one of the reasons i haven't posted for a few days, apart from the weekend when its next to impossible to spend time on the computer, or the head/throat cold that i've been battling, is that i've been having an interesting dialog with ‘backyard missionary’ Andrew Hamilton on the role of ‘the church’, amongst other things.
my basic understanding is that believers in Jesus need to focus primarily on living as a loving, accepting, accountable community of the redeemed. if this is done well, i believe, others will be drawn in by the love and integrity of life that is being demonstrated.
a prime indicator of this understanding of the people of god is the old testament covenant with israel. one of the major purposes of the covenant was that the israelites would be a blessing to the whole world, but there is no explicit command (that i know of anyway) to go out proselytising among the gentiles. instead, the commandments they were given were all about how to live with each other and how to relate as a people to god. the purpose of these laws was that they would “live long and prosper in the land.” that is, if they lived in harmony with each other and the environment and cared about justice, they would do well and god would bless them abundantly.
there were also laws which appear arbitrary but i believe were all about being different, being unique among other peoples, so that they would stick out and the other peoples would notice that they were different, then notice that they were doing well (assuming the laws were being kept), and be attracted. in a way, the israelites were to be a huge advertisement or working model for how a community was to live and be successful, so that eventually the whole world would be blessed through them (one of god's original promises to abraham).
for us living under the new covenant, the law has been condensed (but not simplified) into ‘love god and love your neighbour’. the purpose is the same, to live in harmony with each other and to care about justice, so that things will go well with you and the world (however, the ‘go well’ is not a material outcome as it was under the old covenant, and so doesn’t mean that ‘bad’ things won’t happen to you). the warnings that jesus gave (remember he was talking to jews who were the ‘in’ people, the ones claiming to represent god) were to those who say they are following god's way but are not living according to the law of love, thereby misrepresenting him. so in the parable of the sheep and the goats, the goats are the ones that say, we did all these things, we followed you, blah blah blah, and jesus says depart from me, i never knew you, it doesn't matter what you say or who your dad was, what matters is that you live according to the way of justice and love. as for the uniqueness part, i think its pretty obvious that a group of people actively living by and pursuing love and justice are going to stand out like a sore thumb in this world.
of course this means different things in different contexts, and i'm not suggesting that believers never talk to non-believers and that we go off into our christian enclaves and just live for ourselves. on the contrary, the community of believers need to be “IN the world but not OF the world,” highly visible in the general community as a living example of what true community should look like in clear and radical contrast to the way the world lives.
what do you think?
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Friday, June 25, 2004
emerging...
haven't posted for a few days because i've been struggling with this one, trying to 'get it right' and express my thoughts clearly, so here goes...
while i've heard in the past about alt.church (alternative church) and similar ideas, i've only become aware in the last couple of weeks of the phenomenon/movement called 'emerging church'. have a look here and here for a bit more info, or read a few blogs such as living room or the lingering lemon of death (and follow more links on those pages).
my first impression was that a lot of what is called 'emerging church' seems to be about dressing evangelicalism up in post-modern garb: changing the location of 'gatherings' away from traditional buildings and changing the setup and structure of the gatherings by, among other things, incorporating alternative 'worship' forms and/or input from different branches of the arts, all in the hope of making these gatherings more relaxed and/or accessible to a certain demographic (eg. skateboarders), or to the non-churched in general. in other words, along the lines of what paul the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 9:22 - "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."
this is all good and admirable, and many excellent things are being done in this regard by people who are sincerely and honestly seeking god's will in bringing the gospel to those who haven't heard about jesus or are/have been alienated by traditional church. i don't want to denigrate those ministries in any way, but if this is all that what is being called 'emerging church' is about, i wouldn't, as a de-churched person and therefore nominally at least in the 'target demographic', feel particularly excited or drawn to the concept - it would still leave me feeling dissatisfied and wanting more...
