God-Word-Think

At last... a breath of fresh air

2009-06-10T00:29:00.004+03:00

Sue has been reading a book called 'Authentic Relationships' by Wayne Jacobsen and Clay Jacobsen and she then looked up Wayne's website and found an article that almost entirely expressed my feelings but better put than I could entitled 'Why I Don't Go To Church Anymore: Living in the Relational Church - Part 6'. It felt like a breath of fresh air. Here was somebody expressing almost exactly what I have been feeling in so much better ways than I can.

Here's the core of it:

Where do you go to church?

I have never liked this question, even when I was able to answer it with a specific organization. I know what it means culturally, but it is based on a false premise--that church is something you can go to as in a specific event, location or organized group. I think Jesus looks at the church quite differently. He didn't talk about it as a place to go to, but a way of living in relationship to him and to other followers of his.

Asking me where I go to church is like asking me where I go to Jacobsen. How do I answer that? I am a Jacobsen and where I go a Jacobsen is. 'Church' is that kind of word. It doesn't identify a location or an institution. It describes a people and how they relate to each other. If we lose sight of that, our understanding of the church will be distorted and we'll miss out on much of its joy.

Yes exactly the core. But I think that many people feel threatened by this approach. Maybe I would have done a few years ago. Wayne continues:

So should I stop going to church, too?

I'm afraid that question also misses the point. You see I don't believe you're going to church any more than I am. We're just part of it. Be your part, however Jesus calls you to and wherever he places you. Not all of us grow in the same environment.

The only issue he doesn't address is this - 'I believe I should strongly encourage poeple to go to church and even if you don't I think in general people should'. Now I have a big problem with that. I really don't believe it's right to strongly encourage people to go to church because it gives them a totally erroneous perception of what church is. Since it's not something that can be 'gone to' encouraging them to 'go to church' gives them the perception that its possible. This I feel is dangerous misleading and has led to many of the problems we see in the church today.

There is all the world of difference between encouraging people to go to church and saying something like 'A bunch of us are getting together on Sunday, would you like to come along?' But not taking no for an answer and repeating this ad nauseum is as bad as strongly encouraging or pressuring people to come.

Some people would see this as quibbling with words. Or a different communication style. I think the words are important. Wayne again:

I know it may only sound like quibbling over words, but words are important. When we only ascribe the term 'church' to weekend gatherings or institutions that have organized themselves as 'churches' we miss out on what it means to live as Christ's body. It will give us a false sense of security to think that by attending a meeting once a week we are participating in God's church. Conversely I hear people talk about 'leaving the church' when they stop attending a specific congregation.

But if the church is something we are, not someplace we go, how can we leave it unless we abandon Christ himself? And if I think only of a specific congregation as my part of the church, haven't I separated myself from a host of other brothers and sisters that do not attend the same one I do?

The idea that those who gather on Sunday mornings to watch a praise concert and listen to a teaching are part of the church and those who do not, are not, would be foreign to Jesus. The issue is not where we are at a given time during the weekend, but how we are living in him and with other believers all week long.

In the Evangelical church they used to have a word for them 'backsliders'. And some were. But some may actually be 'frontsliders' ahead of those locked into an inaccurate perception of church.

Recently I have seen some of the emerging church meetings and been thinking more and more this is changing the colour of the icing [frosting] on the cake not changing the cake. Even that is a bad analogy, but I mean that the 'event' is still and 'event' and the focus seems to be on the 'event' rather than the relationship.

Well... we'll see where the journey leads. I'm not sure I'm yet at the place of feeling/seeing/knowing the path I'm walking is right, but I do feel that I have been pushed off the wrong path and now see others walking a similar path and don't feel quite so alone. Maybe when I am more confident that this path is part of the journey for me I will become more relaxed. Certainly not going to Sunday meetings has made me significantly more relaxed and if only I weren't surrounded by a bunch of people who see 'going to church' as important maybe I could see the path more clearly.

Learning styles

2009-05-24T12:29:00.017+03:00

Why is a Sunday church meeting so screwy to me? I have been looking at learning styles and done a couple of inventories:

Here are the results from the first:

| ACT       X                             REF
|     11 9  7  5  3  1  1  3  5  7  9 11
|                   <-  ->
|
| SEN                                  X  INT
|     11 9  7  5  3  1  1  3  5  7  9 11
|                   <-  ->
|
| VIS    X                                VRB
|     11 9  7  5  3  1  1  3  5  7  9 11
|                   <-  ->
|
| SEQ                               X     GLO
|     11 9  7  5  3  1  1  3  5  7  9 11
|                   <-  ->

The results state:

If your score on a scale is 9-11, you have a very strong preference for one dimension of the scale. You may have real difficulty learning in an environment which does not support that preference.

In other words if the church is creating an environment that is at variance to my results then I may have real difficulty learning there.

The scales come out that I am an Active Intuitive Visual Global learner, with Intuitive Visual Global as fitting into the category of real difficulty if the environment is Sensing, Verbal and Sequential. Ooops... anyone see any similarity with church?

In the second inventory it is shown as a graph, with the numeric results alongside:

Numeric results:

Visual 18

Social 10

Physical 3

Aural 3

Verbal 12

Solitary 8

Logical 7

Anyone want to guess how much of regular church is aural and physical? OK, so I know if you like icons or stained glass then they are visual - I don't like either. If you like liturgy they are verbal - maybe - not sure about that. I don't like liturgy either. I like discussion - which happens at a house group but not at 'church'.

Why are churches constrained to only suit certain types of people, alienating others?

Group 3 - non-conformists or rebels?

2009-05-24T10:55:00.002+03:00

In the post Three groups... one church? I suggested that there are three different types of person within the church and that the third is 'People who don't believe it right to be told what to do by Group Two and who don't want to tell Group One what to do'.

My youngest son branded them rebels - a term I was not happy with as it expressed something unintentional. After discussion with him we realised group three included both non-conformists and rebels.

Thinking back on this a few days later I am now unhappy with the term non-conformist. Wikipedia puts it thus:

Nonconformist was a term used in England after the Act of Uniformity 1662 to refer to an English subject belonging to a non-Christian religion or any non-Anglican church. It may also refer more narrowly to such a person who also advocated religious liberty. The term is also applied retrospectively to English Dissenters (such as Puritans and Presbyterians) who violated the Act of Uniformity 1559, typically by practising or advocating radical, sometimes separatist, dissent with respect to the Established Church.

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers (founded in 1648), and those less organized were considered Nonconformists at the time of the 1662 Act of Uniformity. Later, as other groups formed, they were also considered Nonconformists. These included Methodists, Unitarians, and members of the Salvation Army.

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, Unitarians and the Salvation Army all have groups one and two as the majority. To call them nonconformists doesn't fit with the group three definition. We need another word.

Is the emergining church an echo of the future?

2009-05-23T23:40:00.016+03:00

"This is an SOS distress call from the mining ship Red Dwarf. The crew are dead, killed by a radiation leak. The only survivors were Dave Lister, who was in suspended animation during the disaster, and his pregnant cat, who was safely sealed in the hold. Revived three million years later, Lister's only companions are a life form who evolved from his cat, and Arnold Rimmer, a hologram simulation of one of the dead crew."

[BBC comedy 1988]

When Red Dwarf gets to be traveling faster than the speed of light the future catches up with them. When Lister sees himself dead in the future it doesn't seem so appealing. These are future echoes.


LISTER: Well there you go, I won't wear the hat.  Then it
can't happen, can it?  I can live without a hat.
RIMMER: Lister, it *has* happened.  You can't change it,
any more than you can change what you had for breakfast
yesterday.
LISTER: Hey, it hasn't happened, has it?  It has "will have
going to have happened" happened, but it hasn't actually
"happened" happened yet, actually.
RIMMER: Poppycock!  It will be happened; it shall be going
to be happening; it will be was an event that could will
have been taken place in the future.  Simple as that.
Your bucket's been kicked, baby.

For years we have heard the church is dying. Is the emerging church a future echo? When we see the future is it appealing or frightening? Or both?

Knowing you're gonna die, how do you stop it? And if the future echoes are modified so you don't die, then what? Return to Red Dwarf...

LISTER and RIMMER walk in.  LISTER is jumping up and down
like a maniac, RIMMER looks disappointed.

RIMMER: I don't know why you're so chirpy.
LISTER: I'm not gonna die!  I'm not gonna die!
RIMMER: But for how long?  It'll probably happen tomorrow
or Thursday.
LISTER: Maybe it's not going to happen at all!

When I hear the reactions of many in the institutional or attractional church to the emerging church I feel I hear them yelling with glee 'Maybe it's not going to happen at all!' Yet I am convinced that there is an alternative future echo that is not a continuation of the present. That future is something very different to today.

I'm writing a book 'In the image of a creative God...' My son Daniel pointed me to a web post from emergent village entitled The circle of inclusion. It concludes:

But when we begin with love, we step into a very different way of operating. We begin with the idea that we are each created in His image. Differences don’t define us. They express the subtle facets of a different part of God’s image working its way out.

The implication appears to be that the attractional or institutional church does not operate within a context of love, which would be patently untrue. However, having grown up in a modernist culture where the absolute truth about God [and many other things] could be known, I did continually feel alien. It was like I kept having flashes of future echoes that shook up my current reality. Not that I didn't believe in ultimate truth [as some within the attractional church appear to believe we believe] but that it couldn't fully ever be known in this life.

Evangelical Christianity claimed ultimate truth could be known from the revelation of the Bible. Some more honest evangelicals will admit it is more complex than that, but some still stick to a naive belief that we can interpret the Bible fully, accurately and completely. That this is leading people down a dangerous path is, in some cases, potentially harming them.

Having moved into post-modernity, is it any better? My son, born into post-modernity doesn't like it.

I have several sets of glasses, and I can put them both on. Neither of them really fit my nose, but without them my sight is so poor I can barely see anything. Everything looks distorted, confused, and wrong when I wear the glasses, and I don't want to settle on any one of them.

Bridget, friend of his [and mine] with her own blog, [where she writes poetry and prose to express her feelings] responded with this:

Sanity, the Penguin says hello.
Currently he's being hung by a frog. One you and El Presidente gave me incidentally.
Nevertheless, he seems quite happy.
So does the frog.

In echoes from the past, the black slave being hung by the Klu Klux Clan member was definitely not happy! Nor the Christian or Jew in Auschwitz.

I wonder how long it will take to catch up with our future echoes and see not an emerging church but a reborn church. The bride of Christ, not as an institution, but as a body of people interacting with God through His Holy Spirit and with each other as He inspires us in love. Will what we call the church today seem hollow and empty? Sometimes I think the church is culturally like the Arabic peoples... with no future perfect tense to express a future echo, just a past and present.

We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.
Romans 8:22-25 (NIV)

The whole creation groans as it sees the future echoes, waiting for the church emergent.

Missional and Attractional Church

2009-05-08T00:00:00.003+03:00

There's a big debate going on about missional and attractional church... kind of the way of looking at regular church or emerging church, but not quite:

For instance Tylers 'My Problem with the Missional Church', Jonathan Brinks 'Missional/Attractional Debate' and others around the net.

This article started off as a comment on Tylers article, but is now expanded.

It seems that in some ways people are using the word missional to be emerging church and attractional to be regular church. Missional because the emphasis is on going out to the world and attractional because its attracting people to some sort of programme or event. I certainly have problems with the programme or event oriented groups who call themselves churches and who pressurise people to attend some sort of Sunday gathering. I've just been thrown out of a fellowship group for vigorously disagreeing with this approach.

However, I think I really have problems not with the word missional or attractional but with the word church. Most of the time I read in scripture the word church referring to all the followers of the Way in a town or city. So… everyone who follows the Master in a town or city or village is part of the church in that town, city or village. Whatever you do or don't do on a Sunday or other day of the week with other followers doesn't stop you being part of the church in that area.

When we use the word church attached to a congregation – be it missional or attractional we somehow elevate that structure and give it power. That power can and does get abused. The ‘church’ then wants to own every gathering of followers of the Way that it can – the ‘house groups’ are house groups of such and such a church… the mother and toddler group is the mother and toddler group of such and such a church. Now I know that the so called attractional churches are criticized [as I said, I have done it myself] for being programme orientated, and this is a valid criticism, but the real problem is the understanding of structure rather than dialogue.

What do I mean by that? I mean that if we truly saw the radical shift of our Lord from a special priesthood to a priesthood of all believers, everyone with direct access to our Father, then we would see structure in radically different ways. Whether missional or attractional the structure would be eclectic – there would be may different expressions of the body of Christ [which we might call the church] in our town, city or village. Those expressions would be administratively light, led, not by some sort of hierarchical leadership, but by the Holy Spirit indwelling each and every follower of the Way.

What would this look like in practice? It might mean there are many house gathering of believers in a town… and members of them might go to different congregational meetings on a Sunday, or not if they don’t meet God through singing songs and listening to a talk… the congregational leaders would have a lighter job as they were responsible for what happens on a Sunday, not all the other activities of the church… the church being the sum total of all believers in that town.

Maybe too… we would see people less tied up in activities to keep some kind of Sunday Club running through the week and therefore more time to spend with those people who don’t yet love and follow our Lord. Maybe then the church in that town, city or village would be both missional and attractive.

Three groups... one church?

2009-02-09T20:19:00.003+02:00

It seems to me that there are three distinct groups of people within the church [actually probably in the world in general].

Group One: People who like to be told what to do and are happy doing it.
Group Two: People who like to tell others what to do and are happy doing it.
Group Three: People who don't believe it right to be told what to do by Group Two and who don't want to tell Group One what to do.

Group One people are generally happy. Group Two people are generally happy. Group Three people are generally unhappy!

So where am I going with this? Well in Larnaca in Cyprus I am regularly meeting people who appear to be group three people... people who are fed up with with the church leaders who all appear [to them] to be control freaks who dictate what goes on and what to believe to the others.

Over the past couple of years I have also met with at least one largish mission agency where some of the members were complaining the same thing about their leaders.

The question this actually raises is about the role of leadership and the way it is implemented in the church, as well as what we mean by the church.

Years ago I heard a quote 'Bad leaders lead from the back, good leaders lead from the front, but of truly great leaders they say we did it ourselves'. Martin Luther King, Jr. said something like this 'A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus, but a moulder of consensus'. When we look at Jesus we see someone both leading from the front but more importantly motivating and encouraging his followers to 'do the stuff'.

