1000th Blogpost

This is my 1000th post. My first post was written exactly 8 years ago today.  This works out to one markerpost every 2.9 days. Why do that?  Madness? Possibly. But at risk of bing a wee bit schmaltzy— it may be LOVE.

Of course, love is a very sloppy term. Two quotes kind of come together to embrace the idea. One seems to be an anonymous quote:

Quote #1.

“Find three hobbies you love: One to make you money, one to keep you in shape, and one to be creative.”

I have not found one to make money or to keep me in shape… but doing 1000 posts is something I love and  has certainly helped me work on that whole creativity thing.

The theory that anything you do enough of will slowly make you get better at, reminds me of an old Dick Tracy cartoon where there was a bad guy who had pressed his finger against an anvil 1,000,000 times. That act made his finger (or maybe thumb?) a deadly weapon— a skull crusher. I may not be a great thinker or writer, but then I have only done 1,000 posts. By the time I reach one million, I am sure I will be SIMPLY AWESOME. Based on my present production rate, I will achieve that in 7, 992 years. Standby.

Quote #2.

The second quote from end of Buscaglia’s book, “Love,” (Fawcett Publishing, 1972, page 205):

The most human thing we have to do in life is to learn to speak our honest convictions and feelings and live with the consequences. This is the first requirement of love, and it makes us vulnerable to other people who may ridicule us. But our vulnerability is the only thing we can give to other people.    -Father William Du Bay

That is true for blogging as well certainly.

I average about 1000 hits per month. That is not awesome. One of my favorite bloggers gets around 350,000 hits per month (but he does really have great posts). But this is my ministerial and spiritual journey, so anyone who takes the time to take a quick peak at that is welcome. And if you wish to stay a little longer, or even comment, or LIKE (or DISLIKE) feel free to do so.

Thanks for stopping by.

 


		
Advertisements

Making Little Ones Stumble

My children went to a Christian school in middle and high school. Overall, it was probably a good experience for them. In their previous school, also a Christian school, they were bullied for being “foreign.” But the school they transferred to was multi-ethnic and multi-national. They fit in quite well.

The school genuinely sought to integrate Christian instruction with more national and international educational objectives. They would have spiritual emphasis week. They would have weekly chapel services and  some Bible training as part of the curriculum.

One year, my wife and I and some friends led Spiritual Emphasis week. We THINK it went well (hard to tell, really). On a few occasions I spoke at their weekly chapel services. Again, they went well enough I suppose. Some friends of mine also spoke there and taught there and did chaplaincy work as well.

But one year that stopped. A nearby church took over the spiritual instruction of the school. The church was one that I was familiar with… one that I guess I would describe as theologically “sketchy.”

As was relayed to me by a few students, the year was strange. Here are a few comments…

  • Dogmatic and ‘Preachy.’ They were quite committed to pushing a very targeted dogma and did not help students explore issues of faith. One incident was rather interesting. They were explaining how all other religions were wrong. When they got to Buddhism, they said it was from the devil because it was all about how to get rich. It is true that some of the versions of Mahayana Buddhism as it is practiced especially in some predominantly Chinese regions does place of lot of focus on good luck and prosperity. However, “orthodox” Buddhism rejects focus on materialism and on desire. It seemed like they were simply taking a caricature of one form of Buddhism and using it as a strawman. (Strangely, I had always thought that the church in question was a “prosperity gospel” church. I hope I am wrong, rather than them being hypocritical). Since more than half of the students came from places with a large Buddhist population, that particular lesson taught the students that the trainers were not reliable.
  • Anger.   Students noted some members getting angry at the students in the spiritual training. I am somewhat sympathetic. It is easy to get frustrated and angry at teenagers. However, apparently the anger stemmed from the students not responding to the worship in a way that they liked. Apparently, the students were supposed to groove to the worship kind of like how people do on worship concert videos.
  • Blame.  Near the end of the year, one of the teachers from that church got angry again at the students and blamed the children for spoiling or destroying THEIR destiny. “Their” in this case meant the trainers. I am hoping the students heard this wrong because it is just to immature for words. Seemingly, they believed they would come in at the begining of the year and train and come out with a school full of students who have been turned onto their beliefs and style. I understandhoping this would happen, but people who pick their own destinies commonly are really picking their own disappointments.
  • Not itching where it scratched. The big issue however, was that the trainers “did not itch where it scratched.” They talked about the things that were really important to the trainers, not what was really important to the students.

