"To better its chances, the special operation may have to work extremely fast, lunging straight at the heart of power; or it may require mind-numbing patience as its warriors embed themselves in a hostile city for months" (Leebaert.  To Dare & To Conquer, p. 23).

When I'm thinking of a church, I sense that this is really important.  I think there is a big challenge on either side of this issue.  If we're sensing that God wants us to strike quickly and that timing is the critical issue, then we're facing the fear of the uncertain.  If we're getting the sense that God wants us to wait, then obviously our issue is patience.

I'm going through a bit of both at this moment.  We (for the second time) moved the whole family in pursuit of what we sensed God calling us to do.  We did not have a clear picture of "what" that was or how we would pay our bills, but we felt like God was saying, "NOW!"  So we went for it.  Now we're one month into a church plant and still dealing with the uncertain.  It's not quite clear how this will all work out (and will it ever be?), but a picture is starting to form.

Most of all, this experience has been teaching me who I am and who I am not in the kingdom, at this point in my development.  I'm starting to see things that were previously very unclear.  God is speaking to me, I think.  Ideas for how to go about raising the dead and reaching my generation are beginning to form.  Now the challenge is waiting and listening for the When.  And I'm discovering that this is harder for me than striking quickly.

Not having any ideas but a raw willingness to do "whatever" is turning out to be a bit more bearable than feeling like I know what I want to do and not sensing the spiritual green light to go for it.  I've written before about patience as Spiritual power to control our thougths, desires and emotions during times of stress.  Those lessons are becoming so real as I attempt to live them out.  My hope is that God is doing things behind the scenes, both in my life and in the "field" to which He's calling us.  There are some great promises to those willing to wait:

Isaiah 64:4 (NKJV) "For since the beginning of the world Men have not heard nor perceived by the ear, Nor has the eye seen any God besides You, Who acts for the one who waits for Him" (I added the emphasis).

Hey!  I changed the look and name on this site?  What gives?  Like most significant, spiritual breakthroughs in my life, I got a thought while getting out of the shower.  It boils down to this:  I don't want to put an obstacle in the way of someone who might be touched or blessed by what we (I say "we" because your comments truly shape this site) write on this site.  Anyone who spends any time here realizes that there is no, "We need to shoot missles at the devil!" nonsense, but why even give off the stink of it?

I've long since quit the notion that everything I write must draw upon some military parallel, so the name at the top of the page no longer matched the full content.  Of course, this message is still in my heart and I'll still be advancing the military special operations parable whenever I sense the inspiration.

As far as the organization, The Special Forces Group, is concerned - we're still alive and well.  If this is the first you're reading about it, click this link to check it out.  You can still get here using, www.thespecialforcesgroup.com for the next 90 days or so, but as of now the official site URL is www.scottbane.com.

I'm blessed by the connection we share through this site.  Peace.

"Across all the years where we can document them, the warriors who compose a special force are likely to be those most deemed capable of independent initiative without orders" (Leebaert, To Dare & To Conquer p. 31).

I can envision a spiritual community where this sort of independent initiative is normative.  People simply share the life of Jesus that lives within them because they want to.  But for the most part, we're not there yet. 

There were some great insights on the comment section of the last post about what we really need to do church.  In one comment, my friend Lisa wrote:

The church building and service should not seem like an exclusive club, but it's sad that most of the time it does. I guess that's my ideal. That's is what I want from the "church". Teach me to live justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, and then send me out with blessings (and the trust) that I will share Him with my life.

Jesus talked about both being His disciple and making new disciples.  Whether it is "supposed to be" or not, church is for Christians.  Very rarely do people that do not already believe ever find reason to go to church.  They've been exposed to and offered church their whole lives and have consistenly turned it down.  So in that sense, church is a gathering of believers.  What I get most concerned about is what Lisa mentions as the sad reality in the majority of those gatherings - they get exclusive.  The group becomes so Teflonized, as my friend Charlie says, that no one not already a part has a chance of sticking.  I think we're looking for something other than just a great place of Christians to enjoy one another and worship God.  If that's all we needed for evangelism to start happening naturally, it would have happened a thousand times over by now.  But it has not.  People still, in general, do not participate in evangelism.

Surely there are lots of reasons for this, but I think one of the roots is a failure in the disciple making process.  It seems clear that to Jesus, being His disciple meant actively making other disciples, yet we have separated the functions.  We have the stuff we do "for us" and then if we're in the mood for it, we put on a little evangelism program.  If our disciple being process includes teaching, training and regular practice at disciple making, then evangelism begins to form in our groups at the DNA level.  So to me, churches are about evangelism in the sense that all of the new conversions that have happened "out in the streets" need a place to gather where they too can be disciple-making disciples.

