- This is a really great response to the issues around sensitivity and freedom of speech
- There was a delay getting a bunch of my sermon-lectures from this Semester up online, so here are 5 of them in
our series on the history of Christianity:
- Great to hear expert guests on this episode go hard against ideological attempts to legalise “sex work”
Recently, the AFES Hobart staff team has grown outward and downward. I am direclty overseeing 5 staff, but there are 2 additional staff being overseen by our FOCUS team leader. Next year there will, God-willing be 2 MTS apprentices and another part-time staff in the mix.
een particularly different for me, is not particularly the number of people, but the layers: having staff one step removed from me, 'reporting' to someone else. I've been in that situation before with the FOCUS staff team, and it's always a bit different and a bit tricky. Why? Because I no longer have the same directly relational bond with the person one step removed.
This means that there is less affection and trust. It means that it is harder for us to be persuasive to each other in quite the same way, and easier for us to misunderstand, annoy or hurt each other. It's a little easier for them to not want to submit to my instructions and a little easier for me to be suspicious of a more distant team member.
Of course I need to go out of my way to invest in that relationship, being considerate, prayerful, interested. I aim to meet briefly, once a month with these staff, just to keep a point of connection.
It also makes the light chit chat when we cross paths, the interactions on email and SMS, and the time together in combined staff meetings all important. Time spent talking, chatting, reading the Bible and praying and eating corn chips is all important.
Letting go of the need to be liked
But at the same time, I need to make peace with the fact that part of growing the team, is moving away from needing a tight relational bond with everyone. I need to let go of that desire as well as the burden of guilt for not doing more. I need to be ok with the fact that I'm perceived as a bit more removed, and a bit more bossy and unapproachable or whatever. I need to not be driven by a need to be liked.
But I also need to make sure I lead in other ways which make up for the lack of close relationship.
Leading through vision, policy and character
I might no longer have the same relational pull, but I can possibly have an even stronger influence in setting a clear vision and set of priorities. Perhaps those team members closer to me might zone out when I set vision: they know who I am, and they are following me, not some vision statement. But those who are less close to me rely a bit more on a clear sense of what we stand for and where we're going.
Likewise, clear policies about expectations and freedoms and communication need to be spelled out and consistently applied. I need to not 'punish' team members for appealing to these policies, as if that somehow shows they are not Really On Board.
Crucial here is also my own character and conduct. In my speech, actions, consistency and integrity, I will need to strive to lead the whole team not based on my rapport with personalities, but instead based on alignment with our vision and fair application of our policies. My team needs me to be a just, merciful, faithful and kind leader, so that they don't miss out through favouritism or sloppiness.
Leading through other leaders
Laslty, I need to give responsibility to build team ownership and rapport to those staff who are leading other staff. They now have the job of providing relational glue. I need to teach and train and encourage them to invest in that, as this might be a new job that they have not consciously recognised.
I need to support their decisions, and allow them freedom to lead. Of course I need to hold them accountable to the vision, to our policies and to their own conduct. But I want to beware of undermining them. I also need to help their staff resolve issues with their immediate team leaders wherever possible, rather than relying on me always stepping in.
And finally, I need to ask for a greater degree of communication from these team leaders, I want them to report to me not only on their own work, but also on the progress of the whole team.
- Sandy Grant's lecture on Same Sex Marriage
- Lol!… but also an admission of a failure to listen.
- A conservative Roman Catholic discussion of Game Of Thrones with more substance than suspiciously Freudian tut-tutting
- Survey finds even atheists consider fellow atheists less moral.
- Why is the Knights Templar?
- Haven’t followed Jordan Peterson before. Seems like an interesting character
Family is a powerful value-word. It features in discussions about 'normal' and 'non-traditional' families—are they all equally 'family' and are they equal in every way? But it also features in church contexts: where we (over)load the spiritual family of the church with all sorts of expectations, measures and ideals. Inded the idea even spills over into corporate and nationalistic settings.
What happens with a lot of our discussion is that a series of words, often with several different meanings and overtones for the same word, all get blurred together. So that we have far too much fuzziness in our thinking about how the following are the same and different, or necessarily required by each other:
- Family—blood relations and natural children.
- Legal family—legally incorporating others into your family through marriage and adoption.
- Home—a group of people who accept, care and live together with a range of pledges of loyalty to each other and the permanency of that home.
- Legal significant other—be the person who has significant legal rights in relation to another.
- Marriage—union to express sexual love, start a family (both as a union and through having children), found a home and be the lifelong legal significant other.
But these aren't all the same, and don't necessarily all go together:
- The church is a metaphorical 'family' in a way that doesn't over-rule our blood relationships or potential sexual attractions.
- A spouse is not family in quite the same way that a brother is. How much more a mother-in-law.
- An adopted child is not family in quite the same way that either a spouse or a natural child is.
- An immediate blood family, or even a marriage union sadly doesn't always found a stable home.
- An adult child is not bound to the home of their birth family in quite the same way that the husband and wife are.
- Different cultures and individual families include a smaller or larger circle of blood relatives into their home.
