What will prepare our Global family for our Children?

I speak as a sociologist, and not as an economist, and therefore beg for your patience.

Os Guinness spoke of three enduring first-principles, faith, knowledge, and virtue. In a market-related sense, we could say that they refer to attitude, aptitude, and altitude.

If one were to apply the sociological stress test to sustainable development one would ask three things: first, what is the market’s mood [attitude] in the prevailing economic condition, second, what has the market learned from the past that it would not want to repeat [aptitude], and third, what are the means at the market’s disposal that it can change – what is it’s vision or direction, and realizable application [altitude]?

The mood [attitude] is decidedly pessimistic. Martin Wolf’s excellent FT article, on the 24th November 2011, titled, “To the Eurozone: advance or risk ruin”” makes the point that something practical needs to be done instantaneously. This was similarly confirmed by a recent survey carried out to more than 1600 executives. A poor attitude is a warning sign that change is needed. One might say that usually the worse the attitude, the greater the need for sensible and practical change or adjustment – like the hand that approaches a red-hot stove plate!

The collective discernment [aptitude] screams out the need for recognition of and adjustment to a number of things. Here are a few:

1. The global economic ‘tree’ is in dire need of a pruning. Without pruning, a tree becomes increasingly unproductive. We should ask: is our global economy not like a giant un-pruned tree? And if so, then who will do the pruning? Pruning is feared where vision is short and vested interests are allowed to manipulate. Pruning is a value – an ethic, and where values are concerned, strong character will always be called upon [a faith attitude]. The pruning principle, teaches that austerity is not necessarily an enemy. Will we be prepared to do the hard little and great things. We each know what it will take, personally, communally, and societally. We each have our respective spheres of influence, and can in an instant begin to make the necessary adjustments. I am reminded of a statement made by Marcia St. Martin, executive director of S&WB, to the citizens of the greater New Orleans area, as that region faced a hurricane of disastrous proportions. She said that if each of one million citizens of the area were to simply clear their drains, that the collective effect of that one act would avert disaster for that region. Here again we see the power of what a collective change of attitude, and the corresponding aptitude to decide and to act, can do to save a potentially unredeemable situation.
2. Where pruning is resisted, breakdown is imminent, or inevitable. Where necessary discipline is avoided, austerity is ultimately imposed. Already, executives are giving furtive looks to alternative markets in a bid to hedge against the consequences of euro disaster. Everyone has the ‘aptitude’ to know that there is a problem, and to act responsibly. In the US, under the guise of a “stress test” the Fed is preparing for the worse, even while throwing out the disclaimer that ‘this is not a forecast’. In other places Central banks are buying gold at unprecedented levels [again, disclaimers noted]. Frankly, the vital signs are not good, and one cannot blame everyone for taking protective measures, but this only confirms the point that any delay in exacting the necessary present discipline will only heighten the consequences later. We have the aptitude, so let’s use it. Where is the leader that will stand up and say so?
3. Without a proper long-term vision of the global economy [altitude], we will commit ourselves to interminable cycles of revisions, and ineffective adjustments. Two things are required. First, identifying the important little steps, such as the Fed’s “stress test” on some thirty major US banks. Second, agreeing on a long-term vision – leadership has to gain some ‘altitude’. For instance, we have to break out of the swamp of subsidiary sovereignty [Charles Goodhart]. Will someone stand up and take the helm, and will we allow them to do so?
4. The greatest deterrent to a sustainable economic future, is a view of global economic reality as constituting many independent trees capable of independent existence. What does this mean to the strongest possible vision of a sustainable economic future? For instance, in Europe, it is to see that the only possible economic reality is that they can only stand as one. This view might perhaps finally propel the European union to more unified fiscal policy. If one were to view the one economic tree as either living or dying, and not as a dozen trees each capable of self-protection, then we might have the vision to act radically and promptly.
5. For the family of nations, the greatest danger to a healthy global future safe for our children is unhindered gluttony, and unrestrained selfishness. Any vision of the future that does not factor in the need for decisions internally that benefits others externally is unsustainable. We need not only the right attitude [faith], nor not only the right aptitude [discernment; assessments, and responsible actions], but also the right altitude – values of selflessness; gratitude; honor; respect for everyone, and the constant reminder that we only each have what was generously given to us by others.

An old African proverb warns that those who would only shoot the white stripes of the Zebra, would kill the whole animal just the same!

The value of Ongoing Change…

 

be the change.

The Value of Ongoing Change:

281009

A story told in a film by the son of an Italian man, relates how the father, whose profession was to sharpen knives, had come from Italy to NY with his family. He had a little bell that he would ring to tell the people that he was in their street. Then came the disposable generation. Disposable knives. Disposable scissors. He would leave before light and come back after dark, with nothing to show his wife and family for what he had done. That bell became the loneliest sound his son ever heard. As a nine-year-old boy, he once followed him for a whole summer, every day, day in, and day out, and after a while, it started to grind him down. Nobody needed him. When people feel that nobody needs them, they feel useless, and they die inside, they let themselves go. The family always said to everybody that “pop died of cancer”, but he actually died of a broken heart.

The value of ongoing change should press itself on people who lead until they abandon protecting the past for the sake of what next needs to be built. People who build a business must expect to be challenged in their faith. However, all that opposes them or their business in a time of needful transition shouts a different message, “you cannot afford to lose what you have, it is too risky to change” – a tendency that can be illustrated by an example of a recent marketplace collapse. The new CEO for Kodak was hired to rescue the company from failure. It is commonly known that the middle managers refused to accommodate him. However, resistance to doing things the new way was not met by dismissal, and the company was doomed. In an article written by Peter Cohan, titled: “Kodak Keeps Collapsing”, he comments on the situation already prevailing in the 1980’s, “I spent over a year consulting to Kodak 20 years ago. Already then it was grappling with the same issues that continue to plague it. Kodak created and led the business of giving away cameras and reaping huge profits from its dominance of the silver halide film and chemicals business. But Fuji took away its market share and digital photography took huge chunks of its former customers. Its latest restructuring program is too little too late.”

[http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/01/29/kodak-keeps-collapsing/]. The restructuring to which he refers took place at the beginning of 2009. Kodak laid off 4500 employees due to a 23% drop in international revenue.

The degree to which we prop up a system, is sometimes justified by the things we do well within it. Leaders, who do not pay sufficient heed to the need for change, may have succumbed either to pride, or to fear. This is evident when the call for change is met by more justification. What accentuates the lesson is the strong indication that Eastman Kodak were aware of the threat posed by digital photography as early as 1982. Doubly revealing to their self-inflicted dilemma is that they had ignored the marvellous opportunity of having created the first digital camera in their own labs in the 70’s. Again, in the same labs in 1986, they had developed the first sensor technology at the centre of digital cameras today! The Kodak management’s response was, “That’s cute – but don’t tell anyone about it” [From an article by Jordan Timm at: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/after_hours/lifestyle_products/article.jsp?content=20091026_10027_10027].

One can hardly imagine the positive effect that would have been created in their situation if Kodak’s management team had opened itself to independent reviewers playing ‘advocate’ to its ideas! The value of ongoing accountable external input cannot be overestimated in matters of leadership. The concept of checks and balances is one of the strongest values in a Christian ethic. This applies equally to matters of personal development as it does to matters of governance. Referring to the influence of checks and balances on Winston Churchill’s leadership in WWII, MQ states, “Churchill submitted himself to a ponderous process of checks and balances that made the method of governance much more tedious. The English, it was affirmed, led through committees but ultimately their safety net was the Judeo/Christian underpinnings that compelled them to consider and reconsider the quality of their social action” [MQ, p. 52 - http://www.moralquotient.com].

