I came across this in John Cassian's "The Institutes" in the section on the spirit of gluttony.

"This same old man declared, based on the following indications, that the devil has ever been the promoter of foolish tales and the enemy of spiritual conferences. For when he was talking with some of the brothers about important spiritual matters and notices that they had fallen into a kind of Lethean slumber and could not cast off the weight of sleep from their eyes, he immediately introduced a foolish tale.

When he saw that they woke up at once and pricked up their ears for the pleasure that it gave them, he said with a groan: 'Up until now we were speaking about heavenly things, and the eyes of each of you were shut in deathlike repose. But when a foolish tale is introduced all of us wake up and shake off the torpor of the sleep that had mastered us. From this you should consider carefully, then, who was the enemy of that spiritual conference and who is the instigator of this vain and carnal tale. It is perfectly clear that it is the one who rejoices in wickedness and does not cease to foster the latter and to fight against the former.'"

Someone once told me that a pastor is the only person who has two hundred bosses. That is...if you serve a church with two hundred members. The larger the church, the more 'bosses' you have. Of course I chuckled at that. It isn't nearly that bad, but one of the pressures of being of pastor is a sense that you have different sets of expectations that aren't always compatible, thus the idea of multiple bosses.

In the previous article I listed the expectations the Discipline has. They are varied and many. Yet, there are times when the district has their own set of expectations (that are usually backed up in the Discipline) as does the conference. There are also expectations coming from your church, your community, your family and even yourself. Over and beyond that we have a sense that God has expectations too. So, what is a pastor to do? Who trumps whom? Should we always meet expectations coming from our church, or should it always be the district/conference? Or maybe our family? Where do our own expectations formed in prayer, silence and spiritual practices come into play?

This is a Google Tech Talk by Marc Lesser. Even though he comes from a Zen background, there are still some excellent points, especially for those of us called to lead churches in this culture. One of the things he talks about (especially at the end of this) is about chaos/innovation. It makes sense but I had never put those two things together before.

He says something as simple as wearing your watch on the other wrist puts you into 'chaos.' It shakes things up. From this unfamiliarity innovation can be birth. I see how this is possible. Of course we have all heard the quip "if you keep doing what you always have done you will keep getting what you have always had..." or something like that. If we continue to do things the same way, there really isn't much chance for innovation.

  In Psalm 119, the writer shares his love of God's word. He wants to learn it, be guided by it and meditate on it day and night. He views it as a light, and a comfort and in God's word he places his trust. I have not always resonated with Psalm 119. Instead, I have found reading and studying the scripture...well...hard, difficult, and at times frustrating. I have used it as a sword against those who disagree, and have had the displeasure of having it used as a dagger against me. I have spent hours trying to understand it and at times have found myself shaking my head because it didn't always make sense to me.

Someone posted a comment asking me to write a posting about Bible study. After thinking about it, I believe the best approach is to share some general principles more than a some kind of 'how to.'

I've found that the root of much of my frustration with scripture was my approached. Our educational system teaches us that information is meant to be mastered. We are given textbooks and told to read, memorize, understand and then tested on how well we can regurgitate the information. So we grow up reading fiction, non-fiction, newspapers, pamphlets, brochures, and other material the same way. Our goal is to understand, manage and master it.

I've approached the Bible much in the same way. I viewed it as information that I needed to digest and understand. There were facts, figures, principles and rules to know and dissimilate. I felt that I needed to master this book more than any other because this book is important. So I would attend bible studies, buy commentaries, listen to various discussions and lectures all so I would be able to answer any question about this book.

I find myself in a denomination that is concerned about it's life. In North America, attendance is down, membership is down, churches are closing and it seems like it is a stretch to find things to celebrate. Statistics are watched closely. Any church that has growth is studied and, at times, used as a model. Books are written. Conference are formed. All this takes place so that churches, who aren't having statistical success, can discover the secrets of healthy growth. After all, no one wants to die, not even a denomination.

