It Takes A Church...

Leaders Who Tend

tend/tend/ Verb:

1. Regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic:
2. Care for or look after; give one's attention to. In a recent “blog post conversation”

Christianity Today editor Mark Galli and I have been discussing the role of pastor as “chaplain” or “leader” or some kind of combination of both. Mark leans toward chaplain, I insist that we need more leaders in a changing world.

If we were sitting together in a coffee shop, I’d engage him more on some particulars, but mostly we agree on most of the most important things--not the least of which is that the scriptures and the early church is the primary source to which we need to look for guidance.

From following the comments on my blog, FB pages, the CT blog and Internet Monk blog, it is clear that Mark struck one very important nerve that all pastors (whichever model we employ), need to hear: The people we pastor expect us to care about them.

While we may disagree on the particular ways and priority of that care, there is a clear concern by all of us that the “tendency” of pastors is moving away from “tending” the flock. And frankly, for those of us who believe that our role is more about cultivate communities of faith that move more and more into the mission of the Kingdom, this word is even more important for us.

This is especially true of those (like me) who see the need for pastors to function as leaders of a missional communities. For most people, "leader" conjures up images of distant autocrats (even if good and benevolent). Even more, those who embrace the call of leadership are quickly distrusted as ambitious, self-serving and at best, treat their people as mere “pawns” to lead into spiritual battle.

Everybody wants to be connected to a leader who really, tangible and if at all possible personally cares about them.

Mark writes in his most recent response to me: “I think there is a reason the early church, when it thought about what it meant to be a church, put the emphasis on worship, catechesis, and the presbyter/overseer as shepherd and teacher of the flock, not the general of an army.”

While I completely agree that in whatever model we use of pastor our primary tasks are leading in worship, catechesis and teaching, what is interesting to me is how often the metaphor of “shepherd” is used as a rebuttal to the idea of “leader”.

In the Old Testament particularly, shepherds are the biblical metaphor for Israel’s leaders.

Then Moses said to the LORD, “O LORD, you are the God who gives breath to all creatures. Please appoint a new man as leader for the community. Give them someone who will guide them wherever they go and will lead them into battle, so the community of the LORD will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Numbers 27:15-17

This theme continues in the Prophets: Not with a denunciation of “leadership” but instead with a passionate admonition that those who lead be good, fair and especially caring leaders-- leaders after “God’s own heart” (Ezekiel 34, Jeremiah 3); leaders who put the well-being of the people before their own; leaders who are trustworthy and who indeed love the people they serve.

Jesus is, of course, the quintessential Shepherd and Paul demonstrates the depth of this kind of care when he uses an even more intimate metaphor.

But we were gentle among you, like a nurse tenderly caring for her own children.  So deeply do we care for you that we are determined to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you have become very dear to us. (1 Thessalonians 2:7–8)

For Paul, love for the "flock" is expressed by pastors not only through care, but also through teaching and equipping, like parents who “train up” their children in the way they should go:

And you know that we treated each of you as a father treats his own children. We pleaded with you, encouraged you, and urged you to live your lives in a way that God would consider worthy. For he called you to share in his Kingdom and glory. 1 Thessalonians 2:11–12

Indeed, for Jesus  (Mark 10:42-45) and Paul (Ephesians 4:11-13) all Christian leadership (and pastoral leadership in particular), is highly relational with pastors (and others) “equipping the saints” by serving as “ligaments” that connect and strengthen the body (See this series of posts I wrote called “Ligament Lessons”).

But to be sure, for pastors called to "shepherd the flock" (1 Peter 5:2)—just as it was for Christ--that love is for a larger purpose: That the people of God would fulfill the mission of God to the glory of God.

Shepherds don’t just ‘tend’ the sheep, protecting (primarily by teaching), and caring for them, but they also “lead” them.  Jesus, the Good Shepherd, didn’t just heal people because he cared about them (though he clearly did!) but also to reveal the presence of the reign of God, to demonstrate the nature of the Kingdom that he had come to inaugurate and to recruit and train followers in that particular manner that they should carry on his mission.

Previously I have written about the competing values that most pastors have to manage and the complexity of our task today. We are to lead and equip the people of God into the mission of God and to care for each person with the love of tangible embrace of Christ. We are called to offer both love for people just where they are and to call and equip them to be part of the Kingdom mission of Jesus in the world all around them.

