One at a Time? Or All Together?

How does it work for a family to be serving God versus a single person serving God?

A family is, in fact, a bunch of single people (except for one married couple in there), and so a big part of how a family serves God is involved with what each person is doing individually.
Thus, as a family, the father needs to do what God has called him to do (providing for his family, loving his wife, raising godly children in a godly manner, working in and with the church in the way God's called him to do), the mother would need to do what God has given her to do (raising godly children in a godly way, doing what needs to be done in running the household, loving her husband, and ministering to others as she has been called or as may be needed), the kids' main job in serving God has to do with being obedient, diligent in school – learning what it means to be godly adults, and practicing that in appropriate ways.

But serving God as a family means more than that. If that was all it was, then marriage and family really wouldn't be much of anything special. As a family, there is a unity (or there should be) that should stand as something special.

In the “perfect” marriage relationship, the husband and wife love each other unselfishly and consistently look for the other’s good before his or her own. Both are understanding, supportive, and communicative; they honestly want the best possible for each other, and are willing to sacrifice for that.

However, in the godly marriage relationship, the husband and wife love God first and foremost and work together towards the goal that God has for them, towards fulfilling his will. They are not focused inwards, towards each other, but outwards – their focus is on God and serving him, a common goal shared by both partners. Since they love God, they will also love each other in the manner of the “perfect” marriage relationship, but that will not be the main focus – the main focus is God and God alone, and the qualities of the “perfect” marriage relationship are simply the natural result of serving God first.

This is in fact the underlying principle not just for a married couple but for the entire family – they are all focused on an “outside” goal. The family relationship is built around the fact that each of the family is loyal first to God, and then, because of that, to the family.

The family as a whole should work together to serve God, so that it isn't, “Oh, Mrs. Christian is such a godly woman, especially with everyone doing everything they do in her family,” but rather “That Christian family is weird – it's like they all have the same goal or something.”

One of the main ways of serving God as a family has to do with the fact that every aspect of a family’s life should be an example of godliness to friends, acquaintances, and neighbours; like it says in Timothy about having well-behaved children (not accused of being riotous or unruly), and that the husband and wife ought to have the kind of relationship that people look at and admire because of its love and virtue.

The other major part of serving God as a family (maybe more as parents) has to do with raising children who truly know what godliness is (even if they choose to turn away from God). One of the things that stands out when reading through Kings and Chronicles are the little notes “and so and so walked in the ways of his father so and so, to work evil...” Or like the sons of Rechab, who had vowed not to touch wine or strong drink because of their Dad. Each of those things shows that the children’s actions reflect on the family, either in a good way or a bad way. For that reason, it's really important how children are raised (because they are, after all, a major “product” of marriage), and that even if the children decide to turn away from God, it's important that their only significant complaint should be along the lines of “Mom and Dad were just too much into Jesus -- that was all they ever talked about -- and I couldn't handle it” rather than about how “Mom and Dad were unfair, mean, and touchy” or any other complaint that might have validity.

In terms of what the family should be doing to serve God...

Generally speaking, the father’s/husband’s calling should provide the major direction for the family. So if the father is called to work in evangelism, the family would end up serving roles within that realm, not necessarily all doing what the father does, but serving in whatever areas may fit alongside his vocation.

It's one thing to say that a husband and wife should love God and work together to serve Him, but how exactly does that work in practice?

A lot of that comes around to listening – What does God want us to do? – and then doing it. It's hard to say very specifically something like “Well, this family should be cooking for the soup kitchen, helping out at Serenity House, leading Bible studies, helping out little old lady neighbors” because that is dependent on what God tells the couple to do – they might, but really what they specifically do to serve God is dependent on what he tells them to do.

Serving God as a family involves whatever is given in the Bible (pure, undefiled religion, etc.) and then furthermore, doing whatever else God has asked apart from the Scripture (being led by the Spirit to do such and such) – but what differentiates it from an individual serving God is that unity, that common goal, because it truly isn't a single person doing it – the whole family does it together – and it's more than “Well, Mom and Dad said we're going to go and do this as a family, so we have to do it,” but it really is a common value between each member of the family.
_________________________________

Thanks to the friend who helped write this.

The Problem with Committees (Or, "When the Kingdom Gets in the Way")

The other day, I saw a large committee (more than twelve people were present, with more who were supposed to be there) actually function well, and seem to effectively get necessary tasks accomplished or designated. I didn't think about it at the time, but now that I ponder it, I wonder why committees sometimes work, but other times don't.