i know a lot of this is just my personal response, coming from a reasonably traditional church background, but i feel like a bigger and more significant change is needed, that most if not all accepted evangelical doctrine needs to be re-visited, re-thought, renewed. i believe we need to find a post-evangelicalism, not post-modern evangelicalism. i'm not saying that we should abandon our heritage or discard the many gains and advances that have been made by the evangelical 'movement', but i think that by and large its done its job and run its course, at least for the contemporary 'western' world, and now its time to move on. we need to build on the foundation that evangelicalism has given us, especially the emphasis on the bible as the primary revelation of jesus, and create something new and wonderful for this new millenium.
actually, in some sense i think we need to move backwards - from Paul back to Jesus, from the epistles back to the gospels. maybe i'm wrong on this, but the way i see a lot of what Paul was trying to do, especially in his writings, was to give a consistent moral/ethical framework to christianity in relation to his contemporary milieu. it took a while to take hold, but modern democratic society is arguably based on christian, or more accurately pauline, principles. mark strom commented during the "[Almost the whole] Bible in a Day" seminar last Saturday that the creed "there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free" described paul's program of social change, and went on to say that he thought paul was mostly successful in the first, but less so in the second and third - we know that the slave/free issue in western society at least was not finally dealt with until early last century, and the male/female issue more recently still, with the church if anything lagging the furthest behind.
to continue what i see as our evangelical fixation on paul, then, is, i believe, somewhat akin to flogging a dead horse. its not new or revolutionary anymore, as it most definitely was when paul was elucidating it. as far as I can see, post-modern society has gone past it, its now a case of ‘been there and done that’, and now something new and equally revolutionary is desperately needed. i’m convinced that the gospel is radically counter-cultural, whatever culture (and age) you choose to name, but in today’s western society the church is so deeply entwined with culture and identified with contemporary values that it is either invisible or completely irrelevant, or both. and the people know it, so nobody bothers ‘going to church’ anymore (its just another club, a mostly superficial one at that, and its more fun to choose the people i hang out with because at least they don't pretend as much), and christians are viewed as wackos who believe in fairy tales, otherwordly, head-in-the-clouds, not-in-touch-with-reality irrelevancies, hypocrites or some combination of the above. the only christians that are respected by society in general are the ones seen to be practicing what they preach in a tangible way, which almost always involves helping the poor and disadvantaged in some way.
so i believe a new revolution is needed, maybe even a new reformation. its great to see that some elements at least within emerging church are talking about emerging theology/doctrine, such as here and here, and also to see that there are a number of books addressing these kinds of issues, for example Christi-Anarchy by Dave Andrews, Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community by Mark Strom and The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is by N. T. Wright, among a number of others.
of course i have some ideas about what this renewed faith might look like, but this post is long enough already, so i'll just list a few of the topics i think need to be covered:
- the person and work of jesus the messiah
- the meaning, significance and practical outworking of grace
- the nature of sin and what god has done/is doing about it
- the understanding of the after-life (and how is significant it is)
- the nature and role of the church
- the future of the human race on this planet
obviously not too much there...
i'm aware that there's a very good chance that, as we travel this journey, what we'll find is more familiar than unfamiliar. if so, well and good, but i'm convinced that there is immense benefit in travelling the path nonetheless.
while i've heard in the past about alt.church (alternative church) and similar ideas, i've only become aware in the last couple of weeks of the phenomenon/movement called 'emerging church'. have a look here and here for a bit more info, or read a few blogs such as living room or the lingering lemon of death (and follow more links on those pages).
my first impression was that a lot of what is called 'emerging church' seems to be about dressing evangelicalism up in post-modern garb: changing the location of 'gatherings' away from traditional buildings and changing the setup and structure of the gatherings by, among other things, incorporating alternative 'worship' forms and/or input from different branches of the arts, all in the hope of making these gatherings more relaxed and/or accessible to a certain demographic (eg. skateboarders), or to the non-churched in general. in other words, along the lines of what paul the apostle says in 1 Corinthians 9:22 - "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."
