As I was working on my homework, I thought you might be interested in these notes from an article that I read for one of my classes.

Discussions of leadership are intertwined with issues of authority.  Western philosophy assumes that there is no morally valid leadership without the consent of the led.  It is a matter of modern Western moral concern that ideals not be imposed, that behavior not be coerced, that the search for truth not be stifled.  It is immoral when authority is abused.  Followers should not be mere means to self-satisfying ends for the leader.

• Ethical norms and behavioral ideals should not be imposed but freely embraced.
• Motivation should not be reduced to coercion but grow out of authentic inner commitment.
• The search for truth should not be stifled but rather questioning and creativity should be encouraged.

We label as “pseudo”, the kind of leadership that tramples upon these concerns.  Pseudo-leadership endorses values such as favoritism, superiority, and submission.  Pseudo-leaders are more interested in themselves than their followers, and knowingly focus their followers on personal agendas instead of shared vision.  They engage in leadership at the expense of their followers because they are primarily concerned with their own self-interests.

Characteristics of pseudo-leaders:

• seek to become the idols of their followers
• concerned about their power and gaining more of it
• enhance their status by maintaining distance from and their followers
• known by those close to them to be domineering and egotistical
• concerned about maintaining the dependence of their followers
• welcome and expect blind obedience
• privately contemptuous of those they are supposed to be serving
• masters at manipulating behind the scenes
• set and control agenda
• withhold information
• mislead, deceive and prevaricate.
• wear different masks for different occasions
• rationalize and justify their deceptions and contradictory behavior
• publicly support but privately oppose and obstruct
• not likely to listen to conflicting views
• intolerant of the differences of opinion from their followers
• overemphasize authority and underweight reason
• take advantage of the ignorance of their followers
• manipulate arguments to achieve the desired response
• invent fictitious obstacles and imaginary enemies
• highlight “we-they” differences
• focus on plots, conspiracies, excuses, and insecurities
• encourage favoritism, competitiveness, envy, greed, hate, and conflict

They create the impression that they are doing the right thing, but secretly fail to do so when doing the right thing conflicts with their own narcissistic interest. They claim they are right and good; others are wrong and bad.  They are the reason things go well; other persons are the reason for things going badly.  They are captains who sail under false colors.

(Notes taken from this article.)

I’ve been thinking about a couple of conversations I had this week about demons, oppression, and deliverance.  I think that demonic influence in peoples’ lives is way more common and ordinary than occurrences of some Gollumesque creature that hovers over one’s bed at night.  While head-spinning, vomit-spitting deliverance may be needed in extreme cases, I believe that the most effective deliverance that most of us can and do experience is in the form of replacing lies with truth.

Because of the prevalence of people who struggle with underlying issues of abandonment and rejection, I have always wondered how these issues are connected to the fall.  Obviously, plenty of people have experiences in their lives that lead to feelings of abandonment and rejection, but it is interesting that those feelings are almost universal regardless of personal history.

My conclusion (at the moment) is that the emptiness that we experience is a result of being born in a broken world and causes our initial feelings of alienation.  However, it is the enemy’s plan to take the circumstances of our lives to reinforce those feelings of loneliness and rejection.  He takes every opportunity to use the events of our lives to whisper the lie of our abandonment.

Sadly many people, even believers, live their entire life haunted by the lie.  It lies behind their fears.  It lies behind their anger.  It lies behind their excesses and addictions.  It even lies behind their motivation and drive.  It lies unchallenged by the truth that we are unconditionally loved, accepted, and embraced by the Father.  It lies…

If the truth of the Father’s love doesn’t impact our heart with enough force to displace the lie, then we live in the haunting darkness -  alone, rejected, and unaware or unwilling to believe the truth of our identity and the truth of the loving goodness of the Father who has adopted us.

Who needs ghosts and goblins when the power of the lie so effectively leaves men cowering?

Hey, sorry, I didn’t mean to drop off the face of the earth.

I ran across this statement recently…

“I think we can agree that there are at least two categories within the NT church according to Paul—leaders and followers.”

Hmmm. I would agree that there are leaders and followers, but I don’t believe there are two categories and each person falls in one category or the other. In the church, we sometimes lead and sometimes follow, and we often lead and follow.