Today I don't see this in the church. What I see is leaders dictating to others what to do. Frequently those of us in group three question whether the proclamation is from God, or indeed if the Lord has really appointed this person to be a leader. Blindly following people who you do not believe are appointed by the Lord creates stress. Yet this is what many seem to want from us.

Where do we go with this. Those of us in group three love the Lord. We believe in His leadership not man's. We believe in the priesthood of all believers. Yet more and more we are edged out of the Sunday performance by those we see as controllers we don't believe God appointed to the role they have assumed.

Some of those in group three are comfortable with this separation. They are confident with their own position and don't take any notice of the leaders anyway. Others, like me, long for leaders who mould consensus. We long for people in the pattern of Jesus whose desire is to see others 'doing my Father's will'.

For now I don't see that. For now I just see the pain caused by these controlling leaders.

The Sunday performance

2009-02-03T20:51:00.005+02:00

I've just about had it up to here with the Sunday performance! Ever since my voice broke I have been unable to sing in tune. What's worse, I can hear that I am out of tune but cannot persuade my voice to co-operate. So I hate singing. I really hate singing. It's not a pleasant sound to me. What's more I can hear that other people cannot sing in tune. So, first off the singing at the Sunday performance is like a cacophonous noise to me. I like music. But this is not.

Then there is the Sunday oratory... even assuming that the person speaking is not wildly misquoting scripture its just so boring. When I was at school I hated lessons - listening to a teacher was about the worst way for me to learn and listening to the Sunday oratory is similarly unhelpful.

But those who run what we call churches seem to have this idea in their head that the Sunday performance is the key event of the week. For me it's not even really church. The early followers of Jesus met in each others homes, shared meals together, talked and learnt from each other. They shared their needs and prayed together. Sounds like a million miles from the Sunday performance.

And in that way leadership was different. You didn't need the mega-star leader who proclaimed from the front and was six feet above contradiction. Maybe occasionally there would be someone who had something valuable to say and would give a talk but on the whole it bore little resemblance to what we call church and so the leadership was truly servant leadership.

Now on a Friday evening a bunch of us followers of the Way meet together for a meal. We pray together and then study the Scriptures. All except for me go to one specific Sunday performance. One of the members of this group repeatedly tries to coerce me to come on a Sunday. Sometimes I go to a different Sunday performance, but increasingly I am tiring of the same platitudes and misquoted Scriptures.

So why not just abandon the Sunday meeting and church together on a Friday? Well, actually I could go further... since I work with a group of other followers of the Way during the week, we church together every weekday. My weekdays are worship and glorifying our Lord. Saturday is the day I enjoy Him - normally we sail together. I love the sea that He created. There are more references to Him spending time on boats in the Gospels that teaching in Synagogues!

So why not just abandon the Sunday meeting and church together on a Friday? Well, I feel guilty if I miss the drudgery of a Sunday performance. Somewhere deep in my psyche I am programmed that the Sunday performance is a must. Even though it makes me feel further from God... even though I come back feeling angry with the world... even though more and more I meet loyal followers of the Way who have abandoned this in favour of churching together at other times. Still I feel I should go. And hate it.

The other problem is that those people who do get a buzz out of the Sunday performance continually make it sound like that is the main thing. Last Friday evening during the time we were sharing almost everyone was buzzing about their church... and then turned to me about the place I do sometimes go to on a Sunday. No, I didn't even begin to feel the same way they expressed. And then I felt guilty I should feel the same as they do. I feel isolated from them. Alienated.

I'm tired of this... I long for a gathering of followers of the Way who cannot stand the Sunday performance. I long for people who love the Lord and don't try to persuade you to attend a meeting which phenomenologically looks like a theatre show or sing-a-long concert. Then I would feel at home in family.

I recently saw a website entitled Church 2.0. A church without leaders. A church that sounded quite a lot like I have been feeling. Searching for Church 2.0 in Google I see a lot of people thinking about a reinventing of the church. Theologians call this 'repristinization' - making the gathering new for each generation. Why, oh why, is there nothing like that here? Are we totally away from the moving of the Holy Spirit in Cyprus?

Titheing and other hot potatoes

2008-11-09T18:57:00.007+02:00

Last Sunday the person giving the talk at one of the congregations was talking about titheing. His basic ethos was, if I understood him correctly, that titheing was a law we needed to follow, that the church was the modern day 'storehouse' and that we were obligated to give 10% to the church, that whatever we thought of the leadership of the church and what they did with it was irrelevant since it belonged to the Lord and that if we didn't put 10% in the collection when it went round God was shouting 'Thief, that's mine...' at us. Even if we are living under grace [as he put it] we are still obligated to give 10% to the church.

I came away irritated and annoyed. We do give away at least 10% as a freewill offering to the Lord's work, but what he was saying didn't sound like the words of our Father. It didn't sound like way He wants to relate to us at all. Of course the speaker quoted parts of 'The Word of God' to prove his point, judiciously chosing the verses he used.

Now apart from the fact the Bible never refers to itself as 'The Word of God' but uses this phrase to refer to Jesus [thus using it to refer to the Bible is probably blasphemy] I just felt uneasy about the burden being laid on the shoulders of those listening to this talk, which he called preaching, but it didn't sound like proclaiming good news to me!

So what about titheing and giving? I had a starting question... if it is a law, and its certainly not one of the ten commandments, then it must be part of the Judaic law which the Jews didn't believe referred to the gentiles and which raises a further question... if it is part of a body of law we should follow from the Judiac tradition, how many of the other hundreds and thousands of laws the Pharisees put upon the people should we also be following?

But let's put that on one side for the moment and look at titheing. The issue is pretty clear that the Lord said 10% of everything the Jews received was His.

'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD. If a man redeems any of his tithe, he must add a fifth of the value to it. The entire tithe of the herd and flock—every tenth animal that passes under the shepherd's rod—will be holy to the LORD. Leviticus 27:30-32 [NIV]

OK, but what should be done with the tithe?

But you are to seek the place the LORD your God will choose from among all your tribes to put his Name there for his dwelling. To that place you must go; there bring your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, what you have vowed to give and your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. There, in the presence of the LORD your God, you and your families shall eat and shall rejoice in everything you have put your hand to, because the LORD your God has blessed you. Deuteronomy 12:5-7 [NIV]

Hey, just a moment, that sounds as if they were supposed to eat it and enjoy it with the Lord. To make sure the Jews get the point, the Lord repeats it another two times... the tithe should be eaten with rejoicing as a celebration of all the Lord had done for them.

But you will cross the Jordan and settle in the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, and he will give you rest from all your enemies around you so that you will live in safety. Then to the place the LORD your God will choose as a dwelling for his Name—there you are to bring everything I command you: your burnt offerings and sacrifices, your tithes and special gifts, and all the choice possessions you have vowed to the LORD. And there rejoice before the LORD your God, you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns, who have no allotment or inheritance of their own. Deuteronomy 12:10-12 [NIV]

You must not eat in your own towns the tithe of your grain and new wine and oil, or the firstborn of your herds and flocks, or whatever you have vowed to give, or your freewill offerings or special gifts. Instead, you are to eat them in the presence of the LORD your God at the place the LORD your God will choose—you, your sons and daughters, your menservants and maidservants, and the Levites from your towns—and you are to rejoice before the LORD your God in everything you put your hand to. Deuteronomy 12:17-18 [NIV]

And... if the case of people who were too far away from the temple to take their tithe there and eat it this is what they should do:

Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. 23 Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always. 24 But if that place is too distant and you have been blessed by the LORD your God and cannot carry your tithe (because the place where the LORD will choose to put his Name is so far away), 25 then exchange your tithe for silver, and take the silver with you and go to the place the LORD your God will choose. 26 Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice. Deuteronomy 14:22-26 [NIV]

Presumably [though it's not specified anywhere] people who earnt money rather than grew crops and raised cattle did the same... bought cattle, sheep, wine [or anything they wished] and then had a party with the Lord with it.

The storehouses [mentioned elsewhere] are because you need to store food for the party, you cannot consume 10% of your annual food intake in one sitting! Now this does seem to fit with the Father I know. Right from the very beginning he walked and talked with mankind in the garden... where they grew crops and enjoyed the food He provided. Through to Revelation which talks of a huge banquet with the Lord and tables laden with food.

Here's a quick aside and its interesting the numbers [sorry about the pun]. Both censuses recorded in Exodus/Numbers put the number of non Levite Jewish males over 20 as being about 603,000. The number of Levites at this time was 22,000. Do a quick calculation and you realise that the Livites were 3.6% of the population of non-Levites. Which means... that if they get a tithe from the general population every three years they will be living on pretty much exactly the same as the general population! And from that tithe they will eat and celebrate with the Lord using a tenth of the tithe they were given.

In the New International Version the word tithe only occurs in the Old Testament. There are two references in the Gospel to the Pharisees giving one tenth of their income but not truly turning their hearts to the Lord, and then in the book of Hebrews chapter seven there is reference to giving tenths. Note no direct reference in any of the books aimed at the Gentiles - titheing was a particuarly Jewish concept.

But let's look at what the author of the book of Hebrews is saying. I won't quote the whole chapter, if you want to read it look up Hebrews 7 on BibleGateway.com. This chapter is saying that the Levitical law based way of doing things has been transformed into the the new... in pretty strong language 'The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless' [verse 18].

So why do we persist in trying to go back to the law? I think the reason is practical. We have churches [which replace synagogues] and these need money to keep them going.

As an aside here I have a friend who runs a gathering of followers of Jesus from a Muslim background - which some people might call a church. They meet in each others homes, much like the early believers, and this friend is their leader. One day he was talking to me and was saying he was having a great deal of difficulty in encouraging them to give. The members of his group asked why, since they didn't have a building to maintain or staff to pay. Good question. One of the reasons that churches need money is because they have buildings to maintain and staff to pay. If the structure of gatherings of believers were different they would not have those needs!

But let's assume that at least for some people the building centric church is what they want. That then does need money. But giving a tithe to the church to maintain the building and pay the staff is defintely not what the Lord had in mind when He instituted the practice. In a real sense using a tithe that way is robbing the Lord of His opportunity to have a party with His people!

The Jewish people supported their building projects with freewill offerings - the temple was built that way and one would assume the synagogues too. Scripture suggests that the early followers of the Way [what Christians called themselves in the time of the New Testament] also gave freewill offerings for many things especially helping brothers and sisters in their needs.

So, the guilt trip dropped on the people in the church last week did actually work for me, but not in the way the speaker intended. I don't feel guilty about not giving 10% to the church. I feel guilty that we don't do enough partying with the Lord!

And I feel angry that church leaders are misleading followers of Jesus and duping them into what is not our Lord's desire.

[Thought aside: We have a gathering of 'followers of the Way' every Friday evening at our home where we have a meal, which is usually something of a feast... and remember the Lord. This is close to the idea of titheing. But... in general we spend less than 30% of our income on food so if we legalistically tithed it would mean more than one meal in three should be a tithe meal.]

Israel expert unchallenged

2008-10-05T01:43:00.004+03:00

I was shocked by an article that came from the Assist News Service (ANS) about a week ago entitled Expert on Israel: The West Must Insist that Arab-Islamic Regimes Abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or be Expelled from the United Nations

The article was introduced this way:

A leading expert on Israel has given ASSIST News an interview in which he talks about the hot topics of the day that involve Israel, Christians in the West, and also his views on Christians being persecuted in that state.
Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer, Dr. Paul Eidelberg is the founder and president of the political think tank, The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy with offices in Jerusalem and Washington, DC.

OK, so its obvious its going to be biased, in that the probability of a Jewish person making an unbiased appraisal of these questions is pretty unlikely. But, I hoped, since ANS is a Christian news service, the interviewer would challenge some of the assumptions of the interviewee. Not only was I wrong, but the unchallenged comments showed a total lack of understanding of Christian theology, returning us to the covenant of the Old Testament rather than the New. By that I mean Christianity appears to be seen as a Jewish sect rather accepting that Jesus death on the cross changed things irrevocably.

Paul Eidelberg starts by skewing the facts by missing some out:

In his interview with ANS, Eidelberg was asked how does Israel's government affect Christians?
Dr. Eidelberg said: "The failure of Israel's government to suppress Arab violence has resulted in the emigration of Christians from Bethlehem. Since the Arab Terrorist War erupted in September 2000, Israeli governments under prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert have pursued a policy of self-restraint toward Arab terrorists. Thousands of Jews, especially in Jerusalem, were murdered, wounded, and maimed for life. Suicide bombers reduced women and children to body parts. Even nurses and doctors in Jerusalem hospitals suffered trauma in dealing with these barbaric atrocities. Meanwhile, Arab terrorists deployed in Bethlehem and made life miserable for the Christians in that city.

What he omitted to say was that the methods currently employed by a small section of the Palestinian community which he labels as terrorism as identical to the methods employed by a small section of the Jewish community prior to the Israeli declaration of independence in 1948. The methods are not new to Semitic people [I use this phrase to be all Semitic people - both Jewish and Arabic] being taught and developed by TE Lawrence during the First World War. No doubt some people will pre-date it to earlier than that, but my perception is that Lawrence was the person who systemised what we either call guerrilla warfare or terrorism.

I would have liked ANS to challenge his proposition that Israel have pursued a policy of self-restraint. Consider for example the report by the UN entitled Israeli-Palestinian Fatalities Since 2000 - Key Trends:

Of those killed in the conflict, 4,228 have been Palestinians, 1,024 Israelis, and 63 foreign citizens. For every person killed, approximately seven were also injured.
In contrast the total number of Palestinians, both civilians and combatants killed by the Israeli security forces or Israeli individuals, remains relatively high. In 2007, for example, for every one Israeli death there were 25 Palestinian deaths compared to 2002 when the ratio was 1:2.5.
The number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli security forces was lower during the years that coincided with a promise of peace: the Palestinian hudna or truce of June 2003, and the Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

I personally wouldn't consider the 2007 figure of 25 Palestinians killed for every Israeli to be acting with restraint. I believe ANS as journalists should have put these figures to Eidelberg for his reaction. Eidelberg's proposition appears to me to be well skewed of the facts. However, he goes on:

Given the power of the Israel Defense Forces, the government certainly had the power to eliminate the entire Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This could have been done in one week immediately after 9/11.