The danger of unipolarity [single ‘pole’ style of leadership deficient in check and balance] is evident in all the main three social contexts, the personal, the communal, and the societal. How many have wished for the voices of their dissenters to be silenced, and yet, all progress depends on those who persist in not conforming themselves to the status quos of their past. Children have wished their parents silent over their bad habits. Community leaders have wished those who disagree to be removed. Politicians have wished the voices of their opponents discredited. However, where mercy has failed, honesty cannot. Where excuses prevail, situations run amok! Neither is it good if an error has been detected that a man should immediately rush to resolve it! The wise wait to hear the voices of their most intimate counselors and friends.

In closing, the lesson taught by Kodak’s failure should not be underestimated. Jordan Timm writes, “Kodak rolled out failure after failure, trying unsuccessfully to graft digital technology onto their established business rather than adapt to an emerging marketplace. As late as 1995, when a Fortune reporter challenged Kodak CEO George M. C. Fisher with the impending collapse of the traditional photography industry, the executive sounded befuddled. “But Kodak has to grow,” he protested.” [Ibid]

For us, we hope to remember that what lies ahead, without losing what has been built, is always much grander! It will require that we be prepared to reexamine and take stock of how things have been done in the past, in order to prepare for the anthem that states, “we are on a way we have never been on before!”

Keep on

Loys

An Apostolic Adventure – part 2

An Apostolic Adventure – Part 2

What follows is a series of articles on our next steps in a developing theology and ecclesiology [complete article available on http://moralquotient.wordpress.com :

2.1 Some Initial Clarification - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-1.doc

2.2 Building an Apostolic Future - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-2.doc

2.3 The Question of Primary Relationships and other Practical Points - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-3.doc

2.4 Pruning for Sustainable Growth - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-4.doc

2.5 Building in Accountable Unity - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-5.doc

2.6 Defending an Accountable Unity - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-6.doc

2.7 Building by Christ's Inspiration – a cry for the future! - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/loys-an-apostolic-adventure-e28093-part-2-7.doc

2.8 A Summary of Raw and Real things about the Apostolic! [not yet sent]

An Apostolic Adventure – Part 2 [from MQ blog]]

What follows is a series of articles on our next steps

2.1 Some Initial Clarification

2.2 Building an Apostolic Future

2.3 The Question of Primary Relationships and other Practical Points

2.4 Pruning for Sustainable Growth

2.5 Building in Accountable Unity

2.6 Defending an Accountable Unity

2.7 Building by Christ’s Inspiration

2.8 A Summary of Raw and Real things about the Apostolic!

2.1 Some Initial Clarification

By the amount of feedback and questions asked, it seems that it would be helpful to explain our recent decisions to step forward into a fluid apostolic future. We are moving forward into multiplied expressions of apostolic households in accountable friendships and relationships. We are still walking in accountable relationship with the very same people that we have always been [with some obvious and practical changes]. All our friendships are still intact as far as we know. Accountable friendships can never be an obligation or imposed from the outside by a system. Accountable friendships can only be something the Holy Spirit does, they are divine, can never be imposed, but are invited, and carry the authenticity of the Holy Spirit. We do not follow a name – we follow people. We are all simply friends that will continue to enjoy together what we already have, some in these friendships, are called perhaps so far to help build in an apostolic sense, but all the relationships in this family [and elsewhere] are important. Various talks and articles can be referenced that will set out where we stand at the moment, such as an article by Chris Wienand – http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/wienand-from-a-network-to-a-movement.doc. And a talk he gave on transition at the Toronto “Together For Equipping ’09” in Toronto [Session 8] – http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/210509-tfe09-session-8.mp3 . Also available at http://defleuriot.wordpress.com, are other reference material titled “Apostolic Adventures” and “A theological Emphasis – parts 1 & 2”. Both our theology and ecclesiology are being developed in this transition.

2.2 Building an Apostolic Future

With regard to the future, what does it look like? We will continue to walk in a real and accountable relationship with all those that we now already are. The system has never covered us! Did many of us not already run for our lives from such things? However, let us ask God to increase the circle of our accountability, and we can help each other in this. Some of the initial building blocks of a loosening ecclesiology were covered in a talk given recently at Fredericton, New Brunswick - http://defleuriot.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/300809-a-proper-emphasis-of-leadership.mp3. Our callings are not man made, or system financed/fueled. We serve without allegiance to any system, or hierarchy. The gift to cover apostolically is a grace gift, and it is God given, and never imposed, and certainly not demanded, or even expected. We are all free. In a practical sense, I and others are seeing that we need to continue to train, equip, ordain, and nurture, undergird, support, pray for, and serve all those whom God gives us to serve among our friendships and beyond. In short, Dudley’s “sons” have now grown up, and perhaps there is some hope in all of this for God to use all of us [and many more if we keep our eyes on Jesus first, rather than on what we have built] to reach many more places, and cities and countries, including the 4000 as yet unreached people’s groups!

All that has been built has been legitimate, and God given. Our decision, therefore, strikes at the very heart of what we perceive to be a danger in protecting what has been built, instead of building forward toward a more fluid and expanding future of more Christ and less of us with what has already been built. God alone determines who builds with whom in close proximity and harnessed together! It is fundamentally important for us NOT to do anything at any time that smacks of hierarchy, denominationalism, or that is politically motivated by system or through the subtle pressure of allegiance, or of perceived loyalties. As we stride out with others into a multiplied future that is truly founded on accountable friendships with those ahead of us and with whoever chooses to walk alongside or behind, or even at a distance, we believe that the Holy Spirit will confirm it with signs and wonders following! Moreover, to do it by equipping leaders; by continuing to plant churches; by reaching new cities, and by opening regions with people equipped to go in an accountable fashion, and with all those whom God sends.

2.3 The Question of Primary Relationships and other Practical Points

With regard to the use of apostolic terms, some fundamental things will change, such as needing to clarify what it means to be “submitted to the NCMI team”. For example, we might say that we are accountable to certain leaders As mentioned, We see the biblical pattern shown in the book of Acts, where churches, and leaders were submitted to apostolic leaders [and to those who were functioning on their teams], such as Paul, or Peter’s! We have been asked if we intend to continue to be “an NCMI relating church”. Sadly “being a relating church” carries with it the presumption of systemized thinking, and has placed unhelpful expectations on the churches and leaders. The nature of the apostolic is to pour into a local church until leaders are raised up and it is out of the overflow of that leadership that the kingdom is extended exponentially. In an ecclesiological sense, the apostolic is thus never the focus, but the local churches are. When the focus shifts, what is fragrant becomes compulsive and imposed. The churches must remain the main reason for why the apostles work. We see future events becoming looser in ecclesiology, with base church emphases rather than “single team driven”. Our view of building teams is more base-church centered; raising up other base churches; partnering together with leaders who have trans-local gifting but who are not presently in base churches; and keeping the emphasis on investing in leaders who may themselves be called to lead their own teams. If I were to be asked what it is I am called to do, I would say, that I sense the privilege of being involved in helping any leader to be equipped to lead others – i.e. a “teams within teams” emphasis, rather than leading one team, or of raising up one team. The relational foundation of such service can never be outside the bounds of mutual trust and friendship.