In this type of culture, one fixated on life and survival, evangelism is seen as the key. If we would evangelize, people would come to Christ and to the church. That is the belief anyway. Of course we look past the fact that there are many Christians who do not attend weekly services at all, but that is another issue. Yet, it seems feasible that if we were able to evangelize well, then our churches (and statistics) would be healthy.

Evangelism has always seemed mysterious to me. At various times Jesus was more interested in sending people away, or saying things that caused them to leave (see John 6) than getting them to sign up for his mission. I don't think it was that he didn't want people to respond to his message. I think he just knew that people needed to hear what he was really saying and respond to that. He didn't sugar coat things. If they were going to be followers, well, he wanted them to know that it was going to be hard, and require much sacrifice.

As I contemplate evangelism, I wonder if we have the same edge that Jesus had. We are wanting our churches to grow. Our evangelism usually focuses around someone's felt needs. We are to discover those felt needs, and help them see how Jesus (or actually the church) can meet those needs. While I agree that Jesus can meet our needs I wonder if our felt needs are the ones that really need to be met.

Yet, on the authority of God’s Word, and our own Church, I must repeat the question, “Hast thou received the Holy Ghost?” If thou hast not, thou art not yet a Christian. (From Sermon 3: Awake Thou Sleeper)

As I read through John Wesley's sermons I am amazed at how often he defined a Christian as one who has received the Holy Spirit. He was not ashamed of his view and this view would get him in hot water from time to time.

In some of his sermons he went as far as to say that even though you might act like a Christian, look like a Christian, or even smell like a Christian, if you had not received the Holy Spirit then you were not.

He didn't care if you had been attending a church your whole life, or if you fed the hungry and clothed the naked, or even if you were clergy. He even said that he was an "almost Christian" for years.

How many of us and our memebers would Wesley consider 'Almost Christians'? As I reflect on Wesley's definition, it causes me to wonder if perhaps the greatest need for the Methodist church today is for us to preach conversion to the church members (including the clergy).

Wesley's fear wasn't that Methodism would cease to exist, but that it would have the form of religion and lack the power. Our fear of Methodism is that we cease to exist. Perhaps it is time for us to concentrate more on the power of religion (the Holy Spirit empowering the life of love), rather than the form.

Henri Nouwen writes,

The great illusion of leadership is to think that man can be led out of the desert by someone who has never been there. Our lives are filled with examples which tell us that leadership asks for understanding and that understanding requires sharing. So long as we define leadership in terms of preventing or establishing precedents, or in terms of being responsible for some kind of abstract "general good," we have forgotten that no God can save us except a suffering God, and that no man can lead his people except the man who is crushed by his sins. Personal concern means making Mr. Harrison the only one who counts, the one for whom I am willing to forget my many other obligations, my scheduled appointments and long-prepared meetings, not because they are not important but because they lose their urgency in the face of Mr. Harrison's agony. Personal concern makes it possible to experience that going after the "lost sheep" is really a service to those who were left alone.

Many will put their trust in him who went all the way, out of concern for just one of them. The remark "He really cares for us" is often illustrated by stories which show that forgetting the many for the one is a sign of true leadership.

I've been discovering the reality of this the past year or so. It has caused me to wonder if by defining leadership by our projects and programs we have in reality moved away from the kind of leadership Jesus displayed. As my schedule gets filled, I find it more difficult to care for the 'lost ones.' As my time gets busy I find my view of the "greatest good" defined by the "numbers served." Yet, the One I've been called to follow defined himself as one who was willing to leave the 'numbers' and search for the "one lost." My my life be reflective of His.