From a number of comments on the blog posts, it is clear to me that--while I still see a need for a different kind of pastoral leadership in a changing world, one thing has not changed at all:

People need to experience the love of God as they are led into the mission of God.

And if they do not feel loved, they will likely not let anyone lead them anywhere.

Defining Leadership...

 

 

This little riff, produced by the good folks at The High Calling, is my take on leadership as learned from Ronald Heifetz, Peter Block and Abraham Kuyper...

Canoeing the Mountains: Leadership in Times of Change

I was invited to give a break out session on Leadership at the recent Fellowship of Presbyterians event in Minneapolis.  Here is the link to the slides for those who are interested.  Thanks to all who attended and for the generous feedback afterward.

Download Canoeing the Mountains_Leading Through Adaptive Change_Fellowship PCUSA Gathering

For more information on our work with churches at TAG Consulting, including the opportunity to take a free church snapshot, click here.

For links to the books I referenced in my presentation, see the Leader's Library at right.

For those who would like to take part in the discussion  and follow the work of our Middle Governing Body Commission, these links will help.

Facebook MGB Commission Discussion Group

PCUSA MGB Commission Website

You can also follow me on twitter @todbol or friend me on Facebook.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #5 #mgbcomm

Welcome to the fifth Observation from the balcony that is our particular place as the Middle Governing Body Commission.  (For the previous four Observations click here to begin with the first.)  While the votes on the amendments, an ongoing discussion about the Fellowship PCUSA and the NEXT Church conversations and well, frankly and very gladly, the onset of Lent are in the center of most of our thoughts, I want to offer an observation that is almost a continuation of the last and a precursor of my next.  Think of this as a corollary of Observation #4 (“We don’t have to develop any models, we only have to discover the models that are already out there”) and a bit of priming the pump for what I believe may be the most significant issue that needs to be discussed. (Yes, that's a tease for next week...)

This present observation is meant to once again focus our attention on what we believe is the work of the Spirit in the church, a work that calls for our commission to be as much about discernment as we are about “developing” anything. 

Observation #5: “The future is already here, but it is on the margins.”  

I don’t know who said it first but I remember who said it to me.  He was a Korean-American church planter who had moved his whole family across the country to plant a multi-ethnic congregation in Orange County.  That line about future and margins stuck in my brain.  Here was a guy with no money, no denominational backing, no big school credentials, no office, no buildings, no paid staff, planting a church that literally had to move to a different location every time they met for worship.  In the wild consumer-driven, user-friendly mecca of south Orange County California, he was starting a church that required people to go to a website and find the location where the church was meeting that week!  As I listened to him I marveled.  I was the pastor of an established congregation that was on prime real estate in a very desirable and growing community.  At the time we were dedicated to being as “user-friendly” and even “seeker-friendly” as possible, yet getting people to attend a church that was as convenient and comfortably, accessible and welcoming as we could make it was still a daunting challenge.  Maybe this voice from the margins had something to offer my very “centered” church. (That church is now—years later--internationally respected and is considered a model for what churches of the future could be like.)

I was reminded of this statement while at the NEXT Conference as I listened to another church planter, who said something very similar: New paradigms come from those who live on the margins between different social systems or cultures and bring their practices and insights into the “dead center.”  (I don’t know if he was intentionally making a pun with a bit of a pinch, but I certainly heard it that way.) 

When the center engages the insights from the margins, the center comes alive and moves toward the future.  

Now, while a much broader and more significant conversation needs to keep occurring about who exactly is on the margins, how we insure that all the "voices long-silenced" are heard, and while our Commission is working very hard with the Committee on Representation to avoid missing key voices from the margins who can offer us insights that are being vastly overlooked, this argument about voices from the margins is even more relevant when we are talking about changing organizational structures. 

We are finding that many who would otherwise be considered part of the center experience our very structures as marginalizing. 

In many ways that are NOT all that obvious at first glance that is what the NEXT Church Conference and the Fellowship PC(USA) have in common.  They are odd amalgams of the restless margins of the church and the "dead center" (trying!) to engage in that conversation and bring to the surface a myriad of possibilities that are being overlooked and issues to consider.  The most common and glib tweet about NEXT Church was how much it “looked like the old church” yet there were also 70 seminarians in attendance and a chorus of voices sang out the challenge of broadening and deepening the conversation to those who were missing.  (And by the way, those very same restless and creative seminarians were almost entirely absent from the conversation about Middle Governing Bodies… if there is a subject that feels like “dead center” to them, this must be it to them.) 

