Sometimes ministry in Philadelphia really sucks, plain and simple. It may be the same everywhere else, but I am in Philly, and it just seems to be so hard.
Philadelphia has a tradition of church division. Division exists, and has existed, just about everywhere, pretty much since the beginning (see the New Testament for reference) but Philadelphia seems to have a special history of division. Some trace it back to the Quakers (sorry to blame them, but I don’t know any, so it is pretty safe), others think it is just the irony of the “City of Brotherly Love”. We even joke about the absence of major gang culture in Philadelphia being a sign of the great division, that even the gangs can’t function in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia is a city of neighbourhoods (hundreds officially named, thousand unofficial), a city of micro-communities, a city of streets that people won’t cross, at least on foot. The church reflects this division with little in the way of networking, few significant gatherings of churches, not a lot of communication, and a whole lot of very lonely people in ministry.
It is into the midst of this I stepped with CityNet, not naively, nor overly confident in my own abilities, but with excitement at the opportunities to tell great people in ministry about other great people in ministry, to tell the lonely that they are not alone, to point out the amazing work of the Holy Spirit throughout the city. Some days I function merely as the ministry Yellow Pages, people calling me to find out about someone, something, some service they need. Other days I am an encourager of the discouraged. Sometimes I just sit in meetings where I have no real role to play, except to listen, and pass on to others what is happening. Some days I am a counselor, and a teacher, and a student. Most of all I am here, still here, not going anywhere, connecting people together, on a small scale, but seemingly used of God.
Then I have days like today, and ministry in Philadelphia sucks. The day began well, then got better. I was blessed to watch some of the “Elders” of the city discuss ways they could work together, learn together, struggle together. I had pretty much nothing to do with the meeting, but they invited me anyway, knowing I like that kind of thing (and that I have “networking” and “partnerships” in my job title). It was a great day. I missed the dedication service for the new Esperanza Health Center site, something I have been waiting seven years for, but I knew they would understand, and this meeting of the “Elders” was a big deal, the beginnings of some big things, I believe.
Then it happened, like so often in Philly, you get “the call”. This to me is a mark of my time in Philly, “the call”. Or should I say, “the calls”, for they happen a lot. In analyzing some of the reasons Philadelphia is a difficult place to minister (and I am not just saying this because I am here) one thing has always stood out to me, and that is that we receive more “bad” calls then “good” calls. I hear more failures than successes, more defeat than victory, more loss than gain. It is burdensome, wearying, draining and disheartening. I was taught early on by the great servant Sue Carter that we should never claim the praise of success in ministry because we will never be able to live with the pain of failure. She said that after so many years working with marginalized youth in Kensington. Well, wouldn’t you know it, I forgot that lesson, once again.
I had just done some really great stuff, at least in my own reckoning. I had pulled off a meeting that people probably thought I couldn’t. I had gotten people to the table others thought wouldn’t come. Things were going well. I was very proud of myself, I was pretty good at this connecting thing after all, I had found my place, and people would now be coming to me with due respect. As you no doubt see, the problem was the big “I” in all of that. It never has been what I could do here, only what God can, and does, do. I am a mere spectator, taking credit where I can. Of course the “call” would come, it always does, because this is Philly, it is what it is.
The “call” was followed by the “email” (and more and more it is the “email” that comes, but I will still refer to it as the “call”). Things were starting to fray, people were going back to their “safe places”, and division was coming, as it always seems to in Philadelphia. My first reaction was, of course, self pity. If this fails, what will people think of me? My new found respect would be lost; my ability to connect would be called to question. Yes, if I owned the success, I need to own the failure. So, I need to quit, pack it in, and move on. I never really was a connector, not popular enough for that (more self pity), nor good enough. I saw where my mistakes were, where I failed, where I sinned, and most importantly where I would fail again in the future. I am just not good enough to make it here. Then I began to weep, as I do now, but my tears aren’t for me, they are for this city, this broken, divided city, full of some of the world’s most gifted people. Populated by selfless servants, talented and gifted men and women, sacrificial saints, who need to know they are not alone. This is a beautiful place, a fact my daughters often remind me of, for they have different eyes then I do. This place, Philadelphia, is a place of hope, a place of love, a place of joy. I miss seeing that, tainted as my own eyes are.
So, what does a connector do when his connections aren’t working? What does a networker do when he can’t get people to work together? The same thing he did when he failed in youth ministry, and in economic development, and church development. He remembers how big his God is, how amazing Grace is, and gets up the next day to begin again.
I love what I do, when I remember who I really work for. I love what I do, when I remember who it is that makes lasting change. I love what I do, when I remember where I have come from. I especially love what I do when our great Saviour wraps his arms gently around me and whispers that He too cries over this city, and that He will take care of it, for that’s His job, not mine.
So I am sure this won’t be the last time that I feel ministry in Philadelphia sucks. Nor will it be the last time I take credit for what God is doing. Nor will today be the last time a receive one of “the calls”. But for now, this is my place, these are my people, this is my home. I love it, I love what I do. Great things are happening, and I get to point them out. In a city divided for centuries, some walls are coming down, some people are talking to other people. Setbacks will come, failure will happen, pain will result. But pray with me, as we move forward, that in our times of affliction we will draw close to one another, as One Body, not turn on each other, but embrace, hold unto, support, encourage and love each other. Pray that the day will come, and soon, that Philadelphia will be known as the city where the people of God function as One.