this is all good and admirable, and many excellent things are being done in this regard by people who are sincerely and honestly seeking god's will in bringing the gospel to those who haven't heard about jesus or are/have been alienated by traditional church. i don't want to denigrate those ministries in any way, but if this is all that what is being called 'emerging church' is about, i wouldn't, as a de-churched person and therefore nominally at least in the 'target demographic', feel particularly excited or drawn to the concept - it would still leave me feeling dissatisfied and wanting more...
i know a lot of this is just my personal response, coming from a reasonably traditional church background, but i feel like a bigger and more significant change is needed, that most if not all accepted evangelical doctrine needs to be re-visited, re-thought, renewed. i believe we need to find a post-evangelicalism, not post-modern evangelicalism. i'm not saying that we should abandon our heritage or discard the many gains and advances that have been made by the evangelical 'movement', but i think that by and large its done its job and run its course, at least for the contemporary 'western' world, and now its time to move on. we need to build on the foundation that evangelicalism has given us, especially the emphasis on the bible as the primary revelation of jesus, and create something new and wonderful for this new millenium.
actually, in some sense i think we need to move backwards - from Paul back to Jesus, from the epistles back to the gospels. maybe i'm wrong on this, but the way i see a lot of what Paul was trying to do, especially in his writings, was to give a consistent moral/ethical framework to christianity in relation to his contemporary milieu. it took a while to take hold, but modern democratic society is arguably based on christian, or more accurately pauline, principles. mark strom commented during the "[Almost the whole] Bible in a Day" seminar last Saturday that the creed "there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, male or female, slave or free" described paul's program of social change, and went on to say that he thought paul was mostly successful in the first, but less so in the second and third - we know that the slave/free issue in western society at least was not finally dealt with until early last century, and the male/female issue more recently still, with the church if anything lagging the furthest behind.
to continue what i see as our evangelical fixation on paul, then, is, i believe, somewhat akin to flogging a dead horse. its not new or revolutionary anymore, as it most definitely was when paul was elucidating it. as far as I can see, post-modern society has gone past it, its now a case of ‘been there and done that’, and now something new and equally revolutionary is desperately needed. i’m convinced that the gospel is radically counter-cultural, whatever culture (and age) you choose to name, but in today’s western society the church is so deeply entwined with culture and identified with contemporary values that it is either invisible or completely irrelevant, or both. and the people know it, so nobody bothers ‘going to church’ anymore (its just another club, a mostly superficial one at that, and its more fun to choose the people i hang out with because at least they don't pretend as much), and christians are viewed as wackos who believe in fairy tales, otherwordly, head-in-the-clouds, not-in-touch-with-reality irrelevancies, hypocrites or some combination of the above. the only christians that are respected by society in general are the ones seen to be practicing what they preach in a tangible way, which almost always involves helping the poor and disadvantaged in some way.
so i believe a new revolution is needed, maybe even a new reformation. its great to see that some elements at least within emerging church are talking about emerging theology/doctrine, such as here and here, and also to see that there are a number of books addressing these kinds of issues, for example Christi-Anarchy by Dave Andrews, Reframing Paul: Conversations in Grace & Community by Mark Strom and The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is by N. T. Wright, among a number of others.
of course i have some ideas about what this renewed faith might look like, but this post is long enough already, so i'll just list a few of the topics i think need to be covered:
- the person and work of jesus the messiah
- the meaning, significance and practical outworking of grace
- the nature of sin and what god has done/is doing about it
- the understanding of the after-life (and how is significant it is)
- the nature and role of the church
- the future of the human race on this planet
obviously not too much there...
i'm aware that there's a very good chance that, as we travel this journey, what we'll find is more familiar than unfamiliar. if so, well and good, but i'm convinced that there is immense benefit in travelling the path nonetheless.