Here’s a bit of dialogue from a recent TV show where a male gay couple were learning to tango…

“So which one of you wants to be the man?”

“I will.”

“Wait, why do you get to be the man?”

“I don’t know, let’s both be the man.”

“Clearly you are both suited to be the man, but in tango, it won’t work unless one person leads and the other person follows.”

“So?”

“It would be a very bad mistake to think that a woman is less than a man, in a dance or in life. Man and woman play their parts, but it’s equal.”

“Okay boys make up you mind.”

“Come on, Kevin, just be the girl.”

“Oh my god, you can’t do it!”

“If it’s so equal, why don’t you do it!”

“It’s not about being the girl, it’s about following, isn’t it?”

Interesting that in spite of understanding the importance and equality of each part, the dilemma is always about who will lead.

Obviously church isn’t the tango, or is it?

About 6 months ago I was invited by a friend to attend a theology discussion group at a local Lutheran church. It isn’t the type of group or meeting that I would typically attend. In fact, I feel very much like a fish out of water. The positive thing about the group is that it is intellectually stimulating and the discussion is intense and vibrant.

I continue to attend because it has been challenging for me. It is challenging to be the outsider in an established group and to be reminded of what that feels like. It is challenging to be regularly exposed to a different perspective that I don’t intend to adopt. It is challenging to attempt to articulate my views and to determine when it is appropriate to present a different point of view in that context.

Theologically, the group is very Lutheran (not that there’s anything wrong with that), big on total depravity, election, and man’s inability to know or choose good or God. I know the basics of their doctrine, and while I don’t agree, I tend not to argue these points with them.

However, there are moments that I am in disbelief. For example, after the shooting of the abortion doctor, I was shocked to find that I was the only person in the room who didn’t believe that the shooting was the “christian” thing to do. We are currently discussing Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship, so the discussions about pacifism have been interesting.

Last week, while discussing the meaning of church, the leader of the group explained that as a Lutheran, he could not fellowship with non-Lutherans, although he could associate with them. Whatever.

They are trying to decide the next book for discussion, and I recommended On the Incarnation by Athanasius. But now I am a little worried that they will pick it. I’m not sure that I want to watch it be picked apart and labeled unorthodox. I know that I’m probably not up to the task of defending it.

Anyway, last night there were only a few of us there, and I was questioned about my beliefs.

“So are you a universalist?”

“Well, I lean that way, but I think God is probably more of a universalist than I am.”

“And are you a pacifist?”

“Well, I lean that way too.”

“Where does your church stand on pacifism?”

“I don’t have a church.”

Dead silence. I think I’ll wear the t-shirt next week.

One of the guys did ask me to recommend a book about Christian pacifism though. I was thinking about The Politics of Jesus (Yoder) or maybe something by Greg Boyd.
Any suggestions?

I started blogging with a rule to myself to never apologize for a post, but maybe the previous post deserves an apology, if nothing else, for the fact that it was poorly written and confusing.

I probably shouldn’t care what people say about de-churched people. Heck I’m not even sure if I am one. But I might be. It probably depends on who you ask and where you set the requirements. Even while attending church, I have always identified with the de-churched.

As long as you believe that the de-churched are idealist church shoppers who are too wounded and independent to get involved with you because they only like their buddies, you can just write them off. I mean really, why else wouldn’t they want to be a part of your deal?

The bounded set-centered set example is sometimes used as a way to view people’s spiritual journey and salvation without the traditional hard lines of deciding who is in and who is out. That’s kind of how I feel about church. If you have a bounded-set church definition, I probably fall outside your lines. Whatever you have decided qualifies as “real church” probably disqualifies me.

With a centered-set definition of church, believers are in the process of finding where they fit in the body and the people that they are to be connected to at this moment in time. A centered-set definition of church encourages relationships across congregational lines, it encourages relationships with not-yet believers, and it allows for a fluidity of relationship that is resilient to changes in life and circumstances.

A centered-set view of church is more concerned that people find the relationships that they should be connected with at this time than it is with making sure that they are on the membership roll of an organization. It’s less about commitment or lack of commitment to a specific group and more about unity and devotion to people.

