Thoughts on Shared Leadership #4

Shared leadership means sometimes the many will need to submit or defer leadership to the one because something falls into their area of experience, passion or responsibility.

Otherwise, the many could rob the one of their chance, need or responsibility to lead.  If this were to continue the leadership muscles of the one may atrophy and their desire to lead could diminish.

Preaching Thought: Head and Heart

Studying Scripture is not preaching.  It is most certainly part of preaching, but not the totality of it.  Those who make their study notes their manuscript fall short of preaching.  Preachers who simply regurgitate in the pulpits what they have chewed up in their studies pass along information, but will not have achieved transformation.

(guilty as charged btw.)

Preaching Thought:Telling The Truth

Don't water down the truth, boil it down; down its simplest form.  Unpack its meaning, discard its religious and cultural baggage, free it from any trappings that may hinder its acceptance.

Preaching Thought: Courage and Cunning

Don’t ever shy away from saying what is true.  Don’t be worried about backlash, motivated by fear or concerned about reprisal. Just find a way to make the truth welcomed and desired, even if its hard to swallow.

Tim Keller on Science and Scritpture

Recently, I read Tim Keller’s paper on “Creation, Evolution and Christian Laypeople.”  Its a white paper on how to navigate the scientific evidence presented for evolution and still maintain faith and trust in the Bible. It wants to honor the overwhelmingly significant contributions science has made to humanity and honor the God given authority of Scripture.  In the end Keller’s approach ends up giving voice to what is called “Theistic Evolution.” This is a strange syncretism of thoughts and evidences, which Richard Dawkins would think too theistic and Ken Ham would think too evolutionary.

During the course of his thinking Keller makes some great points that I whole heartily agree with:

• This is a confusing and problematic topic in which pastors need to get involve.
• Scripture should not be read in a strictly "literal" fashion.  Rather it should be read through the lens of a plain and normal understanding of grammar, literature and genre.
• The key to understanding a text is to understand the authors intend in writing the text.
• Scripture is not always written in a straightforward, linear and sequential manner.  It does contain “compressions, omissions and figurative language.”
• To interpret Scripture accurately we must submit our options and preference to the voices and writers within Scripture first.

Although, I appreciate the work Dr. Keller put into this paper I do have a few issues (mostly foundational) with his approach.

• At its core, this paper is meant to help the church community carefully balance an appreciation for science’s involvement to our lives and a respect for the holy writ. Keller tries to do the hard thinking for people in order to distill down the arguments. However, I wish Keller would have taken one step back and done the same thing with the topic of just evolution.  Instead of seeking the legitimacy of evolutionary biological processes (EBP) he simply assumes the evidence for evolution is correct and accurate.  Keller must know the discussion over humanity’s origins still rages, but he feels the freedom to skip all that and look for safer ground.  Either he believes in evolution or has given into a different kind of “plausibility structure.”
  

• Related to the above comment, Keller again shortchanges a larger discussion and does not give the fuller issue the attention he needs. In the first paragraph of his paper Keller gives only the two most extreme views of the science and religion discussion (pro-faith/anti science & pro-science/anti-faith) thus setting up his paper to win the day by providing a compromise.  He posits the most extreme science and religions in conflict model while ignoring the contrast, contact and confirmation[1] So, what about those who are pro-science and pro-religion and still don’t think EBP are correct? Again, by assuming the validity of evolution Keller short changes those he is trying to help. Instead of trying to “reconcile what science seems to tell them about evolution with their traditional theological beliefs” they should be investigating what science is telling them about evolution, first. 
  models.

• If we see Genesis 1 as “exalted prose narrative” (which I understand) as Keller suggests in order to not exaggerate the incompatibility between faith and evolutionary biology, the church may lose more than just creationist ammunition.  If we lean more to the less literalistic-hermeneutic side (as opposed to the more prose/narrative side) of the issue, I think we can do damage to the theology of the image dei[2]
  (1:26-27), the specific differences between man and women (1:27), the dominion and responsibility of humanity for creation (1:26; 28), the initial goodness of creation (1:31) and the concept of the Sabbath (2:2-3).

