Conversation
I feel like I spent most of my day today in conversation. Which is in one sense satisfying (for me, anyway) but in another sense deeply frustrating - especially when it means getting to 10 o'clock at night and still laboriously be working my way through the task that was put aside for talk. The task is tediously going through over 200 emails with seminar recommendations. It's not a very interesting blog topic though.
Talk #1: Spiritual authority & organizational authority - what's the connection between them? What should it be? I had the opportunity to talk with Alec Hill, IV President, and another woman on my team. We discussed this topic, among other things. It's been a growing question for me in relation to prayer in our movement. I am on what we call the "intercession team" for our national office - but I struggle with the gap between this more-or-less ad hoc, self-appointed committee and the leadership of the organization we're praying on behalf of. It was good to talk about - especially with Alec.
Talk #2: Protecting those we teach. Hmmmmm - this is harder to describe. In short... hmmm. What's the line between giving people - students - too much information which will only confuse them, (at best, and perhaps do the opposite of good teaching and foster ignorance or false belief rather than wisdom) and on the other hand not being paternalistic, or worse, in witholding information and refusing to expose people to broader ideas. The specifics in this case are the views of Walter Wink on "Powers & Authorities" (which those planning Ephesians bible study for Urbana happen to agree with) and his views on homosexuality and biblical inerrancy(which a large majority in IV would disagree with). Do we refuse to reference his books on the former because it might lead people to ask questions about the latter? Do we ask others who want to reference his books not to? (Quick & crass summary... please excuse!)
Talk #3: "Informants" as victims. A good friend who used to live in the former Soviet Union stopped by and ended up staying for dinner. We talked about a whole host of fascinating things. One of them was how sad it is for... never mind. Don't know how to explain. Ask me in person. Very sad.
Talk #4: (I notice my energy for describing these conversations is quickly waning. Perhaps your energy for reading them as well.) Talk 4 was an extension of talk 3 - and ranged into talks 5-8. About the unsustainability of fund-raising models of ministry outside of the western world. About having skills to offer which society "at-large" deem useful and credible. About baptism and salvation; about sexuality and salvation. About... well, I forget it all now, but it was terribly interesting. You'll just have to take my word for it.
So I'm all talked out for today. But I still have about 70 emails to go through.
I will be ready to talk again tomorrow, if anyone else would like to drop by for dinner!
Talk #1: Spiritual authority & organizational authority - what's the connection between them? What should it be? I had the opportunity to talk with Alec Hill, IV President, and another woman on my team. We discussed this topic, among other things. It's been a growing question for me in relation to prayer in our movement. I am on what we call the "intercession team" for our national office - but I struggle with the gap between this more-or-less ad hoc, self-appointed committee and the leadership of the organization we're praying on behalf of. It was good to talk about - especially with Alec.
Talk #2: Protecting those we teach. Hmmmmm - this is harder to describe. In short... hmmm. What's the line between giving people - students - too much information which will only confuse them, (at best, and perhaps do the opposite of good teaching and foster ignorance or false belief rather than wisdom) and on the other hand not being paternalistic, or worse, in witholding information and refusing to expose people to broader ideas. The specifics in this case are the views of Walter Wink on "Powers & Authorities" (which those planning Ephesians bible study for Urbana happen to agree with) and his views on homosexuality and biblical inerrancy(which a large majority in IV would disagree with). Do we refuse to reference his books on the former because it might lead people to ask questions about the latter? Do we ask others who want to reference his books not to? (Quick & crass summary... please excuse!)
Talk #3: "Informants" as victims. A good friend who used to live in the former Soviet Union stopped by and ended up staying for dinner. We talked about a whole host of fascinating things. One of them was how sad it is for... never mind. Don't know how to explain. Ask me in person. Very sad.
Talk #4: (I notice my energy for describing these conversations is quickly waning. Perhaps your energy for reading them as well.) Talk 4 was an extension of talk 3 - and ranged into talks 5-8. About the unsustainability of fund-raising models of ministry outside of the western world. About having skills to offer which society "at-large" deem useful and credible. About baptism and salvation; about sexuality and salvation. About... well, I forget it all now, but it was terribly interesting. You'll just have to take my word for it.
So I'm all talked out for today. But I still have about 70 emails to go through.
I will be ready to talk again tomorrow, if anyone else would like to drop by for dinner!
posted by Lucy at 7:23 PM
<< Home