Your thoughts are welcome here.I welcome discussion. You don't have to agree with me on anything I say. I appreciate that you're here and you're reading my stuff, but please feel free to comment as well. I might not have an answer for you. I might not have anything satisfactory to say at all, in fact. But that doesn't mean I don't want you to have a chance to say what you want to say. This isn't a place for anyone to stomp on anyone else. It's a place to talk about stuff - God stuff. If we all agreed all the time there wouldn't be much to talk about, now would there? ;-)
   
Tags: baptismchristian ghetto, christianese, church, communication, community, creeds, culture, doctrine, dragons, early church, emerging, environment, evangelism, faith, fellowship, forgiveness, free will, freedom, heaven, holidays, integrity, intj, judaism, justice, kingdom, leadership, life-death, love, mbti, modern, patriotism, personality type, pharisees, postmodern, predestination, protestantism, quotes, sacraments, sermons, silly, social justice, soul, sovereignty, spiritual gifts, spirituality, submission, thankfulness, unity, wisdom, wordle, worship
|
I know this is a bit of a leap, but I'm going to make it anyway. I feel like sometimes churches (or perhaps I should say "church staff") over think what they're all about. They try to turn church into something that sounds really, really great, even though you can't really pin down what they mean by most of what they're saying. The church is "authentic." What does that really mean and how does it fit in with the fact that most of the people on stage are paid staff/professionals? Or the word "covenant" is throw in before all the important words to emphasize how important they are, even if they don't really have anything in particular to do with the covenant.
Here's a clip of Stephen Colbert sharing a sponsortunity he was given by Wheat Thins... with an overly thought out information sheet attached.
Grrrr, the video plays in edit mode, but not once I submit. So if this isn't working, click here to see the video. I haven't read the book. In fact, I don't think I'd even heard of the author until yesterday. But to the extent that I understand what he's saying, I agree whole heartedly. If the world cannot see the gospel embodied in the church, then how can our story speak with authority or effectiveness?
The following is directly copied from Tolle Lege where I found the quote. “I have come to feel that the primary reality of which we have to take account in seeking for a Christian impact on public life is the Christian congregation. How is it possible that the gospel should be credible, that people should come to believe that the power which has the last word in human affairs is represented by a man hanging on a cross? I am suggesting that the only answer, the only hermeneutic of the gospel, is a congregation of men and women who believe it and live by it. I am, of course, not denying the importance of the many activities by which we seek to challenge public life with the gospel– evangelistic campaigns, distribution of Bibles and Christian literature, conferences, and even books such as this one. But I am saying that these are all secondary, and that they have power to accomplish their purpose only as they are rooted in and lead back to a believing community.” –Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 227. The topic of "praise music" vs. hymns came up in our Bible study this week. In fact, I was the one that brought it up. We're studying the book of James and were specifically talking about James 3:17 where it mentions not showing partiality and not being hypocritical. Our Bible study book had a great quote on this: He "will yield like air in matters of personal feeling or interest," but "will stand like rock in respect of moral principle." -- C. G. Moule
One of the gals in the study piped up, "But now-a-days everyone is expected to be tolerant" as if it were automatically a bad thing. So I replied, "Yes, there are definitely times when tolerance is important." Everyone seemed to look at me like I'd sprouted a third eye and one person asked, "What do you mean? Can you give an example?" I gave a few, but the one I finally landed on was the preference some people have for praise music and the alternate preference that others have for hymns sung with their traditional tunes.
I was rather taken aback when this led to an immediate response about how bad praise music is (We do sing a fair bit of praise music in our congregation, by the way.) and how it often involves singing the same line over and over again, such as "God is awesome, God is awesome." I said (oh yes, I did), "you mean like when the angels sing 'Holy, Holy, Holy?"