Most of the students were nominal Christians or immature Christians. They were raised with a globalistic, pluralistic perspective, and this background left many of them confused about what they believe and how they should live their lives. The students needed help, not just another person with limited perspective preaching at them. The spiritual training actually shifted a lot of students from, loosely speaking, Christian, to Agnostic. some even became interested in other religions. (When annoying people say something is bad, that something becomes more appealing.)

Actually, I don’t really blame the church. I don’t expect a church to be competent to train teenagers who have already become rather disillusioned by religion. But the school should have known better. The leadership of the school had no denominational or theological affiliation with that church. They said YES to the church helping simply because it made their own lives easier, not having to develop a spiritual formation curriculum or a set of trainers themselves.

This story is a caution to me. I have seen many a teacher/trainer who has led people astray. Sometimes it is with bad example, but often it is just by making the Gospel so unappealing, that a different ‘gospel’ looks better… or even no gospel at all.

This story also reminds me of two passages of Scripture, and they serve as a caution to me:

And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.  -Matthew 18:5-6

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.  James 3:1

What to Do with the Unresponsive?

unresponsiveOne of my students is writing on the mission work of Paul as it may provide insight to his ministerial context. Describing the targets of Paul’s work, my student described three groups. First, he noted that Paul reached out to Jews. He would go to the synagogue and share Jesus as Messiah, Lord, and Savior. Paul would present Jesus through the Hebrew Bible. Second, Paul would reach out to Gentiles. These would include both the God-fearers, who he may find in the synagogues, and others that might be labeled as pagans. The presentation of the Gospel for the Gentiles starts out from Creation and a benevolent God, rather than Hebrew Scripture, and Israel’s redemptive history.

But then my student added a third group. That was the Responsive. I felt that was redundant. If one wanted to speak of three groups, one could choose Jews, God-fearers, and Pagans. But as I read, I could see why it made sense. My student was following the thought of Roland Allen, that a key to Paul was not just in who he targeted, but also who he did not target. Paul did not focus on those who were not (fairly quickly found) responsive. Not everyone would feel that way. One of the books we read for Evangelism class was nice in many ways, but the writer promoted a “don’t take NO as an answer” attitude.

My student quoted a passage from Roland Allen’s classic “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?” (p. 75 of the 1962 printing by Eerdmans)”:

The possibility of rejection was ever present. St. Paul did not establish himself in a place  and go on preaching for years to men who refused to act on his teaching. When once he had brought them to a point where decision was clear, he demanded that they should make their choice. If they rejected him, he rejected them. The ‘shaking of the lap,’ the ‘shaking of the dust from the feet,’ the refusal to teach those who refused to act on the teaching, was a vital part of the Pauline presentation of the Gospel. He did not simply go away,’ he openly rejected those who showed themselves unworthy of his teaching. It was part of the Gospel that men might ‘judge themselves unworthy of eternal life.’ It is a question which needs serious consideration whether the Gospel can be truly presented if this element is left out. Can there be a true teaching which does not involve the refusal to go on teaching? The teaching of the Gospel is not a mere intellectual instruction: it is a moral process, and involves a moral response. If then we go on teaching where that moral response is refused, we cease to preach the Gospel; we make the teaching a mere education of the intellect.

I wouldn’t say it is strongly as Allen, and I am not sure that Paul would either. Most adults who convert to Christianity, in the US at least, do not do so on the initial presentation. Still, there is an underlying truth that is worth dwelling on.

