I know I'm learning a lot about ministry. I know I don't understand much of what happens in my own ministry in a given week. However, one thing I know is that God's grace is perfectly sufficient for us. What do "Three Strikes" have to do with grace, you ask? (If not, just go along with it.)
I just read an e-mail from a friend in ministry. We've been dialoguing about leadership lately. He said that he feels we need to stop doing things for people. He clarified by saying, "We need to serve, not condone bad behavior." So far, I agreed. Then he said something like, "We need to help people the first time they mess up, give them a little more responsibility the next time, and if they mess up more than three times, it's time for us to let them wake up on their own." By not doing things for people, I originally thought he was referring to responsibilities in the church. However, it became clear that he thinks effective Christian leadership means discipling someone to a point. If they don't get it from there, they're probably too far gone. Thank the Lord that Jesus never had that mindset with Peter...or with me! Grace is sufficient even with those who need more time, folks. Effective Christian leadership may mean rebuking bad behavior and avoiding co-dependency, but it NEVER means cutting people off. What if we as Christian leaders are the only conduit through which God's grace is actually being accepted by someone? Who are we to control God's grace? When did we cross this line?
2 comments:
So what do you do with Paul's comments about expelling the immoral brother or handing over someone to Satan (1 Cor 5:5) - It's an honest question. I'm all for grace but it seems like Paul had a certain number of strikes - Maybe more that three but...
You know, AJ, that's a good point. I suppose I wasn't thinking of this when I read my friend's e-mail because of the difference in "cutting someone off."
Paul's example: The immoral brother was someone not trying to live for the Lord. Rather, the brother was someone bragging about his sin. Rebuking did not help, and we can assume that Paul used his own rule of speaking to him privately, with another person, and finally before the congregation. The person would not change his sinful lifestyle, so handing him over to Satan seemed reasonable.
My friend's example: My friend was talking about someone who is trying (albeit unsuccessfully) to change for the Lord. My friend was referring to the impatience we often have when someone won't change into what we think they should be within the time frame we mentally established long ago. Often, the people about whom my friend was speaking are not immoral. Rather, they are confused and need help. Sometimes that means extra help. I guess what I'm getting at here is that there's a difference between a chosen lifestyle of sin and a cycle of confusion that blinds a person without help. There's a difference between condoning sinfulness by keeping a person going and supporting someone who drives us crazy but who needs spiritual support.
Does this help?
Post a Comment