And while I know this is likely to draw a howl of protest from some corners of the church, many of the now over 320 signers of the “Fellowship PC(USA)” letter see themselves as on the margins, too, when it comes to discussions about denominational structures. 

(No, I don't really think that many of them would claim to be culturally marginalized.  We Presbyterians by definition are "mainline".  But whether you agree or not, this is a key tenet of Beau Weston’s equally provocative argument in Rebuilding the Presbyterian Establishment.  Many large church pastors I know agreed wholeheartedly with Beau’s description of the marginalization of “tall steeple pastors” in Presbytery structures.  And as critical as some have been toward the PCUSA Fellowship letter it is an attempt by leaders who while feeling themselves marginalized are trying to engage the broad center of the church in a conversation about the future.)

Now, even if you disagree with my descriptors of WHO is on the margin, my observation is that the most creative possibilities are coming from the interaction of those who consider themselves on the “margins” and an open and alive “center”.

Where leaders in power are listening to those who are currently bored, checked out or discouraged and engaging them in the work, there is a sense of anticipation that we are glimpsing something toward which to move.  (Which is why I think the NEXT Church leaders were prescient to work so hard to include the seminarians.)

Where “powerbrokers” and “long time stakeholders” are open to engaging the ideas, models and possibilities of the restless on the fringe, the disconnected in the back pews, those lingering in the narthex of the greater church (or even those heading out the door?) with a desire to learn, new ways of thinking and seeing are possible.  If the margins and the “not-so-dead” center can interact with each other relationally and have theological discussions respectfully, there is possibility for genuine lasting change.

James Davison Hunter wrote about this in To Change the World,

“Change is often initiated outside of the centermost positions. When change is initiated in the center, then it typically comes from outside of the center's nucleus. Wherever innovation begins, it comes as a challenge to the dominant ideas and moral systems defined by the elites who possess the highest levels of symbolic capital.” 

The key point here is that for true lasting “cultural” change to occur (even within an institution) those in the “center” and those “outside of the center” must be engaged in the conversation.  It is the interaction of the margins and the center that creates the new possibilities.

I raise this observation as a way of encouraging hope in the face of our tendency toward cynicism and resistance.  I believe we are in a moment when those in the “center” of the church, including our leaders in Louisville, our theologians and historians, our Moderator and Vice-Moderator, EPs and Synod Execs across the nation, and church leaders from across the theological spectrum are openly looking to engage the ideas and perspectives of those--especially those--who don’t consider themselves in the “center”.  

So, as one who would never have thought that I would be in the center of a denomination-wide discussion about our future and structure, (that may be the subject of another post) I want to continually use these posts to invite conversation and input--especially from those who are outside of my direct sphere of contact. 

Please help me see what you see on at your outpost on the frontier of the future.   What kinds of structures will serve your mission? 

What do you want our commission to hear? What do we need to see from your perspective?

What kinds of structures do you want us to consider so that we can move toward the future that you are entering ahead of us? 

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #4

Thanks for joining me once more, up on the “observation deck” situated in the balcony over the dance floor that is the PC(USA).  I am writing this on my flight back from the NEXT Conference in Indianapolis and feel a bit disoriented and out of breath from the twirls, spins and moves of a most vibrant and interesting dance.  (Not to mention a tornado that blew me straight to Louisville where I needed to be rescued by friends.)

While the leadership looked a lot (but not entirely) like me (read “Old Church” not “Next Church”) the presence of 70 or so seminarians, a considerable number of GA staff members, Executive Presbyters, Seminary Presidents, the GA Moderator, the author of the “deathly ill” letter and some engaged elders led to a number of interesting conversations that have only affirmed the observations that we have offered so far and especially this fourth one I’d like to offer. 

Here is a quick recap of the Observations that we are finding along the way then on to Observation #4.
Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.
Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

Now:
Observation #4: We don’t have to develop any models, we only have to discover the models that are already out there.

