations.

If an individual withdraws from the congregation, both the individual and the congregation are the poorer for it. The individual is no longer contributing to the health of the congregation, and the congregation is unable to provide for the health of the individual. The same is true when a congregation withdraws from the larger body. When an individual withholds financial support for the congregation, the congregation is robbed of one of the nutrients required for its health and functioning. The same is true when a congregation withholds financial support for the larger body. Both the one which withholds and the one which receives experience poorer health and a lessened ability to function.

The congregation is a confederation of individual members. The larger parts of the Church are a confederation of congregations. Friedman says this about these confederations,

Within such “confederations,” to the extent that the smaller unit helped the larger unit deal advantageously with the environment, the larger unit, by surviving, ensured the survival of the smaller unit. It was thus to the advantage of the smaller unit to work to preserve the larger unit’s integrity. That is because those smaller units that worked for the survival of the larger unit were more likely to survive. (A Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix" by Edwin H. Friedman, Kindle location 2960)

It is to the advantage of the congregation to fully participate in and work for the health and functioning of the larger portions of the Church. However, what we see are individuals and congregations declining when they move into a posture of seeking to ensure their own survival at the expense of the larger portions of the Church. I have heard it said by congregation leaders, “We cannot afford to share some of our best human resources with the presbytery. We need them here.” Therefore, the larger body is weakened and is less able to work for the health of all the congregations in its bounds, and congregations become weaker in the loss of nutrients which could be provided by the larger body.

The Apostle summarizes it all in 1 Corinthians 12:12-31.

www.wayostccs.com

BROAD HORIZONS

I am still plodding my way through Rabbi Edwin H. Friedman’s Failure of Nerve: Leadership in the Age of the Quick Fix. (Church Publishing, Inc., 2006) I am plodding through it, on my second reading of it, because there is so much to reflect upon. I read a bit, and then think a bit. Sometimes, I have to read something else to give my mind and spirit some rest.

Today, sitting outside on a delightfully pleasant day, following many of high temperature and stifling humidity, under the glorious canopy of our large maple tree, Friedman was speaking about the three factors which determine survival: the physical reality, dumb luck, and the response of the organism. (Kindle location 2734) He maintains that our response to any toxic/threatening situation is key to our ability to survive.

Our potential response combines all those traits mentioned in previous chapters that enable self-definition and self-regulation: the richness of our repertoire of resources, including persistence, stamina, resiliency, hope (that is broad horizons), and the capacity to think systemically in the first place. (Kindle location 2759-2766)

His enlargement on the word “hope” as being “broad horizons” struck me. Immediately, I remembered the scriptural definition of faith. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1) Our survival does not depend on what our eyes can see, as much as it depends on the breadth of our imagination to hold on to that is not seen.

There are many who cannot see beyond the moment, or at best beyond today. Their imagination cannot see beyond the present reality. They are, in some respects, the walking dead. The only thing which animates them is the natural life process which keeps the body alive. Can one imagine a day when hunger will be eliminated; when wars cease; when cures for diseases will be discovered; when racism will be an archaic word found only in old dictionaries?

Our personal and societal survival demands an imagination which sees beyond the walls which are built around us; beyond the edge of the horizon; beyond and beyond and beyond. We may not actually see the fruition of everything we hope for. We may not physically live to “see the day when….” Without hope, without a horizon broader than we can actually see, our life comes to an all too soon end, even though our bodies may robotically continue to go through the motions of existence. When our horizons extend beyond what is known in our present reality our life takes on new meaning and we have a greater chance of surviving into untold generations.

Moral Majority - Moral Agenda, A Polarity

William Barber – Moral Agenda     Jerry Falwell – Moral Majority

These two men could not be any more different, except they both profess faith in Jesus Christ and they both base their “morality” on Scripture. However, their sense of morality is a true polarity.

Can they both be right? Can they both be wrong? Is there a point in the middle

Rev. Falwell is no longer with us, his words linger. I believe that Americans want to see this country come back to basics, back to values, back to biblical morality, back to sensibility, and back to patriotism. Americans are looking for leadership and guidance. It is fair to ask the question, "If 84 percent of the American people still believe in morality, why is America having such internal problems?" We must look for the answer to the highest places in every level of government. We have a lack of leadership in America. But Americans have been lax in voting in and out of office the right and the wrong people. …  It is now time to take a stand on certain moral issues, and we can only stand if we have leaders. We must stand against the Equal Rights Amendment, the feminist revolution, and the homosexual revolution. We must have a revival in this country. . . . (Listen America, 1980)

Rev. Barber has said, I'm a preacher and I'm a theologically conservative liberal evangelical biblicist.  I know it may sound strange, but I'm a conservative because I work to conserve a divine tradition that teaches us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God. … That is why I'm so concerned, about those that say so much—about what God says so little, while saying so little—about what God says so much.  And so in my heart, I'm troubled. And I'm worried about the way faith is cynically used by some to serve hate, fear, racism, and greed. … The prophet Isaiah cries out, “What I'm interested in seeing you doing, says the Lord, as a nation is, ‘Pay people what they deserve’  ‘Share your food with the hungry.’ Do this and then your nation shall be called a repairer of the breach.” …  Jesus, a brown-skinned Palestinian Jew, called us to preach good news to the poor, the broken, and the bruised, and all those who are made to feel unaccepted. (Speech at the DNC Convention 2016)

For me, this illustrates the great divide among us. It illustrates the difference between our two major political parties, and within the parties. It seems we will have to choose one or the other. The theories on polarity management appear stymied in the face of this polarity. Where is the leader(s) who can manage this polarity? For some, the choices are absolutely clear. For others, it is like walking through a dense forest on a moonless night. It is unclear which way to go.

I know which choice I am making.

Hill To Die On

In these tumultuous time of a presidential election campaign, it is tempting for preachers and writers to extol one candidate and to demonize another. Yielding to that temptation can be unwise, for preachers and congregations, on two accounts. First, it is illegal. From the IRS website (https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics) it states,

The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress more than a half century ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its administration of this congressional ban.

In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

While it seems the enforcement of this provision is laxly or lopsidedly applied, all it takes to draw attention to “political activity” is for one or more parishioners to file a complaint. Let’s face it, not everybody in a congregation will appreciate our activities or words. Now, I am not saying I fully agree with the law. On the other hand, I do not want the Church to be co-opted by the state as it was in Germany during the 1930s.

The other reason to avoid direct political speech or actions is it could be a nail in the coffin of one’s ministry with a particular congregation. Some would say, “So be it, I must be prophetic.” That is noble, even righteous, but one has to be willing to pay the price of being prophetic. Prophetic proclamations might not just shorten one’s current pastorate, but can make future pastorates difficult to come by. Yes, we have a prophetic responsibility. There are many means of exercising that responsibility. One can address the issues without openly speaking for or against a particular party or candidate.

One of my mentors, in former days when I was a young fire-brand, would ask me, “Is this a hill you are willing to die on?” Sometimes, I was willing to run the risk. At least once, it did cost me future service with that congregation. In retrospect, there were several other ways to have exercised what I felt was my prophetic responsibility on a local issue. In the long run, what I thought was a critical issue, did not materialize, and that particular sermon had nothing to do with the issue becoming a non-issue.

Is speaking or acting for or against a candidate for office “a hill you are willing to die on?” For each of us, that may bring forward a different answer.