I won't get into the rest of our conversation here. That's just hashing over a rather discordant and painful time. But I would like to take on the topic itself. I did a quick search of R.C. Sproul's thoughts on praise music (since he was referred to by the person who was so against it) and I found an article that wasn't actually written by R.C. but by a guy named Gene Edward Veith. I found a couple of debatable points in his essay, which you can read on the Ligonier website, but I'd like to zero in on one specific paragraph, just in the interests of trying to focus on the topic and not nitpick on the tangential particulars. He said;
The question is not whether or not we should make use of contemporary music in church, but whether we should make use of pop music. By its nature, pop music is catchy, entertaining, and thus “likeable.” It cannot have much content, much less complexity or depth. If it did, it would cease to be pop art. The art of the folk culture, with its traditions and communal experience, has such things, as does the consciously-crafted art of the high culture, with its challenging content. I'm not sure how all praise music got condensed down into being pop music, or along the lines of pop music, but I'm going to roll with that. I also don't agree that all pop music is catchy and therefore "likeable" but again, I'll slide past that to get to the next two sentences. "It cannot have much content, much less complexity or depth. If it did, it would cease to be pop art." ... Really? Is that true? So I ask you, is pop art a veritable wasteland in the realm of art/music? Can you think of any pop music (or perhaps just a contemporary "praise song") that has any depth at all? And how would you evaluate depth anyway? Thoughts? Description:I usually make regular old no knead bread for communion, but I've been longing to make the thick, chewy, sweet communion loaf that we had in one of the churches I grew up in. It must have been in Massachusetts, because that's where I had my first communion. I've found a recipe that comes out looking like that loaf, but it's just flour and water. Apparently in the Catholic church, that's all that's allowed in communion wafers. We must have attended some renegade hippy Catholic church in my childhood (in fact, I know we did. They had great music.) and I would swear there was honey in that bread. This is 1/3 of the measurements of the original recipe with a few modifications. Ingredients:1 cup whole wheat flour 1 cup white flour 3/4 cup water 1/2 cup honey (I didn't measure. So I'm guessing. It might have been more.) 1/2 teaspoon salt Directions:Mix ingredients together. Knead for 5 minutes. Let the dough rest for another 5 minutes. Divide into two balls for thicker pieces, three balls for thinner/crunchier pieces. Roll these out and mark with a cross (or plus... since it's centered). Make two consecutive circles around the center. Then make cuts in each section to make separate pieces. Cut at least 1/2 way to 3/4 of the way into the dough. Bake for 20 minutes at 400 for lightly browned loaves. (I think I've got the ingredients where I want them, but I'm still working out the cooking length part.) I'll try to remember to take some photos next time so you can see my cutting handiwork. (Still didn't get photos this second time around. Once we started into eating this batch, it went quick. I might make some in plane old cracker shape next time around to nibble on at home.)   In high school, we read Edith Hamilton's Mythology book. While reading that book, I don't think the concept of the gods being just, or even good, ever really registered. Assistance, hospitality, caprice, revenge, and unending desire for pleasure all popped up over and over. The gods were good and they were bad. They were a lot like humans - well, super humans. Though you might hope that they would be kind and generous and loving, you really couldn't count on it, even when you were a demi-god, the child of a god. So why, then, would people have a belief today that God should only be good and should only allow good things? Why would a post like this show up in my Google+ feed yesterday asking, "Why does god allow suffering?" Where did we ever get the idea that maybe God shouldn't allow suffering? It certainly seems like the gods of mythology (not just Greek, but Babylonian, Nordic, etc.) all created a fair bit of suffering among humans. Even Jehovah didn't spare his own son from suffering. So why do we seem to expect that God would forbid suffering during this life time? Why do we think that the existence of God cannot possibly coincide with the existence of suffering in the world? Why do people feel that suffering is one of the strongest arguments against God? I wonder if the question doesn't reveal more about our own opinions of ourselves rather than our opinion of God. Did our sentiment around God and suffering change during the Enlightenment as we started to put more value on the individual? I finally posted a response on the G+ thread: " I've been thinking on this one since you first posted it. What keeps popping back into my head is, 'Why do we expect god to not allow suffering?'" Joel, the one who originally posted the question, replied, "Great question. I guess for me it comes down to this: If god doesn't help people, why have a god? Why do so many people pray to god, if god isn't interested? Does he give us any benefits at all over not having a god?"
I thought that his questions, in turn, were also good. I'll post my reply to him here (in case you don't want to click through to the original post) but I'd be curious to also hear your thoughts. Why does God allow suffering? Why do we care? Are there any benefits at all to having a god over not having a god?
My last reply:
"What if god does help people, he just doesn't help all people all of the time? Does that make a difference?
"Or what if god provides basics - such as a working ecosystem that's well suited to our needs - but not necessarily all of our wants - such as the end of all sickness. Does that make a difference? In this scenario, no god would mean no ecosystem or a crappy ecosystem... and we'd still have sickness.
"I just think the underlying assumptions beneath your original question are really fascinating. I've heard people argue about god and suffering till the cows came home. But I don't think I've ever heard a conversation on the premises that these discussions are based upon.
