Organizational Health part 1A

I have a mental image of an older ministry specialist who's been around the block many times.

Could be a pastor, professor or other ministry professional like myself.

Let's say the person is male.

He has a certain way of doing things that the organization has left behind or never embraced in the first place.

To protect his interests, the specialist carves out his own domain and rules it with an inflexible hand.

By many standards of measure, such as participation from lay people, spiritual growth, conversions, etc., success is evident.

Additionally, the man has a small cult following of loyalists who share his passion, philosophy and methods.

How does the organization (church, seminary, college or parachurch) respond?

Despite the man's success, in the bigger picture the organization is hindered from moving forward until he leaves or retires.

But that could be another 10-15 years.

Decision time for the organization:  Removing the man would come at great cost. His devotees might lash out in anger and rebellion.

Financial support could be lost.

A major confrontation would be necessary. Could be a messy scene and involve publicity, a review board, appeals . . .

Is it worth it?

I'll offer an opinion next week.

Is Christianity Trustworthy? Part 5b: Church History

In my last post I asked the question of what sort of god would allow the early church, filled as it was with flawed human beings, to work out its own basic beliefs.

Looking back we rightly ask, Is this process trustworthy?"

Were mistakes made?

Did the early church get the following "big rocks" correct?

• Doctrine of the Trinity
• Books of the NT
• Nature of Christ
• Justification and sanctification

In my view, here's the sort of god that would have allowed this process to be so, well, human:

A god who, himself, became human.

His humanity validates ours.

So if it's "okay" to be human, then maybe human processes are more valued by God than we think. Maybe God works in and through human endeavors.

Maybe God isn't so interested in doing dramatic miracles like snapping his fingers to instantly create the NT or sending down stone tablets with the doctrine of the Trinity inscribed.*

Maybe he calls us to work on theology with the humility and strength that only he can provide. Maybe such work depends on human character, community, mutual trust, prayer, listening, careful thinking, tough negotiations.

Maybe the early church was in position to do this difficult work, empowered as it was by the God who entered human history. 

In my view, it's only on this basis that the process is trustworthy.

* I have no problem with God doing miracles of any sort. But when we think of God's activity as being restricted to the dramatic and sensational, we miss out on many of his main works.

Is Christianity Trustworthy? Part 5a: Church History

As I read about major events in the life of the early church, I'm struck by how human everything is.

Yes, perhaps there is an invisible divine hand at work behind the scenes.

But on the surface,  God seems to have allowed flawed human beings the privilege of figuring out a lot of major stuff.

Quite often it's not a pretty picture:

Just read about the contentious issues surrounding the selection of letters for inclusion in the NT.

Or which version of the Trinity -- or the nature of Christ -- would be adopted as the orthodox position.

Or whether clergy who "lapsed" under persecution could subsequently perform valid rites and
sacraments in the church.*

Or whether Greek philosophy should be thought of as a helpful tutor (or hindrance) for theological understanding and defending the faith in the Roman Empire and Middle Ages.

Inside the historic accounts you'll find flesh-and-blood mortals  -- some brave, some heroic, some disgusting -- fight, scratch, claw, take sides, condemn, ex-communicate, denounce, and make arguments and counter-arguments about the most foundational issues of all Christendom, for all time.

What this mixed bag of saints and not-so-saints haggled over for 16+ centuries has a direct effect on the thinking and behavior of today's (and tomorrow's) Christians -- that is, our orthodoxy and "orthopraxy."

So is it all trustworthy? Were mistakes made? Do we now have it right?  What sort of God would leave these matters to us?

I'll write about it next week.

* The Donatist controversy