I was reading Looking for Jesus by Adrian van Kaam and stumbled upon this wonderful passage:

Clearly, there is no greater thing we can do than to be faithful to the work of God in the most simple events of our daily life. we must do the common work of every day in an uncommon way-doing this work in loving union with Jesus. It may sometimes seem easier to do great things than to do small ones. The grandeur of an enterprise, the excitement of a splendid project, the interest of others carries us forward. Their admiration sustains us in such moments more than Jesus' grace. We act, then, not because of him but because we feel successful, important, liked, needed. We become spellbound by praise, so much so that we no longer hear his voice in the depth of our hearts. Bewitched by the projects of people, we become estranged from the Father's work. Spoiled by success, we may become alienated from him. - pg 102.

Wow. I believe he nailed it. I find it is easy to get off track of following God's will because the pull of the 'grand plan' is so strong. Instead of being faithful to what God has called me to, I run off following my own dreams and visions. I'm not sure it is a problem just with me. How many of our plans are really of God?

Early in his ministry Jesus had to face these same temptations. Satan took him aside and started suggesting how he could make a grand statement by changing stone to bread, leaping off the temple, or even worshiping Satan himself! Perhaps Jesus knew that God calls us to be faithful, and at times that faithfulness is shown in the small matters and not necessarily in grand expressions.

Maybe it is time for me to put my dreams and my visions on hold and allow Jesus to live through me, even if that requires simple dreams and visions. As van Kaam writes, success can spoil our relationship with God and even alienate us from him.

Ben Witherington has posted an article explaining a bit about General Conference (which is meeting as I write this). He discusses some of the issues that will be addressed. Perhaps the most important issue is the proposal to create a central conference in the US. This proposal says that US concerns would be addressed in the US central conference. Is this important? yes. Why? Actually there are several reasons. Ben Witherington discusses, in my opinion, the most important one noting that the central conferences currently provide a balancing to the American church. He writes:

For another thing, they provide something of a theological and ethical balance to the American church which is too subject to the major cultural shifts in North America, often at the expense of the Gospel and the Bible's teachings. We not only need the two-thirds worlds voices at General Conference, we need their wisdom and votes as well. In an age when our church, and indeed most major denominations, are becoming more culturally inclusive and global in character, it sends the wrong signal entirely to not allow the Central Conferences to continue to participate fully and vote quadrennially with the rest of our church.

If this goes through, I believe the face of American Methodism will drastically change. Many of the 'hot issues' of the American church are seen as unbiblical overseas. Without the overseas conferences, it is difficult knowing what will happen here in the U. S. The proposal discusses that "U. S. Concerns" will be dealt with in the U. S. central conference. I've always believed scripture and Christianity are globally focused. It seems to me that by moving in this direction we could allow our expression of Christianity to be more culturally defined than what it already is.

People often think of Christian morality as a kind of bargain in which God says, "If you keep a lot of rules, I'll reward you, and if you don't I'll do the other thing." I do not think that is the best way of looking at it. I would much rather say that every time you make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a Heaven creature or a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow creatures, and with itself. To be the one kind of creature is Heaven: that is, it is joy, and peace, and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other. - C. S. Lewis

I know there are things that if I choose to do them, I will never be the same. I believe we have all had that "after this, I will never be who I was" type of experiences. We knew that if we stepped over the line, or took the plunge, or ate the fruit, we would never be the same. I believe that is what C. S. Lewis is hinting at here. Each choice has a consequence, not just a what happens type of consequence, but also a consequence of being. Our choices have the power to change us.

I believe this is what John Wesley meant when he talked about the dispositions of the heart. As we choose to follow God and God's way, the dispositions of our heart are changed toward the good, or God. If we choose to not follow, to allow sin to reign in our hearts and lives, well, that changes our dispositions too. Choosing to follow will transform our heart from a selfish, sinful disposition, to one that is characterized by loving God and loving others.

Practicing the means of grace (spiritual disciplines) is a way we choose to allow the dispositions of our heart to be transformed. Wesley taught that the means of grace conveyed God's grace into the life of the individual. When we practice spiritual disciplines, we are choosing to have our heart turned toward God and transformed by God's grace. Therefore, the disciplines are not optional practices if one has time, but essential practices if one is wanting the dispositions of the heart transformed.