Monday, June 21, 2004
advertising jesus
"Follow JESUS" was being written in the sky over sydney as i arrived at work this morning...
who does this sort of thing?
more importantly, why?? i can't think of any positive effect that it can have, except to give a few christians a bit of an ego boost on a monday morning. to most christians its just an embarrassment, and to everyone else its basically meaningless, if not another reason to ridicule those not-in-touch-with-reality bible-bashers.
is writing "Jesus" in the sky glorifying to him? does he see it and think, 'hey, wow, my name is up in smoke over sydney today, isn't that great?'
i very seriously doubt it.
what is glorifying to jesus is for the people who claim to follow him (and you have to be 'in the know' of the lingo to know what the hell that means anyway) actually DOING WHAT HE SAID.
any other form of advertising - writing words in the sky, putting up supposedly clever, catchy phrases on church posterboards, to name just a couple - are just, in my opinion, futile, mis-guided, desperate ploys to cover up the failure of the church to do its job, trying to lure people in while hoping they don't notice that its all a facade, an empty shell, maybe even a white-washed tomb.
what was the advertising campaign that jesus recommended? love one another. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35
simple. incredibly effective. doesn't cost much (other than everything you have).
who does this sort of thing?
more importantly, why?? i can't think of any positive effect that it can have, except to give a few christians a bit of an ego boost on a monday morning. to most christians its just an embarrassment, and to everyone else its basically meaningless, if not another reason to ridicule those not-in-touch-with-reality bible-bashers.
is writing "Jesus" in the sky glorifying to him? does he see it and think, 'hey, wow, my name is up in smoke over sydney today, isn't that great?'
i very seriously doubt it.
what is glorifying to jesus is for the people who claim to follow him (and you have to be 'in the know' of the lingo to know what the hell that means anyway) actually DOING WHAT HE SAID.
any other form of advertising - writing words in the sky, putting up supposedly clever, catchy phrases on church posterboards, to name just a couple - are just, in my opinion, futile, mis-guided, desperate ploys to cover up the failure of the church to do its job, trying to lure people in while hoping they don't notice that its all a facade, an empty shell, maybe even a white-washed tomb.
what was the advertising campaign that jesus recommended? love one another. "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35
simple. incredibly effective. doesn't cost much (other than everything you have).
Thursday, June 17, 2004
churchless faith
just read A Churchless Faith by kiwi Alan Jamieson, which i linked to from the lingering lemon of death blog.
the article fits me because i am ex-churched (de-churched?), having being brought up church-going (most often willingly!) but not attending for the last 4 years since moving to a new area.
i'd locate myself in the 'transitional explorers' category at the moment, but i'd like to think i'm well on the way towards becoming an 'integrated way-finder.'
the article fits me because i am ex-churched (de-churched?), having being brought up church-going (most often willingly!) but not attending for the last 4 years since moving to a new area.
i'd locate myself in the 'transitional explorers' category at the moment, but i'd like to think i'm well on the way towards becoming an 'integrated way-finder.'
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
flabbergasted
really surprised to check in today and find 3 comments! thanks to hamo, suzy and jtm for taking the time to welcome me.
today i'm on home duties, taking care of our gorgeous 14 month old daughter while Janette (my darling wife) is at work. i was hoping i could check up on blogdom while Freya had her morning nap, but some chores got in the way, then the phone rang and woke her, so i'm typing this while attempting to keep the little girl from going completely postal. so far not doing so well on that latter front so this will have to be short.
i was going to put some personal details in my profile but blogspot had some maintenance issues yesterday and weren't allowing profile editing. so (in answer to hamo), i'm not the 'mandurah dave' - the 'obscure corner of australia i refer to is balmoral village, a tiny 'hamlet' in an area of nsw (that's in australia for any non-aussies out there) called the southern highlands, which is really neither southern or highlands (even for australia), but is both compared to sydney, which is what counts in these parts.