The IDF has significantly less power I would have felt than the US Army, Navy and Air Force, yet they have been unable to catch Osama bin Laden post 9/11. Suppression of peoples who believe they have a legitimate greivance has been shown not to work over history. Indeed it tends to inflame. So a widespread attack by the IDF against what he descibes as an Arab terrorist network would likely as not backfired turning every moderate Arab into a 'terrorist' or 'freedom fighter' depending on your preferred language.

But so far we have been on political ground, which may be open to debate. Now we move to theology, and this is where I nearly fell off my chair in shock:

ASSIST News asked Dr. Eidelberg "Why should Christians be concerned about Israel's government?"
"Israel's government wants to surrender eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the Arabs. The Temple is intended for the redemption of all people, not only Jews. If the Arabs control eastern Jerusalem, Christians will be denied access to the Temple Mount. Going deeper, the Jewish Sages have said that the Temple Mount is of greater significance to the Gentile world than it is to Israel. Listen to the voice of the disparaged Pharisees regarding the sacrifices of seventy calves during the eight days of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, and note their humanitarianism:
"From Leviticus Rabbah: 'If the nations of the world had known how useful the Temple was to them, they would have surrounded it with fortified camps to protect it, for it was more useful to them than to Israel.' A Midrash in the Song of Songs (4:1) puts it this way: 'Your eyes are like doves' means that just as the dove (offered at the Temple) atones for everyone, so Israel atones for all peoples. For the seventy calves which were burned at the altar at the Feast of Tabernacles were offered on behalf of the nations, in order that their existence might be maintained in this world, which is why it is written in (Psalms 109:4), "In return for my love they laid obstacles in my path, yet I pray for them."

This is where ANS should have really challenged Eidelberg. Sacrifices for the Gentiles? This is gone. Jesus did away with those sacrifices once and for all. It is true that God commissioned the Jewish people to reach out with his love to all mankind. But it's also true that they failed and ignored that commission. Thus for me, Eidelberg has just shown the best possible reason for the Arabs having the Temple Mount - that all the sacrifices are no longer needed and that the Jewish people are no longer needed to reach the Gentiles.

That last sentence sounds harsh and taken out of context could be misinterpretted. If someone quoted me as saying 'the Jewis people are no longer needed' implying they could all be eliminated, that would be rubbish. But since Jesus as God incarnate came to earth they are no longer special. They need somewhere to live, just as the Palestinians need somewhere to live, but they are no longer part of God's plan to reach the world. That is 'been and gone'.

I still cannot get over ANS not challenging the whole animal sacrifice thing - this is so obviously pre-Christian and nothing to do with being a follower of Jesus that I cannot understand why they didn't challenge Eidelberg, especially when he went on to say:

Dr. Eidelberg said that in the treatise Sukkot in the Talmud, "we encounter a similar passage: Rabbi Jochanan says, 'Woe to the Gentiles for what they have lost (in losing the Temple). For when the Temple was standing, atonement was made for them on the altar … But now how will they atone?'

How will they atone? Simple - Jesus has done it once and for all! That's what makes followers of Jesus Christians and not Jews. Eidelberg continues:

What should concerned Christians who support the state of Israel be praying for?
"Christians should pray for an undivided Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty. By so doing, they will be praying for the ultimate redemption of all mankind as indicated above."

What should concerned Christians who are not political Zionists be praying for? They should pray that the Temple Mount comes under Arab control so that the Jews realise that the sacrifices of the old covenant are no longer valid and they should return to God and seek His son.

Eidelberg finishes with some 'facts'. One being this:

Unknown to many observers, U.S. military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. weaponry by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states. U.S. grants to Israel -- far from imposing a burden on the American taxpayer --actually enriches the American economy.

Maybe this is a clue to American support for Israel - they are supporting both sides of the war and thus making money from both sides in the conflict. He ends with this proposition:

In short, we must insist that Arab-Islamic regimes abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or be expelled from the United Nations.

I'm pretty sure that if abiding by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were a measure of being a member of the UN, many countries including the USA and Israel would be expelled!

We need to see followers of Jesus exhibiting His walk of grace, even to death on a cross to show the world the walk of love, not the walk of hate. Animal sacrifices are no longer relevant Jesus was the 'lamb of God' sacrificed once and for all on the cross. That sacrifice was enough for all time. Any patch of land is no longer relevant.

Psychopaths and terrorists?

2008-09-23T20:17:00.007+03:00

I ended up having a somewhat heated discussion yesterday evening. I think it was what a friend used to call 'vigorous fellowship', but I'm not sure if it was actually more than that.

The core of the discussion was about accountability. I believe strongly in transparency and responsibility, but I believe the current vogue within the evangelical church for accountability is close to co-dependency. My friend on the other hand felt that anyone who said they were accountable to God alone was off the rails since 'psychopaths and terrorists believe that' and that we should all be accountable to other people - specifically leaders in the churches and missions.

Let me explain more... when I talk about transparency and responsibility I am meaning that as followers of the Messiah we should walk in the light within the community of others who are also on that journey. As we walk that path with them, we dialogue and listen to them. We are, however, totally responsible for our own actions.

So where does what I believe differ from accountability? I have discussed this with others who do believe in accountability and the 'rubber hits the road' so to speak when the people you are accountable to [they would believe in specific nominated people] and you disagree. At that point you should follow their leading rather than your own conscience. If you disagree and do what you feel is right then you are not submitting to them. Actually if you disagree and do follow your own conscience then the accountability was a waste of time!

In my view following the direction of others is abdicating responsibility for your actions. People who feel that this form of accountability is good and wholesome, say 'No, you are still responsible, you are just following the direction of the person to whom you are accountable'. This sounds awfully like the 'Spiritual Directors' within the Catholic Church, which I have read about but not discussed with Catholics.

Discussing this with Peter [ministry partner] he is convinced that most of modern evangelicalism is related to what he calls 'sin management' - trying to reduce sin and make nice comfortable Christians who fill the pews, allowing the leaders to tell us all what to do. When discussing this further I realised that the modern evangelical movement in its propensity for 'sin management' is actually focusing on what we used to call the 'sins of commission' rather than the 'sins of omission'. By that I mean they are more worried that people don't do anything wrong than that they actually do something right.

This makes me feel like shouting out 'Is God alive? Does he speak today? Is He our real 'Spiritual Director'?'

I frequently feel that the evangelical church operates as if God is sleeping and that we have to develop a long set of rules and methods to make sure we don't do anything wrong before He wakes up. The 'parable of the talents', which is about omission rather than commission, seems to be forgotten. If we are truly living in communion with our Heavenly Father then earthly accountability relationships are meaningless. What I observe seems remarkably close to church leaders behaving as the pharisees of Jesus time.

Psychopaths and terrorists? Psychopaths follow the devil and terrorists follow men. On that basis, being accountable to others and abdicating our responsibility is most likely that we become terrorists. Jesus called us to follow Him. Not another man, but Him. God incarnate. Maybe then we might positively do the good we're supposed to do rather than forever worrying about not doing something wrong.

Accountability? I still think it can be or develop into abusive heavy shepherding. Jesus came to rescue us from that. From all I see it is counter-scriptural and very dangerous. I have more faith in the love of God than in the wisdom of church or mission leaders.

Being a member

2008-09-14T13:39:00.013+03:00

One of the local 'churches' has a booklet entitled 'Joining the church'. It was through reading and studying that booklet that I realised I was unable to 'join the church'. But I still hang out with them. Enjoy the people. Love them to bits. Think most of them are pretty cool. Share many values with them. But... well... since I am a member of the church I cannot re-join and since what they call church isn't it doesn't make sense.

But the way the booklet says things, I cannot be a real member.

4 Our Values
We are committed to the Bible as the revealed Word of God.

The Bible talks of Jesus as being the Word of God and doesn't refer to itself as the Word of God. I got into trouble some time ago by saying we don't worship Father, Son and Holy Bible.

That the Bible is important is without doubt. That it is a record of God's dealings with mankind throughout the ages is without doubt. That God will not say anything today that contradicts the Bible is without doubt. That the Holy Spirit speaks to us through the Bible is without doubt. Elevating it to be the Word of God, when Jesus is referred to in those terms is close to blasphemy.

It's interesting that the Apostles Creed has nothing in it about what we believe about the Scriptures. The early believers didn't consider it something to make essential to following Jesus.

Worship is an expression of our devotion to God, in which every believer participates, in song, prayer and gifts of the Spirit.

Worship is showing or demonstrating the worth-ship of God, by definition. All of those can be worship, but not necessarily. Some people can and do worship aside from those things. I am one of those people. So 'song, prayer and gifts of the Spirit' is not worship for me.

I worship the Lord from Monday to Friday. Saturday I enjoy Him. Sunday... well... not sure really but for me its neither worship nor enjoyable.

Frequently the singing is good at that 'church' [their word] and they are blessed with some of the best musicians in churches in our town. I'm sure for them, the singing is worship. But for others its not. I'm one of those.

5. Who are the Leaders?
We believe that elders are men anointed by the Holy Spirit and fully responsible for leading the local church.

From what I have read there were women involved in leading the early churches. From the Bible it is clear 'In Christ there is neither male nor female' [Galations 3:28]. It's a principle that is clear and unambiguous - start from the principle and work out the detail. So male only leadership is both counter Scriptural and counter God's order.

The early elders [silly word to still use as its so ambiguous] were not fully responsible for leading the local church from what I see in Scripture. They older people [who were middle aged probably in today's terms] who were there as stabilizing influences. From what I see older people - by that I mean over 65 [and maybe especially men] tend to have impaired judgment. So we need younger elders... actually at this 'church' there is nobody over 65 as an elder so this really applies to other churches here where all the 'elders' are over 65.

The elders are appointed by the leadership of the parent 'church' (oh no, now the word is really confused). There is no transparency in that and it has been said that the people appointed as elders are those we would expect. Not from people I have spoken to. Now I am not against the elders - both are cool people. But the lack of transparency I struggle with. And some people who should be in leadership are not.

I guess this is really about church governance... something else the Apostles Creed is silent about.

6. How do I join the Family?
The elders of the local church are like gate keepers.

I'm sure I can find no Scripture to back this up - Jesus talks about shepherds sleeping across the gate to stop wolves and others entering, but not that they are the people who decide 'Yes, you're a believer and can be a member'. He decides that. And there are references in Scripture to this being ambiguous till the end of time.

Jesus first used the term "born again" when he was talking to Nicodemus.

Jesus only used the term 'born again' when he was talking to Nicodemus. We have taken one phrase, used once and pulled it apart and developed a whole theology over it. It's now become a jargon phrase that some people understand and some don't. It's become really confused when others have started using the phrase. What's a born-again Muslim or born-again Buddhist?

Jesus main thrust was to follow him, turn to God and live in relationship with Him.

The New Testament makes it clear that baptism is for those who have repented of their sins and have come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

I used to think this too. Now I realise this is not exclusively true. There are three different ways of looking at it.

Baptism post repentance [ambiguously Scriptural so called believers baptism and practiced by some Christians]
Baptism for whole families [ambiguously Scriptural and practiced by some Christians]
Holy Spirit baptism [ambiguously Scriptural and practiced by some Christians]

Because there is considered ambiguity over this and the early believers never included it in any of the early creeds I believe that coming down on one of the three leaves you open to being non-orthodox in approach. Any church that comes down exclusively on one strand is not really following Scripture.

Again there is nothing in the Apostles Creed about baptism. Interesting omission since so many people get hung up about it. From that omission and the reference in Acts 15 where the council in Jerusalem including the Apostles discussed the requirements to be put on gentile believers, should they or should they not be circumcised. Rather than deciding that they should not be circumcised, but should nevertheless be baptised, the ruling they came to was [verses 28 & 29, NIV]:

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

I'd love to find a church that followed this mimimalist ruling by the council of Jerusalem. Most seem to have a plethora of extra rules.

Bible Study 4 - The Church
The church is not a building - it's PEOPLE (Acts 2 v 42-47) with a common vision (Acts 4 32-35).

The reference Acts 2 v 42-47 doesn't mention 'the church'. Certainly its what we have come to mean as 'the church', but somewhat different too.

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts...

I have not seen a church that meets together every day [in the temple courts]. We generally have communion [breaking bread] in church buildings... OK, life was different then. So how can we draw things out from one place to another if we want definitions of exact practice?

When we look at what we do, we need to see it in terms of a repristinisation of the Gospel. So change is inevitable, but based upon principle not detail. And maybe some of the early practices were better than our current ones.

The Acts 4 passage starts about vision 'All the believers were one in heart and mind' but never states what it was, but then goes on to talk about what they actually did... 'No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.... For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales'. I haven't actually seen this in any church to be honest.

As the people of God, the church's primary reason for existence is for the glory of God. Therefore, this should characterise everything we do. The most important obvious way in which we can bring glory to God is in worship.

What about 'By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you love one another' - sounds to me like Jesus definition of how we bring glory to God.

Worship is, therefore, a very important aspect of the life of the church. But what is worship? Worship includes the following elements:

Praising God

What follows is a list of what happens in a church service then back-reffed to unlinked Scriptures to show its OK. Yes, it's OK. But its cyclic definition... and if you carry on you read:

It is important to ensure that no one feels "left out". Instead, each person should feel that they "belong" and are cared for as part of a family.

Of course, now we come back to 'By this shall all men know you are my disciples by your love for each other'. But people have different love languages. They feel things differently. I feel very loved and part of the family... and simultaneously don't like the practice and feel left out by it.

When I was chatting with one of my sons recently I said I wish I could be a member of a church and never go to the church services. I enjoy the other followers of Jesus. It's the meetings that drive me crazy. And other people say the same thing. I'm not sure what the solution is.

It's almost 100% certain than no church will suit everyone... unless that church somehow [and I've never seen it happen] allows for diversity in expression. Not diversity in aim - diversity in expression. That might look pretty different to what happens now. How about multiple things happening at the same gathering so we're not all forced into the same mold. Now this is nothing unique to this 'church'. Most of the 'churches' here suffer this problem.

Leadership is an essential element in any organisation. The church is no different, and God has given gifts to His church including the provision of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers (Ephesians 4 v 7-16).

I sincerely hope the church is different. Leadership is from the Lord not man! Leadership is servant leadership as the Lord demonstrated. The organisation is flat - everyone communicating directly with the Master. [We used to say God has no grand-children].

This difference between church and world has yet to be seen in modern times.