Most of us have been in prior wineskins where people were ‘required’ or expected at events. In the words of a friend, what we want to avoid is the presumption of relationships. In addition, we want to make space for each leader to choose to relate primarily to different apostolic people? What is a primary relationship? It is with those who we [leaders and churches] invite to input into areas of discipline, doctrine, and direction, in the same way that the Corinthian church saw their relationship with Paul and with his team, as probably more ‘primary’ than say, their relationship with Apollos! Apostles serve churches, and care for them. A primary relationship should therefore, be real, and birthed from a place of mutual love, and never imposed as a rule or condition, but out of testimony, trust and friendship. Some have asked, “Who do we say we are submitted/[or are accountable] to?” The biblical answer is simply, to God, and through Him primarily to this or that apostolic leader, and perhaps to others that may not be part of our present friendships! This pattern was very apparent in the churches of the New Testament. Only God gives gifts and callings. Apostolic gifts and callings emerge under His leadership and affirmation. Apostolic callings are, in this way, grace given, and not man driven. They are never imposed by system or succession, but set apart by the Holy Spirit. Loys

2.4 Pruning for Sustainable Growth

With regard to the next steps, we see a season of shaking and pruning that will produce even greater accountability to God, and thus more effective ministry under the Spirit’s [and not man’s] authority. We have realized that a tree that is not pruned at the beginning of every season, might look good, but ends up expending its energy supporting dead wood. The fruit of such a tree is usually small and bitter. Without pruning, we spend our energy protecting. Conversely, a tree that is pruned may look initially bad to an undiscerning eye, but ends up investing all of its strength into new branches [sustainable growth], and to produce fruit that is large and juicy. This may be the very thing needed to produce better apostolic relationships between apostles and churches. Some of these relationships may have grown systemized, institutional, too tightly ecclesiological, too comfortable or uncomfortable, too convenient, presumptuous, immature or ‘expected’, or even perhaps having become merely a token of friendship with little spiritually intentional substance and purpose.

2.5 Building in Accountable Unity

The New Testament does not promote systems; tight ecclesiology structures; obligatory relationships; mandatory procedures, and insistence on allegiances. Neither does it support pressured loyalties that govern relationships. Yet, the main figures were genuinely accountable as far as we could see by the letters written. The churches were completely free to relate with the leaders they felt they were in genuine relationship with, and in fact, they were encouraged by Paul to do so, “Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarrelling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere men? For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.” However, to say that the Corinthians church did not have a primary relationship with Paul would be err on the wrong side of proper and necessary accountability [though not imposed, but obvious, fragrant, friendship-based, authentic, and non-systemized].

As we have said, accountability is not a technique, it is a trust, and it is sometimes hard to tell the difference. We go back to our relationships to discover trust, and we learn to shun the techniques in which we have identified. For example, we sometimes look for pat answers when we should have been looking for a Person – and that Person is God. However, accountability does not stop with God, it is worked out in humility with those God gives us. The Acid test is: If we are in trouble, which apostolic leader will we call first? In the Book of Hebrews, we are told to ‘obey’ our leaders [Obey [peitho], means to be convinced, to be persuaded, to trust in, to have confidence in]. This kind of ‘obedience’ is not demanded, or imposed as a requirement or duty. Our submission is therefore a choice that we should be free to make at all times, and cannot be legislated to by a system, or by allegiance or by any kind of pressure whatsoever.

At the heart of our DNA is the pulse of unimposed accountability. This cannot be systemized. The signature truth of “accountability” was brought to me in a dream on the 21st December 2000, after I had been feeling that people and church leaders were generally struggling to build genuine friendships and accountable relationships. In the dream, I was abused, and woke up weeping, and saying to God “surely they want me Lord, and not just my revelation”! He replied loudly enough for me to hear it clearly, “Go and look in the Gospels and you will see, that they all had a relationship with their revelation, that was bigger than their revelation of relationship with me.”

We have to say that God has always sought to place us under proper accountable relationships with various people whose purpose was not to control us, but to facilitate God’s blessing over our lives. We truly believe that this has helped us [and those that have walked with us also], to stay in a humble place, and hopefully in a submissive place, which should not be confused with weak, ineffectual, or subservient. It is a place of true power, authority, where we are discovering what Jesus meant when he compared the Centurion’s understanding of the strong connection between “submission and authority” to great faith. Incisive words written by Nic Davis clarify this subject, “Is it possible in truth to control a man’s heart by controlling his behavior, his office or his geography? Is this what “accountability” has boiled down to? That if a man be part of a church or a “team” or a “pastorate”, it suffices for him to be “accountable”? Joab, Lot, Judas, Demas were not accountable. Controlled maybe. They were all “in team”. A man’s heart is what guides him. Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life. No-one else can guard it. Only God’s Spirit and sentry in me. The heart is either soft or stone, good or bad, becoming better or worse. It is either Spirit-controlled or under compulsions. An offended man is like a walled city – polite, but indifferent. An ambitious man knows exactly how to tow the line and coo with the doves. A passive man knows how to look holy. A yes man always looks good to a driven leader. A sinful man knows how to give away the smaller sins. An impressionist knows exactly how to turn the facts into something more palatable. An unteachable man always has a fine-sounding argument. A grumpy man will still laugh when everyone else does. A weak-willed man will go with the flow and not cause a ripple. And what of “loners”? A loner on team is a subversive. A loner off team is a secessionist. A loner in point position is a benign savage. A loner in retirement is sour… “What’s your point??”. Mmm, the point is that only intimacy, mutual love and respect can create the bridges for covenant “accountability”. I am not speaking here of “warning the divisive man”, or “handing the grievous sinner over to Satan”, but the realities of invited counsel, the pains of disclosed shame, the heights of vision and the depths of despair. Stuff that makes for great bands, bound and binding themselves to one another in love. Either one Tuning Fork is raising up a symphony, or many instruments are playing a few careful and cautious notes together, to avoid a cacophony. Laws of compulsion introduce sterility, cowardice and imitation, and pillage our entrepreneurship, courage and blazing adventure. In one, we wear masks until our dying day. In the other, we peel off the veneers and find God in each other through the shock of seeing the “warts and all”. Under legislated accountability, people are either heroes or zeroes. Under covenant love, we all have strengths and weaknesses; we can accept all men, even sinners, and enjoy their strengths while covering over much nakedness.”

2.6 Defending an Accountable Unity

In settling disputes, it is important to draw the distinction between the relational and the theological [without forgetting that they are linked as well]. We are for example, never told how Paul and Barnabas resolved their personal difference in the matter of Mark, although the letter to the Corinthians seems to suggest that they did ‘re-find’ each other after some time [1 Corinthians 9.6] [God did it]. Paul, on the other hand, takes matters more firmly in hand when it concerns a point of theology. He makes it quite clear to the Galatian churches what he thinks of Peter’s theology. I say this, to say, that there is much more leeway to let the Holy Spirit reconcile a personal difference [or even ones that may affect a circle of others], but the Holy Spirit seems to allow much less room in the body of Christ for leaders to continue to flow in erroneous theology. Theological differences carry an “urgent to resolve” tag as we saw in the Acts 15 discussion at Jerusalem. Then there is the difference attached between what is theologically fundamental and what is theologically peripheral, such as in the matter of “not eating food offered to idols” [Paul agrees in Jerusalem but then writes against it in Romans 14]. A point of discussion might be how does this all relate to accountability.

