I have had a difference of opinion with a man in the upper hierarchy of Habitat for Humanity NZ. We ended up our to-and-fro correspondence a bit more amicably but I was talking over the difference with another guy today. He told me that he had spent time with the gentleman and reported that he was "totally devoted to Habitat for Humanity". I said that I never doubted that but as I said that, a light went on in my head and I had an epiphany. I will explain my epiphany but need to say it does not necessarily apply to the man I had the difference with.
My epiphany is that a person can be totally devoted to Habitat for humanity but that should not be where his primary devotion should be. Habitat for Humanity is an organisation. If one is devoted to the organisation, it could quite easily drag you away from actually helping people in a respectful way. The organisation becomes all important, and the people can become secondary. You could make decisions (subtle though the distinction may be) that support and aid Habitat for Humanity as an organisation, but could be harmful, less respecting of and not loving toward people, the organisation is set up to help. I would much rather a person be devoted to loving people first, and then see the organisation of Habitat for Humanity as a way of giving expression to that love. There is to me a subtle, but very important difference and often different outcomes. Habitat for Humanity can become an end in itself, and not the people it is intended to assist. A devotion to people first, and a more objective devotion to the organisation would help the organisation be more critical of itself and its directions.
Likewise I have seen people who you could say were devoted church members. They are active in the church. They support the church, make decisions for the good of the church and are concerned for the teachings of the church. They can be elders, deacons and ministers of the church. But these same people are not devoted to loving people. I would prefer people be first and foremost devoted to expressing Jesus' love for people, and see the church as a vehicle, or "the Body of Christ" for expressing that love. The decisions they make about church life and their priorities for the church will be very different. The things they get upset about will be different. The life and focus of their church will be different.
Let me say also that it can happen, because it happens to me, that we can start out with the right motivations, but the whole process of running an organisation can mean that we drift off the target. We are distracted from the important priorities and the organisation can slowly take over in our thinking.
That's my epiphany... it is not the first time I've had it, but a light went on in my head as I put the phone down after this conversation I had about my problems with the hierarchy and the directions it was taking for the organisation. The Apostle Paul had similar epiphanies, just read 1st Corinthians 13.
I have often said that I feel called to the people of the city of Dunedin, and the St Andrew Street Church of Christ is the base through which I work. I am devoted to the church, but my prior devotion is to the people of the city, the church is the vehicle through which I assist the "Sacred" to reach out in love. I don't feel called to "the church", but rather called to express the love of Jesus in Dunedin, and hopefully through what happens in the church. If however, the church somehow prevents me doing that, I would move on from there. It is not my primary focus.
I don't know if that makes sense to anyone else. Here is a link to a parable I use to remind myself of this message. http://www.intervarsity.org/slj/article/4249/
No comments:
Post a Comment