There is a similarity between Paul’s strategy and Jesus’ strategy in Luke 10. Jesus sent out his disciples to different villages 2 by 2. They would minister in different villages. If people were responsive, Jesus would come there for more ministry. If the people were not responsive, the disciples were to shake the dust of the village from their feet (taking nothing, not even dust). They would then go onto the next village. The 12 were sent out on one occasion and they were to focus on Jewish villages. On a different occasion 70 (or 72) were sent out with no constraints. As far as we know, they went to all — Jewish, Samaritan, and Pagan villages. We know that Jesus prioritized Jews, and yet reached out to Samaritan and Gentile communities as well.

In missions there has been an argument as to who should be targeted.  Should one target the hardest soils or the easiest soils? Some would say that one should reach the easiest soils. If people are coming to Christ, if the Spirit appears to be working in a place, then we should be putting our efforts there. Others would say that we need to target the hardest soils, the UPGs (unreached people groups). We need to reach everyone and especially those who have not been reached because they are difficult.

Perhaps with Jesus and Paul, we see a FAIRLY OBVIOUS synthesis:

  • Share the message with everyone
  • Focus on those who respond

One could argue that is a reasonable lesson from the Parable of the Four Soils. Some soil is going to be productive, while some soils mostly won’t. But the sower doesn’t decide that. He spreads the seeds everywhere and then tends what grows.

William Carnegie and the Question of the Compassion

Teaching about William Carey and his arguments with some members of the Particularist Baptists regarding “the use of means to evangelize the heathen” reminded me of the story of another William. He is William Carnegie, the father of 19th century industrialist Andrew Carnegie. According to the story, William was attending a local Secessionist Presbyterian Church (in Scotland) and the sermon was on Infant Damnation. In that sermon the fiery preacher gave an equally fiery account of infants, those who died as babies who were not predestined for heaven, screaming in the torments of hellfire. William was horrified by the message. According to the story, he stood up in the middle of the sermon and said loudly, “If that be your religion, and that be your God, I shall seek a better religion and a nobler God.” (J. F. Wall, “Andrew Carnegie,” p. 34)

One could argue that William Carnegie’s complaint was three-fold.

1. He was bothered by a religion that would have as one of its doctrinees that innocent babies would burn for ever in torment because they were, for practical purposes, chosen for hell regardless of their potential merits or sins. Why would we set up a religion to teach that— especially since the Bible doesn’t actually say this… though some belief that it is a logical conclusion based on some verses?

2. He was bothered in what this teaching said about their God. Their God was fickle and sadistic, choosing to create some people with the irresistible end of blessing them for ever, and choosing to create others with the irresistible end of eternal torment. Is this compatible with a God who St. John said was best understood with the term “Love.” After all, if Thanos is called a villain because he wants to randomly cause half of the population of the universe to cease to be, how much more so if God randomly chose to have a majority of humans come to a state of eternal constant torment (ECT) where there is nothing that could have ever possibly been done to avoid that?

3. His biggest concern appeared to be more than this. William Carnegie was deeply bothered that the congregation was not moved by the preaching. How could people listen to stories of children, for no better reason that an essentially random preselection, being brutally tortured and not feel moved by that? How could they not respond with horror? I vaguely recall an old Bloom County cartoon where the gang was watching TV. They weren’t sure it is was a news broadcast of wartime killings, or a movie. They couldn’t decide. Finally one said something to the effect… “Can someone please tell us whether we should be enjoying this or not?” That’s a good question. If it is a movie, it is kind of okay to see death and mayhem. But if it is real life, we should be be disturbed by the horror, and feeling great compassion for the victims. If the preacher was expressing an obvious fiction with no connection to reality, it would be somehow sort of acceptable for the congregation to appreciate the message and (maybe even) enjoy it—- maybe. But if he is expressing reality, how could people not be moved mightily and cry out against such injustice?

William Carnegie brings the question in for thought here. If we have compassion… if we have empathy… how should we react to the idea that some people have no hope— their only future is one of absolute and unending horror.