At first glance this may seem like we are neglecting our charge as a Commission.  Indeed, right after it says that we are to “consult with the church”, it is written: "Thou Shalt Develop Models."  (Okay, it actually says, “The commission will develop models that reflect the roles of middle governing bodies in our polity and the changing context of our witness in the United States and their relationships with other governing bodies.”)  Notice: the verb is “develop.”

But we have had a sense, only confirmed by others who are in the field, that there are already a number of “ways of being” an ordered, connectional, missional church that are “responsive both to the Spirit of Christ and the changing opportunities for discipleship” (again from our Charge).  And that we are more about discovering and discerning the lessons of missional faithfulness that are already present than we are trying to “develop” one “silver bullet” solution to denominational entropy.

One of the pastors who attended the conversation on Middle Governing Bodies was Jud Hendrix, a church planter with the Ecclesia Project in Louisville, who after hearing of the approach of the Commission, told me about the book, The Power of Positive Deviance, which I read on the flight home.  It’s a study in adaptive change that suggests that when faced with really huge, seemingly intractable, even “impossible” problems, the best solution is found by looking for and learning from those bright spots who are already beating the odds.  As the authors write: “Positive deviance is founded on the premise that at least one person in a community, working with the same resources as everyone else, has already licked the problem that confounds others.”

They key is NOT to think of this “positive deviant” as a quick fix solution, but instead to learn from them what they might not even know about why they are succeeding when others fail.  In other words, “positive deviants” are those who “get it right” even unconsciously and defy the odds for bringing change.  They are not experts who analyzed, strategized and developed a well-thought out plan with a fail-proof solution, but are “outliers who succeed against all odds”, their solution often being “hidden in plain sight.” 

I quickly realized that this approach is exactly what we are using and finding so fruitful already in the MGB Commission.  We are looking for those places where the Presbyteries and Synods contribute to flourishing growing ministries that are reaching people beyond the usual Presbys-in-the-pew.  We are looking for where the Presbytery meeting is “not deadly dull” but instead beginning to engage people in shared missional collaboration that strengthens both effectiveness and relationships.  We are hearing stories of “Virtual Synods” that have already sold their building so that more money can go into community, building, training and resource development of church leaders.  We found a “middle judicatory” from another denomination that has realigned around a shared commitment to urban church planting instead of geographical boundaries and is thriving so well they are starting to help other denominations (including the PCUSA) plant churches in cities.  We are finding common themes and ideas that are coming from majority-world countries that are growing (if you haven’t heard about the new church development success in the Presbyterian Church in Brazil, you really should) and from Presbyteries in our denomination (yes, really!) who ARE already changing.  In the words of the authors, “What’s working against-all-odds is a breath of fresh air.”

As we go about our “consultation” with the church, we are in the discovery and discernment business more than the development business. To that end, I have three personal thoughts about discovering and discerning models that are already out there. 

 

1.  This is not only a breath of fresh air, but a great source of hope.  God is at work in the church, there are signs of life.  There are green shoots fighting their way toward the light through the dark deep pavement of an old regulatory system that is stifling creativity with both rules and personal resistance. Some of that is in the restlessness and even critique found in the Tweeters at NEXT Church.  Others “green shoots” are found in the collaborative experiments that are being drawn up on napkins during conversations amongst church leaders.  Still others are found as people begin to rethink traditional "boundaries" and relate to each other in new ways for the sake of mission.  Maybe in a post-modern world form follows function-in-relationship.  
   
   
2. Positive Deviants are no guarantee for widespread change.  Whether you object to the characterization of the denomination as “deathly ill” or think that instead this a God-given “exile” to teach us some collective lesson, or that we are still mid-Phyllis Tickle-like “rummage sale” and eventually we’ll figure this, or instead think that the church is just fine because “We’ve got Spirit, yes we do!”  the fact of the matter is that the church is collectively finally aware  something needs to change.  We have to acknowledge the Positive Deviants as “deviants” that are exceptions to the “rule” of decline, discouragement and disengagement and we have to resist our own tendency to defensiveness and rationalization and our personal "immunity to change" that keeps us stuck in old, unfruitful ways.
   