Accountability is first to our Christ [and to the Holy Spirit's work in us], and to God’s Word, and second, to the household of believers [including God's offices’ of leadership administration both inside and outside of the local church]. An imbalance [or shift of priority] in any of these, leads to multiple problems, such as, first, to the law creeping into our theology under many guises, and under many names [where "submission", "obedience", "service", and even "the cause of Christ" are wrongly emphasized]. We are not lessening the authenticity of God’s law, but only that it is irrelevant to a Born-again believer. Second, accountability leads to an ecclesiology that becomes too systemized and thus begins to eclipse our Christ [love measured by loyalty, faithfulness measured by allegiance], and third to relationships that become presumptuous [friendships measured by function].

When an ecclesiology is shaken up [as it was in Antioch - as seen through the letter to the Galatians], it is usually related to a theology that needs to be re-examined, but is it not folly to describe the molting of an eagle as a dying eagle? I believe that these are the same issues we are now facing, I believe that the years we spent building an apostolic ecclesiology, were not matched by a deepening and developing theology. This is what has caused a lessening of true accountability toward a presumption [or familiarity] of apostolic relationships, and a presumption of support from churches by the apostolic [hence the "systemization"]. Even speaking of the “apostolic” may have the tendency to distract us away from the face-to-face friendships, and spiritually intimate relationships needed for the apostolic to be authentic [see Galatians 2]. Substitute forms of ‘accountability” have slipped in under our noses, and in many guises. The level of reaction against those who have moved forward is some evidence of this [i.e. a leader, who had been asked to consider a church plant, was told recently, that he would not be allowed to walk in primary relationship with someone in our tribe he felt an authentic connection to]. Happily, though, overseas the guys seem to have moved forward, and are now mostly all functioning with honor alongside each other, and without this “camp” mindset that we see is still being fueled by some in Canada – Wow, is God not good that he is helping us to mature.

What is the theological point of development? I believe God is calling us into a deeper Christ focus, and into a fresh revelation of God’s sovereignty in all we do. God is getting us more conscious of the Trinity. Any sense of self-justification adds to the cross and obscures our Christ. We all need a ‘grace on grace’ experience of the Holy Spirit’s nearness, and of His intimate and personal love for each of us. Let us think of Barnabas’ testimony about the Antioch church, “When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.“ The writer of Acts goes on to testify that Barnabas was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith. I heard in a time of prayer this morning, “The Lord who loves His bride, uses very dear men to preach his Word”. It is only this revelation of Christ that enables us to accept each other’s faultiness, and not to go about on a witch-hunt against the so-called ‘unfaithful’ behavior of others. We should ask perhaps:

a.     Has there been too much judgment of others who do not do things in a particular way [see Paul’s response to even those who preached out of “envy and rivalry”]?

b.    Have we gotten too arrogant about what “we have built”?

c.   Have we gotten too comfortable with our “vehicles”?

d.     Has the enemy subtly crept into our language, our relationships, our preaching, our apostolic initiatives, and into our friendships with each other,

e.    Have our expectations of one another risen above Christ’s expectations of us?

Such things will drive us to man’s authority, and away from the Spirit’s authority. Moreover, the Lord may be requiring that we let go of all that we have built, in trust of Him. If we do not, loyalty will precede love, and allegiance, the Lord! Is Christ not looking for more love-struck ministers? These ones will do the most to resist becoming brand-builders! Therefore, yes, a proper understanding of accountability does come down to our theology in the end [especially the ‘Theos’ in our theology], since only a proper view of Christ can generate a proper view of our relationship with all others.

I would agree with Nic Davis, that when the focus is on the piano being in tune, instead on the tuning fork that tunes the piano, we drift into the “governmentally obsessed” stuff that we have been into. Setting anything up as “important” seems to lift it up to our view of Christ, though actually it conceals a lessened-Christ view of our various situations. I am realizing more how quickly a wrong theology can think to make Christ our servant rather than our Lord. Here’s what I think: let us live in the passion that flows only from Christ, and let us live from that passion into all that he has set for us, rather than relegate our freedom to the self-preoccupation [includes “our” church], myopic, and reductionist attempts to prevent and protect. As Nic says, one battle right now is “between romance and the theory of romance” – let us choose the romance! I conclude with an appropriate comment he sent to me recently, “I have at times definitely made lesser things equal with Christ, in my zeal for the church and her mission. Christ owns and builds the Church. He leads and fulfils the mission. He has all we need. He is all we need. The more we can focus our minds, lives and people on Him, the more power, maturity and unity we will see. He is the Word of God, the fullness and power and consummation of the word of God.”

2.7 Building by Christ’s Inspiration – a cry for the future!

A recent concern has been the outcry against the decision of some to step away from a “systemized apostolicity”, but I ask the following questions:

Questions about the name “NCMI”:

Dudley never wanted a name. We supposedly chose one for the sake of “administering finances etc”, and that is what we have preached all over the nations. However, the need for “administration”, “finances”, and “legitimacy in certain nations” could very well have been undertaken by base churches, and without the need for more global systemization.

1. Where in the scripture does a “name”, or following a “name” take precedence over following the Lord?
2. Where in the Scripture is the apostolic described by a name?
3. Why is there such reaction against those who choose not to follow a name, or who choose not to describe what they do by a name? Is it not obvious that when we give what we do apostolically a name, that we lead each other and those who follow into protecting what we have named?
4. What would everyone’s relational response be, if we were to say that we no longer believe in an “NCMI system”, or even that our family of friendships does not need to be called anything? Do we actually have authentic relationships that can sustain what the Holy Spirit is doing without a name, and without a church list?
5. Have we honestly asked ourselves what we mean when we say we are “NCMI”, or “the NCMI team”, or part of “the NCMI tribe”, or “we have three circles” etc.? As a friend wrote recently, “Maybe we should look back, and maybe we will find that in trying to control and manage domains, we lose our status as darlings of God. We “name it and tame it”.”
6. If we are willing to accept and embrace many apostolic leaders within our present relationships, are we not saying also that “NCMI” as we have known it has actually ceased to exist as an intentional apostolic endeavor, and if so, is that not very good indeed?
7. Is calling our new apostolic ecclesiology “a tribe of many apostolic spheres”, not just more of the same thing? Is replacing “one team” with “spheres”, not simply a multiplication of the same?
8. Has not our language of “relating churches” become our trap? Since when does a ‘family of churches’, take precedence over the call to go; to reach; to encourage; following the Holy Spirit to wherever he chooses, and to let in the apostolic “surprises” of God, like a “Damascus Road” experience, or Cornelius’ household?

Questions about the “apostolic team” or “teams”:

Dudley was against even having a team list. We supposedly chose to use “team” to describe our friendships and service together of the churches that we relate to as apostles, and that is what we preached all over the nations. It is interesting that we used the word “team” at a time when “team” was the secular buzzword. However, team has become a line that we are either, in, or out, or off, or on [it does not describe fragrant relationships, it describes the boundary]. It has become systemized, an expectation, and a presumption!