How does one reconcile a strict form of Calvinism with Missions and how does one reconcile it with Compassion or Empathy? For me, I don’t really consider myself a Calvinist. In college I thought I was maybe a 3.5 or 4-point Calvinist (the 5th point was a matter of sophistry in my opinion… and that has not changed). But over time, I struggled finding much I could agree with. I am maybe a 2-point Calvinist which I suppose is not high enough to make me a Calvinist. I am not Arminian either. I feel there is a lot of healthy space in between those two groups.

But I still wonder. I know people in missions who are Calvinists. They like to say that their Calvinism drives their Missions. Historically, that has not been the case. Historically, such as 18th century England and 19th century America, Calvinism hobbled missions. And even in the case of William Carey, a missionary who came from a Calvinist group, his argument for doing missions was not that his theology informed his missions, but rather that Jesus commanded all Christians to evangelize. One must never use one’s theology to contradict God’s command. I spoke recently with a 5-point Calvinist who was on a short-term mission, and he was trying to explain how his theology “just made sense.” He worded his doctrine in such vague language that almost any Christian could agree with the language. But the language hid valid disagreements rather than informed. I left not knowing if the guy actually understood what he believed, and whether he knew how deceptive his presentation was.

In the end, however, I rather agree with William Carey. It is not really critical the exact details of minor theological points as long as one doesn’t use them to undermine Christ’s clear instructions to us.

Karl Barth was a Calvinist (or maybe post-Calvinist). In his later years he appeared to be a Universalist… believing that all people will, ultimately, be saved by God. A theologian friend of mine had made the suggestion that this was the most obvious way of reconciling a firm belief in strong Calvinism and the clear doctrine of God being Just and Loving. God can be just and loving while ramdomly choosing who to save and who to damn, if He saves everyone. I am not a Universalist, but then I am also not a Calvinist.

But I know many Calvinists do not follow the path of Barth in this area. I also know that the so-called “Neo-Calvinist” movement has been linked to a certain culture of ‘Christian machismo.’ I am not sure what to make of that. However, the macho or machismo quality has some qualities that may be a bit insightful. Machismo is often typified by being Strong, Unwavering, Independent, and Sexually Virile/Active. In Christian circles sexually active may not be seen so positively, but perhaps that has been replaced in being more gender complementarian or maybe being a “guy’s guy” in some way. But one thing that doesn’t really typify the label of “machismo” is being compassionate or empathetic. More often it is seen in being “cool” or a bit emotionally detached. The Westminster Catechism (a doctrinal guide for some Calvinists) describes God as Impassible— not having passions, or at least not being guided by those feelings. Since the most common emotion used to describe Jesus was His compassion (feeling the pain and sorrow of another), and that His compassion actually guided His actions, I struggle to see how Impassibility is a Biblical doctine. But it may be part of the explanation for the growth of Calvinist machismo. It is much easier to deal with death and torture of those we know, if we idealize a general lack of empathy or a lack of compassion.

I don’t have an answer to all of this. As I said, I am not a Calvinist, but I dwell in the tension between different schools of thought. I have found nothing that completely satisfies me. But I feel that all of us should wrestle with the same things that concerned William Carnegie.

The Secret is…

Image result for shhh!!!

The Secret is… there is no secret.   Many Christians throughout history have doubted this, however.

  • Starting in the first two centuries of the church, the Gnostic sects taught that they had special, secret, knowledge that people needed to have access to God. Irenaeus argued against the Gnostics that God’s revelation is found in Holy Scripture, the words of the initial apostles, and the words of those who were trained by the apostles. In other words, God is not into secrets… at least not secrets we need for abundant living. God’s revelation was given Holy Scripture and it was meant to be available to all… not to the few. Then if Christ did indeed have secrets, who would He have shared it with— His disciples who were to share them to all people, or to some individuals who kept secrets for a select few?  That tactic has popped up on occasion in recent centuries as well. Perhaps this was most famously done with “United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing” (Shakers) with Ann Lee being considered the female counterpart to Christ, or of Mormonism’s teaching of a 2nd (and secret) revelation of Christ.
  • Over centuries groups claimed to have a certain special secret. Sometimes it was a new revelation, second blessing, modern innovation, or restoration of some ancient practice (like embracing superficial Jewish practices, or primitive church alleged practices). Of course, traditionalists sometimes react by saying that their traditions are “the secret.’