"I wonder if the ancient Greeks ever sat around and asked, "Why does Zeus allow suffering?"" There's an article in yesterdays's New York Times about a pastor in Pleasantville, Tennessee, who has written a book about how to raise children. Apparently the book was hailed by parents who severely abused their adopted daughter until she died. When her body was found she was emaciated, had been beaten, and apparently had been forced to live outside in an unheated barn. The upshot of the article was that the pastor had written a book along the lines of, "People are inherently sinful. Parents need to train their children not to sin. The only way to keep them from sinning is to spank them, or withhold food from them, or give them some other form of punishment until they eventually learn to behave." What strikes me is the inherent lack of the gospel in this story. At the very end of the article the pastor is quoted as saying, "To give up the use of the rod is to give up our views of human nature, God, eternity." Where is the gospel in that? Where is grace? He seems to believe that the only way to get to heaven is to beat our human nature into submission, physically, so that God will accept our beaten up submission and allow us into heaven. If the only way to get rid of sin is to beat it out of a person, then why didn't Jesus come down with a big stick and give us all what for? Isn't the whole point of the gospel that we can't sacrifice enough to ever make ourselves worthy? No amount of beating will ever cleanse us from our sin. Only the atoning death of Jesus can pay that price. And then we don't have to. There's no, "grace plus beating" clause in the gospel. The pastor's comment makes no logical sense in light of what Jesus has already done. I'm writing a survey and I'd like feedback on this question. When you read the question, keep your own church congregation in mind.
What do you think of the question itself? What do you think of the possible answers? Is there something that immediately springs to your mind in answer but that's not listed in the possible answer list?
I feel like my gift to the church has been ____________________________________.
Please fill in the blank with whatever comes to mind (whether it's in the following list or not). Feel free to use the following list if that helps.
| a. compassion | b. hospitality | c. faithfulness | | d. humor | e. kindness | f. thoughtfulness | | g. prayer | h. evangelism | i. teaching | | j. listening | k. forbearance | l. financial gifts | | m. music | n. singing | o. experience | | p. leadership | q. knowledge | r. hope | | s. practical help with the facilities | t. gentleness | | u. practical help to people in the congregation | | u. a welcoming attitude to newcomers | v. wisdom |
 | Category: | Books | | Genre: | Religion & Spirituality | | Author: | David Platt |
I decided to read the book, Radical Together by David Platt, at the suggestion of our pastor. Upon finishing it, I think I can best summarize my thoughts on the book by saying that Platt had a lot of good things to say, but he not only didn't say them very well (sometimes contradicting himself, many times overstating himself, and almost always showing only one piece of a much larger picture), but I think he overemphasized very extraverted traditional forms of evangelism and what it means to be "radical". I've read other reviews on this book and most readers seem to really, really like it. So obviously Platt is hitting cords with people and is able to motivate them in a way that just doesn't seem to connect with me. Different strokes for different folks and all that. (Could it be that Sensing individuals like the very clear, very physical forms of being "radical"? Both my mom and Pastor Don are S's and both like Platt's books. If you're an iNtuitive and you read this book, I'd love to hear your thoughts.) But this review is going to be about my response and thoughts on this book. So if you liked this book, that's great. But it really rubbed me the wrong way. I could summarize Platt's six main points, but most other reviews already do that, so I won't spend the time. Rather, I'd like to focus on his underlying foundational premises and presuppositions. For the most part I agree with his stated points. We do need to be congregations who focus resources on more than just ourselves. We should have Bible-based preaching. We should encourage and equip congregants to build relationship with people in the community, helping people physically and spiritually. We should have a great concern for the poor and the orphans and the widow. I'm right on with all that. But Platt rests these "radical" (some might call them Biblical) behaviors on a foundation that I find at times to be shaky and at other times to be very one-sided. Platt clearly has a heart for evangelism and his book is primarily a focus on evangelism. And I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with Platt's understanding of the church and her purpose and I do have a problem with Platt's statements that put evangelism at the pinnacle of all that is radical. It is one thing to focus on evangelism as an important part of what it means to be within a Christian community, it's another thing to make evangelism out to be all and (literally) end all. Premises and PresuppositionsPlatt makes several statements throughout the book that put in no uncertain terms his opinion of the purpose of the church: "The only possible vision for the church of Jesus Christ is to make known the glory of God in all nations."
"God has called us to lock arms with one another in single-minded, death-defying obedience to one objective: the declaration of his gospel for the demonstration of his glory to all nations."