1. Where in Scripture does “an apostolic team” take precedence above individuals who flow apostolically?
2. Was what we were called into ever more about an “apostolic team” than about the churches we serve? What, indeed, do we have to lose by going back to the basics of New Testament apostolic ministry?
3. Has “primary relationships” [a word I cannot find in Scripture] not become impersonal and presumptuous, when it was perhaps intended to affirm a special God-given, and accountable friendship between an apostle and a church leader, or church?

Questions about a proper attitude in our transition:

Dudley always taught that what we do “shouts louder than what we say”, and that, in fact, “what we do shouts so loud that people cannot hear what we are saying.” Dudley also taught that what we were building was not for us, but for the generations to come. We began this endeavor in humility, tenderness, honor and respect, can we do otherwise as we forge together [under the Holy Spirit] the way for those who will follow.

1. Are we not hypocrites, if we recognize the need for change on the hand, but protect the past on the other, as if we somehow need to?
2. Do our reactions not sound out the warning of what we have fallen into? Impatience, judgment, and fear all grow from the desire to control!
3. Would not God’s compassion flow more freely through us if we were to disengage from systemized thinking? Would we not hunger more for the significance that comes only from God? Would we not be even hungrier for the Holy Spirit, and for Him to take us into the more of God?

There is health in the fact that we cannot build something God is not building, and that we cannot be someone the Lord does not want us to be. Therefore, we are doing more than merely “loosening our ecclesiology”, we are summarily [and without delay] abandoning all that does not line up with Scripture, to make room for our Christ… we are not retreating back to protect what is ours. We are adding breadth, and space, and length, and width to both our situations and to the future, and to our next steps by being willing to let go and to let God. May they be humble and tender steps? May they be steps that bring glory to God? We are stepping ahead.

Everyone expects something of others, and if we yield to that first instead of Christ’s Love, we live in the guilt of expectation, rather than in the grace of Christ’s inspiration. Imagine, if having fought for many years not to build camps, that we would now be forced to choose camps. Whenever we place our camps, or our Christian culture, ahead of our Christ, we place what we build under man’s authority, and begin to look for our satisfaction and justification from the wrong places. Our reason to be involved with anyone is not because we have to, but that God wants it [which should amount to loving to], and that they want to. Solomon when faced with two women, found the one thing that would reveal the real. The one whose child it was, was willing to give up the baby… it mattered more to her that the baby would live than that the baby would be hers.

We dare not speak of others in ways that makes them look bad, lest we forget that RT Kendall line: “But by the grace of God, goes I”. Then what we have done is to have turned our face from our Christ to other things, and from what is beauty, to the beast. What context we minister in and who we team with is secondary to four things: What God wants for us personally, what is the fruit that is grown in us, is it ready to be given away, is it personally invited/recognized, so that we do not live by our agenda but by God’s will and God’s way. As we are seeing the inroads of systemized thinking amongst us more clearly, we have understood the simplicity of a true apostolic wineskin – personal relationships between an apostle and with individual church leaders. Wanting something more than God might open the door to getting it without Him.

What we do or do not do is less important than whose we are… We are His, first [the True Apostle]! Here is a test: dismantling the system in our ecclesiology will reveal the props, crutches, and blind spots, and will show whether we are paying lip service to the system, and are bound by any obligation other than to Love! If we live by any system, we begin to either idolize it, or are enslaved by it, and our leaders take a place in our hearts that is more causal than our Christ. When we step out from a team we discover whether what we were doing was through the system, or through the Spirit! Denominationalism has arrived when our language changes from love to loyalty, from intimacy to allegiance, from expression to exclusivism, and when “primary relationships” are with a system, and not with the particular apostolic individuals that God has used to serve and help us!

Have we become marketers of the things we do well, or do we ask this important question: what are the things that we are not doing well! We cannot repeat the mantras, and at the same time live without the substance of it. It is plain that the pendulum swings one side at a time. Our human tendency is, therefore, to prefer the place we are at above the place God is taking us to, but those who cast themselves on the Lord lose nothing! Only God makes us comfortable in our own ‘skin’! In this transition, there is such a potential for misunderstanding. So, it is predicated on us to be gracious, understanding, patient, and to let God do it whichever way He chooses – to make room for His freedom and diversity without losing our unity!

2.8 Summary of Raw and Real things about the Apostolic

A friend said recently that the biggest thing that Jesus is doing on the earth is that He is taking the preeminence again. He is in a very strong way preparing His bride for His return… we pray the Lord helps us to stay humble… this is what ought to be preoccupying us, and not church or apostolic politics. When we are distracted from Jesus, personal conflicts begin to grow, and we see how quickly we can slip into systemized thinking, and away from the Spirit’s leading. When we slip into system we come under man’s authority, and from that point on, we can only build what will accrue to man.

When we walk in our father’s arms, we walk without debt to others [except to love], and without unhealthy expectations from others. Our paradosis is that we will not build in obligation to any system, but by submission to the Spirit. Why would anyone be afraid to cast himself or herself on the Lord?

The system has no power to keep what we have safe! The system is an illusion that will suffer in times of shaking. It happens. When we trust God with what we do, ministry is enhanced, and it is transformed. We get into the more of God. We get to see a different facet when we cast off the shores of our conveniences and of our comforts. We discover we are not walking away from friendship and accountability by walking into his arms. Our cry is for more of him and less of us. We should not be afraid to allow situations where function has gotten ahead of friendship to be challenged! We have each invested extensively into a rich and mutual inheritance. Nothing in that sense has changed, but what we have can never be more than the Lord who gathered it, or more than the voice that tells us we are to co-labor together in that field! If that is where the Lord has called us to be, there needs to be the freedom to express our uniqueness and diversity with honor and respect to all in it.

Loys

The Making of a Wise Man

The Making of a Wise Man

Moses had spent his early life doing things in his own strength… No one could tell him otherwise. To defend God’s people, he would take a man’s life, and expect to be appreciated. He thought, “At least the Israelites will understand what I did!” They did not, and thus began a 40-year wilderness journey designed to make a man of God out of him!

As Chesterton writes, “Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness!” When Moses began, he thought he saw what was right and wrong. He felt he had the right to judge a situation involving God’s people. He also thought he was the one to do something about it. He had the power. He had the wisdom. He had the talent. He had the connections. He had the credentials. He was ‘God’s man’ for the hour. However, after God had prepared Him, he was a stutterer unwilling to speak. He was disqualified as a spokesperson in his own eyes. He had nothing. He also had almost no one with him in his desert abode, except those he needed most – his family! In this way, God often shapes a man for his future. He takes him aside from his circumstances, and makes him a family man – a man, who learns to provide, to live simply, and to raise his kids, so that he can better understand the heart of His heavenly Father. The new Moses saw God [in the burning bush], then heard Him, then saw himself as honestly as he ever had – as a man incapable of doing God’s bidding, and finally he saw what he had to do. God had initiated all four of Moses’ responses! God revealed to Moses that only what comes from God could endure. When a man has been thus prepared he does not try to resolve, or to control, or to pressure, or to organize his situation. Rather, he is tender, humble, attentive to God, gentle in action, and devoted to God in service. The old Moses did not need God. The new Moses said, “Who am I, that I should go to Pharaoh…?” We hear, in his words, the heart of every spiritual giant. Isaiah said, “Woe to me. I am ruined, for I am a man of unclean lips”. Paul said, “I am the worst of sinners”. David said, “I have sinned!”