I have been to a few trainings in my time. The more aggressive ones tend to be built around some sort of “core secret.” In one, the “secret” is FASTING. You want to twist God’s arm to do what you want Him to do rather than what He wants to do? You just need to fast. <Considering how ambivalent the Bible is regarding fasting, it would certainly be a pretty big secret if this was true.> I also recall going to a training which was a pretty mundane form of discipleship training. The one innovation that was supposed to turn it from mundane to awesome was the secret of “generational bondage.” In that, If you are a Christian but have an ancestor who committed some sort of sin, then God either gives you a curse or allows a curse to be placed upon you (not sure which, really). He doesn’t tell you this, and doesn’t really forgive it unless you say a prayer worded in a specific way. This seems based on nothing more than a passage in the Torah that is open to a wide variety of interpretations, and completely ignores a chapter in Ezekiel that appears to completely undermine the logic.

This desire for secrets in our faith perhaps says something very real about our spirituality, something a wee bit negative about ourselves, and something quite negative about our view of God.

Very Real About our Spirituality. We often feel like our lives are not embracing that “Abundant Life” that Jesus spoke of. We feel unsatisfied and so we look for secrets or “spiritual life hacks.” I would argue, however, that we spend more time avoiding the guidance of Christ than we do actually obeying Him. It is like the quote from Chesterton, ” The Christian Ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it’s been found difficult and left untried.” Our quest for secrets ultimately comes out of our own spiritual laziness.

A Wee Bit Negative About Ourselves. Let’s be honest, we like to know secrets… but a secret is not really a secret if it is freely available to everyone. We like to know secrets and know that others don’t know them. We want to go to seminars where the Secrets of __________ are revealed. We open Clickbait webpages with titles that utilize tactics that draw on this ugly part of ourselves.

Something Really Negative About Our View of God. Think about it for a moment. Consider the Generational Bondage example above. For it to be true, God would have to have a curse on us for something we did not do, and perhaps did not even know about. He would have to make sure that we have a miserable life without telling us why for something we did not do. He would also not remove that misery until we say a specific incantation that has no really support in God’s public revelation to us.

Is that a god we really want to worship? Taking it further, do we really want to worship a God whose revelation is only truly available to the cogniscenti… scholars? Do we want God’s revelation that can bridge languages and cultures, or do we want it to only be understood by scholars of 6th century BC Hebrew, 1st Century Koine Greek, 4th century AD Latin, 16th century English, or (perhaps) 7th century Arabic. Is that the God we really want? Do we want a God who tells one story publically to witnesses who feel compelled to share freely to all, but then tells certain critical “facts” to a few specially selected people who are good at keeping these facts from the majority?

In Clickbait articles, there is often the backstory that there is a secret that a select group has and is now being revealed to the consternation of those special ones. Some articles claim there is a great cancer cure that medical doctors don’t want us to know.  Or there is a secret way to wealth that millionares or billionares know, and that they desperately don’t want us to get because then we would join their elite group. I suppose it is okay that we have such hateful attitudes about doctors, or dentists, or stock traders, or the rich (or others). Sometimes it may even be true.

But why would we want to apply such thinking in our opinion of God… that God has special secrets that He doesn’t really want us to know… but would be hugely valuable for us to know. Sure, we don’t know exactly when Christ is returning (despite groups that claim to have such secret knowlege). But why would we think we would benefit from that knowledge? The faithful servant in Jesus’ parable was rewarded in being ready every day for his master’s return. The foolish servant apparently thought he could figure out the time of his master’s return and thus could be lazy and abusive. Presumably, if God doesn’t tell us something, we probably benefit from that ignorance. It seems to me that in Christ, we have God who shared freely with His disciples and told them to share freely with everyone, “even to the ends of hte world.”

The secret is that there is no secret. We should be thankful to God that there is no secret.

 

No. Not All of the Time…

This was a short sermon I did for the International Student Worship Group at our seminary.

