The Trouble With Patience
 

Warning! You may want to turn your head if this is too painful to look at.

Galatians 5:22 states that one of the end results of the Spirit's work in us will be the addition of longsuffering. Longsuffering is a calmer, gentler synonym of that other word we're apt to run from - patience.

Now patience can be trying, frustrating and at times maddening to receive.
It is through the trying of our faith that patience is birthed. I'm sure you have heard that "tribulation worketh patience"?

But is patience always a virtue? Can patience lead into a general apathy of the soul? Do we confuse apathy and patience in Pentecost?

It would seem to me that some things can't wait. Perhaps this thread will help to identify which areas of life we need to exercise patience in and which areas require immediate change.

Specifically, let's consider the church.

What areas need reform, but not necessarily immediate reform?
What areas need immediate reform?

I will wait impatiently for your response. :dunno

One area that needs reform is the local church. Specificaly the local Church board. Where the same old good old boys sit on the board year after year.

Even though they are voted on. It is more like a supreme court appointment.

Put some new skin in the game.

Maybe just maybe the family business will grow.

Nathan Eckstadt

I was thinking broader, bigger, and in terms of the general movement, but that's okay.

The church board often is static (pardon the pun) due to unwillingess. And when we consider the average church in the UPC has around 75 members, it's obvious the pool of potential candidates is small. In this environment it becomes needful to develop potential replacements.

Another thing to consider is that appointments are normally yearly, and need to be ratified by the voting body of any incorporated assembly.

I have seen the extreme you allude to here. Tell me, is that pastoral patience - or apathy

My opinion would be that it is the spirit of the church being stuck in operational apathy.

Apathy here would be found in the idea that its easier to maintan the satus quo than go through the trouble of equipping and training other qualified candidates. This sort of waiting is crippling.

I do believe that each church needs qualified elders (seniors) to assist in business matters. Experience goes a long way in saving financial heartache.

I know this is not a reform in the church such as, Allowing woman to cut their hair, wear pants kind of good.

I think the pulpit needs to be reformed.

I am tired of ministers stepping into the pulpit, full of stories, ice breakers, words they just wrote down from TD Jakes on TBN Sunday morning.

Man, Get on your knee's and be relevant for the times and be ontime with a fresh annointing.

Otherwise get out of the pulpit before God has to push you out.

People are hungry for good redeeming, soul searching, practical living and application ministry.

Not how much you know on the doctrinal stances and beliefs.

Turn around and let your back face the choir.

Your burden is to preach to the one sinner who may have stepped in off the steet to meet God at the doorstep of Eternity.

I vote for reforming the office of the Man of God!

Finances is onething. Open up the board to one more member. Have this be a junior member to the board. To keep things fresh and not stale.

Nathan Eckstadt

You are right, my intent was not to debate standards.

Thank goodness for that! :heeheehee

One thing I mentioned in my message this morning and which I feel must be done without delay is that pastors must reclaim their pulpits for God. They must hear from God and preach the Word without fear or favor instead of what they think the congregation wants to hear.

Sounds good!

The problem is that it has become very hard to build a church that way. We pastors are forced to tiptoe through the tulips so as not to offend anyone. The church has become the most pc place in America.

That's why people say if you're ultra-conservative your church won't be large. People don't want to give up any personal liberties. I personally don't believe being conservative will kill church growth. I just think it adds all sorts of issues mainline denominations don't deal with.

Some choose social acceptance and larger crowds over pulpit freedom. I guess they feel the need to protect their pocketbooks?!

1. I would like to see us effect real reform within our missions structure.

With the modernization of the world, our missions focus needs to be consolidated and streamlined. Home Missions and Foriegn Missions should become "World Missions".

Combine the resources and budget for each area. Let home missionaries raise
funds just like foreign missionaries do. This alone would increase our success rate stateside dramatically.

I hate the way we have missionaries raise money. They have to run around begging for money, then they get on the missions field, and about the time they really get things established, we make them come back statside to do it all over again. I dont know what would be better but there has to be a better way.

I would like to see the UPCI change some things about its structure. It was formed as a minsterial fellowship. we are becoming more and more a stratified denomination.

I for one would like to see the UPCI move back to its roots to some degree. The individual church should be tops and the UPCI more a fellowship of ministers with a lot less hand wringing about what the guy across the continent is doing.

I totally agree. I have heard often that the UPC is just a fellowship of ministers. Try telling that to any of the nationally elected officials.

They view the organization as all-encompassing: churches, pastors, evangelists - the whole enchilada.

On a District level, in some Districts, the Home Missionary can solicit funds. But I have always advocated a PIM approach for Home Missionaries.

I agree that our present process for fund-raising isn't the greatest, but what to do? If people aren't burdened enough to give without all of the running around, presentation of a burden becomes necessary.

I have a friend (missionary to Mexico) whose kids hate the running around part. It embarasses them. They would hate to hear it called begging.