• Likewise, if we take Genesis 2-3 as not being “exalted prose narrative,” but revealing the accounts of actual events and understand that it “looks like history” what do we do with:
• 2:7-8 where God is said to create man out of the dust of the earth and subsequently becomes a living being?
• 2:19 where God formed the animals out of the ground?
• 2:22 where God made women from the rib of the man?
• 3:1 and existence of the Satan?
• 3:7 and the sin that resulted in the spiritual and physical death of humanity?
• 3:17-19 and the curse of God that plagues the world?

In the end, I agree with Keller’s concluding thought that those seeking to reconcile science and Scripture must be a “bigger tent” then either the extreme anti positions. Even though this is what Keller was trying to do, I don’t think he succeeded. I think Keller has muddied the waters more by his assumptions, false dichotomies and acquiesces to EBP. Don’t get me wrong, I respect Keller and appreciate his thoughts and ministry focus, but to me his view here falls short of its goal. 

Other resrouces:
Jesus Creed: Tim Keller on Adam and Eve (RJS)
God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science
 

---

[1] John, F. Hought, Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation, Paulist Press, (New Jersey, 1995), 3-4, 9.

[2] Genesis chapter 2 does not start a new thought until verse 4.  Therefore verse 2 and 3 still fit within the former thoughts of chapter 1.

I agree

"A widespread abandonment of Christian doctrinal commitment — even doctrinal knowledge. Forget the rising number of people with no religious identity; the news to me is the vast number of self-identified Christians who have no real knowledge of, or deep commitment to, a specific Christian faith. You could say they were watering down Christianity's teachings, but I question if they even know those core teachings."

Cathy Lynn Grossman, religion reporter, USA TODAY

Thoughts on Shared Leadership #3

"Are 4 Heads Better Than 1?"

Yes- there is more input, creativity and opinions.

No- there is more input, creativity and opinions.

Yes- the vision and passion of the community are not limited to what one person can articulate.

Yes- the church does not only have the one view or perspective on issues and ideas.

No- there can be 4 versions of how to implement an idea, 4 accounts of what happened, 4 different critiques, and 4 approaches to everything. Distilling down or combining these can be hard, confusing and lends itself to miscommunication.

Yes- more can get done.

Yes- there is greater diversity in ministry style.  One’s weakness can be compensated for by another’s strength.

Yes- greater freedom and responsibility.

No- each person has to figure out how to lead without everyone taking the lead.

Yes- there is greater community access to resources.

No- one can feel ganged up on if they happen to be the odd one out.

Yes- the brain power, wisdom and life experienced pulled together by equal members of the team is synergistic.

No- When someone does not carry their responsibilities the system breaks down.

Yes- more accountability.

Yes & No- egos (requires humility while keeping them in check)

No- replacing a team member is more than just finding the next competent person.  It involves finding someone who fits with the existing team, their strength and weakness, their personalities, their passions, as well as finding someone who fits organization, its values and can do the job.

Yes- there is a greater division of responsibility.

The Benefit of Tuesday Church

Even though "doing church" mid-week on Tuesday evenings has its costs, it has it benefits too.

• Colorado is the "thinnest state" in America with only 18.9% of its population being classified as obsess. This is mainly due to people being very active. Having a church that meets on Tuesday does not conflict with the active weekend lifestyle of Coloradans.
  

• Not meeting on a Sunday makes going to "church" less foreboding to those outside the church. It removes the stigma that Sunday is some how more holy than other days. (Maybe if they go to church on a weekday, God won't strike them with lightning.)

• Some outside the church are more likely to visit a church after work, during the week, than they are to change their weekend plans in order get up on a Sunday morning, get dressed up (because that's what you do, right?) and head to a sacred place to meet God.

• Meeting on Tuesday, and not Sundays, gives those inside the church a chance to be out and about with friends, family and neighbors who don't go to church. It becomes a missional value to be with those outside the faith on their turf and on their schedules.

• Finding a place to meet is easy since we are not in competition with other churches (plants or those without buildings) for gathering space.

• There is no competition with the NFL for Sunday loyalties.

• Meeting on Tuesday sends a message to people that this is not church as usual.