   
3. Once we discover, we have some discerning to do, too. Perhaps the most important part of our charge is not a word, but a single letter.  It’s the “s” on the end of “models”.  Models. Plural.  We are not going to come up with ONE “silver bullet” model that we will seek to impose upon the church in some top-down regulatory fashion.  We might not end up thinking in terms of “models” at all, but perhaps “illustrations.”  Instead as we acknowledge that the church is in need of change AND there are positive deviants out there inviting us to learn alongside them, we are discovering not just models but truths.  We are discovering real possibilities for being the church together that will challenge our assumptions, cause us to seek changes in the constitution to eliminate obstacles and hopefully, even prayerfully, lead to renewal in our congregations, in our communities, and in our lives. 

In the meantime, know of any “positive deviants”?  If so, let us know so we can learn from them.

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #3

In this third post from the MGB Comm Observation Deck, I want to make an observation about our church’s theological conversation.  It’s an observation about a technical term that is becoming both very helpful and at times quite frustrating.  It’s the word, “missional”. 

From the New Form of Government to the PCUSA Fellowship Letter, from the vision statement of almost every Presbytery to the video podcasts from our Stated Clerk, from Presbyterian Global Fellowship to the NEXT conference, everybody is talking about the church being “missional”.  But this is our third observation:

Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

To recap what we have observed from the “balcony” so far:

Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.

And now, Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

While the idea of the “missional church” is very engaging and at the center of the church conversation in very interesting and inspiring ways, there is not widespread agreement on what “missional” means.  For some it is a way of saying “global mission” with a catchy new label. For others it is a way of saying something about “urban ministry” or “local mission” (instead of just writing checks to missionaries), for others it’s a reframe for service projects in local communities. For, still others, it seems like the newest fad or catchy theological trend. 

So while, we (mostly) all believe the church is to be missional, but we don’t all agree, or maybe even understand what we are saying by using the term. Indeed, a significant part of the “missional conversation” is a conversation about definition.   Since this is an observation, I won’t offer my own, but instead want to suggest two very basic “missional” concepts where I believe we do have (or at least should have) widespread agreement  And allow me to do so by way of quotation and stipulation.

First quotation:
“Mission determines the forms and structures needed for the church to do its work.” Nfog G-3.0106
 “The congregation is the church engaged in mission in its particular context…The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a sufficient form of the church.” Nfog G-1.0101

In a court of law, when two sides want to agree on a fact and move on to another point of contention, they make a stipulation. They concede one point to address another.  And in essence I want to ask:  Can we agree on these two points so that we may begin to move on to others that are in need of further consideration?

•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

In one sense these points should be easy to agree upon.  They are from our New Form of Government and both express thoughts from the current Form of Government.  But before assuming that we are all in agreement (the Nfog is, of course, up for debate), I’d like to ask:

First, do we agree that MISSION, specifically, the Mission of the Triune God expressed for the whole world determines the forms and structures of the church? It’s first God’s mission, not ours.  It’s first God’s mission, not the church’s, not the denomination, not even the individual Christian.  The Mission of God revealed in Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to redeem and renew all of creation determines our structure.  Can we agree on that?  Do we also agree that when the MGB Commission considers “models” from Middle Governing bodies, the primary consideration should be whether the proposed structures further the Mission of the Triune God in the world today and not any political, personal, institutional, traditional, historical, organizational, economic or societal aim?  Can we stipulate this?

Second, do we agree that the congregation IS the basic form of mission, and thereby the basic form of church?  Do we agree that the congregation in its particular contexts is the foundational and primary place where the MISSION of GOD engages the need of the world?  The congregation (and not the denomination nor the individual) is the foundational, first line engagement of God to the world. 

Third, do we also agree at the very same time, that the congregation in and of itself is NOT sufficient as the church?  That in order to fulfill the mission of God, we need more than congregations?  We need forms and structures of SOME kind beyond the congregation. We need them to witness to the unity of the church, to engage in mission in ways that are beyond the scope or ability of a local congregation, for discernment, for learning, for leadership development and calling and perhaps a few other things that support and strengthen the mission of the congregation.

So, once again, here are the first two stipulations: What do you think?
•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

Now, frankly, I want to caution us all not to agree too quickly (Oh, who am I kidding? We are Presbyterians.  We don’t agree quickly on anything!).  And this is where we need some good thoughtful theological critique. This is where I want to pause and take an extra moment or two.  Do we all realize what we would be stipulating?