Metro-missionaries only?

I think we should rethink the whole thing. I dont like PIM at all. I think we need to move toward setting up endowments that generate money.

I know this would be massive and I dont think there is a chance in the world of it happening but thats my 2 cents worth.

Well, endowment is my prefered method. second would be to have missionary evangelists working for the ORG that is full time traveling rasing money for Missions dept.

Then set up budgets for each country, let the budget for that country be the rule, then place missionaries where they are fit the budget/fill the need.

this is SUPER simplistic, but it is far better than the current methodology.

Ferd, define endowment please.

I spent 23 years in the UPCI, 8 years as a Missionary, and another 4 years as a District Foreign Missions Director. I have spent 10 years in another organization that is the oldest onesness organization in Canada going back to 1921 and their mindset was just what you are advocating, a fellowship of churches and ministers.

My personal opinion is that in spite of the top heavy aspect of the UPCI it is far better as a centralized focused organization then it would be as just a fellowship of ministers. There is amazing strength to accomplish great things for God when churches and pastors are mobilized by a common cause such as their message, and its missions program.

While a fellowship of ministers and churches sounds great, I don't think it works well in reality. Any group that has followed this path hasn't experienced much growth from what I have observed.

I was District Leader for two years in the group I'm with. During that time the number of churches in our district declined because the only association with ACOP was the pastor. When some churches voted in non ACOP pastors the new pastor tended to fellowship with whatever group he was associated with rather than with us.

I have to say that I never minded deputation when we were missionaries. I found it invigorating and encouraging to be back in North America where I could share my vision and burden in person. We always felt that it was a privilege to spend time with pastors and considered travel a great social and educational experience for our family.

No. The District where I served as HM Secretary actually financially supported Home Missionaries and advocated them raising funds personally.

Or we could simply fulfill the original goal of Foreign Missions. That would be to send a Missionary; let him evangelize; let him then train leadership; let those leaders take over; let the Missionary go somewhere else.

Seems we have a US political approach tro Foreign works. "They can't survive without us." Reckon we may never know.

That's how it should be. Do the funds filter through the district, or go straight to the missionary?

Great post TB. Thanks for an "inside" perspective.

OUCHEEEWOWOW! :beatdeadhorse

So true. I just wasn't brave enough to say it. :ty

Like colleges do. you put money in a fund and use the intrest gained. all new money goes into the fund thus year by year the amount you can use grows as well.

you can invest the funds in many different ways from real estate to Tbills. The arguement against it is it turns the church into a business. but we are competing with everyone else and they have hospitals and universities (real ones)

Obviously it was preferred that they went through the District as far as individual support. There was no deduction from what was sent. 100% went to the Missionary.

Also, the percentage of CFC that stayed in the District was used primarily to support Home Missionaries. At one time we had 4 or 5 men receiving between $400-$1200 per month for a year at a time. After that year they could re-apply for further support.

The ONLY way this would be successful is to let someone OUTSIDE of the UPCI handle the investments. We do not need to do this in-house.

We have a Stewardship department. Is this something you would advocate they handle?

my assumptions may be completely wrong. thanks for the balance.

For the UPCI to be more conneted and to opporate as a real organziation, we need a "coming to Jesus meeting" we have too many groups with vastly different agendas.

you know we are both talking about taking away someone's toys right?

you might be right. I know just about every other denomination has some form of this in place that works well.

there are lots of issues that would have to be worked out, like who gets to control the money.... but what we are doing has had limited success.

LOL! PP, im a big idea guy. the details would need to be handled by someone else.

NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

In Illinois the support is incredible. I actually received calls asking me to apply for financial aid. When a sister church gave us a huge offering we worked out a deal to filter it through the district.

I am in the process of regifting that money back to the district.

That church made a wise investment and because of it, our church plant survived. Their sacrificial giving made a huge difference.

I often give monies (outside of our mechanisims) to specific home missionaries and foreign missionaries that I feel are hungry and giving it all they've got.

I despise the idea that a man can steal 30-40 saints, open a building up across town, and then fly under the home missions flag. I won't support it.

Why not? :dunno

Isn't that the whole idea of a Stewardship department?

"When I was a child I spake as a child, I understood as a chuild, I thought as a child. But when I became a MAN I put away childish things."

Notice the progression: As a child one speaks without understanding or thinking. In time there may be a modicum of understanding based upon experience and observation but eventually thought develops and then the process should be reversed.

In other words, at maturity one thinks until they understand. Then, and only then, do they speak.

It is time to move beyond the teenage years of Foreign Missions into adulthood. Adults allow other folks to mature and then live on their own with background support only.

It is the idea of course. BUt then again so is good stewardship. I personally would like to see a good track record of monies invested and returns from our Stewardship dept. before such an unudertaking in-house.

I have a feeling that it would actually cost less to let an outside entity handle it. As well as covering the ethical side of the issue.