So let me quote Lisa one more time:  "Teach me to live justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with God, and then send me out with blessings (and the trust) that I will share Him with my life."  This is so good.  I think with some changes to the "system," we can do this. 

So my next question is:  What changes need to be made in order for you to receive the trust and freedom you need to start sharing Him with your life?

"The special operation is not defined by size... What prevails is the 'Commando idea,' as Churchill called it - of guile unified with fortitude and imagination" (Leebaert, To Dare & To Conquer p. 22).

Every move we make and every change we pursue in building the community of believers (called a local church) is in pursuit of God's leading and God's Spiritual power.  That's what I believe.  I am very interested in reading and thinking about "new" ways of doing church, but I am not interested in building the next cool church or having the funniest little video clips or the hottest worship sound on the scene.  Are lives being changed?

I've been looking into what causes a church community to get off track.  Many churches I know get formed with the idea of pursuing God's Spirit but then shift focus to maintaining the organization.  What happens?  Looking again at this fantastic book that brings me so much inspiration, To Dare & To Conquer,  I think that churches get caught in a trap of having to pay the bills and keep the "staff" afloat.  It's very difficult to stay on mission when you have to make payroll or you have to pay the mortgage.  So many churches that I have had the opportunity to work with or witness up close clutter themselves with so much unnecessary fluff that it's no wonder they cease to be effective at reaching people.  What does it really take to have a church?  When planning a military special operation, there is immense pressure to drill down to the essential.  They can do this because the overwhelming attitude within that culture is the dogged pursuit of effectiveness and efficiency.

I would love to see what could happen if a group of believers formed around this same, "Commando idea."  What do we really need to do what we need to do?  And let everything else pass away.

What do you think we must have in order to have a church - I'm interested in your perspective. 

"The special operation keeps testing the limits of familiar procedure - its own side's and the other's" (Leebaert, p. 21).

I've been reading quite a bit and thinking even more about what I envision for a church.  I'm involved in a church plant right now and we're doing things differently to some degree, but for the most part it is church as usual.  I'm so ready for something different, but I'm also very concerned about how we get there.

Inspiration continues to flow through this book I'm reading, To Dare & To Conquer.  Special operations often evolved out of irregular problems that conventional military units do not have the ability to address.  From my reading, there are a lot of people looking at the American church with the same mind - these familiar methods of "doing church" are not meeting the needs like they used to (if they every really did).  There are plenty of books out to criticize and challenge the effectiveness of church methods and even some that outright reject the idea of having any kind of "church" as you and I would define it.  What is coming of all these opinions?

I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts together on this concept of doing church differently.  The ideas are everywhere but channeling them and making them readable is difficult.  There are certainly many ways to build and sustain a spiritual community.  I don't think we're in search of the right way.  However, I do not believe that any way will work.  This is part of what Paul imposes his apostolic authority to correct in Corinth.  People were doing just about whatever they wanted to do and calling it a fellowship of believers.  So Paul writes to them with instructions like, "Eat dinner at home.  Don't come to church and gorge yourself, calling it the Lord's table."

So some Corinthians had their opinion of how church should be done.  Paul tells them they can't do things that way and call it a meeting of God's house.  Instead of changing, the Corinthians begin to express their opinion about Paul and his apostleship.  Who did he think he was to tell them how they would put on their Christian community?  What makes Paul think he can tell them how many people are allowed to prophesy or speak out in church?  This is the "spirit of this age," if you ask me.  We're in the age of opinions, and no one is allowed to challenge the opinion of anyone else.  Sure, we can "dialog" about it - we can have conversations but no one is going to change his opinion.

We just don't have an apostle available to put the foolishness to rest.  When Paul's authenticity as an apostolic leader was called into question, he wrote back to the Corinthians and seems to be doing his best to give them the benefit of the doubt.  His letter has the tone of, "maybe you haven't heard some of these things about me..."  But toward the end of his letter, Paul declares that all the signs, wonders, miracles and authority of an apostle had been demonstrated among them.  Paul had legitimate power through God's Spirit.  He had the authority to put an end to the droning on of the opinions of the opinionated because his message was not composed of the enticing words of men's wisdom, but of the demonstration of the Spirit and power.

As a church, we need to be testing the limits of familiar.  We need to be willing to take risks and bear criticism for the sake of getting on board with something fruitful.  But the pursuit is toward a demonstration of the Spirit and power.  I'm not looking for the next really cool church.  I have no intention of being part of something void of God's power.  How can we call it a spiritual community without the power?