Under the Microscope (Part 2)

One of the reasons I wrote "under the microscope" relates to an ongoing personal struggle of mine. There is a type of frustration where one is able to genuinely engage and actively serve his/her home church. Yet there is another kind of frustration that can turn toxic and negatively impact one's service. Both frustrations are contingent on the perception or interpretation of progress/change or lack thereof.  An argument can be made that one should silence any discomfort or frustration when it comes to serving his/her church. It has been argued that serving in in of itself should surpass all discomfort and/or frustration.  This is the "tough it out" approach I held up until the middle of last year (2014). This approach while appearing appropriate can become problematic particularly when someone is serving in leadership capacities.

I can say for the past few months I have moved toward a particular frustration where I am no longer able to genuinely engage and actively participate in leadership capacities. This has led to an indefinite sabbatical that some believe is not necessary.  The truth is I am frustrated with the personality of my home church. I have been for several years and it has been leading me to look introspectively into myself and also my church.  I don’t want to lead worship simply to fulfil a need for my church or because I do it well; particularly when I am conflicted and frustrated with her.  I believe she deserves such respect. If I am not "all in" I rather pass on my uniform to the next dedicated team member.  Furthermore I don't believe the work of the Lord should be taken this lightly.

This is my willingness to allow many to see me under the microscope.   My embracing of transparency has drawn me to rely more on the strength and perfection of Christ than my own. I have been learning that I don’t have to exert all my energy on appearing or taking a form of strength and perfection. It is much easier and less cumbersome to let Christ be my strength and perfection.   This past year I have learned that despite my individual efforts, I have not been able to abandon a performance oriented way of interpreting the gospel; especially in the mist of my home church.  I morph my personality to be one that shelters/hides individual weaknesses and shortcomings. This leads me to look down on others that I perceive to be spiritually weak and lacking. It becomes imperative for me to look to part even at the expense of self-deception.  In the end I live with no actual realization of the gospel of love and grace. I see God's love and acceptance as something that is earned through performance rather than freely given through the perfect work of his son.  In addition, the power and splendor of the gospel of Christ is limited in my life.

One of the points that I attempted to make in "under the microscope"(part 1) is that a church that is oblivious to the several factors that impacts its perception and application of the gospel will have no desire to daily assess herself and submit problematic areas to her chief's potter; namely Christ. The same applies to a church that is aware but doesn't regularly acknowledge and submit herself and those influencing factors under Christ's microscope. What I failed to argue is how such disposition vicariously perpetuates and inhabits her members.   My plea is for more open conversation and acknowledgement of the influential factors that informs the church's interpretation and application of the gospel.  The Haitian culture is known to be critical and punitive. Furthermore the culture is also known to harbor a type of pride and several vices that can become destructive. Becoming a Christian does not render one immune to these factors  but rather allow one to openly acknowledge and submit them under Christ for daily chiseling. To blindly ignore the influence of culture and personal experiences on one's application of the gospel is self-deception at its best. 

Yet the beauty of the love of God is its ability to regularly and efficiently surface shortcomings in order for recipients to respond; very much like a microscope making the tiniest things visible to the naked eye.  One way I have responded to my performance oriented way is by daily acknowledging that God's love is not something that I earn or perform for. I acknowledge that there is no freedom in pretending and hiding shortcomings for the sake of appearing "well put together".  I am learning to cherish God as a father that I can openly share my deepest shortcomings to in prayer.   I use opportunities to acknowledge that I am frustrated with my home church but also remind myself that I am not too far different from her. I above all need to remain under God's microscope  and respond to His love daily.    

Savior Please by Josh Wilson

Under the Microscope (part 1)

We know that churches are gauge under the critical themes of the bible ranging from the deity of Christ, infallibility of the word, the trinity, humanity need for savior due to the fall, justification and Christ as savior/redeemer  to name a few—simply put the "essentials" of the faith.  Yet I believe churches have distinct personalities that are influenced by denomination, culture, education, training and life experiences.  These factors influence and inform identities of individual congregations whether one is willing to admit it or not. A congregation's heartbeat for certain social and political issues is influence by these factors. Perception and application of the gospel is influence by them. Amazingly congregations' heartbeat on how they relate to their own and those they perceive to be different from them is influenced by these elements. Many looking for a home church often take such factors into account in addition to gauging the essential elements of the faith. This diversity is a great gift principally when there is an open awareness and acknowledgement by the individual church. Lastly it is even a greater gift when it is regularly and intently placed under the microscope of the gospel for ongoing analysis by Jesus Christ; the chief potter.

An oblivious approach to these elements and their potential impact on a church personality and administration strengthens the ill conviction that they do not need to be regularly submitted under the microscope of the gospel.  The Apostle Paul dedicated prayers, multiple warnings and letters to churches in the bible because he believed local churches to be susceptible to falling into a state of obliviousness as it pertains to some of these elements.  Paul responded and reminded churches of their dire need to be regularly held under the microscope of the gospel every opportunity he had. Whether it was philosophy in Rome/Colossae or cleansing practices and circumcision in Corinth, Paul challenged churches to maintain the GOSPEL above all life experiences, training, culture and denominations; and to allow the Gospel to be the principal zoom through which they regularly held themselves. There is often a misconception that the earlier churches had it all together.  This is inaccurate when we fare it to scripture and consider all of Paul's letters and the other apostles in the New Testament. James wrote to a church who was discriminating against the poor and favoring the rich while claiming to have faith(James 2). So you see even the churches then needed to be regularly held under the microscope. 

.