Bible Study 6 - Prayer

The overall feeling I get from this section is that prayer is a task that needs working at. That is is difficult. Take for instance:

Lack of disipline. You need to find a place and set time aside. If you don't work at it you will never succeed.
Because we don't sense the nearness of God and we give up. However, it is important for us to realise that we are not in something that is LIKE a battle - it IS a battle, and we must press on.
Because we lack a sense of the greatness of God. We need a BIG vision. The Holy Spirit can give it to us as we pray.

I think the starting point should be the opposite. Prayer is easy. It's natural. It's not something special, it's just chatting with our Father. When we raise it to something difficult/special then we do two things:

Make it difficult and thus people feel like giving up
Make it something different to how we read from Jesus - yes sometimes he sweated blood... but it was always real to where he was

I chat with our Father frequently but not regularly. By that I mean I have no fixed times, no fixed structure, I just share with my Father through the day. It's like talking to my wife - I don't book times to talk to her, I don't have a regular time to sit and talk [she wishes I was more regular at meal times though] but we enjoy a relationship of which communication is a critical part. It's the same with our Father. We enjoy a relationship of which communication is a critical part. Not scheduled, as that would make it religious. But real. As we walk through the day, we share the day with Him. That's prayer. It's easy. Or should be...

Bible Study 7 - Giving
...
Jesus spoke a lot about money because He understands human nature.
...
Jesus affirmed the principle of tithing in the New Testament (Luke 11 v 42)
...
The tithe belongs to God. He wants our first-fruits, not last fruits, or worse stil, the leftovers!

Well, that's an interesting mixture of thoughts. Our human nature is given us by our Father. We are created in the image of God. That's the starting point. He is creative and He is love. We follow in our Father's footsteps.

My reading of Scripture is that Jesus talked some about money, but I wouldn't say 'a lot' - maybe sometime I should count the verses.

I believe in giving. I believe in giving first fruits. Reverting to legalism for percentages is returning to the law. We are free from the law. As in fact we always were. Man made law. The tithe was for celebrating with God not for giving to the church!

Note that at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, they made no comment about tithing or giving in general. Returning to a legalistic tithe is returning to the old covenant, and I want to live under the new. I can cope with grace, it's laws I cannot keep.

All Newfrontiers churches (including Grace Church, receive input from Ephesians 4 ministries (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers) under the apostolic leadership team headed by Terry Virgo.

I think it dangerous to give authority to one man. Jesus brought together a team. Not a man. We relate directly to the Father. God has no grand-children!

In so many ways Grace lives up to its name. They have been there for me when I have needed it. But at the same time I wish there were some way to really be a member... not a half or quarter member.

I wish that the church were more open and flexible, more centred upon the light yoke our Lord came to bring. If I could find a church that started off as just having the Apostles Creed as its core, and Acts 15 as its practice - as was the case of the early church - then I could truly become a member.

Depressing morning... brilliant afternoon

2008-08-24T20:53:00.004+03:00

I had a really depressing morning... I went to church! I am finding church progressively more depressing and irritating as I grow older. It doesn't scratch where I itch and there is nothing for me to do there. I am merely 'pew fodder'. I come back from church irritated. One thing that bugs me is that the sermons are one way communication... and generally off-scale boring. This is counter Scriptural, where sermons were usually in some form of discussion format.

The afternoon was brilliant... I went sailing! I sailed with someone who admitted to being a believer but not being to church for 20 years. For different, but somewhat similar reasons to my frustration. Over the last week, including me, I have met 5 people who have similar feelings about church.

So I googled 'church boring' and found a number of articles - one from Christian Woman:

Keep in mind, however, that school can be boring, yet we make our kids go. If we send our kids to school but make church an option, we communicate that education is more important than spiritual growth.

Oh, yipes... she's surely not that stupid. Well, OK I used to think that way too. I hated school - it was boring too. And I rarely learnt anything... as I rarely learn anything at church. One reason is that I'm not an oral learner. So school is as bad as church. And... more significantly we didn't make our children go to school. Maybe more people ought to realise that school is optional but learning is not. I believe many more people out to stop their children going to school. It's not helpful and they would do better if they didn't go to school. If we radically changed both school and church that might be a move in the right direction.

Proverbs 27:17 says, "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."

I wish people would understand this often quoted Bible passage. This is irony. Iron doesn't sharpen iron, it blunts it. My Dad was trained as a chef and from a very young age I remember him saying 'You cannon sharpen iron with iron' [you use a stone or more recently steel]. The ancient people knew this, so the quote means, 'As iron sharpens iron [not], so one man sharpens another [he rubs him up the wrong way!]'.

Scripture shows us we can't grow alone. If we try, we can fall prey to heresy or give in to temptation.

Experience shows us that we also can't grow together. I see heresy and giving in to temptation all over the church. Basically... no difference, sorry! But I am not sure that Scripture does show that anyway. She doesn't give any evidence, merely makes it as a proposition.

Most importantly, it's where people come together to worship the living God and Savior Jesus Christ.

No - wrong again. It's a place where some people can come together to worship the living God and Saviour Jesus Christ. I worship God all week. Worship means expressing his worth ship. And as I say I do it all week. Sunday is the day I don't express his worth ship [if you've ever heard me singing you'll know what I mean]. Many Christians seem to believe only what happens on a Sunday is worship, which is crazy, and if it were true would be an extremely sad reflection on their lives. So implying worship only happens on a Sunday is a very dangerous heresy.

What I am looking for is a church that celebrates diversity apart from the essentials of faith, that encourages discussion and grappling with the issues rather than a party line from the front, that acts as a community rather than an exclusive membership club and where the leadership are not a bunch of pharisees interpreting and creating a burden of laws under which we suffer and that encourages people to use their God given creativity rather than sit as pew fodder. In our town there is no church like that. Sadly.

Narrative theology

2008-08-20T01:31:00.018+03:00

Before time as we know it; God existed. He was and always will be in a communal relationship with himself – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At some point God created all things and they were good. When He created us as humans in some mysterious way he imparted His image into us – to be creative and to live in community with Him, with ourselves and with one another. We were to care for all that He had created. The enemy was also there at the beginning and he tempted the first humans and they turned away from the intimate relationship they had with God. This was the start of a story that continues to this day. The darkness from that act spread and affected not just our relationship with God, but with others and with the whole of creation.

God did not leave His creation to spiral downwards but planned and promised that He would restore it – someday the whole of creation would once again return to a harmonious relationship with its maker. First, He chose a people, the descendents of a man named Abraham to take His message to the entire world. He promised to bless them so that they could bless all the nations of the world. When they became enslaved and called out to Him, He heard their cry, liberated them from their oppressors and reiterated His calling upon them to be His representatives of blessing and justice to the world, calling people to turn back to their maker.

God brought His people to what they called the ‘Promised Land’. Their blessing was not for them alone, but that they would bring that blessing to the all nations. He charged them with that mission. Sadly they soon forgot and so even within the people who called themselves ‘Gods people’ they overlooked the poor and mistreated the foreigners. God sent individuals with His message, calling them to turn back, reminding them of their calling and pointing out how they were failing the oppressed and marginalised. These people made known God’s heart for the poor and He still weeps for the poor even today.

But the world went three ways – some ignored God, some built rules in an attempt to appease God and a very small remnant, though forgetting much of their calling, still lived in community with Him. While in exile from the Promised Land this remnant looked forward and clung to the hope that God would again reign and peace and justice would prevail.

Over the years, within those who were called the ‘people of God’ the rules increased and they became a burden to the people. There was a time, for many hundreds of years, while it seemed God was silent. The silence was broken by the arrival of the Messiah, called Jesus. He was like no other man before Him as he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin – He was mysteriously God in flesh.

This was the start of something new in the Kingdom of God, the start of the restoration. God appearing in flesh and what He said was an offense to those who had turned away and to those who liked to build rules for religion. Jesus proclaimed good news to the poor, to bind up the broken-hearted and to release the captives. His way was not attractive to those who loved power or wealth and oppressed others. His way was the path of suffering to death, burial and resurrection. His claim to be the way, the truth and the life points us to the only hope for peace and reconciliation between God and humans. Through Jesus we have been forgiven and brought into a right relationship with God.

When He returned to the Father, Jesus called us to follow Him and those who did so are called the ‘children of God’. We were commissioned to take His message, unchanged since Abraham, to the whole world. The message is that God loves His creation and longs for an intimate relationship with us. But this time it was different: Jesus had overcome the enemy and He poured out His Spirit on all those who trust Him. This Holy Spirit dwells inside us and empowers us with gifts. He convicts, guides, comforts, counsels and leads us into truth.

Jesus called His people to live in community, that the world would see Him by their love for each other and those around them. That community is both a global and local expression of living the way of Jesus through love, peace, sacrifice and healing – bringing the unchanging message of God to a broken world.

There is an end to the story – a day with Jesus will come back and separate people into two groups, those who will live in community with God and those who will be separated from Him. At that time all things will be restored to God’s original plan and He will dwell with us here in a restored creation. Peace and justice will touch every aspect of creation, death will be no more and God will wipe away our tears. Our relationship with God and with creation will be made whole again. This future hope is something for celebration now.

The authoritative version of this story is written in what we call the Bible. It’s a series of books whose authors were inspired by God to record His dealing with mankind over the centuries. But those books are not history but His story, as a narrative they speak to all generations as the Spirit of God brings them alive.

Although we know the end, we are not there yet and the story is till being written in the hearts and minds of people everywhere. Even today the world goes three ways – some ignoring God, some building rules in an attempt to appease God and a remnant longing and hoping for the time when the end will come. A longing and hope for wholeness, peace and justice. Till that time we, of the remnant, are giving our lives to living out that future reality now.

[This writing was inspired by reading Mars Hill Narrative Theology, to which it has some similarities. I am writing a whole book entitled 'In the image of a creative God...' where I address the whole issue of narrative and story telling as a method of communicating truth. I have been thinking a lot about creedal statements recently - especially as I see churches overloading their membership with beliefs that the early disciples never thought critical enough, or were sufficiently ambiguous to interpretation, to not include in the Apostles Creed.]

What's the minimum?

2008-05-19T22:14:00.006+03:00

I have spent a lot of time thinking and reading and praying about a problem that is troubling me. Most churches seem to have large documents saying what they believe and what you have to believe to be a member. According to these documents I am not sure there is one church in our town that I can be a member of! I was becoming very negative and fed up with them all.

So in an attempt to be more positive, I decided to try to work out what is the minimum we need to believe to be a member of the worldwide body of Christ. From that I was thinking that if this could become the criteria for being a member of a local church maybe I would find a place I could call home here in Larnaka. This is what I came up with:

The early followers of Jesus called themselves followers of the way. This is based on Christ's words of 'I am the way, the truth and the life' [John 4:16], in other words, they are followers of Jesus. We can comfortably, therefore, call ourselves followers of the way.

From the beginning there were differences of opinion as to what being a follower of the way actually meant. These have continued and increased both in breadth and ferocity. The early followers of Jesus drew up a minimal creed to identify what is needed to be believed to be a follower of the way. We call this 'The Apostles Creed' and dates back to AD140:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary; crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, from where He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body and the everlasting life.

As far as the law is concerned Jesus was asked what was the minimum or most important part of the law. He replied:

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' [Luke 10:27]

Why not add to these? I was looking for the minimum in each case. If we want the maximum we would return to the legalism of the Old Testament. With these as a minimum all the debates about baptism, gifts of the Spirit, church management and leadership and whatever else we want to argue about can be relegated to differences of interpretation.

What I still don't know is how to resolve within a fellowship opposite interpretations - for instance when some believe that women in leadership is acceptable and some do not. For me, I look to the minimal and see if it conflicts. If not, then its permitted. This is similar to the problem the early followers of the way had with meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus summary of the law gives us the guidelines that Scripture then unpacks - yes, its permitted but not necessarily helpful within the fellowship.

The problem we face is that most churches do not allow for disagreement. So if we have a bunch of believers who claim that the modern state of Israel is the outworking of God's plan we can either join them or reject them. There lies the problem - I love the people but totally disagree with them over this. With each of the churches in this town there are problems I have with their belief structure.

Within any church there is a centre of power. That centre of power determines, as I said at the beginning, the belief structure of that church. It creates a very excluding structure. It makes people like me feel like outsiders. I believe this is the opposite of what Jesus intends for His body. I long for a church which I can call home...

Streams in the Desert

2008-05-13T22:20:00.006+03:00

One problem I find with people is that they rationalise man made structures [like countries] into God ordained institutions. As I read the scriptures I see God calling His people to be a blessing to the nations, we are to be salt and light within our communities. To leap from that to some meta-plan of international political intrigue is, from what I have read of the Scriptures, plain rubbish and dangerously misleading.

Usually such a leap is based on taking Scriptures wildly out of context, a danger Evangelicals suffer from - 'proof texting' it's called. An example of this I have just come across is the 'Streams in the Desert' programme sponsored by Gateways Beyond. I like the people at Gateways Beyond. They are a great bunch of guys and many are good musicians, something lacking in the churches here in Larnaka. Theologically Gateways Beyond is a mix of messianic Jewish outreach and political Zionism under a guise of end times prophecy. The first I am encouraged by - I long to see Jews, as with Arabs, worship and enjoy a relationship with our Lord. The second, political Zionism under a guise of end times prophecy I am appalled by.

I stand and watch appalled as Israel takes Zangwill's untrue statement that 'Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country' and turn it into a battle cry to create genocide against the Palestinian people. Each Palestinian killed is a person Jesus died for and loves dearly. Each Israeli killed is a person Jesus died for and loves dearly. But just a casual look at the numbers of casualties shows a story that, while not being annihilation of the Palestinians, is way unbalanced in favour of the Israelis. Until justice prevails or all the Palestinians are killed we will have no peace in Palestine.

There are two contenting perceptions about the role of the Jewish tribes which some see as polar opposites: There is Zionism, which claims that the Jewish people were and are still a critical part of God's plan and there is 'replacement theology' which claims that the Christian church has replaced the Jewish people as the critical component to God's plan. In both cases there is one special group to receive God's blessing. Neither of them seem to actually capture the heart of God and both are equally wrong. Zionists also tend to interpret Scripture to suit their own ends as far as land rights are concerned.