"If the ultimate goal of the church is to take the gospel to all people groups, then everything we do in the church must be aimed toward that end." Platt apparently believes that the ultimate and overarching goal of the church of Jesus Christ is evangelism. He doesn't say it's a part of the church's calling, but that it IS the church's calling. Sure, we're supposed to go forth to all nations. God definitely wants to get the word out and he wants us to do some of the footwork on that. But evangelism is only one of several things that glorify God. (Of course, evangelism can also be done in a way that very much does not glorify God and makes him out to be something he's not. But that's a different topic of discussion.) There are other things, according to the scriptures, that also glorify God: our worship (John 4:24), our love for one another (Romans 15:7), our sanctification as we become more like Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18), and our service to others with the gifts God has given us (2 Corinthians 8:19). To imply that one of those things is more important than any other distorts the picture of what the church has been called to be and to do. If Platt had written from a premise that evangelism is one of the actions of the church, I'd feel much more comfortable with that. Writing that it's the "only possible vision for the church" minimizes the importance of other gifts within the church such as discipleship, hospitality, teaching, preaching, encouraging, showing mercy, etc. I believe Platt also sensationalizes what it means to be "radical." He never defines the term, but the impression you get from reading the book is that in order to be radical, you must do something that can be measured, and when it is measured, it will big. Quitting your job and moving to a third world country to tell people about Jesus is clearly visible to the undiscerning eye. It is big. Going through the church budget and giving more away to overseas missions, or giving substantial amounts to programs that help orphans and widows, is measurable. And big. Platt may not have meant to imply this, but from reading the book it's fairly clear that if you can't see the action from a mile away, it's not radical. The Bible makes clear, though, that sometimes it's the little things that are radical. When there's another person in the congregation who gets on your very last nerve and who almost makes you want to just leave the church altogether, and yet through Christ's love and forgiveness you learn to love and forgive that individual in turn, that is radical. It's not easy to measure. It might not even be visible to those who didn't realize the animosity that was previously in the relationship. But that doesn't mean it's not entirely radical, especially in the midst of our self-protectionist, cut bait and run kind of culture. Or sticking with a congregation through thick and thin because we recognize that God has put us in the family, not to run away from it or to despise it, but to learn, within that context, how to hope, how to forgive, how to be patient, how to be kind, how to forbear and above all how to love well. That is radical. Sure, staying put might not look radical. And to be honest, sometimes it isn't radical. But staying put and learning to faithfully follow Jesus in a day to day setting as an imperfect person surrounded by imperfect people -- that is truly radical. If we're going to talk about being radical, we should be using the Bible's standard (forgiving 70x7 times or turning the other cheek) rather than using an outdated, Americanized view of what the term means. Maybe it's not a contradiction, but it sure isn't very clearPlatt also seems to contradict himself a few times. The first time I think might actually have been intentional. In fact, the title of the chapter, "The gospel that saves us from work saves us to work" shows the problem. Though I understand what Platt was trying to get at (I think) -- that we are not saved by our works, so we should quit trying. Rather we are saved by Christ and the overflow of that is radical obedience to Jesus (shown in our actions/works) - I don't feel like he made that very clear in the chapter. I finished the section thinking, "OK, so we're supposed to stop working our butts off to the point of exhaustion so we can work our butts off to the point of exhaustion... for Jesus. How are those two things different again?" It simply wasn't clear and the chapter seemed like one big unresolved contradiction. But I also felt like Platt contradicted himself when talking about programs. In chapter one, Platt made very clear that sometimes we're so focused on programs that we're not actually following God's word. I agree to some extent with that. Sometimes a church that is focused on its programs is a church that's lost focus of itself as a body, the body of Christ. So what I got from chapter one was that programs should be demoted or done away with altogether in an effort to better align with the word of God. But then he proceeds in chapter four, in the section entitled "People, Not Programs," to suggest an alternative to big programs that take place in the church building. The alternative? Little programs taking place in people's homes. He doesn't change the what so much as the size and the where. So programs are OK as long as they're broken into little bits? As an introvert, I certainly have nothing against smaller group sizes. But if we're going to talk radical, shouldn't the difference be more than just quantity and location? Shouldn't there be a fundamental difference in how we relate to one another, not as co-participants in a program but as co-participants in the Kingdom? What also wasn't clear was what Platt meant by certain words. I've already pointed out that he didn't define "radical" except through big, measurable examples. But he also never explained what he meant by "the gospel." He talked about the gospel quite a bit. But if I had never heard the term before, and I only knew about it through Platt, this is what I would discern from this book: 1) The gospel has been chained. (Implied on pages 45-46.) 2) The gospel needs to be unchained so that it will unleash God's people/the church. (Pages 25, 30, 34, and 46. Although on page 41 it's leaders who do the unleashing.) 