Thursday 3 January 2008
Thursday 28 April 2005
Coz's Article on the church
“What would a church look like that practices John 15”
Acts 2:42-47. I am tempted to leave it at this. The example of how the church functioned right after Christ ascended into Heaven seems to be the best example of how a Biblically successful church should look. I would like to understand how we went from that, to what we have now.
Concepts such as gathering for a couple of hours on a Sunday to hear some people sing and a guy talk are what dominates our current culture. Sharing all we have, gathering together each day, breaking bread together, having true fellowship, being there to be used to meet each others needs, where did all this go? Why? My paper is not an answer but a question. I know what it would look like. We have been given the example. We can read on and see how things like division, injustice, suffering, persecution, evangelism, and others were handled. We can see how leaders led, the establishment of division of duties, the emphasis on empowerment, handling doctrinal issues, missions support, team building and accountability took place. What I desire to know is where did we go so far off track.
I cannot imagine someone standing up on a Sunday and saying “I need $500 right now or I will lose my house” and another believer opening their wallet. It would have to go to committee, where it would be determined if this person is really in need. From there the response would be based upon the budget (often the deacons fund) into which people have put in a fraction of God’s provisions to them. If there was enough money in the budget, they would be given some money, but conditionally. We are a church that in general responds to issues based upon resources. Where is the church that responds to issues based upon needs? We have been taught to see what we have before we decide what to give. Why don’t we see what is needed than give in response? “…they gave to anyone as he had need.”
I imagine, though it seems like a dream, someone coming to my house and asking “how are you doing today?” Not someone asking me “at church” how has my week been, but pursuing me. I am sure, knowing God’s love (in part), that He cares about the difficult week I have had. I also believe, discerning from Scripture, that He has a response. I am led to believe that the response would come in the form of encouragement from a brother or sister. Has it come and I missed it, or was it sent but the messenger got too caught up in the worries of the world to deliver it? I cannot ask this question without asking myself how much I failed to deliver my messages this week.
I have considered these issues many times before now. Perhaps I have been waiting for someone else to take the lead on this. In raising support I believe in God’s provision and I am confident that if we pooled our support into one pot, we would all have enough. When I was the least supported missionary (financially) my motives were obviously in question, though they were true. Now that Joyce and I raise more than the others we serve with, am I still willing, even though it would be a hardship to us? Yes I am still willing. What do I wait for? Someone to take me seriously.
I end this short and poorly written paper with a question to you, the reader. Why did we stray from the example left us by the Apostles? Why are we so intent on “re-inventing” the church to be more effective in this society? If we simply followed their example, wouldn’t our numbers be added to each day?
Acts 2:42-47. I am tempted to leave it at this. The example of how the church functioned right after Christ ascended into Heaven seems to be the best example of how a Biblically successful church should look. I would like to understand how we went from that, to what we have now.
Concepts such as gathering for a couple of hours on a Sunday to hear some people sing and a guy talk are what dominates our current culture. Sharing all we have, gathering together each day, breaking bread together, having true fellowship, being there to be used to meet each others needs, where did all this go? Why? My paper is not an answer but a question. I know what it would look like. We have been given the example. We can read on and see how things like division, injustice, suffering, persecution, evangelism, and others were handled. We can see how leaders led, the establishment of division of duties, the emphasis on empowerment, handling doctrinal issues, missions support, team building and accountability took place. What I desire to know is where did we go so far off track.
I cannot imagine someone standing up on a Sunday and saying “I need $500 right now or I will lose my house” and another believer opening their wallet. It would have to go to committee, where it would be determined if this person is really in need. From there the response would be based upon the budget (often the deacons fund) into which people have put in a fraction of God’s provisions to them. If there was enough money in the budget, they would be given some money, but conditionally. We are a church that in general responds to issues based upon resources. Where is the church that responds to issues based upon needs? We have been taught to see what we have before we decide what to give. Why don’t we see what is needed than give in response? “…they gave to anyone as he had need.”
I imagine, though it seems like a dream, someone coming to my house and asking “how are you doing today?” Not someone asking me “at church” how has my week been, but pursuing me. I am sure, knowing God’s love (in part), that He cares about the difficult week I have had. I also believe, discerning from Scripture, that He has a response. I am led to believe that the response would come in the form of encouragement from a brother or sister. Has it come and I missed it, or was it sent but the messenger got too caught up in the worries of the world to deliver it? I cannot ask this question without asking myself how much I failed to deliver my messages this week.
I have considered these issues many times before now. Perhaps I have been waiting for someone else to take the lead on this. In raising support I believe in God’s provision and I am confident that if we pooled our support into one pot, we would all have enough. When I was the least supported missionary (financially) my motives were obviously in question, though they were true. Now that Joyce and I raise more than the others we serve with, am I still willing, even though it would be a hardship to us? Yes I am still willing. What do I wait for? Someone to take me seriously.
I end this short and poorly written paper with a question to you, the reader. Why did we stray from the example left us by the Apostles? Why are we so intent on “re-inventing” the church to be more effective in this society? If we simply followed their example, wouldn’t our numbers be added to each day?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)