They often fail to work successfully (or work only at a mediocre level) in churches...and generally it is the same with cities that have a city council. The committee ends up not doing very much at all, just sort of muddling along, not breaking anything, but also not really accomplishing anything noteworthy. Or the council members will work or fight against each other and, while still muddling along and not technically breaking anything, end up destroying their citizenry's confidence in their effectiveness and the integrity of the members and the system (and once the taxpayers are convinced that the system and the governors are not looking out for their best interests, they start taking some sort of action, be it protesting, getting involved directly in the system, or simply moving away).

Churches often end up the same way -- the board of elders, or the several pastors, or whoever makes up the committee will generally muddle along, getting enough done to keep the normal day-to-day church operations going (paying rent, salaries, and scheduling cleaning, or whatever), but not really doing much more than that, having difficulty getting involved in a new area of activity or changing routines. Or the elders/pastors will end up in conflict and will spend so much of their energy in adversarial activities amongst themselves, that they have trouble functioning effectively, and the church members end up losing confidence in the leaders' effectiveness, integrity, and often begin to doubt that the system works at all.


So… what makes the difference between a functional committee and a dysfunctional committee? I think there are several elements:

Necessaries:

First, a group will function well if there is a common goal to work towards. This cannot be a nebulous or inconcrete goal, however; it must be a goal that everyone can see and know exactly what they are working towards -- in short, it must be measureable -- it does not need to be measureable exactly in numbers (though that is certainly one way of measuring something), but it must, at all events, be crystal clear in the minds of all members. [Examples of goals that don't have numbers but are yet measurable: winning WWII, stopping Godzilla from destroying Tokyo, hitchhiking to California, etc.]

Second, a group must not only have a common goal, but all the members of the group must agree that that goal is the one to work towards. In a work situation, this acceptance is generally implied when you take the job -- you must work toward the goals of the company. In a church setting, this goal must be made clear, and must clearly be accepted by the members of the group.

Hindrances:

First is the kingdom mentality. I think one of the things that often gets in the way of effective committee functioning is when the committee is given rule over a kingdom. This happens in city government -- the mandate of the city council is to bear rule over the citizenry, and maximize their welfare; same story in church government -- somehow, the church body becomes to the leaders a type of citizenry ("our flock," "our congregation," etc) for which the elders/leaders perceive that they have some mandate to rule over and maximize "welfare...

The problem that I see with this is that truly effective kingdoms must clearly have in mind a common goal (as mentioned above), but in general, the basic premise of a kingdom is to extend your rule over as many people, and as much territory as is feasible -- this means WAR -- but war is pretty much the one thing that these kingdoms either cannot, or will not do. For municipalities, it is forbidden, and for churches, it is sorely ill-defined, and few "soldiers" can see the battle to fight it, let alone prepare for it.

Thus, when your organization is in some sense a kingdom, and there is no war or conquest, the kingdom mentality fails to function very well at all.

Second, any obscurity of the goal will tend to result in a proportional reduction in the effectiveness of the group to make decisions. Clarity of purpose, direction, and objective are absolutely essential.

Third, forgetfulness. People often tend to get involved in their specific tasks, and forget the end goal that their task is designed to help accomplish. When the leadership gets involved and focused on this project, that project, and what-project-should-we-do-next, sight of the goal is lost, and the effectiveness of their directions is greatly reduced. The goal must be kept in mind at all times, and the criteria for all projects must be its effective contribution to the accomplishment of the goal. “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”

Fourth, stasis. Growth or movement helps to focus a goal [it is easier to spot someone who is running, than someone who is walking, and easier to spot someone who is walking than someone who is standing still]. The point at which an organization "reaches the top," is the point at which it is most likely to fall apart. This is because a goal once reached is a goal now nonexistent. When the leadership is in a position of "what shall we do now?" all unifying and motivating effects of the common goal are removed, and unless a new goal is instituted [this is, in my opinion, where a good leader will recognize that a new goal is needed, and set it up for the organization], the leadership will fall to bickering about selfish points that accomplish nothing for the organization.

I had a fifth point....but I thought of it as I was in the middle of writing the fourth, and I forgot it. I even considered stopping to write it down, but decided not to, continued writing number four, and promptly forgot my fifth point. Frustrating. (And my own fault, too!)