Reflections on Posting

Note to self: Not really sure why you're dredging this up again...Just let it be...Maybe no will notice and you can go on....You're just setting yourself up for disparaging comments ; or taking a risk again...Why Cheryl, Why?

Note to self: Oh yeah, because you think being a catalyst for discussion, for getting brain cells sparking, for moving forward out of our comfort zones and trusting God deeper is worth it.

It has been an interesting week or so. There has been quite a bit of discussion both posted and emailed to me, regarding my post about "church" and leadership--"Thoughts about Church: Medical Technicians or Post Op Nurses?." The majority of comments have been positive, kind in nature, accepting, and candid about their own personal challenge to be relational in their leadership; but I did receive one seemingly negative comment, but chose to leave it posted so as to be balanced and fair. So, all in all, not a bad ratio I think.

What a ride... I have repeatedly questioned myself, motives, concepts , etc., as I've allowed my blog entry to stay posted. I knew when I first submitted it that this was a potentially volatile "pondering". I knew there was a risk that those who attend the same church I do, could be offended or if they chose to, could view my writing as a personal indictment, or I could be viewed as a trouble maker. (I'm guessing "anonymous is one such fellow member--or leader.)

As I shared with a friend, I've had to examine the words I chose and ask myself if I still stand by what I've openly processed, and yes, I do. However, I probably would make a few clarifications and not leave so much room for speculation as to my intention, my meaning of things, etc. So in that, I need to be responsible, so this is a good lesson for me. I want to be sure what I write and allow others to read, is really what I mean, and if I've accurately conveyed my intentions, thoughts, feelings, insights, etc. I realize I can't control how others react to my writings, but I can control what I say and how I say it. So this is good....I can learn and grow from this.

So, for the purpose of good communication, let me clarify a few things in my previous post about my thoughts about church:

1. I'm not picking on my home church. I'm talking about "church" in the organizational sense, and yes in the spiritual sense as well. I've been in many churches throughout my life...And there are a lot of similarities in how churches are structured, especially in the denomination I have been a part of. And, realistically, since I am part of church currently, it seems quite natural that I would refer experientially to what I know and experience now.

2. Leadership is a broad term and I probably should have been more explicit in my terms....I'm talking about any kind of leadership--administrators, teachers, pastors, group leaders, elders, etc. I've been in many different leadership positions, currently I'm on the worship team...so actually I'm talking about myself as well.

3. Naively, I didn't think that spotlighting the strength of a majority of our leaders would be controversial, calling them 'skilled technicians, capable and professional'. But I can see where, if you tried, it could be construed as a negative thing. What I realize I neglected to say was that there are some very relational leaders as well. And I don't think the two are exclusive, but generally speaking, people aren't strong in every area. For example how could I be offended if someone said to me that I wasn't a concrete-sequential type? It's true, I'm not...I'm totally the random-abstract type...And that's okay!! I'm so thankful there are others that are strong technician/professional/get-the-job-done-types. I'm so not that way--I have a difficult time doing that! I was pointing out the need to have more Audrey types added in and involved, because from analytical observation there seems to be an imbalance, and if we as a church are truly going to be family to one another, which in my thinking involves relational skills...Then by deduction it would seem there needs to be a better balance of things. No one can be all things to all people.

4. When I spoke of being burdened for my home church, and crying during worship it wasn't because the music was bad--which it wasn't, or that I was disgruntled with the worship pastor--which I' m not, or that I think the church is in sin or falling apart--which it isn't. I should have either expounded on this more, or just not addressed it...But since I opened the door, I'll finish it.

It was a couple of weekends ago when my husband and I were singing on worship team and the subject of the pastor's message was about glorifying God. During worship, the presence of the Holy Spirit was thick--almost palpable--Our senior pastor mentioned it, people in the congregation talked to me after that service about it--something significant happened.

It was during this service that I was overwhelmed with the burden to be praying for my church(which I would think others would see as a good thing). Standing there, facing the congregation, singing the words "may your glory fall in this room" and then witnessing it....I couldn't sing any longer, but rather cried. My heart ached that this church would be a church such as that-- that we will push beyond what we know and what is familiar--and be open to where God is leading--and He will be glorified in it. Again, for clarification, and to be a responsible blogger, I know that the "leadership"* of the church truly want to be obedient to God's leading and are seeking that.

For whatever reason, God has burdened me with this, and for some reason has been giving me lots of personal exposure to leadership stuff-- both as a leader and as a non-leader--in many different venues, over many, many months, if not years. Some of these encounters have left me frustrated and I'm still working through with "leadership" on a one on one basis... But none that would bring me to the point that I would lack integrity and bare all on a blog. As a side note, I think there is a stigma that you can't be a "good" church member if you disagree or have a difference of opinion with anyone in leadership (or a fellow leader) --you're viewed as not being a team player. But I think of the example of marriage. My husband and I often do not see eye to eye on things, we are about as opposite on the personality spectrum as you can get and usually one or both of us are frustrated with the other. But we don't just walk away and decide "we're out of here", nor do we sit and pout and take on the "woe is me" attitude. We hang in there, talk and talk and talk some more, seeking to understanding, fighting for our relationship and pressing forward. I feel I have the same responsibility as a church member whatever church I'm in--I have that responsibility as a part of the body of Christ.

I have never, nor will I ever, blog about any specific personal issue regarding my marriage, or call my husband names or grouse about him on the internet, etc, but to say, "we're arguing" is just being real. What married couple doesn't argue? Similarly, I would never do that regarding God's church. But what church doesn't have struggles and growing pains? To say, there is room for change or growth is real...it's honest (I think this is called walking in the light...) .

But, I've digressed...Along with this burden comes the desire to be obedient...Even to the point of rejection by others or leaders...If that is what I truly believe God has called me to. (*See my working definition of "leaders" above).

And, finally~

4. I neglected to put in written word that this exhortation applies to me as well. As I was writing, I asked myself what kind of a leader am I? What are my strengths and weaknesses. Where do I need to improve? Where do I need to do work? Well, clearly, working harder at communicating more clearly would be good start.

So as I said before...This is good. Growing is always good. Not being complacent is always good. Desiring to connect more, dialogue more, debate--it's all good.

Now, if you would like to comment, please feel free except this time, anonymous ones aren't allowed. I'd like to encourage others to own their words as well. (Again, for clarification, "anonymous" is meant in the general sense, not directed at "Anonymous" who left the anonymous comment--"Anonymous" the person is more than welcome to leave another comment, but you'll have to use a name this time.)