3) The gospel gets people to do stuff that they wouldn't otherwise do (I didn't get page numbers for this. It was frequently stated, though.) and 4) sometimes the gospel is "of grace" and that gets people to do even more than they would have done. (Not as frequently stated. Seemed like a special case scenario.) I also felt like evangelism was never defined. Again, if I were an outsider looking in, I would assume from this book that evangelism consisted in convincing people (preferably in far away countries) to turn around and start convincing other people to turn around and convince yet other people about... something. ... probably about this "gospel" and Jesus and about how important evangelism is. Remember back in the days before the postmodern area when people could talk about Christianey stuff and assume that everyone else knew exactly what they were talking about? This book would have fit in really well back then. Even if Platt is directing his book toward a wholly Christian audience, I still think that some background, such as what he means when he says things, would help round out his message and make his meanings far more clear. As it is, he could very well mean that we just need to make people pray a prayer. And that's it. It's over. Check that person off and move on to the next one. I find that neither "radical", nor indicative of being "together." Radical TogetherWhich brings me to one last pet peeve. When I see the words "radical" and "together" placed side-by-side, my impression is that the topic being covered will have to do with being together, being a community, in a way that is only made possible through God (which would therefore mean that it's radical). So upon reading this book and finding that most of the sections were really about how to organize programs and budgets in a large church setting, I was pretty thrown. Where's the together? If we're doing something simultaneously does that make it a "together" thing? Walk the WordI think David Platt is overall trying to make a good point. If you're going to say that you're a follower of Jesus Christ, then you should be reading the word. If you're trying to build your spiritual life only through reading books about the Bible rather than reading the Bible itself, you're going to end up being either a weak or a nominal Christian. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, but you're going to immerse yourself in the wealthy, self-centered American mindset rather than in the self-sacrificing, giving Christian mindset, then is your faith coming through in your actions? Are you a follower of Jesus or a follower of comfort? Are you walking the walking and not just talking the talk? These are certainly things that self-satisfied American Christians should be reflecting on. But the way that Platt challenges people to think these things through, and the specific examples he gives as answers to the problems he's addressing, can go a long way toward creating guilt and misdirection among the people of God. You don't have to be livin' it loud to be radical. If your gifts are compassion and hospitality, those are things that are sorely needed. If your gifts are discipleship or teaching, the church needs you. If your gifts are preaching or showing mercy, God has a purpose for you. Evangelism is not the only call that God has placed upon his people. If you do not have the gift of evangelism, or if you are an evangelist who perseveres quietly through trial rather than running for greener pastures, that does not make you any less radical in God's eyes. You know what makes Christians truly and completely radical? Jesus. It's only through him that we're anything at all. His gifts are many and plentiful and cover a variety of purposes within the church. And by using those gifts within the context of a congregation, we can bring glory to God through worship, love for one another, sanctification, the use of our God given gifts, and evangelism. Now that's radical together. David Fitch posted a suggestion today on how church planting is done. ( STOP FUNDING CHURCH PLANTS and Start Funding Missionaries: A Plea to Denominations) I thought I'd repost my reply here. Great post. I love munching on new ideas and this is one you can sink your teeth into. I agree that the church planting process is abysmal. The very fact that it ever worked is a sign that we (Americans, at least) have a ridiculously screwed up view of what church is. As Bob pointed out, “the only expectation that has been placed upon the people is to give their money to pay someone else to be a Christian for them.” Having lived in both urban and suburban areas, I’ve yet to find an area in these United States that doesn’t already have at least one, if not zillions, of congregations already meeting in it. I think it’s interesting that we have a mindset that if our own denomination, or network, or whatever umbrella organization we feel connected to, doesn’t have a congregation in an area, then they’re probably not doing it right and a new church needs to be started there. What about using the congregations that already exist, the four churches who have touching parking lots, for example, and disciple people so that they live their commitment to christ themselves, rather than paying someone else to do it? (I know I’m echoing several folks sentiments here.) I don’t see anything wrong with people moving to urban or poor areas. I’m all for that. But to do it with the intention of starting a new church still seems silly to me. I’ve lived in Detroit and in the Mission district of San Francisco – both of which are (or were, when I lived there) rather poor urban zones. But they had churches already. Why rebuild the wheel? Why not help those “dying” churches get their second wind? Does it please God when the energy and excitement of youth is spent “for his glory” while simultaneously ignoring the wisdom and experience of the christians already living in that area? It seems to me that the old but faithful need the excitement, abilities and energy of the young. And the young and energized need the wisdom and the encouragement of the old and perseverant. Link: http://weavingmajor.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/loving-mabel/Sometimes it's easy to read scripture without hearing it. This is especially true when a passage becomes too familiar, or is so general that if we don't think through exactly how it applies to our life, then it's essentially nothing but platitudes. Kelly's rewrite of 1 Corinthians 13 takes a familiar passage of scripture and contextualizes it in such a way that it becomes immediately relevant. I've already posted a few times about Lynne Baab's book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively. In the last third of the book, Baab addresses personality types in congregations (In other words, the personality type of the church, not just the individuals within it.), considering type in congregational activities (offering a variety of activities to support differing personality types), using type to help be a more effective leader in the church and to help a congregation through a time of change, and using type in pastoral care situations such as counseling, premarital counseling, ministering to families and even in confirmation classes (helping kids better understand why they connect with some forms of worship or prayer and not others).