• As I see it, we would be agreeing that any structure or form of church BEYOND the congregation must serve and further the mission of the congregation in a local, particular context.  The congregation does not serve the mission of the presbytery, the synod or the denomination, but the reverse.  Indeed, the mission of GOD in the world is discerned and expressed in and through the congregation.  And any structure that we use beyond the congregation must be understood by its value to the congregation.
• As I see it, we would also be agreeing that neither the denomination nor the individual is the basic expression of mission.  The local covenant community of Jesus-followers living as a witness in its context (however that is structured) is primary.  Now, to be sure, individual believers are called to live and serve the mission of Jesus. But the cornerstone of missional thinking is the primacy of the community as the agent of Christ’s mission for world. 
  
  Do we agree that the congregation does NOT exist for the “mission” of its individual members but that individual Christians and the denominational structures are called to live out their callings within a local context and as part of the body of Christ in mission together?  Can we agree on this, too? (This one may be more difficult for most of us, so steeped in the individualism of enlightenment modernity or expressive post-modernity….But I have written a bit about this before--shameless plug here.) 

Okay, another observation, two stipulations and hopefully a more robust conversation.  What do you think?

Change vs. Transition

With thanks to Rhett Smith for the Facebook Note that he wrote that contained this gem.

In the book, Transitions: Making Sense of Life’s Changes, William Bridges differentiates the two very nicely:

"Our society confuses them constantly, leading us to imagine that transition is just another word for change. But it isn’t. Change is your move to a new city or your shift to a new job. It is the birth of your new baby or the death of your father. It is the switch from the old health plan at work to a new one, or the replacement of your manager by a new one, or it is the acquisition that your company just made.

"In other words, change is situational. Transition on the other hand, is psychological (bold added for emphasis). It is not those events, but rather the inner reorientation and self-redefinition that you have to go through in order to incorporate any of those changes into your life. Without a transition, a change is just a rearrangement of the furniture. Unless transition happens, the change won’t work, because it doesn’t ‘take.’ Whatever word we use, our society talks a lot about change; but it seldom deals with transition. Unfortunately for us, it is the transition that blind-sides us and is often the source of our troubles."

Goal for Presbyterians too? #MGBcomm

Better pastors. Healthier churches. Less bureaucracy.

via www.usatoday.com

An article from USA Today looks at the lack of effective leadership that is leading to the Methodist's church decline. Shouldn't the MGB Commission have no less a goal.

Other key quotes:

"(The denomination) is growingly irrelevant to the culture."

"...healthy local congregations are crucial."

"The congregation is the central focus. Everything we do as a church, it is all in support in creating vital congregations."

"We can't operate under the model of, 'We'll create great programs and have a great facility and people will come to us.'"

 

 

 

 

Brian McClaren on The Future of the Mainline Church

From a video interview with Gradye Parsons, Stated Clerk of the PCUSA.  #MGBComm

"One of the most important behaviors and practices (for mainline congregations in this huge cultural shift)…is to encourage the development of new congregations that are different--creative new congregations…focused not on competing with existing congregations for a share of the religious market… but on the 'spiritual but not religious.' How do we help those people rediscover a vibrant faith in Christ and a life-transforming community of faith?  Those new communities is where the future is.”

 

Faith Amidst Trials: A Word of Encouragement for Church Leaders I Know

"Faith untried may be true faith, but it is sure to be little faith, and it is likely to remain dwarfish so long as it is without trials. Faith never prospers so well as when all things are against her: tempests are her trainers, and lightnings are her illuminators. When a calm reigns on the sea, spread the sails as you will, the ship moves not to its harbour; for on a slumbering ocean the keel sleeps too. Let the winds rush howling forth, and let the waters lift up themselves, then, though the vessel may rock, and her deck may be washed with waves, and her mast may creak under the pressure of the full and swelling sail, it is then that she makes headway towards her desired haven. No flowers wear so lovely a blue as those which grow at the foot of the frozen glacier; no stars gleam so brightly as those which glisten in the polar sky; no water tastes so sweet as that which springs amid the desert sand; and no faith is so precious as that which lives and triumphs in adversity. Tried faith brings experience. You could not have believed your own weakness had you not been compelled to pass through the rivers; and you would never have known God’s strength had you not been supported amid the water-floods. Faith increases in solidity, assurance, and intensity, the more it is exercised with tribulation. Faith is precious, and its trial is precious too."

Spurgeon, C. H. (2006). Morning and evening : Daily readings (Complete and unabridged; New modern edition.). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.