Paul wrote, 'I want to know him...' (Phil. 3:10). I've been reflecting on what that means over recent days and am challenged by my ever changing and deepening understanding of Jesus from the gospels. I am presented with a child who becomes a man who is revealed to be a prophet, then the Messiah and finally God incarnate. His story is affirmed and his claims vindicated by his resurrection. His life declares the presence of his kingdom already here, the promise of his kingdom to come, and his death makes possible my participation in the gospel story.
Yet like Paul, I find although I know him I discover I don't really, or rather, there is so much more of Jesus to know and understand. The gospels cause me to struggle to understand the facets and dimensions of what Jesus did and taught. I wonder at the nature of the gospel I preach and the Christian life I live when that of my Lord was so offensive and challenging to the powers of his world and so liberating and dignifying to the poor, hurting and marginalised. To be honest, Jesus makes me feel uncomfortable and makes me examine how I live in the search for answers about what he would have me do.
I guess my point is this: the Jesus I see in the gospels is far deeper, richer and more 'present' than I expect. Despite all my study, my experience and my Christian life I still don't know him. Like Paul, my understanding of Jesus is ever changing. I want to know him, I want to constantly be shocked and challenged and confused and amazed by the stories of the man who was God. I believe in the personal presence of Jesus in my life by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I firmly champion the truth that the clearest picture of Jesus I will ever see and the clearest knowledge of him I will ever gain is through the inspired gospels.
I want to know him, and because that knowledge will be ever changing, by God's grace and Spirit, so will I.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Thursday, 7 July 2011
Daring to Risk
I've just finished reading 'The Starfish and the Spider' by Brafman and Beckstrom. It's all about leaderless organisations, or, more accurately, organisations where the leader is willing to forgo centralised control for the benefits of networking and influence.
Anyway, it occurred to me that this is exactly what Jesus did. As a pastor I'm constantly receiving teaching and training on how to run my local congregation better, and generally the principles are based on solid management practices. That's ok, because a church has to have structure and there are elements of the church that need to be managed well. But Jesus didn't seem to operate with the same paradigm.
After three years with the disciples he trusted them to get on with the job. Now I know that Christ is the head of his church and that the Holy Spirit leads, guides and empowers the church, but the reality is that Jesus was willing to trust that these men would fulfil the mandate to go and make disciples - and they did. I also note that in the book of Acts the disciples did exactly the same that Jesus did. They went from city to city, made disciples, formed gospel communities, and left them to it. Admittedly they checked back on these communities in each city, and wrote letters to fix the problems that developed, but they were willing to risk (or should we say trust??) that the Holy Spirit would ensure the health and strength of these new ventures.
Obviously things didn't always go according to plan (the epistles are proof of that) and things got a little chaotic and out of control at times, but that was ok because after all, it's Jesus' church, not ours. So I guess my observation is that with the growth of networks and loose affiliations in our post-post-modern post-Christian culture we need to risk and trust more.
As I was reading this book I got a little excited because it sounded very much like the church in the first couple of centuries. I don't think we can go back to that, but I do think that since the modern western world looks very much like that of the early church we could remember to risk more, trust more, believe that getting the credit for what happens really doesn't matter. What is far more important is that the gospel is communicated through people and communities in relationship and that ordinary people really can be salt and light in their world.
The subtitle of the 'Starfish and Spider' book is, 'The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organisations.' The real power that was evident in the 'starfish' that was the early church was that it was really leaderless, it's leader was Jesus, and he's still able to do remarkable things with people who dare to risk.
Anyway, it occurred to me that this is exactly what Jesus did. As a pastor I'm constantly receiving teaching and training on how to run my local congregation better, and generally the principles are based on solid management practices. That's ok, because a church has to have structure and there are elements of the church that need to be managed well. But Jesus didn't seem to operate with the same paradigm.
After three years with the disciples he trusted them to get on with the job. Now I know that Christ is the head of his church and that the Holy Spirit leads, guides and empowers the church, but the reality is that Jesus was willing to trust that these men would fulfil the mandate to go and make disciples - and they did. I also note that in the book of Acts the disciples did exactly the same that Jesus did. They went from city to city, made disciples, formed gospel communities, and left them to it. Admittedly they checked back on these communities in each city, and wrote letters to fix the problems that developed, but they were willing to risk (or should we say trust??) that the Holy Spirit would ensure the health and strength of these new ventures.
Obviously things didn't always go according to plan (the epistles are proof of that) and things got a little chaotic and out of control at times, but that was ok because after all, it's Jesus' church, not ours. So I guess my observation is that with the growth of networks and loose affiliations in our post-post-modern post-Christian culture we need to risk and trust more.
As I was reading this book I got a little excited because it sounded very much like the church in the first couple of centuries. I don't think we can go back to that, but I do think that since the modern western world looks very much like that of the early church we could remember to risk more, trust more, believe that getting the credit for what happens really doesn't matter. What is far more important is that the gospel is communicated through people and communities in relationship and that ordinary people really can be salt and light in their world.
The subtitle of the 'Starfish and Spider' book is, 'The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organisations.' The real power that was evident in the 'starfish' that was the early church was that it was really leaderless, it's leader was Jesus, and he's still able to do remarkable things with people who dare to risk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)