I want to share some more quotes from this book, but if you're interested in type and congregation life, I would definitely encourage you to read the entire book. Baab does a great job of pulling in personality type wisdom from a very large variety of sources and tailoring it specifically to situations, conflicts and service within the church. She also includes several appendices that list resources for digging deeper into specific sub-topics. This book is well worth the read.
"Without new challenges, we can't grow, and growth and change are a significant part of human development."
I think one of the things I appreciated most about Baab's book is her emphasis on growth. Using type to better understand yourself and others is a good thing, but it can also be a tool for growth. Baab encourages pastors and leaders not to talk too much about type to their congregations as it might be seen as a different gospel, but she points out that the principals can still be used to help cope with conflict, to ease transitions, and to spur growth both within individuals and the congregation as a whole.
"Understanding patterns of spiritual growth, particularly growth in self-acceptance and growth through facing the inferior function and the shadow, can help us develop a spirit of gentleness and kindness as we work with others in our congregations. We are all growing. We are all 'people i progress.' We all experience stress and behave in childish way when under pressure. We need a kind word or a gentle listening ear when we experience growth pants. I long four our congregation to be places offering that kind of love and acceptance along with tolerance for the complexity of our spiritual journeys."
This was kind of her concluding paragraph on the importance of growth. She then went on to talk through several specifics such as quiet activities vs. activities that involve lots of interaction between people. Teaching methods in Sunday school classes and how to teach in such a way that all personality types are engaged and learning. She said some stuff about small groups that fit me to a T. (Don't go changing out the people in my small group every single year. I don't like that. I want to get to know people.) She touches on worship, preaching, the way the building looks, and even scheduling events. In other words, she hits upon several things that we might not think about as being helpful or hurtful to people and she gives tips on how to make sure people feel a part of the body rather than being surprised or hurt by things (even simple things like not knowing a part of the service was changed at the last minute).
She also has an interesting section on Generation X. Considering that the Emergent movement is all about reaching X and Y, her take on the differences via type rather than culture are intriguing. Baab quickly points out that, for whatever reason, various generations seem to fit into specific types. The generation from 1910-1930, that were involved in WWII and were raised during a time of hard work and duty, display STJ characteristics. Whereas the Baby Boomer generation has more of an N feel to it as people valued exploration and envelope pushing, but they retained the J sense of responsibility of the generation before them. Gen X, though, seems to be more perceiving than previous generations. Baab explains, "They are a generation raised on options, more options than most of us who are slightly older can even imagine. MTV and the Internet illustrate the plethora of possibilities that have shaped this generation." Baab believes that most congregations carry a J flavor, which could be one reason why Generation Xers don't feel comfortable in church. She encourages congregations to have more spontaneity and openness "without sacrificing that which is important to [you]." I particularly liked this bit, "One Presbyterian church with a high percentage of Generation X attenders is known in its presbytery as 'the barefoot church' because one 20-something fellow occasionally come to church barefoot."
"Some conflict arises because we don't understand differences between ourselves and other.... We move to another level of misunderstanding when we believe that Kyle is being malicious or deliberately insensitive. This can lead to painful and damaging conflict."
I think this is particularly true. Since I've studied personality types, I generally have a sense of conflict through that lens. There are many times in a conflict when I hear one person say incredibly nasty things about the other person, as though the other person is being deliberately selfish or rude. But since I see where the other person is coming from through the lens of type, I often see just the opposite. Though you may hear them as being selfish, if you think through what it is they're actually saying, you'd realize that the reality is that they're trying to do something that will help and benefit everyone. (Yes, I do have a specific very acrimonious conflict in mind that happened among parents in my girls' class a few years back. It was heartbreaking to see these parents tear each other apart simply because they refused to take the time to listen and really hear what the other was saying.)
This happens in the church as well. Despite all of the Biblical admonitions to forgive and forebear and love, people see through the lens of their own personality type. Baab continues,
"Type can help us work with others in our congregation by giving us vocabulary and concepts to describe these differences in style. Once we understand them, we can be more gentle and also more assertive in asking that other styles be affirmed and included. This understanding can help us avoid falling into the trap of attributing evil to people when their styles differ from ours, and it can prevent conflict from escalating to damaging levels."
Baab also talked about change within extraverted vs. introverted congregations. Her descriptions of introverted congregations fit our church incredibly well. (We only have a couple extraverts in our congregation.) It surprised me to consider that change would happen differently, though, based on whether the congregation was introverted or extraverted. That was a neat little insight.