Moses, in the end, did all that the Lord required because he knew it was the Lord doing it. What the Lord initiates, the Lord completes! We are told that Moses was the humblest man on the face of the earth! It is only a revelation of, and encounter with God that makes a man humble. Secular Humanists, such as Carlyle, and others, would have us believe that the man who must lead is the one who thinks he can. Our response is to point them to such men as Moses, so that they might see also, that he who is emptied of his own way, and thinks himself incapable, is the one most qualified to lead. Solomon, filled with wisdom wrote that when the righteous thrive, the people rejoice, when the wicked rule, the people groan. Again, that a wise servant will rule over a disgraceful son!

The Plight of the World’s Poor and Sick!

The Plight of the World’s Poor and the Sick!

The New York Times states that the “quest for eternal life, or at least prolonged youthfulness” is now within reach. “In five or six or seven years,” said Christoph Westphal, one of Sirtris’ co-founders, “there will be drugs that prolong longevity.” [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/science/29aging.html?_r=1&src=twt&twt=nytimes] How much fun is that? I do applaud every drug discovered that will combat degenerative disease, but am left wondering whether it is the best use of resources at this time while the world’s majority suffocates on a daily income of less than $1 per person? Caring for the world’s poor has never been more necessary, nor is the potential for global disaster more acute. In a Foreign Policy® article by Roger Bate, titled: The Deadly World of Fake Drugs, [Carnegie Endowment, September/October 2008, Page 57]. He states, “Whether it’s phony Viagra or knock off cancer meds, fake drugs kill thousands of people each day, thanks to counterfeiters in China and India who mix chalk, dust, and dirty water into pills sold around the world. With the internet becoming the world’s dispensary, these poison pills could be coming to a pharmacy near you.” Later in his article, he writes also that bad malaria meds kill 200,000 African children every year. The western frontiers of the mid-20^th century were Bosnian, or perhaps Mediterranean? However, today’s fault lines are already drawn down the main streets of our cities. As has already been mentioned, C. S. Lewis calls Nature, untrammeled by values, the Magician’s Bargain: whereby people give up their souls bit by bit, in return for power. However, once the soul – that is, the individual self – has been given up, the power conferred does not belong to them.[i] The value we speak of is: Caring for others above ourselves! [MQ, Page 36]

---

[i] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man, A Touchstone Book, published by Simon & Shuster, distributed by Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1996, p. 80

An Apostolic Adventure – Part 1

Apostolic adventure

What has been done in our sphere (through others and us, and in us), has been done in part because our apostolic leaders saw something in us, they trusted us, and encouraged us, and risked with us! The second side of the apostolic leadership action coin that has provided an authority in the spiritual realm, is that there have been in some ways many  “Acts 13” moments where the apostolic was recognized… that there came (and will continue to come) moments of actual release… when God releases, He gives apostolic\kingdom minded people the authority to recognize those who are being released… a mantle came upon Paul and Barnabas when they were recognized in their gifts… they did not appoint themselves. As Dudley has built away from himself we have all sought to build away from ourselves… and have given the same instruction and training to others so that we might all enjoy an ever developing apostolic adventure. This is perhaps what our present ‘conversation’ is all about.[1]  Viewed in this light, the Jerusalem gathering was not principally about a re-ratification of Paul and Barnabas, but rather about a vital apostolic conversation that would radically transform their future. [2]

While in the Canadian Rockies recently, I made an attempt to get my car up a mountainside. The only way to the top was to go back and forth as each twist and bend took me nearer to my objective. The apostolic adventure may contain many similar twists and bends portrayed by the different emphases that emerge at each turning point, but wise travelers do two things, first they never lose sight of the direction from which they came, and second, they are not discouraged by the changes they need to make to get to their destination (E.g., working out truths in tension – wine and wineskin, ‘go’ and ‘stay,’ focus and flexibility, rootedness and release, foundation and fluidity, grace and truth, mercy and sacrifice, ‘among us’ and ‘beyond us,’ making decisions and inviting opinions etc..) – they are egged on into deeper maturity, into constant adjustment, until they are “transformed into His likeness with ever-increasing glory” (let us not lose our hair at the hairpins)

Some introductory points of our journey:
o    Nothing will shepherd our unfolding journey better than a revelation of enduring apostolic and prophetic relationships. Any system (even a very organic one) cannot do that.
o     A revelation of enduring relationship with God and through Him with one another (in the case of this conversation perhaps more specific to the ‘tribe’ than universal) is what has grown to a common set of biblical values, and it is in those values that we each choose to identify and invest. Determining those biblical values is what has developed the close friendships that a long journey will require of us… we will be tested in these!
o    16 key values that we know are essential to our future journeys (some which may be similar (or overlap) have been shown separately for emphasis)

• No hierarchies – an example of non-hierarchical fluidity is evident in the Jerusalem apostolic gathering.[3]  And again at a local gathering of apostles and disciples to choose deacons.[4]  Paul clarified this value also in the third chapter of his first letter to the Corinthians.[5]  We see throughout Scripture, the pattern of circles within and alongside and away from circles in a fluid expression of similar\like hearts operating with the breadth, depth, length and width of God’s Love in diversity.[6]  Non-hierarchical leadership applies in every context including our view of evolving apostolic spheres – in the local and in the trans-local! Which begs the question: Why would we accept many church leaders in relationship through a common set of values, and not accept many apostolic teams in similar functional unity of values in one organic tribe?
• Non-imposed leadership, but invited – Paul, who could have ordered Philemon to do what he ought, chose rather to appeal to him on the basis of love.[7]  This is borne out also in Jesus’ response to John who had questioned the anointing in someone who “was not one of us!”[8] Jesus replied, “Do not stop him… for whoever is not against us, is for us!”  And again when Jesus heard that his disciples were baptizing more people than John the Baptizer’s disciples he left Judea and went back once more to Galilee – He exemplified a model of openhandedness – His hope was in the Father [9] … and he had done everything in his power not to dishonor his relative. Separating from John the Baptizer in that instance did not translate to a breakdown in either His relationship with or His love for him! What we are looking for is a revelation of relationships that does not close the circle down on any sphere, but keeps the doors open, as everyone prefers others, and opens doors, and continues to build away from themselves… [10]
• “Flexible, organic, biblical wineskins that facilitate an ever expanding kingdom” (Dudley Daniel) – “The seed on good soil grew up…”[11]  Flexible wineskins are not claustrophobic – i.e. carnal, comparing, contained, compressed, critical, or ‘concerned.’ They should instead create space! Flexible wineskins are not a toned-down version of the papacy – such as a charismatic papacy! A friend suggested a model that launches planets rather than creating a planet around which moons revolve.  The first church I planted almost 30 years ago was submitted to a centralized apostolic team of relationships built around a central dogma – the trouble was that the moment anyone stopped supporting the dogma the relationships were gone!