I like to look at common statements or stories and look at them in a different way. One I like to turn around sometimes is the saying,

God is good, all the time, and all the time, God is good.

For me, personally, I prefer to say, “God is good, but not all the time. Not all the time, but God is (still) good.

With the first saying, one is saying that God is eternally good of character. But we don’t live in the eternal state. We live from moment to moment. In often in moments of our lives we are not able to recognize God’s goodness.

In this we are not alone. The Psalmist in Psalm 73 had the same challenge.

A.  Verse 1.  God is Good.

Surely God is good to Israel,
to those who are pure in heart.

This is simple and easy. Simple and easy. God is good to Israel. God is good to those who are pure in heart.

B.  Verse 2-15.  … But Not All the Time

But as for me, my feet had almost slipped;
I had nearly lost my foothold.
For I envied the arrogant
when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.

They have no struggles;
their bodies are healthy and strong.
They are free from common human burdens;
they are not plagued by human ills.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
they clothe themselves with violence.
From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
their evil imaginations have no limits.
They scoff, and speak with malice;
with arrogance they threaten oppression.
Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
and their tongues take possession of the earth.
Therefore their people turn to them
and drink up waters in abundance.
They say, “How would God know?
Does the Most High know anything?”

This is what the wicked are like—
always free of care, they go on amassing wealth.

Surely in vain I have kept my heart pure
and have washed my hands in innocence.

All day long I have been afflicted,
and every morning brings new punishments.

If I had spoken out like that,
I would have betrayed your children.

Verse one says God is Good. But Verses 2-15 say that God is not good all of the time. The wicked prosper. They do evil things and amass wealth. They don’t seem to have any worries. They do whatever they want and God appears to reward them. If God is not rewarding them, he certainly isn’t punishing therm.

In verse 13 the Psalmist wonders if his faithfulness to God is worth it. He seeks to follow God’s commands, and yet he suffers while the evildoer profits. In fact things are so bad that in verses 2 and 3 he says that things are so bad that he sometimes even envies the wicked and is tempted to fall into sin himself.

We are not so different. We want things simple. We tend to want the evil to suffer and the righteous to prosper…. with the assumption that we are the righteous of course.

We want it to be that way… but it is not.

God Is Good. But NOT all of the time. Sometimes God steps back and allows the evil to prosper and go unpunished, and sometimes he allows the righteous to suffer and live without vindication.

We don’t want it to be that way.

C.  Verse 16-25.  Not All the Time

When I tried to understand all this,
it troubled me deeply
till I entered the sanctuary of God;
then I understood their final destiny.

Surely you place them on slippery ground;
you cast them down to ruin.
How suddenly are they destroyed,
completely swept away by terrors!
They are like a dream when one awakes;
when you arise, Lord,
you will despise them as fantasies.

When my heart was grieved
and my spirit embittered,
I was senseless and ignorant;
I was a brute beast before you.

Yet I am always with you;
you hold me by my right hand.
You guide me with your counsel,
and afterward you will take me into glory.
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And earth has nothing I desire besides you.
My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion forever.

Those who are far from you will perish;
you destroy all who are unfaithful to you.

The Psalmist is struggling with the conflict between what he believes (God is good) and What he perceives (God doesn’t seem to be all all that good often).

However, then he enters the presence of God. Perhaps like Habakkuk, he brings his confusion directly to God. And he sees the bigger picture. Justice may be delayed… the goodness of God may be observable at all times. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but they are on slippery ground. And before you know it, God’s goodness will be demonstrated.

The Psalmist goes on to say… even though he feels abused and is suffering that God is with him and is still protecting him… in the present, and that some day he will be blessed of God.

And this leads to the final “But” in verse 28

D.  Verse 28.  But God is (still) Good.

But as for me, it is good to be near God.
I have made the Sovereign Lord my refuge;
I will tell of all your deeds.

I read this as, But God is still Good. Despite the fact that things seem unfair. God seems unjust at times. God doesn’t always seem so God. God is good and good to be near. God is ultimately in control and is his protection.

So: God is good, but not all of the time. Not all of the time, but God is good.