However, from what I see in Scripture, though God's heart is to bless us, he calls us primarily to be a blessing to others. This is what the Jews seemed to miss from day one - they were supposed to be a blessing to the nations. Yes, check it out, each time its plural nations. And they failed miserably in this calling! Within the Jewish tribes there were the people of God. Abraham was called a friend of God. God had his friends within the Jewish tribes. It wasn't that the whole Jewish tribes were his equal friends. Though Scripture shows he was calling all the tribes to truth and justice.

I suspect that He also had his friends outside of the Jewish tribes too, but I cannot prove that. Maybe my first question to our Father in Heaven will be something along the lines of, 'Who were your friends outside of the Jewish tribes? In Egypt for instance...' but that's another story.

The Bible talks about 'grafting' as the analogy, not replacement. We who follow the Lord are grafted into the root stock, like sweet oranges in Cyprus are grafted onto bitter orange root stock. Thus we continue on the calling of God to be a blessing to the nations. To be a minority within a majority.

Jesus continued to expound the calling of God's people to be 'salt and light' as He put it, and the early disciples never thought of themselves as citizens of a country but as sojourners, just passing through. That is the healthy and Biblical perception of how we see ourselves and the nations we live in. Patriotism should be an anathema to a follower of Jesus.

So, when you look up all references to Cypriots and then claim that these are the 'specific ways God used the Cypriots to bless the Body in the first century and will again in these end times' this is simply proof texting and misleading people to believe things that are plainly untrue. There is no reason for God to repeat Himself. He might, but He is not bound to do and my reading of Scripture suggests he rarely does repeat Himself.

As I read Scripture and observe God working in the hearts and minds of people who follow Him, I see Him treating people according to the way He made them, not according to their nationality. Thus Barnabus was annointed not because he was Cypriot, but because of his character or nature. He could equally well have been Sudanese, Greek or Moroccan!

'Cyprus: The Barnabas Anointing' is thus a collection of proof texts, intragesis rather than exegisis, helpful in part to support the second strand of Gateways Beyond, that of political Zionism. This comes through clearly in their text:

Defenders of Israel Numbers 24v24

Ships will come from the shores of Kittim; they will subdue Asshur and Eber, but they too will come to ruin.”

Daniel 11v29-30 “At the appointed time he will invade the South again, but this time the outcome will be different from what it was before. Ships of the western coastlands will oppose him, and he will lose heart. Then he will turn back and vent his fury against the holy covenant. He will return and show favor to those who forsake the holy covenant.
Most exciting, there is a purpose for the nation of Cyprus with respect to Israel that is yet to be fulfilled. Cyprus is also referred to as Kittim in the Scriptures. The Bible speaks of ships from Kittim coming against the enemies of Israel or discouraging the enemies of Israel.

No, this is not Scriptural interpretation or prophecy, but wishful thinking on the part of Jewish believers still stuck in the perception that the Jewish people were and are special. God weeps over each and every one of the people on earth who die without knowing Him. The story Jesus told that we call the 'Prodigal Son' tells us that. Every person on earth is special in God's eyes.

We need to be clear that political Zionism has nothing to do with following Jesus. Following Jesus is about laying down our lives for our friends, its about going the extra mile, not attempting to clear out a country of those living there so that Zangwill can be proved true that 'Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country'. This is not end time prophecy. It's a crime against humanity. The same humanity God sent His Son to die for.

Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures to check out what he was saying. I wish more people would take a Berean approach to programmes like 'Streams in the Desert'. From what I see, Streams in the Desert does not appear to be 'Contending for Cyprus and her regional calling' but contenting for Israel and finding any people who can help her. As such it's political rather than spiritual. I won't be going!

The gathering

2008-02-04T23:19:00.000+02:00

I left late this morning. It was deliberate. I was going to a gathering that normally starts late and because I prefer to creep in at the back I was leaving later even than the time it was due to start.

As I arrived I could hear music floating out from the building. As I opened the door I could see six people at the front playing musical instruments or singing into microphones. At the back I could see six people also standing. Part of the reason they were standing was that there were not enough chairs. So I joined those at the back and shook their hands or gave them a hug depending on the relationship.

As I looked out over the people standing between those at the back and those at the front... at the people who had arrived early and therefore had chairs... I saw different reactions going on. Some were singing, some were not, some had their eyes open, some closed, some had hands above their heads, others by their side. All were peering at a screen onto which an overhead projector was showing words with some letters missing off the side of the screen and some letters with parts removed where the printing had been scratched away over time.

I had been been only fifteen minutes late and over the next twenty minutes two families and a few other people arrived. They crept in, looking for chairs. Except those young enough to be in a buggy and therefore took their chair with them. A whole mixture of clothing, nobody dressed smartly, some more interesting than others - like the jeans with almost more hole than material. Nice jeans, but why let all the cold air attack your legs in winter?

The music continued. One singer was too far from the microphone to hear her. The other was singing passionately, eyes closed and obviously highly involved in the song, but singing flat. Maybe it would have been better if she had been too far from the microphone.

Within the middle ground had evolved a row of young people. They were distracted by each other, enjoying their own company. Not singing. Chatting quietly while not disturbing others. Or they were exchanging meaningful glances along the line. At an unbidden signal the young people stand up and leave. They climb the stairs to gather together away from adults.

The adults meanwhile sit down. Fortunately someone had found some more chairs so we could all be seated. Some bright blue bags are passed round and people stuff money into them.

At length the trumpeter from the band clips a microphone to his shirt and starts to talk. It's nothing new he is saying. I have heard it before, many times. With variations, as other people have alternative perceptions about the book and person he is talking about. Everyone who manages to get hold of the microphone at the front is 100% convinced they are right about their interpretation. They often spend as much time correcting the errors of others as espousing their perception as truth. I am sure I would be the same if I got the microphone. Probably a good job that it happens very infrequently that I get it.

The people at the back are muttering corrections to the person at the front. At least the muttering will stop me falling asleep, as I normally do. The person at the front has just said there was a time a few years back when God told him to play. A mutter from the person on my right wondering if it was Scrabble and not the trumpet.

Funny gathering this. At length we shall have coffee and everyone will relax.

Today there is cake as well as biscuits to go with the coffee or tea. People talk about their week. Good or bad. People express how good the cake is. Others wonder about the recipe and how it was made.

People talk about next week and what will happen. Animated, lively discussion. Someone asks where the cake came from and who made it.

All manner of questions until they find the maker of the cake. Nobody brings out a book. Nobody sings about the cake or the maker. But it was good cake and the maker told us how bake another.

Culture, counter-culture and alternative culture

2008-01-11T22:41:00.000+02:00

When we talk about contextualisation we mean the relationship between followers of Jesus and the 'host culture' - in other words the context of the Gospel in the surrounding culture.

In Matt 5:13-16 Jesus expresses this relationship in terms of salt and light.

You are salt for the earth. But if salt loses its taste, how will it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people. You are light for the world. A city cannot be hidden when it is located on a hill. No one lights a lamp and puts it under a basket. Instead, everyone who lights a lamp puts it on a lamp stand. Then its light shines on everyone in the house. In the same way let your light shine in front of people. Then they will see the good that you do and praise your Father in heaven.

When Jesus said this, it may have appeared to be something new to His listeners. However, in reality it was just restating what God had said down through the ages, starting from Abraham. And right down through the ages the people of God have become distracted and not been salt and light within the community and culture and built an alternative culture and community instead.

Going right back to the beginning, when God spoke to Abraham He said:

My promise is still with you. You will become the father of many nations. So your name will no longer be Abram, but Abraham because I have made you a father of many nations. I will give come from you. I will make my promise to you and your descendants for generations to come as an everlasting promise. I will be your God and the God of your descendants. (Genesis 17:4-7)

In the Middle East names have meanings - Abram means 'exalted father' and his new name Abraham means 'father of many'. Yet the people of God seemed to miss the emphasis on being in the context of being God's emisary to many nations and focussed on the verse 8, which I deliberately stopped before to show the emphasis. That verse says: I am also giving this land where you are living-all of Canaan-to you and your descendants as your permanent possession. And I will be your God. Sadly, God's people, as they have throughout ages, have focussed on the separate alternative community rather than the integrated relationship to the many.

Frequently Christians form some sort of parallel, alternative culture to the host culture and it is observed that this alternative culture tends to inhibit the spread of the Gospel into the host culture. This is because when there is a second parallel alternative culture then the Gospel is seen as foreign or alien, not something that is 'for me'.

There are other problems with this alternative culture. One of the most significant is that when members of the alternative culture find all there needs met within this community they therefore become progressively more isolated from their host culture. This isolation, over time, makes the host culture something undesireable and communication with members of the other community tends to become merely functional - buying, selling and working alonside them but without real communication or understanding. As this isolation increases, so the appearance of this alternative culture becomes more and more strange and alien to members of the host culture. This makes it progressively more difficult for members of the host culture to cross over into the alternative culture and evangelism diminishes till the alternative culture goes into survival mode with no real desire for meaningful contact with host culture. This is roughtly what could be seen from Christian communities in the Middle East up till the mid 1990s. However, like all generalisations, there were exceptions.

Over time the language of the alternative culture can change with the Christians using words and phrases that are meaningful to them but ambiguous or incomprehensible to members of the host culture. This can happen both ways and the host culture - especially among the young - can adopt a way of speaking that the Christians don't commonly use. Sometimes the Christians might attempt to emulate this language. But without understanding properly the culture, these attempts can seem 'pseudo' to the host culture and actually be counter productive in communicating the Gospel.

Sometimes the separation is quite deliberate on the part of the Christians as was the case for the Puritans who were the founding fathers of the USA. They were having difficulties within the culture of the established churches in europe and hoped to found a new and free culture where they could practice their faith without interference. Though some native Americans became followers of Jesus, the alternative culture had little meaningful contact with their host culture. The pendulum has swung right across now, with 'megachurches' setting up alternative communities right across the USA . In Branded Nation: The Marketing of Megachurch, College Inc., and Museumworld, James B. Twitchell gives the example of Southeast Christian in Louisville, Kentucky:

Southeast Christian is an example of a new breed of megachurch -- a full-service ''24/7'' sprawling village, which offers many of the conveniences and trappings of secular life wrapped around a spiritual core. It is possible to eat, shop, go to school, bank, work out, scale a rock-climbing wall and pray there, all without leaving the grounds.
These churches are becoming civic in a way unimaginable since the 13th century and its cathedral towns. No longer simply places to worship, they have become part resort, part mall, part extended family and part town square.

The megachurch example may have come out of a desire to contextualize or reach out to a generation that some Church leaders believe are being lost to the Gospel. In reaching out, they have not remained salt and light within the host community, rather have separated themselves from the host community. Looking in from the outside it might be questionable whether indeed these alternative communities are syncretistic forms of religion. Wikipedia defines religion as 'a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law'. As such they appear more a form of religion than a relationship with a living God.

Some, however, are not attempts to reach out to the current generation, but deliberate attempts to create an alternative society, for instance, Patricia Leigh Brown writing in the New York Times on May 9th 2002, wrote an article entitled Megachurches as Minitowns:

By making it nearly possible to inhabit the church from morning to night, cradle to grave, these full-service churches can shelter congregants, said Dr. Randall Ballmer, a professor of American religion at Barnard College, from ''a broader society that seems unsafe, unpredictable and out of control, underscored by school shootings and terrorism.''

This kind of deliberate alternative culture would be similar but for slightly different reasons to the strict and particular Baptists and some of the Brethren groups who believe they have a Biblical mandate to be separate from the world. These groups will not have meals with others from outside their group and will even see other Christians as beyond the pale. This might be similar to some of the monastic orders which also separate themselves from the world, building monastries with big walls to keep people out. For people who believe that way, contextualisation is an anathema and wrong. They would never dream of even attempting to communicate the Gospel in any way other than their parallel alternative culture. This alternative culture is seen as their calling. For them, the host culture is seen as evil and a separation needed for Christians to be holy. Evangelism between this sort of extreme alternative culture can degrade into what might appear to be Christians standing behind inpenetrable walls shouting incomprehensible words at non-Christians the other side of the wall.

While not going that far, there are some groups who would also see a Biblical mandate to 'not change the Gospel'. Some of these Christians might either be 'King James Only' Christians and others for whom anything that even smells of aldulterating the Gospel is of the devil. Other Christians might interpret the Biblical mandate differently and see contextualisation as a technique to bringing people into the Kingdom, whereupon they would be absorbed into the alternative culture. Often people in this group see the host culture as bad and some seek to change the host culture to become a Christian cultue. It is worth noting that until Christianity became a state estabilished religion, followers of the Messiah sought to be salt and light within the community rather that changing the entire culture to be what is perceived as Christian.

The Christian alternative culture does not only relate to how people speak. It could affect how they dress or hairstyles, makeup (or lack of it), means of transport (like the Amish) or one thousand other small things that members of the host culture perceive as alternative. We know from experience how easily we can spot a Mormon just from the look of their haircut and clothes.

But it isn't just that extreme. Some Christians would be critical of some sub-cultures of the host culture. For instance, in some places, for men a 'clean cut' hairstyle is still considered somehow to be more Christian than long hair - even if among the general population long hair would be acceptable. That is just an example of something obvious. There can be many subtle cultural signs and indicators that members of a community pick up to know if someone is 'one of our people' or a 'foreigner'. Frequently people outside emulate some of the characteristics of the group while missing others. They are inconsistent. That inconsistency is of itself an indicator of being an outsider.

Other Christians, citing the incarnation - God becoming flesh - would see contextualisation as continuing this incarnational approach. Christians feeling this way would see a Biblical mandate to be 'in the world yet not of the world' to be fully integrated in the world, yet hold a different 'world view' to those around them. For some, the host culture is seen as neutral - neither good nor bad - and following Jesus can be worked out within that context. They might see man as fallen but might emphasise the good and wholesome aspects of the host culture.

However, no culture is perfect, as no culture is 100 percent bad. This applies as much to the Christian alternative cultures as to the host cultures. They too have some good and some bad attributes.

The early followers of Jesus, or followers of the Way as they preferred to be called, thought of themselves as visitors in a foreign country. They were just passing through en route to their heavenly home. People around them where they lived perceived this and accepted them as almost foreigners. It was not until the third century when the Emperor of Rome made Christianity the state religion that it became something normal to be a Christian.

Since then there has always been an ongoing tension. When the followers of Christ were within, but not of the culture they did not exhibit an alternative culture but a counter culture. This difference between an alternative and a counter culture may seem like just playing with words but I think the difference is relevant and significant.