There are three books on type that I'm interested in reading next. One is the book, Gifts Differing, by Isabel Briggs Myers and Peter B. Myers. (Isabel Briggs Myers helped to develop the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, so reading this book would be going to the source.) The second is Beside Ourselves: Our HIdden Personalities in Everyday Life, by Naomi Quenk. I want to explore this whole inferior function idea more, which is what this book gets into. And the last has to do with parenting styles -- The M.O.M.S. Handbook: Understanding Your Personality Type in Mothering. Baab mentions that this book described her parenting style to a tee and they hadn't even interviewed her for the book. These are more quotes by Lynne M. Baab from her book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively.
"Psychological type is not a good source of direction for finding a place to serve. Type can provide us great understanding of how to serve once we get to a place of ministry. Type can help us understand what tasks will be easy and what tasks will be hard. type can help us understand which tasks will be tiring. Type can help us predict some of the ways we may experience conflict with people.
"The best and most effective service grows out of our deeply held values, commitments, and passions, which give us energy to persevere when things become boring or difficult. These values, commitments, and passions can come from a variety of places in our lives."
I thought this was particularly interesting and insightful. Baab gives an example of an ESTJ gal who helps out in the church in several very practical ways (which is typical of ESTJ's). But at one point she decided to help with a hospice center, thinking that she'd do practical things like wash dishes and tidy up. But what she found was that caregivers wanted a chance to get away and she ended up sitting with the patients who often wanted to talk out what they were going through. So here was a very practical DO-ing oriented woman who was expected to sit and listen quietly to someone emote -- something she would find incredibly hard to do. But because she still felt strongly about the general task of helping with hospice care, she persevered and ended up growing richly in ways she hadn't expected. Because her weakest abilities were called upon, she felt like she had to rely ever more heavily upon God to learn to listen and empathize with people. But through it, she found healing for some of her own past wounds. Here she was doing a task that she never would have chosen based on personality type, and yet it stretched her and she grew in unexpected and exciting ways. And it worked because she felt strongly about hospice even though it wasn't an area of strength skill-wise for her.
Baab encourages people to pursue what they feel passionately about, and only after that choice has been made should they consider how best to do their service in light of their personality type and strengths.
"At midlife and beyond, people usually grow in their ability to use their less-preferred functions. In Navigating Midlife the authors write that beginning at midlife, people 'need to expand their identity by looking inward to discover the pieces of their personalities that are not yet developed. They need to move toward their own wholeness.' The push to grow toward wholeness often motivates people to try new areas of service tat they never would have considered." I've heard this before, that as you grow older you're more willing, and even excited about, trying things that aren't as easy for your personality type.
"Once we begin serving in a specific ministry, type can give us understanding and insight into why certain tasks are enjoyable and others are not. Type can help us make choices within that ministry to bring balance to our lives. Understanding type can help us know when to delegate tasks to someone else. Type can help us know when to ask for help."
Again, she's advocating for being involved in a ministry we feel strongly about rather than selecting something just because our type indicates that we have strengths in that area. Then she encourages people to find means of interacting with that ministry that fit our type.
"Burnout can be like carpal tunnel syndrome or repetitive motion syndrome. Overuse of one part of our body results in soreness and pain. ... Overuse of our gifts and strengths in ministry follows the same pattern as repetitive motion syndrome. By the time we experience pain, the pattern of overuse is firmly established. Whether we are a pastor or a lay leader, the congregation expects us to continue to perform in the areas where we have shown so much competence. It is extremely difficult to form new patterns of behavior."
Baab points out that there's three main ways to end up burned out: being overtaxed in an area of weakness until you're completely drained, being overtaxed in an area of strength until you're injured in a way similar to getting carpal tunnel, and being so frustrated and stressed that you give up. She says that just because an area is our strength doesn't mean we can't still get burned out in it (which is especially a problem for people that work in their strength and then end up doing volunteer work that leans on that same strength). Just like with carpal tunnel, it can sometimes be helpful to strengthen surrounding muscles/functions. If we're strong extroverts and have to call upon that strength a lot for both work and church life, we may need to take time to strengthen our introverted function by taking on more behind the scenes tasks within the congregation for awhile.
The frustration and stress section relied heavily upon an example, but she explains that we could work in our strength, but because the board or pastor or people we're helping don't have the same strengths as we do, they may not recognize the amount of work we've put in to something, or they may be grateful to us but not value our work. (In the example a T was thanked by a board of F's, but what she really wanted was her work to be critiqued and then used. She ended up leaving the church because all her hard labor was ignored... until, ironically, after she left the congregation and the F's learned how to use the documents that she had drawn up.) I definitely could relate to this example as I often feel like I'm thanked but not necessarily appreciated.
