I think you are right to point out that the tests are only a method to helping build better teams, but then I think offering some methods is a legitimate answer to Hannah's question. I'm not sure that coming out of a situation of conflict the simple answer of "we need to trust the Holy Spirit" is all that satisfying...I think Hannah probably did, and things still seem not to have worked out. Praise God that you haven't had a situation of team conflict because of the gems that the Holy Spirit brought you! Sometimes it doesn't fall that way (certainly in my experience). Getting practical and deploying our wisdom and the best tools we can can be just as full of the Holy Spirit as a more "organic" approach (in my opinion). What if the "organic" approach doesn't work? What if a team gets mired in conflict, because team members aren't self-aware enough to be able to handle conflict well or just plain laugh at themselves? Or what happens if we deploy people who have significant and deep hurts which come back not only to trip them up but stall the whole team? The tests can also be a Spirit-filled means of using the 'gift if discernment' in order to create the opportunity for the Spirit to minister deeply into people's lives before they are deployed. This of course doesn't exclude more prophetic approaches...why not combine them both for maximum effect?
I'm happy to ignore the tests if they exclude people because the tests are too middle-class, but if we don't screen using the tests, then our approach to recruiting team members in a more relational way should be no less thorough - it should just be more relational than programmatic. Culturally appropriate screening is crucial, no matter how gifted or exciting a potential recruit may be.
It may also be the case that I interpret "the freedom to fail" in a slightly different way. I think that "the freedom to fail" shouldn't be held up as an end in itself, but as a style which we employ as we push forward to seeing a prevailing church planted. Failure is acceptable in that it is the environment in which success is bred, and church is destined to prevail against the evil one, as Jesus prophesied. Mixed with the value of respecting those who have gone before us, I think the value of being free to fail only becomes fully meaningful when we take risks beyond those which the Church has already taken, failed in, and learnt from. Otherwise, we are just repeating the same old mistakes. I don't think we have the freedom to make the same mistakes which have already been made in past church history. I guess that goes for doctrine as well. Making the same mistakes over and over again seems unwise and unnecessary to me, and a bad stewardship of God's resources. There is a difference between unintentional mistakes being redeemed by the Spirit in a genuinely new insight, and intentionally setting out to make mistakes. One of these potential re-hashed mistakes is to not screen missionaries for cross-cultural work because we are simply trusting the Spirit.
I think deploying the best tools, and appropriately, so as to avoid unnecessary failure (and the inherent pastoral cost) is a legitimate starting point so we can concentrate on taking risks that no-one has yet tried. Screening potential recruits (whether using using middle-class or more contextual approaches) is just good mission practice and reduces attrition in the long-term. Its not about excluding people on the basis if whether they pass muster, its about recognising that church-planting is tough, that small teams are crucibles of tension in which deep hurts and character issues will arise, and that journeying together on the Emmaus Road and helping people to meet Christ is one thing, but having the character to endure the cross and give birth to a new church is another thing entirely.
I'm pleased that there is now effectively a three-year screening process for UE. A very general observation is that deep character issues tend to reveal themselves about 18 months into a new environment...its a time where people learning new skills and living in a new culture begin to have the confidence to strike out on their own, but still aren't fully confident that they have what it takes. Then insecurity and character issues begin to take over. Have you had an experience like this on your team?
Just reflecting a little on what I have just said, I guess I am arguing for a balance between the seeming naivete of a simple spirit-led approach (innocent as doves) and the use of the best tools we have (wise as serpents). We can have both!!! Thanks for helping me work this through (and sorry for my long-winded response...)
Hey, the Holy Spirit can be in the tests as well
Hi Sarah,
I think you are right to point out that the tests are only a method to helping build better teams, but then I think offering some methods is a legitimate answer to Hannah's question. I'm not sure that coming out of a situation of conflict the simple answer of "we need to trust the Holy Spirit" is all that satisfying...I think Hannah probably did, and things still seem not to have worked out. Praise God that you haven't had a situation of team conflict because of the gems that the Holy Spirit brought you! Sometimes it doesn't fall that way (certainly in my experience). Getting practical and deploying our wisdom and the best tools we can can be just as full of the Holy Spirit as a more "organic" approach (in my opinion). What if the "organic" approach doesn't work? What if a team gets mired in conflict, because team members aren't self-aware enough to be able to handle conflict well or just plain laugh at themselves? Or what happens if we deploy people who have significant and deep hurts which come back not only to trip them up but stall the whole team? The tests can also be a Spirit-filled means of using the 'gift if discernment' in order to create the opportunity for the Spirit to minister deeply into people's lives before they are deployed. This of course doesn't exclude more prophetic approaches...why not combine them both for maximum effect?
I'm happy to ignore the tests if they exclude people because the tests are too middle-class, but if we don't screen using the tests, then our approach to recruiting team members in a more relational way should be no less thorough - it should just be more relational than programmatic. Culturally appropriate screening is crucial, no matter how gifted or exciting a potential recruit may be.
It may also be the case that I interpret "the freedom to fail" in a slightly different way. I think that "the freedom to fail" shouldn't be held up as an end in itself, but as a style which we employ as we push forward to seeing a prevailing church planted. Failure is acceptable in that it is the environment in which success is bred, and church is destined to prevail against the evil one, as Jesus prophesied. Mixed with the value of respecting those who have gone before us, I think the value of being free to fail only becomes fully meaningful when we take risks beyond those which the Church has already taken, failed in, and learnt from. Otherwise, we are just repeating the same old mistakes. I don't think we have the freedom to make the same mistakes which have already been made in past church history. I guess that goes for doctrine as well. Making the same mistakes over and over again seems unwise and unnecessary to me, and a bad stewardship of God's resources. There is a difference between unintentional mistakes being redeemed by the Spirit in a genuinely new insight, and intentionally setting out to make mistakes. One of these potential re-hashed mistakes is to not screen missionaries for cross-cultural work because we are simply trusting the Spirit.
I think deploying the best tools, and appropriately, so as to avoid unnecessary failure (and the inherent pastoral cost) is a legitimate starting point so we can concentrate on taking risks that no-one has yet tried. Screening potential recruits (whether using using middle-class or more contextual approaches) is just good mission practice and reduces attrition in the long-term. Its not about excluding people on the basis if whether they pass muster, its about recognising that church-planting is tough, that small teams are crucibles of tension in which deep hurts and character issues will arise, and that journeying together on the Emmaus Road and helping people to meet Christ is one thing, but having the character to endure the cross and give birth to a new church is another thing entirely.
I'm pleased that there is now effectively a three-year screening process for UE. A very general observation is that deep character issues tend to reveal themselves about 18 months into a new environment...its a time where people learning new skills and living in a new culture begin to have the confidence to strike out on their own, but still aren't fully confident that they have what it takes. Then insecurity and character issues begin to take over. Have you had an experience like this on your team?
Just reflecting a little on what I have just said, I guess I am arguing for a balance between the seeming naivete of a simple spirit-led approach (innocent as doves) and the use of the best tools we have (wise as serpents). We can have both!!! Thanks for helping me work this through (and sorry for my long-winded response...)
All the best
Paul