You may be uncomfortable with that wording, but I believe much of the Bible becomes clearer this way.

If we identify God’s goodness in how we feel on a particular day, we will have trouble. Our lives are like a roller coaster… up one day and down another. God’s goodness is not tied to our feelings or whether we had a good day or not. God’s goodness is not liket that.

God’s goodness is seen in His character and in His ultimate intentions. If we want to see the goodness of God, we need to look to God Himself, and where He bringing things to. If we look for the goodness of God in the day to day things around us…. or in whether we are doing better than someone else or someone else is doing better than us… we will be disappointed often.

Loving Gridlock in Government and Ministry

Image result for gridlock

A political election is coming up in the US this November. They are a challenge for me because my friends come from a wide variety of perspectives. I sometimes find myself siding with one side and sometimes with the other, but never consistently with either side. The reason for this is that “I Love Gridlock.” I suppose it depends on how one defines it. One definition comes your friend and mine, Wikipedia. It says,

In politics, gridlock or deadlock or political stalemate refers to a situation when there is difficulty passing laws that satisfy the needs of the people. … Gridlock can occur when two legislative houses, or the executive branch and the legislature are controlled by different political parties, or otherwise cannot agree.
As an American myself, my friends almost universally hate gridlock. This is strange since it seems pretty evident that the US Constitution was designed to encourage gridlock, as opposed to the classic parliamentary system.
So why would I like gridlock? I like it in government and in ministry for several reasons.
1.  It slows things down. I have been part of groups… in fact I have led groups… where decisions were made fast or even “on the fly.” I often loved that. However, over time I realized that issues that were struggled over were often resolved better than ones that were thoughtlessly approved, or “railroaded” through.
2.  It encourages negotiation. When there is one or more people with all of the power, there is little discussion. Things just happen. I have been in church or religious organizations that were led by one visionary person who made all of the decisions. I have never seen that work out well. No one is right all of the time. Most are not right half of the time.   Proverbs 11:14 says, “Without wise leadership, a nation falls; there is safety in having many advisers.” However, when the advisers are more than simply “idea guys” but have a vote in the process, they are likely to have better thought-out decisions, and the leadership can’t simply ignore such advice and act on personal whims.
3.  It allows all parties to feel empowered, or at least jointly disempowered. Solomon may have been the “wisest man” (in terms of governance at least), and made some really awesome decisions for the short-term prosperity of Israel. However, he also made some decisions that were KEY to civil war and moral breakdown of his country. It is interesting that one of the things he did was to crush gridlock by establishing a structure for governance that undermined tribal leadership. It is hardly surprising that when Solomon’s untrained son took over, the tribal leadership that had their interests steamrolled in the past, flexed their political muscles and split the nation.
4.  It lessens groups from acting on their baser instincts. In some countries, when one political party or political leader gains ascendancy, they quickly seek to consolidate power by outlawing or at least hobbling all dissent. Even where this is not done legally, laws are commonly passed that give more power to the majority and stick it to the minority— or benefit their primary (financial) supporters.
5.  It shares power. People in government and in ministry commonly don’t handle power well.  Although it has almost become a cliche, John Dalberg-Acton’s words are still true: “Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Diffusion of power is better than its localization.
So does that mean that I actually like the phenomenon where lawmaking slows to almost a standstill because of power struggle and rivalries? Somewhat. Laws and plans should be slow… and probably should be developed slower than anyone is particularly comfortable with. However, my main reason for supporting gridlock is that it shares power, and provides impetus for negotiation, compromise, and consensus-building. If those involved cannot “play nicely together in the same sandbox” and work together for the common good of the organization or nation, they simply need to be replaced. That seems like that should be obvious. We don’t vote for ideologues or demagogues but with people moral vision and the humility to understand that they must work together with others, even people they disagree with.
Hoping you will have the opportunity to experience gridlock in your own ministry or organization (whether you like it or not).
I will end this post with a wonderful quote on power and leadership from Monty Python. Enjoy.
We would like to apologise for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed political time-servers who are concerned more with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across.