When we talk about an alternative culture we are thinking about something that effectively runs parallel with the host culture and replaces it. Christians are not the only groups who exhibit this alternative culture phenomena - many ethnic and other religious groups also can create alternative cultures within a host culture. This can be significant when trying to reach, for example, Afro-Caribeans living in Birmingham in the UK or Palestinians living in Jordan.

When we think about a counter culture we are not talking about a replacement culture, but a culture integrated into a host culture which nevertheless exhibits characteristics which can be considered to be running counter to the host culture. For example, in a host culture which shows a high level of personal independance like in North America or Western Europe, a counter culture of followers of Jesus might show a high level of inter-dependence.

This separation between alternative and counter culture affects how we think about contextualisation. You might think of counter culture as being lifestyle choices within a host culture. Contextualisation therefore appears natural and part of being counter cultural, whereas it can seem forced or artificial if attempted from an alternative culture.

There are also questions about how this fits in Biblically. For example, within some cultures in the Middle East it is important to look well dressed and for events to have almost an air of decadence. Being rich is admired. Therefore if a TV preacher looks well dressed in an auditorium that is full of well dressed people who appear to have paid quite a bit of money to be there [even if the truth is the event is free] this alternative culture can create affirmative feelings in the host culture. But Biblically I want to ask the question is this good news for the poor? Good news for the poor is counter culture!

The question this raises is how it affects the three core questions of this book - creativity, dialogue and storytelling as a means of communicating the Gospel to Muslims. The best way of approaching this is to start from the position of a member of the host culture who has just decided to follow the Messiah, but has no experience of an alternative culture. Thinking about the claims and teaching of Jesus will affect their lifestyle which will tend to be counter cultural in places, but entirely different from context to context. It will not necessarily have any linkage with an existing alternative culture.

An example here might help - a group of new MBBs might decide to share a meal, pray and study the Bible together on a weekly basis. This meeting might be very different to the Sunday meeting of an established church. This meal together might express a closeness of relationship and caring for each other across what would not normally be their family or tribal groups. It might not involve singing songs, a sermon or other 'church' events while still being a valid expression of 'church'. This then is counter cultural in that it starts from the host culture, is not significantly abnormal within the host culture but runs counter to the expected family or tribal groupings of the host culture.

From the point of view of the three core questions of the book, I hope it is clear that we need to start from the host culture and using as creative approach as possible communicate the Gospel while remaining in dialogue with the host culture. Storytelling - or using parables - remains an excellent way of communicating as can be seen by the way Jesus used parables within the context of first century Palestine. Those stories or parables can focus on aspects of the culture that communicate God's truth in a way that transcends culture.

Our danger point that we must always watch and be aware of is that we are called to be salt and light within the community, not a parallel alternative community separated from the host community. When we become separated, then there is a danger of that, as Jesus said, the salt will lose its saltiness.

How do we all relate?

2007-08-31T17:45:00.000+03:00

When I was at school I used to be fascinated by Venn diagrams. Many people hated them, thought them too confusing... maybe it is because I am a visual person they seemed to communicate better to me than numbers.

Over the last few years I have been thinking about the different strands of the church and about whether we could express those relationships in a Venn diagram. Last few days I have been thinking more and come up with the following diagram.

The first reaction I had was from my son [who is studying theology] and was 'Brilliant'. Hmmm... now this is just a first draft and based upon gut reactions. But what do other people think? Is this a helpful way to express things? How do we measure the overlaps?

Its quite deliberate that some groups overlap all core Christian beliefs and some do not... obviously one problem with this diagram is that each group defines core Christian beliefs differently. Nobody thinks that they are unsound themselves... but maybe the problem is the words sound and unsound. And what do we mean by 'core' anyhow?

Made in the image of (a creative) God

2007-04-21T16:58:00.000+03:00

I was lent Rollo May's The courage to create out of a discussion with a friend about creativity and my desire to [maybe sometime, maybe never] write a book entitled Made in the image of (a creative) God. Actually I think a better title would be In the image... of a creative God. Anyway enough about abstracts, what about May's book?

On page 134 Rollo May builds up to his central thesis:

I shall explore the hypothesis that limits are not only unavoidable in human life, they are also valuable. I shall discuss the phenomenon that creativity itself requires limits, for the creative act arises out of the struggle of human beings with and against that which limits them.

Citing the start of human consciousness in Garden of Eden as a portrayal in the context of a rebellion, struggling against a limit, Rollo goes on to say how punished by God and Adam and Eve get other limits - anxiety, the feeling of alienation and guilt. But, he claims, valuable qualities come out of this: sense of personal responsibility and ultimately the possibility, born out of loneliness, of human love. But he concludes Confronting limits for the human personality actually turns out to be expansive. Limiting and expanding thus go together. [P136-137]

Using the example of a river and river bank, Rollo believes that in creativity limits are as necessary as those provided by the banks of a river, without which the water would be dispersed on the earth and there would be no river - that is, the river is constituted by the tension between the flowing water and the banks. Art in the same way requires limits as a necessary factor in it's birth. Creativity arises out of a tension between spontaneity and limitations. [P137]

Thinking of the limitation of the canvas upon the painter as a boundary to their work I was reminded of a work by Martin Honert entitled Kinderkreussug which he developed between 1995 and 1997. In this work of art Honert does not allow himself to be limited by the canvas but marching out from the acrylic are three dimensional characters, confronting the viewer with the edge between flat art and sculpture.

Honert claimed to be motivated in his art by ...the emotional confusion of pathos and embarrassment, seriousness and absurdity, demand and reality, the sad ending of a happy time. He looks on in seeing not so much a struggling against the boundaries or limits but in seeing the paradox or symmetry of life.

Personally, I think in fact the struggle with limits as Rollo May puts it is not really a struggle with limits but a struggle with rationalism to reconcile these paradoxes we call human life. Is it the river that defines the river bank or the bank that defines the river? Though I am not a fan of all the eastern ways of looking at life the easterner expresses this balance as yin and yan. Those of us who assert that there is a God and that He loves us are confronted with another group of humans who assert that there is no God, or that if there is He is severe and that we cannot know Him.

Nobody expresses this better for me than Tom Stoppard, in his play Jumpers, which claims to be a serious attempt to debate the existence of a moral absolute, of metaphysical reality, of God... Stoppard provides George, the main perpetrator of this debate, with this closing monologue:

"A remarkable number of apparently intelligent people are baffled by the fact a different group of apparently intelligent people profess to a knowledge of God when common sense tells them - the first group of apparently intelligent people - that knowledge is only a possibility in matters which can be demonstrated to be true or false, as as that the Bristol train leaves from Paddington. And yet these same apparently intelligent people, who in extreme cases will not even admit that the Bristol train left from Paddington yesterday - which might be a malicious report or a collective trick of memory - nor that it will leave from there tomorrow - for nothing is certain - and will only agree that it did today if they were actually there when it left - and even then only on the understanding that all the observable phenomena associated with the the train leaving Paddington could equally well be accounted for by Paddington leaving the train - these same people will, nevertheless, and without any sense of inconsistency, claim to know that life is better than death, that love is better than hate, and that the light shining through the east window of the bloody gymnasium is more beautiful than a rotting corpse!"

Art and creativity is not merely about beauty but is about expressing this tension, and in the last few decades we have seen the limits pushed further and further. For example Henrik Plenge Jacobson in collaboration with Jes Brinch created a rotting corpse entited Teacher for the "Human Conditions" exhibition in 1997 in Finland.

This is not a sculpture I think I would ever create, and it begs the question that Rollo May asks earlier in his book: The fact that talent is plentiful but passion is lacking seems to me to be a fundamental facet of the problem of creativity in many fields today, and our ways of approaching creativity by avoiding the encounter have played directly into this trend. We worship technique - talent - as a way of evading the anxiety of the direct encounter. [P101 The courage to create]

The limits to what is and isn't art and what creativity in art is further confused when we look at someone like Vanessa Beechcroft's works. In her exhibition openings and performances she has a group of girls silently take up positions, moving very little, standing before their public like living pictures. This is like looking at a mirror in some ways, seeing ourselves, well not ourselves, but humankind. Vanessa says "I am interested in the difference between what I expect and what actually happens".

Actually I believe there is always something unexpected in the creative process. I wonder whether it was somewhat unexpected for God when he created the world. Thinking about Rollo May's assertion that creativity is about limits and expansion, I wonder how that relates to the primary act of creation by God.

We think of His creation in terms of the earth, the universe, mankind, etc. However, we know that there is no end to the universe and in fact many secular scholars now talk about how it is actually rather unexpected that the universe is continually expanding. The creativity is a process without end. It certainly did not, does not and will not have limits or boundaries, it is quite literally expanding.

Henrik Jacobson again, "For me, art should not restrict itself to formal questions. It should represent an alternative, not an assertion. Maybe I'm idealistic, but I think art should be an instrument of criticism." Where May talks about limits, here Jacobson also talks about alternative or in some ways paradox or symmetry.

Maybe Jacobson's criticism can be seen in his work Everything is wrong. It's a simple target like an archery target painted in acrylic with the words overlaid. I guess, at least there is no ambiguity to his message!

It's not a work of beauty, nor a work like his rotting corpse... I find these abstract works to be often more difficult to understand, even though they appear to be clear at first sight.

So... braving all I decide on a creative act of symmetry for Jacobson's, mine entitled Cake is everything.

So if everything is wrong and cake is everything, it must prove that cake is wrong!

No?

Oh well...

Maybe at this point I should quote two entries by Adrian Plass in his book Bacon Sandwiches and Salvation, which he claims is an A-Z of the Christian Life:

Art: something regarded with deep suspicion by many folk in the church. This sad prejudice was exemplified at the Spring Harvest art gallery a few years ago, when someone wrote in the comments book: 'Too many bottoms for my liking.' particularly frustrating when one reflects that most of the great art produced over the years was influenced by Christian belief.

Icon: (1) a devotional painting or carving, usually on wood of Christ or another holy figure (2) it is not generally known that, as a creative race, icon artists are less than confident. When addressing them on the subject of their art, one should look very directly into their faces and express one's response to their work with delicacy and subtlety. This is known in artistic circles as icon-tact.

This is a pastel drawing I did more than a couple or years ago which is in the entrance to our office. It's there to remind us that though much of what we do is technical, it is the people that matter. It's there to give eye-contact with the audience we never see.

My conclusion on a more serious point is actually to reject Rollo May's assertion that Creativity arises out of a tension between spontaneity and limitations is actually not the starting point for creativity but the starting point is paradox and symmetry and that the tension between spontaneity and limitations is actually an outworking of that paradox and symmetry.

My question arising from this is whether much of the church's monochrome approach to teaching is actually counter to God's creativity in the world. No, I'm not advocating a pluralistic 'everything goes' approach, but an acceptance of the ambiguity that arises from a relationship with a creative God and an understanding that because we are created in His image there will be ambiguity and paradox in our lives and our worship.

The ultimate act of creativity we are involved with is bringing new human beings into the world and caring for them. That is surely symmetry for God's relationship to us.

This wire-frame sculpture I saw in Singapore - I wish I had noted the name of the sculptor, there was no name on the work. It expresses that relationship of parent to child. The light air passing through and around the sculpture gives a solid yet almost non-existent quality to the man and the child. Much like the relationship between God and us as his children where the relationship is apparent and obvious and experienced without the same solid-ness of the human relationship that mirrors the original one.

I was going to say that since we are made in the image of God I believe our ultimate worship of Him should seek to express that creativity... but realised that could be ambiguous as I believe the ultimate act of God's creativity was in creating humankind... and we probably have to be careful or the readings from Song of Songs could change the whole tone of Sunday morning 'worship'.

Story telling is very definitely an art form and Jesus one of the key story tellers of all time. He had a sense of both timing and structure. Consider the story of the Prodigal Son or as some prefer to call it 'the two lost sons'. There was apparently a similar story circulating around Palestine at that time, but Jesus changed the end and gave new meaning. In that story we see both paradox and symmetry.

Many times even Jesus closest friends asked for an explanation. In our rationalism we want everything so plain everyone understands everything. Yet this is not what we have seen as the way of God down through the ages. To me it seems in our desire for a mechanistic 'all answers' church we have created something alien to the historical people of God. We have lost creativity and here I let me paraphrase Rollo May:

The fact that church is plentiful but passion is lacking seems to me to be a fundamental facet of the problem of worship today, and our ways of approaching worship by avoiding the encounter have played directly into this trend. We elevate technique as a way of evading the anxiety of the direct encounter [with God and others].

I fear we have lost the direct encounter with the living God and replaced it with a synthetic plastic alternative. The debate about church usually surrounds form rather than substance, yet for me form can so easily obfuscate substance. In my experience real direct encounter only takes place within a small group of Jesus-followers. The rest is as insubstantial as the parent and child in the wire frame not an incarnational living relationship with God.

Having replaced the encounter with a weekly repeatable programmed experience we have totally lost the creativity which was a vital part of encountering (a creative) God.

Start at the beginning

2007-04-01T11:29:00.000+03:00

I have just been lent a copy of 'The courage to create' by Rollo May. The came about because I mentioned that I wanted to write a book entitled 'Made in the image of (a creative) God'. Maybe I still will, but Rollo's book got me thinking about where it all started. In what we call the 'garden of Eden'.

At the centre of the garden there were two trees: the tree of the knowledge of good and even and the tree of everlasting life. God said 'Don't eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. He said nothing about the tree of everlasting life.

When the first man and woman ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God was upset with them for disobedience. He said that they had now become 'like one of us, knowing good and evil' and kicked them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from the tree of eternal life and also become like God living for eternity.

OK, so some questions: Why did God not want us to know the difference between good and evil? Why was He happy for mankind to live forever if they didn't know good and evil? And not when they did? If mankind didn't know the difference between good and evil what kind of relationship would have been between God and mankind? Would God have become bored with that relationship?

What I am really thinking is that there is a paradox here. Without the knowledge of good and evil there is no real free will, because without that knowledge you cannot know to chose. Now God created man with free will, but without the knowledge of good and evil. So... if Adam and Eve didn't have the knowledge of good and evil how did they know not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Answer because God told them... but... before they ate it they didn't have the knowledge that it was wrong. So it was inevitable they would eat it. Hmmm... a paradox maybe.

So what was God looking for in the relationship with Adam and Eve if they didn't know what was good and what was evil?