I can think of three cautions that will help the language of the kingdom to continue to be flexibly expanded and developed, first, that we do not forget Dudley’s teaching of “to some I am…” (If we adhere to it, I sense we will continue to safeguard against ambition). Second, to avoid the excessive facets of the “THE team” and the “MY team” mindsets (overemphasis in these will create mistrust in our relationships, and hinder our fluid partnering), and third, where it concerns our friendships, that we steer clear of the “in or out” and the “us and them” mindsets (they are judgmental, stifle breadth of vision, and will hinder our engagement in new and fantastic co-laboring initiatives under God’s expanding kingdom)). God will favor whom He chooses, and increase what He chooses. If we keep our hearts pure and devoid of ambition we will be fine, if not, we will soon be fragmented! To the disciples ambitious for position Jesus said, “But you are not to be like that…” [12]

• Real, relevant, radical and relational community [13]
• Radically Word-based [14]
• Centrality of Christ as King,[15]  and of the Cross [16] – where Christ gets the preeminence, and not our techniques – where we say “It’s not I that lives, but Christ in me!” Not trying to make things happen anymore at every level.
• God bringing the local church to center stage [17]
• Living in the sustained Presence of God
• Doctrinal purity and practice.[18]  Sound theology does not build a whole theology around one verse
• Family roles and gender distinctives [19]
• Truth before friendship [20]
• Friendship before function [21]
• Covenantal relationships [22] – Honesty and integrity based relationships  – not “if things do not work out, I’ll play my guitar elsewhere…” – not “I want you to speak into my life” and when we do they defend, or attack. A people asking, “what is best for the church,” and not “what is best for me.” A team-minded people in every way.
• Eldership led churches (All bible New Testament churches – Dudley Daniel) submitted to apostolic teams led by apostles. No self appointed ministry (local or trans-local). Walking in the authority that comes when leaders\teams are in submission (not ‘get a ministry and go and do it’)[23]
• Ongoing input of apostolic teams (with proper recognition of the distinctive functioning of each of the five ascension gifts – each 20%, all together 100%) into elders and churches. [24]
• Effective Church strategy that is bible based – not: “if it works do it, but New Testament!
• Preparing all believers for leadership to the 4th generation and beyond [25] – not an exclusive thing – they can all be leaders – all our preaching is to bring them through (“Every believer a leader” Dudley Daniel). Not looking for ministry, but equipping others for ministry.
• Going to the nations – the message of the Kingdom – Acts 1:8 (“Go, unless God has told you to stay” – Chris Wienand) [26]

o    To avoid the “prodigal syndrome” (leave when dissatisfied), or the “older brother syndrome” (endure even if I disagree), we will need to remember our values. These values (wine and wineskin) emanated from our relationship with God and are confirmed by his Word. At a ‘fathers’ time’ with Dudley seven years ago we asked Dudley what he would like to see after he is gone. Dudley replied that he would like us to get these values to such a degree that the next generations get it more and more, and not less and less…
o    In every house are the pioneers and the settlers (and almost everyone else in between). Jesus shows the proper attitude of a father when faced by the worst possible relational consequences (Luke 15) – the father waits for both the prodigal (impatient pioneer), and the older brother (frustrated settler), to come to understand the meaning of a father’s love. That father’s love did not vary despite the fact that neither of his sons understood it – it was their perceptions that changed in the end. The most important lesson of the parable, however, is that the father never imposed his love on either of his sons, and yet he never stopped loving them… what kind of a father is this? It is the kind of leaders this world is waiting to see! We’re learning, it’s painful, it’s precious, but it’s important.
o    If we hold tighter onto what we have built than onto the values that helped us build it, we may find our spheres reducing. E.g., the facilitation and recognition of their needs or talents was less than what both the impetuous pioneer and the frustrated settler of Luke 15 needed – they needed to understand their father’s love (the value is in intimacy, and not allegiance)! In the last verse of the Old Testament, God makes a declaration that He would turn the hearts of the fathers to their children (Hebrew: Bën – son\daughter, descendant, offspring, a term of endearment), and the hearts of children to their fathers, or else he would strike the land with a curse. [27] This astounding statement highlights two things. First, that God intends to place all that He builds into family (the word “their” signifies specific covenantal relationships), and second, that He would hold Himself to account to fulfill the prophecy, since He had said that if He failed He was committed to cursing it – in other words, there was NO chance He would fail. Though the concept of “fathers” is not new,[28]  one should not lessen the view that in a major way the word is used to explain what they were “doing” (verb), and not on being named “father,”[29]  or on their position.
o    God’s dealings over us will help us choose a revelation of relationship over a relationship with our particular revelations. In this process patience is key, since it determines timing. Lot had correctly seen the Promised Land, but failed in that he chose it at the wrong time, and at the expense of his relationship with Abraham. [30] Abraham’s “father” heart, on the other hand, never wavered in the rescue of his nephew. [31] Fathers view those who “leave” very differently, and because of it, they are usually the first able to celebrate a returning son…

About the different facets of our developing adventure
If I may have the liberty to use the three options (in and under, in but alongside, and out but alongside – Chris Wienand), adding a fourth (out and away), and looking at them in a different (not better) way representing what Sharon and I are personally seeking to build in this new season in our sphere (which includes you). At the outset it needs to be said that the use of “in” or “out” terminology to describe the functioning of friends, is problematic, and is thus used here only to describe the sociology of apostolic community making. The apostolic ideal is that accountable friendships and relationships are allowed the freedom to evolve and become in time all that God wants, irrespective of wineskin (our definition of what in truly is, and what out truly is, will change over time – we need to be patient), even if there is disagreement and differences of interpretation (the clearly unbiblical excepted). The overriding criterion of any apostolic conversation has to be to keep a firm eye on what God says and does! God is jealous over those biblical values we hold dear, and will hold us to them! [32]

What are they?
In and under (Like the older brother, or even like Silas or Timothy and others who were happy to serve on Paul’s team as ‘sons’ (1 Corinthians 4), or as “fellow workers” such as Luke etc…)

In and alongside (Like Peter and Paul at Antioch (Galatians 2) and again in Acts 15) (since their respective spheres crossed, their values needed to be elucidated through confrontation, encouragement or other accountable responses)

Out and alongside (Like Paul and Apollos (1 Corinthians 3, Acts 18) (obvious mutual respect while making allowances for differences, and different relational circles etc…)

Out and away (Like the prodigal perhaps, or by those leaving the “tribe” with more legitimate concerns such as Barnabbas did Paul for a season, and also by those called to build differently, in diverse places, and with different values, but that are no less legitimate)
o    To concretize stages or facets and use them to define structural consequence is for me less than helpful, since no one facet contains within itself either the power to derail our adventure or to ensure its continuance. Needless to say, too tight a definition of right and wrong leads to unrighteous or premature judgment (such as, in some instances, the “in or out” thinking). Can anyone say that they are fully right on any subject? Paul reminds us that knowledge puffs up (‘revelation’ without relationship), but love builds up (revelation of relationship). [33]
o    Fluidity of spheres predicate\require a fluidity of ideas – being stuck in our ideas will result in us being stuck in our ways… (i.e. one size fits all is not reality). The value of continual growth in Christ (effective change) will consequently require an ongoing reexamination of the efficacy of the vehicles that support it to prevent them becoming hindrances rather than helps.
o    Not one of the above facets of various unfolding apostolic journeys is right or wrong in itself… i.e. can definitely skew our apostolic adventure… e.g. “in and under” is not necessarily for me indicative of a slant toward denominationalism (though a possibility, if it is “required”), but a wrong relational heart is more likely to do that… (“For out of the heart come…” [34] )
o    Whether each of the above facets results in denomination, fragmentation, or more happily in transformation (I agree that the facet most likely to facilitate ongoing development for us presently on this apostolic journey together is the “in and alongside” – though this, and its vehicles, should not be imposed on anyone), will depend on our revelation of relationship with each other. A revelation of relationship is both the spark and sustainer of following the indispensable characteristics described as: accountability, a culture of referencing (inviting input, multiplicity of counsel), of preferring others, of humility, of respect, of bold leadership, of sacrificial service, of honor of what God is doing through others, of opening doors, and of creating a healthy environment whereby leaders can be equipped and released, of administering to instances of differences in opinion and interpretation of Scripture, of walking with allies, of not stumbling in our mandate to fulfill the Great Commission – none of these characteristics can be legislated to by system, or by rule and regulation.