Just as I believe the Spirit is always at work drawing people to Jesus, I also trust that He is at work connecting people in the Body. Because of that, I don’t want to assume what that is supposed to look like for someone else. Even if they might be in a phase of missing it, I want to encourage them that God will hook them up where He wants them to be.

Hopefully this isn’t confusing too.

HT to Bill for the term De-ICed, love it!

Just looking for a label, I think I’ve found it. The Ultimate Consumer – beyond church shopping, one of those people who can never be satisfied…

• who cut their teeth on consumer church and ended up so self-centered that they won’t attend Sunday morning services.
• who must believe that there is a perfect church out there somewhere filled with perfect people. We can just assume that’s what they’re looking for.
• who got wounded somewhere along the way and never get over themselves. We can just assume they are bitter and stuck where they were years ago.
• who are too independent to learn from anyone else, have all the answers, and don’t want to be told what to do. We can just assume they are close minded, critical, and against structured church.
• who don’t get along well with others except a few buddies. We can just assume they only like people like themselves and don’t want to be around people who are difficult to love, otherwise they would be in church with us.
• who really missed it because they aren’t doing church our way.

Yeah, sliced, diced, and de-iced . . . we can just assume.

Maybe I should have bought a convertible, but instead, I’m taking a couple of college classes. That sounds simple enough, doesn’t it? Not so much. Either college is harder than when I previously attended, or my brain is foggy.

Yesterday a friend was asking about one of my classes. I said, “We’re currently talking about Maslov’s hierarchy of needs.”

Then I corrected, “No, it’s Maslow, isn’t it? Maslov is the dog guy.”

She laughed and said, “No, the dog guy is Pavlov.”

So, that’s kind of how it is, a mess of mixed-up facts and random connections.

Anyway, I’ve been thinking about some things that are different this time around.

1. Reading glasses.
2. Instead of turning up the stereo while I study, I put in earplugs so I can think and keep the squirrels away.
   (To my family, the orange plugs in my ears might be a clue that I’m not listening to you.)
3. Instead of staying out late, I now usually fall asleep trying to read.
4. Being “hot” doesn’t mean what it used to.
5. I’m not looking for a boyfriend.
6. Most of my roommates now call me Mom.
7. I haven’t been carded in over a decade.
8. Young students comment about my “life experience.”
9. I’m older than my advisor and some of my teachers.
10. Instead of learning COBOL, FORTRAN, and BASIC computer code and picking up my printout at another building on campus, I’m blogging from my kitchen about going to college.

I know the rest of blog world is busy with really important people saying really important things today, but…

For those of you old enough to remember, this little trip down memory lane is fun.

For those of you too young to remember, this is a classic example of what was good about life in the 70’s. I remember seeing this when it originally aired in 1976.

Well, you know the rest . . .

And I mean it in the nicest way.

Confession:

I – having blogged with idealistic fervor for over four years – really don’t care how you do church. I don’t want to be one of the voices implying that there is one ultimately true and correct way to be the church together.

From one end of the spectrum to the other,

-small to big,
-informal to formal,
-spontaneous to liturgical,
-house to cathedral,
-traditional to missional,
-you know I could go on and on,

wherever you fit in,

I hope that you find Life in your relationships and gathering.

I recently spent a few days with my parents, a rare few days that were just me and them in the home where I grew up.  I can’t even remember when that last happened.  It seems that for so many decades my visits to them involved packing everyone and all of their stuff into the van for a road trip.  This time, it was just me and my overnight bag.

Supposedly I was there to help, but instead it seemed like I landed briefly in a protected haven of simplicity and acceptance.  It was good for my soul.

A few glimpses of what going home was like…

• A cheery good morning hug from mom as I stumbled into the kitchen looking for coffee.
• Starting the day with the daily sudoku and crossword.  Dad made a copy for each of us from the paper.
• Apple crisp.
• Devotions from Our Daily Bread after dinner.
• Washing the plastic bread bags and aluminum foil when doing dishes.
• Playing board games in the evening.

They say you can’t go back, but once in awhile it sure is nice to visit.