Here's where I'm at from this: I am coming to believe that a true understanding of God is about paradox and symmetry and that is what separates followers of the one true God from all others. That we don't need a neat packaged system with all the bugs worked out we follow a living God with all the paradoxes there are in Him.

OK, if that's true, that's why I am seeing so many problems with some parts of the church: Evangelicalim being a big part of that. Modernist Evangelicalism wants to worship a God with all the bugs worked out. They are thus demeaning Him to the level of other gods, and in reality not worshiping the one true God. 'In religion, it is not the sycophants or those who cling most faithfully to the status quo who are ultimately praised' [P31, The courage to create, Rollo May]

Interested I got led from Rollo May to Kester Brewin who hosts a site/blog called 'The complex Christ' which is the name of the book he has written. In review of 'The courage to create' Kester writes this:

Perhaps we need a churchless Church.
The body of Christ is a given - we have to belong to the Church [macro]. But perhaps we should give up calling the things we are involved in church [micro]. It is just such an unhelpful and loaded word to use. "Do you want to come to church?" To be honest, no I don't. And by the numbers and temper of those in the debate, there's plenty others who don't either. Church can be something I am a part of. But it's not something I want to 'go to'. [The Complex Christ]

Hmmm... now this is interesting. Is the problem with going to church really that it packages things up too neatly and creates a paradox free sycophantic religion that Jesus came to abolish? Back to Rollo May again:

Those we call saints rebelled against an outmoded and inadequate form of God on the basis of their new insights into divinity... Their rebellion was motivated by new insights into the meaning of godliness. They rebelled, as Paul Tillich has so beautifully stated, against God in the name of the God beyond God. The continuous emergence of the God beyond God is the mark of creative courage in the religious sphere.[P32,The courage to create, Rollo May]

Rhema and Logos

2006-10-30T23:40:00.000+02:00

The Bible doesn't refer to itself as the 'Word of God' as many Evangelicals are wont to do. Except of course in referring to the Penateuch and when they mean the Bible as the Word of God they don't just mean the first five books!

The New Testament does refer to Jesus as the 'Word of God' and so He is. What we are seeing is a difference between two Greek words: Rhema and Logos. Where rhema refers to the spoken word of God and logos to the written word of God. The wikipedia reference for rhema explains the difference well.

However, seeing a difference doesn't seem to underline enough the dangers of rhema without logos of logos without rhema. Rhema without logos can produce totally off the rails interpretations of what God is saying. The word-faith movement is an example of this. The father of the word-faith movement is usually considered to be Kenneth Hagin, but in reality he plagarized another guy called Kenyon. They have a doctrine which they call 'positive confession' and which they mean that because God spoke and the universe was created it is the power of words that makes things happen.

Of course this is just one aspect of the word-faith movement, but does focus on spoken word, rhema, as if it of itself is powerful rather than the outworking of an all powerful God.

People who are upside down on this, ie focus on the logos not the rhema, see rhema as coming out of logos and where logos is silent then make your own mind up because 'God predestined it anyhow'. Which is Calvinist. And Muslim.

When I look around if I take a phenomenological approach to looking then frequently the church doesn't look much different to a mix of west end musical, political meeting of the 1930s and Islamic theology.

Yet I cannot get over the fact that Jesus came to change all this. He came to announce good news for the poor, freedom for the captive and tell people that the unrelenting power of God to change you was here and available because He himself was going to die for us.

How did he do this? He spoke - rhema. He referred to the Old Testament - logos. He told stories. He shared Himself. He broke the accepted rules of the day. He would probably have been as bored in a church service as I am with pontificating preachers who neither proclaim rhema and turn logos into monotonos utterances.

Hmmm... why if Jesus is so interesting is the church so boring?

Promise Keepers

2006-09-20T19:41:00.000+03:00

When I first heard about Promise Keepers I was living in the USA. I instantly felt very uncomfortable about the movement. Firstly it was a 'men only' movement, which immediately rang alarm bells, and secondly the name Promise Keepers sounded more like living under the law than living under grace.

It sounded like a reactionary movement rather than proactive. By that I mean it was reacting to an observable phenomena that there are less men in the church than women, so assumed that something 'manly' should be done to attract men. Secondly it was trying to contextualize the church to American macho.

Is it all bad?

Here are the 7 promises a Promise Keeper is supposed to keep:

A Promise Keeper is committed to honoring Jesus Christ through worship, prayer and obedience to God's Word in the power of the Holy Spirit.

A Promise Keeper is committed to pursuing vital relationships with a few other men, understanding that he needs brothers to help him keep his promises.

A Promise Keeper is committed to practicing spiritual, moral, ethical, and sexual purity.

A Promise Keeper is committed to building strong marriages and families through love, protection and biblical values.

A Promise Keeper is committed to supporting the mission of his church by honoring and praying for his pastor, and by actively giving his time and resources.

A Promise Keeper is committed to reaching beyond any racial and denominational barriers to demonstrate the power of biblical unity.

A Promise Keeper is committed to influencing his world, being obedient to the Great Commandment (see Mark 12:30-31) and the Great Commission (see Matthew 28:19-20).

When you first look at these promises your first reaction is they are all admirable attributes. However, these rules have exactly the same sort of problem that Purpose Driven has - that of rules. Keeping these promises guarantees nothing except a pharisee type attitude. Yes, our Father wants us to be pure, but not because we are gritting our teeth and keeping a promise but because we love Him and want Him to enjoy a relationship with us. Jesus came to do away with rule bound religion. For example, Colossians 2:20-23

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

and Galatians 3:2,3

2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?

Seems to be clear to me that man-made rules or promises have an appearance of godliness, but cannot produce godliness.

Secondly, having a list of promises only creates the same thing that the 10 commandments does - that of showing us that we are sinners in need of God's grace. None of us can keep God's law and none of us can keep the 7 promises. Failing is inevitable. So we are setting ourselves up not to enjoy God's love and grace but to feel inadequate and far away from our Father.

Alongside this is a total misunderstanding of male-ness. I haven't read the book they promote The Masculine Journey: Understanding the Six Stages of Manhood by Robert Hicks and published by NavPress. The book was given away free to the 50,000 men who attended the 1993 conference. Their original endorsement went as follows:

"Promise Keepers desires to lead men into God's Word and to lift Jesus Christ up as our model through the resources that we develop or sponsor. In 1992, Dr. Hick's manuscript for `The Masculine Journey' was presented to NavPress and Promise Keepers as a candidate for inclusion in our line of books. What we discovered was a biblically-centered, frank and honest account of a man's journey with God. We were convinced that it would help men pursue Jesus Christ amidst the challenges of the twentieth century."

Since then it appears they have somewhat distanced themselves from it without admitting the book is off the rails.

If the quotes from other sites are anything to go by I am surprised and horrified that it was ever endorsed and even more horrified that NavPress published it. But, it no longer shows up on the NavPress website and although Robert Hicks' wife Cynthia shows up as an author on the NavPress site, he doesn't. However, he still has at least one article on the NavPress website still on the subject of men.

Here are some quotes from from the book other sites:

"We are called and addressed by God in terminology that describes who and what we are -- zakar, phallic males. Possessing a penis places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him. We are called to worship God as phallic kinds of guys, not as some sort of androgynous, neutered non-males, or the feminized males so popular in many feminist-enlightened churches. We are told by God to worship Him in accordance with what we are, phallic men" (p. 49)

"Possessing a _____ places unique requirements upon men before God in how they are to worship Him." (p. 51)

"The phallus has always been the symbol of religious devotion and dedication." (p. 51)

I realise these are out of context and I am wondering whether to get a copy just to see what the author really intended. Reading like that sounds closer to pagan religion than a relationship with our Father through His Son. Of course... maybe now that will be twisted to be phallic, but that would be pure blasphemy.

What about this as a quote:

"Current Christianity cannot openly deal with or talk about the male phallus in its full sexual activity or fantasy." (p. 54) "As men, the phallus defines our identity." (p. 68) "I believe Jesus was phallic with all the inherent phallic passions we experience as men. But it was never recorded that Jesus had sexual relations with a woman. He may have thought about it as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ portrays, but even in the movie He did not give in to the temptation and remained true to His messianic course. If temptation means anything, it means Christ was tempted in every way as we are. That would mean not only heterosexual temptation but also homosexual temptation! I have found this insight to be very helpful for gay men struggling with their sexuality." (p. 181)

Oh no... surely not. I remember many years ago in a service the person running it was asking what were our two favourite things. My wife sitting beside me was really worried, she knew my answer 'Chocolate and sex, but not necessarily in that order' and was worried that I would actually say that in church. For both men and women our sexuality in some way defines us. God created us as we are. But to focus on the physical sexual is way off beam.

OK, so there appears to be study guide for leading 'Bible studies' alongside the book available from amazon.com and published by NavPress... but maybe this is the book in question. How about this for a quote:

"Our culture has presented many initiation rites, or passages to manhood, that are associated with the phallus. Which ones have you experienced? Do you have a story to share with the other men about one such event? Some examples are: When were you potty trained and when did you stop wetting the bed? Pubic hair and growth. An unfortunate experience with pornography. My first dating experience. My first really embarrassing moment with a girl. The wedding night. Conceiving my first child."

I think I'll try that on our fellowship group that meets in our home on a Friday evening and see their reaction. Hmmm... second thoughts I don't think I shall. I think I know their reaction already.

I admit it, I hate men only meetings. Inevitably they get onto the most boring subject of all... sport. And Promise Keepers came out of a bunch of guys who were sports fanatics [professional American Football coaches]. So I am just biased because it didn't come out of a bunch of sailing fanatics? [Yes, you guessed what I do like.] No, I think there is enough substantive evidence to show the movement is off the rails and actively misleading men and women away from a real realtionship with Jesus.

Men and women are different: In our marriage it is me that enjoys shopping [I love time to go around a mall just browsing and will try to so so when I travel] and my wife hates it. Each man and woman are unique. We were created for mutual support. Taking women out of the picture creates something that God never intended. We don't need 'brothers to help us keep our promises' - that is empty religion. We need Eve not Steve as our helpmate. That's God's way.

One of the struggles I have is that most of the negative commentary on Promise Keepers comes from groups that I could not endorse either.

Evangelicals?

2006-08-26T19:58:00.000+03:00

What's an Evangelical? Am I one? Do I want to be one?

Soon after I decided to follow Jesus I became embroiled in both the [evangelical] Christian Union at my school and an Evagelical Anglican church near us. I went on houseparties [Americans call these retreats for some reason, but they were noisy, not quiet like a retreat] where Evangelical teaching was the order of the day. Since then I have attended various Evangelical churches around the place.

I find that the word is now confusing. Different people mean different things by it. When I became a follower of Jesus I understood it to mean taking the Bible seriously, so that we believed the Bible more important that the church and that you could experientially know you were 'saved'. I now see that Evangelicals around the world see things differently. For example take the UK Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith and contrast it with the National Evangelical Association of the USA Statement of Faith or the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Statement of Faith or the World Evangelical Association Statment of Faith - there are notable differences.

The UK starts off with God as trinity whereas the USA, Canada and the WEA start off with the Bible as the only infallible Word of God, above and before having anything about God!
The UK when it deals with the Bible says its the 'divine inspiration and supreme authority', the written Word of God, not the only infallible Word of God that the USA says it is. Canada says 'Holy Scriptures as originally given by God' are infallible... which allows for man to have screwed up in the middle!
The USA seems to limit the Holy Spirit 'We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life' compared to the more effusive words from the UK 'The ministry of God the Holy Spirit, who leads us to repentance, unites us with Christ through new birth, empowers our discipleship and enables our witness' and 'The Church, the body of Christ both local and universal, the priesthood of all believers—given life by the Spirit and endowed with the Spirit's gifts to worship God and proclaim the gospel, promoting justice and love.' All seem to have missed the description of 'comforter' that Jesus.

I am wondering of British Evangelicals are really somewhat different to North American Evangelicals. Have they become tied up in 'Father, Son and Holy Bible' as the one time joke goes?

So what is an Evangelical? The UK Evangelical Alliance answers it this way:

Evangelicalism: A Brief Definition Evangelicals often appeal to the derivation of their name from the Greek New Testament word for the ‘gospel’ or ‘good news’ of Jesus Christ. On their own account, they are ‘gospel people’, committed to simple New Testament Christianity and the central tenets of apostolic faith, rather than to later ecclesiastical accretions. As such, they seek to maintain and present the authentic teaching ‘once for all entrusted to the saints’ (Jude 3). As the leading Anglican Evangelical John Stott points out, this means that Evangelicalism is neither ‘a recent innovation’ nor ‘a deviation from Christian orthodoxy’.

Interesting definition. It seems to me that many 'later ecclesiastical accretions' actually come from the so called Evangelical church!

As I understand it the 'good news' that Jesus came to bring was that God was interested in a relationship with us and that in order for that to be possible He was going pay the penalty for all our screwups and to die in our place. Furthermore, He is more interested in the reality of that relationship than in the observance of loads and loads of rules and regulations, however good they might be. Not only that, but because we cannot continue in that relationship without screwing up He was going to send the Holy Spirit who will dwell within us and will give us gifts to help us and comfort us. Wow, now that does sound like good news!

If that's what an Evangelicals really believe then count me in... but I cannot really see that written in any of the statements of faith published by the organizations that represent them. They all sound more like stern headmaster type definitions that don't attract me.

Worldview - God in a box?

2006-08-26T18:25:00.000+03:00

The vicar of the local church lent my son a copy of Answers, a magazine published by an organization called Answers in Genesis which promotes a belief that the earth was created somewhere around 4000BC in seven literal days.

There is an article in the magazine taken from John MacArthur's book Think Biblically! entitled What's your Worldview?. The article starts by defining worldviews and offers this as a working model for a Christian worldview:

The Christian worldview sees and understands God the Creator and His creation - i.e., man and the world - primarily through the lens of God's special revelation, the Holy Scriptures, and secondarily through God's natural revalation in creation as interpreted by human reason and reconciled by and with Scripture, for the purpose of believing and behaving in accord with God's will and, thereby, glorifying God with one's mind and life, both now and in eternity.

The definition of the Christian worldview comes from MacArthur's worldview and many Christians would hold a radically different perception. I was kind of horrified as it puts God in a box and I believe He is bigger than that. The constrain God to His written word gives all sorts of logical problems, like what happened before it was a written word, did followers of Jesus have some kind of stunted relationship with God? Then followwers a modernist definition of 'creation interpreted by human reason'.