Final comments:
Paul honored the past, and built into the future. He did not preserve the past at the expense of fighting for the future. The Scriptures teach that honor begets honor.  Jabez’s success was less due to the details of his prayers, than that “he was more honorable than his brothers” and that he prayed with faith…. [35] Paul showed the value of honor through his efforts in Acts 15 to work together, but not under those leaders whose testimony he respected but did not necessarily agree with.[36]  He made every effort, however, in as much as it was in his power to do so, to take the past with him into the future.[37]   It may be that this is what Jesus meant for us today when He stated that heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old. [38] The challenge for us will be to find greater liberty in our steps without losing the loving relationships that safeguard that liberty. We have to see what is “freeing” among us and encourage everyone. Why would any of us want to take what is freeing and confine it into what is bound… we all need to get on with what God has called us to do… What some “do” or “do not do,” therefore, may still be part of our continuing apostolic adventure, and we each ought to continue to carry the responsibility of serving our relationships as God leads us, both with Him, and with all those God has called us to be with in various kinds of relationships.

There is no way to systemize relationships – Dudley taught us not to do what is best for us, but to do what is best for the sheep\church… I hazard a guess that the days ahead will reveal that what we disagree on will do more to test our revelation of relationship than what we agree on, but we should never forget the reason why God has brought us together! I am reminded of the wise words spoken by Oswald Smith (People’s Church in Toronto). He said that any church (or any flow or sphere – italics added by me) that is not seriously involved in fulfilling the Great Commission has forfeited its right to exist!

God is saying: “I am opening up doors for you… but you have to do it well!” let us do it well, both in the areas “among us” and in the areas “beyond us!” [39] It is perhaps stating the obvious, but of the three signs of an apostle evident in 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 12, the third trumps the first two – ‘children born,’ and ‘signs and wonders’ both depend, in my opinion, on our ‘perseverance.’

Love you all. Loys
10th October 2008

Notes
[1] 4 keys to building an apostolic architecture: First, consecrate – beginning with God, and prayer. Second, consider – finding our identity, clarity, prophecy, information, settling issues in the heart, examination, reflection, and considering our way carefully. Third, converse – engaging the right people, at the right time, seeking truth, speaking truth in love. Fourth, construct – deciding on distinctives and specifics, proper application, partnership, works, building the pattern set out in Scripture, equipping, releasing, and going.
[2]Acts 15
[3] “The apostles and elders, with the whole church decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas” Acts 15:24
[4] “Choose seven men from among you…” Acts 6:2-3
[5] “For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men? What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe — as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow” 1 Corinthians 3:3-7
[6]  Roman 10:12, Acts 8:18-19, John 14:4-16, John 8:14-18, John 5:36, Luke 19:12-27, Luke 12:13-15. Numerous other examples of hierarchical thinking exist particularly in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy and 1 and 2 Chronicles
[7]  Philemon 8, 1 Corinthians 3:5-9
[8]  Mark 9:38-40
[9]  John 4:1-3
[10]  1 Corinthians 3
[11]  Mark 4:8-28, and also: Luke 5:37-38, Ephesians 4:16, Colossians 2:19, 1 Corinthians 3:6-7, Ephesians 2:21, Acts 12:24
[12]  Luke 22:26
[13]   1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4, Galatians 2
[14]  Micah 2:7, Matthew 22:29
[15]  Ephesians 3:11, Luke 4:41, Acts 9:22, Acts 18:28, Mark 1:24
[16]  Matthew 10:38
[17]  Ephesians 3:9-10, 2 Corinthians 10, Hebrew 10
[18]  John 1:1, 14, Revelations 22:18-19, Matthew 5:17
[19]  Ephesians 5, 1 Corinthians 7, 1 Timothy 3, Matthew 18-19
[20]  2 John 7-11
[21]  Philemon 8
[22]  1 Corinthians 4, 12-14, Roman 12, John 17
[23]  1 Timothy 3, Titus 1, 1 Peter 5, Hebrews 13, Acts 19-21
[24]  Ephesian 2:19-22, Acts 13-14
[25] Timothy 2:2, John 17
[26]  Matthew 28 balanced with Luke 24
[27]  Malachi 4

[28]  1 Corinthians 4, Malachi 4

[29]  Matthew 23:9

[30]  Genesis 13

[31]  Genesis 14

[32]  “So neither he who plants, nor he who waters is anything but only God, who makes things grow” 1 Corinthians 3:7, also Matthew 25
[33] 1 Corinthians 8
[34]  Matthew 15:19
[35]  1 Chronicles 4:9-10
[36]  Compare, for example, the words of acts 15:20 with the following Scriptures: Roman 14:14-18, 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 and 1 Corinthians 10:23-33
[37]  Romans 14:19
[38]  Matthew 13:52
[39]  2 Corinthians 10

The Moral Quotient – Excerpt Part 2, Chapter 8 (a paragraph)

A paragraph from Chapter 8 – Thinking and Action

Awakening thought for social action

The purpose of arousing thought is twofold, first, to point people to the Source – God, and second, to generate the kind of powerful response (through the agency and action of that Source) that will contribute to the posterity of their children. Can we imagine what our world would be like today without Athanasius’ Contra Mundum or without the socio-political force of a William Wilberforce? We too have our own battles to fight. May people arise with wisdom and the accompanying response required of them to do what they are each called to do in their respective spheres of influence. The true heroes of today will look different and be different. They may be persons such as Bono or others whose social actions are fuelled by godly morals and the presence of MQ, or even of other naturally moral persons. Since the Scriptures indicate that much of what we enjoy as freedom today has sprung from God’s thoughts and actions, our ongoing Christian responses is doubly necessary. There is nothing to suggest in the socio-political, socio-economic, and socio-biological areas that any other means can produce better results. Therefore, the starting point people all share is how what they each choose to do will affect the future. The horror of the French Revolution, the devastation of Communism, the death camps of Nazism, and the rampant veins of modern racism have been just a small sample of what alternative social actions devoid of MQ (or of natural moral law) have done in recent history. Professor Muelder writes on what it will take to survive as a communitarian whole, “Without a system of world political cooperation and economic planning the quest for a rising standard of living through industrialization is now clearly impossible. The future of science itself now depends on a cooperative crusade for social justice and integral personal values in all phases of community living. The interdependence of justice, law, politics, economics, science, and technology in a communitarian whole should now be obvious.” Ideas, shaped by Christian ethics, await actions, so that as signposts to the next generations, on the roads already built and traveled, hope is engendered for anyone that might feel called to venture past the point where they have been brought.