Baab offers some great advice to pastors and other leaders in terms of helping people get plugged into the church life. She then moves on to talk about prayer and Bible study and how it differs among different personality types. She brought up Lectio Divina, which is an ancient form of Bible study, and she showed how the four stages of the Lectio Divina met the strengths of several different personality types, making it a good example for how to include all personality types in the same study. I covered the "why" of personality types in my last post about Lynne Baab's book, Personality Type in Congregations: How to Work with Others More Effectively, but this time around I wanted to list some direct quotes from the book.
"...we need to make sure there are places in every church where every type preference can experienced."
I think this is really important. I understand why SJ's would want to attend a church that focuses on structure, tradition, creeds and solemnity. And I understand why people with an Extroverted Sensing function might feel most comfortable in a church with incense or candles or raised hands or spectacular music. It makes sense to be in a congregation where we feel like we "fit" and we're best able to feel connected to God. And maybe we don't need to worry so much about visitors because they can always keep looking till they find a church that fits for them. But what about our kids? I have Extroverted Feeling daughters who love when we clap along to songs or otherwise get into the music, but that really doesn't happen so often in our mostly SJ church.
And I think it's important that even in an SJ church, people are encouraged to stretch a little, try new things, and find other ways to connect to God that might not feel as natural or as comfortable, but that might still enable them to have a better sense of God that goes beyond their previous understanding.
"When we are taking in information through intuition, we remain in the present reality of the senses only long enough to receive enough sensory data to make a leap into the possibilities associated with those data. While sensing focuses on the present and uses memories of the past to provide further information, intuition focuses on the future. Intuition explores the big pictures, the overall theme, the patterns that are present, the connections between the pieces of data received, and, above all, the meaning of the information."
"Each of us uses both ways of taking in information, but most of us prefer one over the other. People who prefer sensing tend to be practical, factual, and concrete, concerned with the details of each tree rather than studying the forest as a whole. People who prefer intuition tend to be abstract and to think globally. They are concerned with the pattern of the forest rather than the characteristics of the individual trees." I found the first paragraph to be very helpful. (I included the second because it's also a good description, though I'd understood that part before.) When I try to explain the different between S and N to people, I often find myself saying that S's are more detail oriented and N's are more big picture oriented. But what confuses me is that I notice details, too. In fact, sometimes specific details are exactly what give me my insights. So I've been confused about the differences in detail gathering between S's and N's. I think Baab delineated the differences well in this paragraph.
"The physical surroundings in their house of worship may be quite important to sensing types."
This is so true of Rob, not just with worship but with schools, too. Every time we visit a university campus he doesn't care what programs they offer or what type of classes he could take, what matters is how old and cool the buildings are. He struggles with the fact that our congregation meets in a building that was built in the 60s or 70s. He's much rather be downtown in something old and funky.
"When [Jung] uses the word feeling, he is referring to a decision making pattern that involves concern for human values and that strives primarily for relational harmony. It is decision making based on deeply held values. In contrast, the word "thinking" involves making decisions with a concern for logica nd truth. Thinking is more detached and objective than feeling."
"Thinking involves a concern for logic and truth; feeling involves a concern for values and harmony."
I'm very clear on what thinking means. I get foggy when it comes to feeling. Or, more to the point, I get foggy when it comes to Rob. I would say that he makes decisions based on values and truth. He has very strongly held values and he sees them as core truths. So is he a T or is he an F? When he takes tests he often comes out right in the middle. I think he's an F when it comes to the values bit but a T when it comes to the relational harmony bit.
Oh, and for the sake of the feeling folks here, let me add this quote:
"Logical analysis alone doesn't guarantee accuracy."
You can use that against us the next time you're in an argument with a T. ;-)
"In congregations the thinking-feeling preference may be the most explosive and painful aspect of psychological type differences. It can be difficult for people who prefer thinking and feeling to respect each other. The feeling type proposes an action. The thinking type asks, 'Why?' The feeling type thinks, 'If she really respected me, she wouldn't need to hear reasons.' The thinking type, meanwhile, is wondering, 'If he can't articulate his reasons, can this really be a good idea?'" I thought this was a great insight. If we knew that we were T's and F's talking, then perhaps we could talk this out and satisfy either side in the end. But without knowing the metathinking that's going on, it's really hard to tease out what's really happening in a situation.
"Perceiving refers to a preference for keeping things open, for continuing to remain in a perceptive attitude. People who prefer perceiving often come across as flexible and easy-going. Judging refers to a preference for making decisions over taking in more information. People who prefer judging often seem to be organized, structured, committed to deadlines, and aware of schedules." I thought this was a nice description of J and P.
Whew! That's plenty of quotes for now, and it doesn't even hit upon the bit of reading I did today. That was all from previous reading. I'll try to splash some more quotes up here soon.
|