He then goes on to suggest a purpose for all this of following a works orientation to relationship with God by 'behaving in accord with God's will'. Of course, MacArthur appears to be from the sola scriptura school:

... its is true that the Bible alone contains all that Christians need to know about their spiritual life and glodliness through a knowledge of the one true God, which is the highest and most important level of knowledge

For this he references 2 Peter 1:2-4, which actually says:

(2) Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. (3) His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. (4) Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

So in reality MacArthur in interpets Scripture through his worldview to make his statement. Hmmm... doesn't this mean that he really from the prima scriptura school? He does admit:

Also while it does not exhaustively address every field, when Scripture speaks in any subject area, it speaks authoritatively

Yes, agreed, but... how you interpret Scripture speaking authoritatively is the question isn't it!

What he really seems to miss is the the spoken word of God of which the written word of God is a record. Yes, the God speaks through the Bible today but He continues to speak directly to human beings. It's called 'having a relationship' and is what God wanted in the first place!

It was the Pharisees who changed it into a set of written rules. What I see around the church today is that many are reverting to a Pharisee like approach to the Bible. I think Jesus is upset with them today as he was with the Pharisees 2000 years ago.

Freedom means what?

2006-08-26T00:16:00.000+03:00

A couple of days back I was discussing God with someone who believes He doesn't exist. The guy's problem with most churches is that they take responsibility away from us for our actions.

It works two ways:

Churches are so beset with rules that you cannot decide to take sugar in your coffee without consulting the rule book
Everything evil is blamed on Satan [or someone else but certainly not you]

What was interesting to me was that I totally agreed with this guy, but had come to totally opposite conclusions. I am tired of churches with rule books the length of your arm or longer. [And before you say all modern churches don't have rule books, try suggesting a traditional liturgical serice in one and see how quickly it gets shouted down!]

I hate the control that so many church leaders, claiming to follow God, in reality become just control freaks. I have just left one church here in this town partly over that. The 'elders' [read geriatrics] are appointed for life. They have hot line to God and woe betide anyone who disagrees. They can do what they like.

And they did. They took the church down a course that was basically another rule book. Good rules. Like reading the Bible, prayer, meeting together, but rules nevertheless. It's called a 'Purpose Driven Life' and has about as much to do with a realtionship with Jesus as sucking a lemon while riding a bicycle up a snowy moutain track. My reading of Scripture is that Jesus came saying 'Guys, you're missing the point, it's not about rules but relationship.' But then at least someone with humour invented the game 'create the church you want the way you want it'.

And that's where the rubber hits the road and why this athiest and I end up agreeing, for God to have a relationship with us we must have freedom to love or reject Him. Love constrained by rules is not love but automatan obedience. None of us would really enjoy a a relationship with a computer we had programmed to say 'I love you' radomly throughout the day. So it is with God, he doesn't want programmed, constrained responses, but a real relationship with us.

Blaming our actions on Satan is part of this lack of resonsibility. Like accountability structures. If you create a structure where you cannot sin, you are not being responsible, you are being a puppet. It's where organizations like 'Promise Keepers' are totally off the rails. God wants us to have a relationship with Him, not follow a set of rules. Even if the rules are great rules.

So, does that mean we can break all the rules? Just taking one verse out of context:

'You say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything is good for us. Again you say, "Everything is permitted." But not everything builds us up.'

That comes from 1 Corinthians chapter 10 verse 23 and the context around it is about our relationship with Jesus.

What that indicates to me is that God does give us freedom even when we have decided to follow Him we have freedom. Everything is permitted. But not everything is good. That doesn't mean we need rules and constaints. It means we need a greater relationship with Him. The example I use would be of my relationship with my wife. I don't have sex with other girls because it would damage my relationship with her and upset her. So it should be with Jesus, we should not sin because it will damage our relationship with Him and upset Him. But living without freedom doesn't prove a thing.

Its only when we are free to do something but don't that we prove love. We are responsible for our actions. My athiest friend is right. And he's been put off God by churches and christians who understand lots about rules and little about relationship.

We have a saying 'God created man and then man returned the compliment'. Exactly what this friend expressed to me. He felt man had created the concept of God to allow for all these rules. It's funny really, because he understands God better than many people who go to Church, yet he doesn't have any relationship with Him at all.

God's word?

2006-08-19T01:53:00.000+03:00

I was brought up in an Anglican church in the UK. Anglican churches come in all varieties, from what is called 'high church' or 'smells and bells' where it would be barely discernably different from many Roman Catholic churches through churches described as 'liberal' or 'the Conservative Party at prayer' through 'evangelical' through 'charismatic' through... through...

About the time I decided that I personally wanted to become a follower of Jesus I embraced the latter two labels 'evangelical' and 'charismatic'. At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc. The term 'evangelical' also included an emphasis on the Bible contrasted with an emphasis on the church. At that time 'charismatics' were generally a subset of 'evangelicals' and most 'evangelicals' in the UK were in some way open to the Holy Spirit.

We lived in the US for a couple of years and were shocked to find charismatics and evangelicals on opposite sides. Most of the evangelicals we met were dispensationalists who appeared to believe the gifts from the Holy Spirit died out in the 'Apostolic era'. They appeared to elevate the Bible to being the sole way that God communicates with us. I felt they almost worshiped a different Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Bible.

In my spiritual walk recently I have come to think more about the Bible and have been thinking about how we see it on two levels: firstly as a historical document and secondly as the written word of God. And it's deliberate that I didn't write the 'written Word of God' as some evangelicals would. The Bible itself refers to Jesus as the Word and not itself! I read in another blog 'The Bible: contains God's word and is how I hear what God wants to tell me' That statement worried me as it implied this was the only way God communicates with people.

A few years back I was sitting in a restaurant on the bank of the Nile in Egypt chatting over a meal with a friend of mine about the possibility of making a series of TV programmes about the parables of Jesus. One of the parables that we discussed was the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:2-14

This parable is about a king who sends out invitations to a bunch of people to come to the wedding feast of his son. All those who are invited find different reasons why not to come. So the king sends his servants out into the streets to fill up his wedding banquet with everyone they can find.

The parable is normally interpreted as being that the Jews were the people originally invited to the wedding feast but turned away and that the people now invited are the Gentiles [ie non-Jews] who become followers of Jesus. But the parable doesn't end where I finished it above. When everyone is in the feast the king comes through the banqueting hall and finds one person in unacceptable clothes and kicks him out. I always thought this totally unfair, I mean here was someone dragged off the streets and now being complained at for not wearing decent clothes! People then interpret the parable with questions like: How should we dress for Christ's wedding?

Now that brings me on to how we see the Bible as a historical document. The original writers wrote within a context or as I like to put it 'they saw life through a grid'. We as readers of the Bible read within a different context or 'we see life through a grid but a very different grid'. In the example of this parable we don't know one vital part of Middle Eastern custom - something I learnt at that meal on the banks of the Nile - that when an important person throws a wedding banquet they provide new 'wedding clothes' for all the guests to change into when they come into the banquet. So the person thrown out had decided not to accept the gift of clothes from the king! Quite a different slant on the story.

From that one example I often wonder how much of the Bible we miss. I also think how we need to be careful about the principles we draw out from the Bible and how trying to find really strict detail is pretty well impossible.

The Bible is a record of God's dealing with mankind. In that record it shows God speaking and interacting with men and women through the ages. The process of writing changed it from spoken word to written word. In a conversation there is space to ask questions for clarification, space to interact. Interaction with a written document is a one way process.

So coming back to the time I decided to follow Jesus:

'At that time I understood the former to mean that being a 'Christian' or 'saved' was something you could experientially know to be true. The latter being that the Holy Spirit today gives spiritual gifts to followers of Jesus, including the gifts of healing, prophecy, visions, other langauges etc.'

You can see that what I was doing was deciding to follow someone who is very much alive and who very much wants to communicate and interact with me. Not a legalistic set of rules but a relationship.

That has now become my starting point - not to interpret Jesus through the Bible but to interpret the Bible through my relationship with Jesus. OK, so what if I hear wrong? Well, I still treat the Bible as the 'ultimate authority in matters of faith and practice' which probably still makes me an evangelical but the concept of sola scriptura is something that I would now see as relegating God to being subservient to the Bible. God is alive and well and wants to communicate with us and not that 'that Scripture is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals'.

Revelation today

2006-08-18T23:57:00.000+03:00

We all want to know the future, it's why people study the stars or tea leaves or whatever to try to know what will happen. 'Will I meet a tall dark stranger?' as the BBC news put it recently, and then commented 'it would probably be a tax man'.

Events in Lebanon this summer have got me wondering about the so called 'end times', the time running up to Jesus return. So I re-read the last book in the Bible a couple of times, trying to see if I could match what I was seeing in the world with what I had read in the Bible.

The more I read Revelation the more it didn't look like a blow by blow schedule of events to come, but a visionary description what will happen on a spiritual level. A friend of mine had been reading Eugene Peterson's book 'Reversed Thunder' which looks it Revelation as a book written by a pastor, poet and theologian. As such Peterson sees John's 'subject is God (not crytographic esoterica) and that his context is is pastoral (not alarmist entertainment)'.

So why do so many people see Revelation is a literal day by day, blow by blow prediction of events to come? Those of us who come from the charismatic or pentecostal sides of the church have a current experience of visions today. In prayer we might see pictures or visions, which reveal something God is trying to communicate with us.

Today I was discussing this with someone who cited an example of a vision that came to someone he knew of the palm trees along the sea front all bending down. People who heard this vision interpreted it spiritually, not literally. Yet many in the charismatic and pentecostal sides of the church read Revelation and try to interpret it literally.

Dispensationalists are people who believe that time is broken up into distrinct chunks and one of those chuncks was the time for God to give spiritual gifts to people, but that He stopped doing that nearly 2000 years ago. Because of their belief that God no longer gives spiritual gifts today they don't believe that He gives pictures or visions to people today. They are therefore ill-equipped to interpret visions as they are alien to their daily life.

It appears to me that dispensationalists are basically cultural modernists, wanting everything to be in neat packages that can mechanistically be understood. As such they are a relatively recent group who reject the conservative understanding of scripture thus interpreting it liberally. Ah, now there's an anomaly, because most dispensationalists would be self-professessed conservatives accusing others of liberal interpretations of scripture.

So why (and I have no answer here) do charistmatics and pentecostals, who reject the basic tenets of dispensationalists then use their technique of systematic theology to analyse a book that is a poetic treatise?

People who analyse Shakespeare often miss the enjoyment of the play. The Daily Star quotes and old joke about William Shakespeare being an Arab - how else, it explains, can you account for the name, Sheikh Zubair. Certainly the playwright's preoccupation with despotic leaders, times of civil unrest and bloodshed fit in perfectly with the tempestuous nature of contemporary Arab politics. Maybe there will be some people who see Othello as prophecy of current events in Cyprus!

Privacy Policy

2001-01-01T01:01:00.001+02:00

If you disagree with any of the privacy policy, please do not use this site.

I recognise that the privacy of your personal information is important. Below are details on the kind of personal information received when you visit, and how it is safeguarded.

All information collected on this website by godwordthink.blogspot.com and/or its affiliated companies will be used primarily for internal purposes and/or to enhance visitor enjoyment and experience. I may also use email addresses or other personally identifiable information to contact visitors who directly communicate with me, for example, to respond to visitors' questions. Any such contact by the author of godwordthink.blogspot.com is deemed by you to be at your request and with your permission, and shall be deemed by the parties, respectively, to be in compliance with all anti-spamming laws.

godwordthink.blogspot.com does not share any personally identifiable information provided by visitors with third parties, unless you ask me to, and will never sell it to anyone. However, godwordthink.blogspot.com bears no responsibility for any action or policies of third parties who collect any information visitors may disclose on bulletin boards, chat areas, public forums, or other websites linked from within this website.

Third party advertisements are shown on godwordthink.blogspot.com, and general tracking programs are used to observe trends amongst visitors. Some of these may use technology such as cookies and web beacons. A cookie is a piece of information that is transferred to a visitor's hard drive for record-keeping purposes, and a web beacon is a tiny transparent image on the page which allows the site to record the simple actions of visitors when opening the pages.

These cookies and web beacons will send information to the advertisers and other affiliates, including your IP address, your Internet service provider, the country where you reside , the browser you used to visit our site, and in some cases, whether or not you have certain software (such as Flash or Javascript) installed. They are generally used for geo-targeting purposes (showing British ads to someone living in the UK, for instance) or showing certain adverts based on specific sites visited, such as showing dog-training adverts to someone who frequents dog-training sites.

godwordthink.blogspot.com may also may use DART cookies for ad serving through Google’s DoubleClick, which places a cookie on your computer when you are browsing the web and visit a site using DoubleClick advertising (including some Google AdSense advertisements). This cookie is used to serve ads specific to you and your interests ('interest based targeting'). The ads served will be targeted based on your previous browsing history (For example, if you have been viewing sites about visiting London, you may see London hotel advertisements when viewing a non-related site, such as on a site about Cyprus).

DART uses 'non personally identifiable information'. It does NOT track personal information about you, such as your name, email address, physical address, telephone number, social security numbers, bank account numbers or credit card numbers. You can opt-out of this ad serving on all sites using this advertising by visiting http://www.doubleclick.com/privacy/dart_adserving.aspx

You can chose to disable or selectively turn off cookies in your browser settings. However, this can affect how you are able to interact with this site as well as other websites. This could include the inability to login to services or programs, such as logging into forums or accounts.

Google Analytics is used to help determine trends and interests of visitors. The Google Analytics site explains the type of data collected. Other site trackers are used, giving similar data; the sidebar of the blog shows which ones are currently being used. You can click the links to find out what kind of data they collect.

All advertisements are from affiliate services, and are contextual: based on the page contents, the location of the visitor, and the cookies already residing on the visitor's computer. Though iwontbelong.blogspot.com is not responsible for their privacy terms, these links are to the privacy statements of the advertising affiliates, for your information:

Google Adsense

godwordthink.blogspot.com reserves the right to modify, alter or otherwise update this policy at any time, so visitors are encouraged to review this policy from time to time. Policy last update on 28th April 2009, based on the sample privacy policy provided by http://cypruslife.blogspot.com/.