- A marriage might not always successful in giving birth to children.
- I might choose to make someone other than my blood relatives or spouse my significant other for all sorts of various reasons.
But what is striking is that 'family' and 'marriage' carries with it an expectation of permanence and obligation on some level. A very serious act of 'disowning' or 'divorcing' needs to be done to completely break a family or marriage bond in a way that few other social ties require.
- Does Christianity Oppose Reason? My recent sermon/lecture at Uni Fellowship of Christians.
- What can we learn from the Puritans? by Sinclair Ferguson
- If Catholics tended to emphasise procreation & Lutherans preventing immorality, Puritans emphasised companionship
- My sermons from the Launceston Men’s Bible Conference. The 3rd one should be called “What’s God’s Plan for My Life?”
- A very helpful series on bullying among church staff. (Part 2) (Part 3) (Part 4)
- Have You Found Truth? my first sermon from the @CBS_UNSW mission last week
- How do you talk about answers to prayer in an evangelistic sermon? My 2nd sermon from @CBS_UNSW mission
- This post misleadingly implies Xn ethics is just a matter of ‘opinion’, rather than grounded in the Bible text. But it is also revealing of the authority for author’s own ethics: ‘My experience says otherwise’.
- Women’s, black, queer studies—you name the sub-group & it'll have an academic discipline devoted to it. This is not to say that many of these topics do not touch on legitimate objects of study. This partitioning of the humanities is significant, b/c it reflects & reinforces the divisions in which everything is now political. It puts students in silos where they're not inconvenienced by the need to listen (as opposed to critique & dismiss) alternative opinions. Carl Trueman on American university administrators.
- Tim Keller and Michael Keller on campus ministry. Check out the link at the end of the article to Parts 2–4 of the same series.
It's tricky when Christians speak up in public, especially if they experience opposition… because I want to stand side by side with my fellow believers. My instinct is to stand with them, even if I don't fully agree with them, rather than throw them under the bus for not saying things quite the way I would. But then again, I often DON'T agree with what they are saying or how they are saying it.
So I try to filter the different levels of agreement and disagreement I might have with fellow believers. This helps me in my thinking and my explaining. And allows me to stand with my brothers and sisters without compromising my own convictions on secondary matters:
- Spiritually, I agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ on our faith in Christ. I can accept someone as a fellow believer, even if I disagree with them quite strongly on their actions and opinions in other ways.
- Ethically, I usually agree with them on the moral principals in God's Word. There are some points where fellow Christians may see something as a black and white moral issue, but I perceive it to be an area of conscience and wisdom. This is especially the case when we are extrapolating from the explicit words of Scripture.
- When it comes to political theory, we might disagree on the best form of government. Of course some believers are very strongly convinced that a small government free market democratic approach to politics is grounded in the Bible, so that it is really a matter of ethics. But then again others have a higher view of monarchy or socialism. Personally I am not convinced by those who advocate fiercely for one politicl theory as necesarily Christian.
- Even if I DO agree broadly with the political theory of my fellow believer, we may not agree on a particular public policy. Public policies are almost always the combination of ethical principles and practical considerations. This means that we might dial in our ethical ideals at various points. Almost always public policies will have positive and harmful direct and indirect effects. This leads to a range of different possible views amongst Christians.
- Which priority we give to various ethical and policy issues is a matter of strategic agreement. Our reading of what the burning issue of the moment is, and what is the gateway issue, or front line of battle is influenced by many complex factors. As a result we may differ on this reading, and differ on our person sense of responsibility to rally to a particular issue.
- This then leads on to the particular part we see ourselves as playing in the broader public discusission. This is a matter of role agreement. Often Christians speak about 'What WE should be emphasising right now', as if there is only one possible conversation that can be had at any one time. This is a very simplistic way of looking at things: a narrowly public relations journalistic/political view. The reality is that there are a range of different roles and perspectives and levels of conversation that all going on concurrently and in a complementary manner. For example, a lobbyist speaks more bluntly and polemically than a social worker.
- I may agree with a fellow believer on all of the above maters, but not like the way they say things. There is a matter of rhetorical agreement: “You're not WRONG… you're just being RUDE” might be our thought.
It's tricky isn't it? And what's especially tricky is when the critic of Christianity OR the zealous Christian activist blurs these all together:
“If you stand for the gospel, you will hold to these ethical issues, which means you will have this political outlook, agree with these public policies, and their current importance and so you will speak for them in this particular way”
About Xian Reflections
Xian Reflections is written by Mikey Lynch.
Mikey graduated from the University of Tasmania with a Bachelor of Arts in 2002. In 2000 he became one of the founding leaders of Crossroads Presbyterian Church where he was the lead pastor for 7 years from 2003.
Mikey now works as the Campus Director of the University Fellowship of Christians, University of Tasmania, Hobart. Mikey is the chairman of The Vision 100 Network (Tasmania) and a founding director of Geneva Push (national) – both church planting networks. He is also a chaplain at Jane Franklin Hall and the chairman of New Front Door: the Church IT Guild.