i already mentioned that i'm married to janette (almost 11 years at time of posting) and we have a beautiful daughter who is, without exaggeration, the delight of our lives.
better go and give this girl some lunch. talk to you soon...
today i'm on home duties, taking care of our gorgeous 14 month old daughter while Janette (my darling wife) is at work. i was hoping i could check up on blogdom while Freya had her morning nap, but some chores got in the way, then the phone rang and woke her, so i'm typing this while attempting to keep the little girl from going completely postal. so far not doing so well on that latter front so this will have to be short.
i was going to put some personal details in my profile but blogspot had some maintenance issues yesterday and weren't allowing profile editing. so (in answer to hamo), i'm not the 'mandurah dave' - the 'obscure corner of australia i refer to is balmoral village, a tiny 'hamlet' in an area of nsw (that's in australia for any non-aussies out there) called the southern highlands, which is really neither southern or highlands (even for australia), but is both compared to sydney, which is what counts in these parts.
i already mentioned that i'm married to janette (almost 11 years at time of posting) and we have a beautiful daughter who is, without exaggeration, the delight of our lives.
better go and give this girl some lunch. talk to you soon...
Friday, June 11, 2004
blog's beginning
Greetings all...
The name for this blog comes from the song Don't Forget About Delight by Bruce Cockburn. By the way, that's pronounced Co-burn, not the other way.
Other names on the shortlist were 'Kick at the Darkness', from the Cockburn song Lovers in a Dangerous Time (also quoted by U2 in their song God Pt II): describes what I want my life to be about, but sounds a little violent for a blog; 'Water into Wine', the title of my favourite Cockburn instrumental: nice but maybe carries a little too much hubris (implying a divine inspiration for my words); a bunch of others from various other Cockburn songs: No Footprints, Light Falling All Around, Never So Free, Life Will Open, ...
But I chose 'afoot and empty-handed' because it describes how I feel as a poor, earth-bound human being, a blind man among the blind, struggling to make sense of it all while at the same time trying to keep a sense of wonder and delight at the mystery that we're all a part of and the breathtaking story that is unfolding.
"If we can sing with the wind song
Chant with thunder
Play upon the lightning
Melodies of wonder
Into wonder life will open"
- Bruce Cockburn, Life Will Open (from Sunwheel Dance, 1971).
Since this seems to have morphed into a Cockburn post, I'll finish off with a quote by Bruce from a recent interview in The Sun:
The name for this blog comes from the song Don't Forget About Delight by Bruce Cockburn. By the way, that's pronounced Co-burn, not the other way.
Other names on the shortlist were 'Kick at the Darkness', from the Cockburn song Lovers in a Dangerous Time (also quoted by U2 in their song God Pt II): describes what I want my life to be about, but sounds a little violent for a blog; 'Water into Wine', the title of my favourite Cockburn instrumental: nice but maybe carries a little too much hubris (implying a divine inspiration for my words); a bunch of others from various other Cockburn songs: No Footprints, Light Falling All Around, Never So Free, Life Will Open, ...
But I chose 'afoot and empty-handed' because it describes how I feel as a poor, earth-bound human being, a blind man among the blind, struggling to make sense of it all while at the same time trying to keep a sense of wonder and delight at the mystery that we're all a part of and the breathtaking story that is unfolding.
"If we can sing with the wind song
Chant with thunder
Play upon the lightning
Melodies of wonder
Into wonder life will open"
- Bruce Cockburn, Life Will Open (from Sunwheel Dance, 1971).
Since this seems to have morphed into a Cockburn post, I'll finish off with a quote by Bruce from a recent interview in The Sun:
"For me the essential point of life is the fact that we are spiritual beings and that there is a divine in which we should be connected - in fact, are connected, but its up to us to recognize that connection and pay attention to it. Everything else we do has value based on its relationship to that central point."Couldn't have put it better myself...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)