Knowing More and Knowing Less

These days I regularly have unsettling experiences as I read the Bible, where I find myself wondering ‘what is all that about?!’

I just had one this morning as I was using sacred space where a passage that I once would have ‘understood clearly’ no longer made as much sense.

It is a bit disorienting to have this happen regularly, yet its also a sign that the grids thru which I am reading scripture have changed. For the last 5 or 6 years I have often found myself in a state of dissonance where I ‘know’ what I was taught as a young person, but now as an older person I am either discontent with or questioning the answers/interpretation that was offered.

I don’t think its a bad thing – in fact I think its a natural and healthy thing – but my tradition is not especially good at questioning (we are better at knowing) so it is almost a discipline to sit with a passage and accept that I don’t know what its saying and today I don’t have time to dig further into it.

Makes me realise why Barth was keen to sum things up in ‘Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so’. I have referred to Alan Jamieson‘s book ‘A Churchless Faith’ before and appreciated his insights into how EPC churches tend to deal in certainty and do not like questioning – this has certainly been my experience – and yet if people are to mature in faith they must be allowed to enter and experience mystery and uncertainty.

I sense we are generally afraid of questioning in case during the quest people lose faith altogether, but maybe we need to trust that God is bigger and stronger than we have allowed him to be and can walk with people thru the haze and grow them deeper because of the experience.

I find it a little annoying regularly discovering that so many of my pre-learned biblical interpretations no longer feel satisfying, but then I’m enjoying the journey too.

Of Faith and Superstition…

Fijian churchgoers (men) are being requested to in favour of skirts in order to please God.

The article says:

“The ban is meant to bring good luck to the island as we respect the day of the Lord,”… “You can see that often misfortune befalls us because we don’t respect His commandments that there be no work performed on Sunday except worship.”

Fortunately some are not conforming:

A villager who wished not to be named said the ban was “too restrictive”. “We can’t understand how wearing a sulu vakataga on Sunday will help us forge closer relations with the divine,” he said.

Its interesting that I look at this today with bemusement yet it wasn’t so long ago as a kid growing up in Belfast that we had similar rules. Ties were worn to church, no work was done and nothing was bought. We still have some of these rules in places now but a little more subtly eg. worship leaders must dress ‘up’ to be on stage because that is honoring God etc. I wonder what God would do if we didn’t dress up to sing?… Personally I don’t think he’d give a rodent’s backside. I think our rules tend to me more of our own making. FWIW I don’t mind when we frame these as ‘our rules’, but when we try to give them a biblical basis then I get very edgy.

I am fairly confident that these days we still get faith and superstition a little confused by seeking to do things that have little biblical currency but which make us feel like we are ‘performing’ better. My hunch is that there is a strong connection between legalism and superstition and that those bound with legalism will have quirky beliefs derived from a poor concept of God.

This will inevitably lead to a ‘folk religion’ kind of faith where we impose on God and scripture what we feel is the best way to follow.

Back to Galatians…

Wisdom of Mary

From Mary Fisher’s facebook status update:

“Discussions on 1. Muslims & the US Constitution & 2 gay persons and what they face have made me SO aware how much Christians need to reconsider how they think they interpret life and text. I do not believe any interpretation of anything is neutral(including my interpretation of hermeneutics that leads me to say there is no neutral interpretation). So let’s get rid of the illusion of neutrality.”

True Patriot

A few years back Steve Smith gave me a biography of Bonhoeffer entitled True Patriot that he felt offered some excellent insights to what was happening in the ‘emerging church’.

I finally got to read it and while I’m not sure exactly what Steve was seeing as of value I did find the story of Bonhoeffer’s life to be inspiring and challenging.

Perhaps what struck me most strongly was the fact that Bonhoeffer did not get to simply theorise about how theology gets lived out in tough situations. He actually got to live it out and in the process write about it. His book ‘The Cost of Discipleship’ isn’t simply another book written by a comfortable western Christian hypothesizing about what it means to follow Jesus. His book ‘Ethics’ wasn’t a detached speculation on various difficult situations. It was written from the midst of one of the world’s most horrific periods of history and reflects his own struggle to live with intregity in it.

I can’t remember the exact quote, but it was somewhat disturbing to hear him say that sometimes our choice is not to do right or wrong, but really is the ‘lesser of two evils’. Many of us idealise about doing no evil – but when the choice is to allow Hitler to proceed unimpeded or to kill him there simply isn’t an easy way forwards.

Its not the best read I have come across, but it does include some gem quotes from a number of Bonhoeffers works. It inspired me to go back and read a bit more of his stuff. parasomnia online

download private parts dvdrip

pick up online

Should the Primary Expression of Church Gathered be Small or Large?

Yesterday I spoke to our church community about why our primary experience of church needs to be smaller rather than larger.

By ‘smaller’ I mean a group where:

a) every person is known by name.

b) where it is not difficult to share a meal together.

Obviously then, a large group is one where we no longer know one another personally and a genuine meal becomes a very challenging prospect. It is my strong conviction that if we are to be effective at making disciples and at fulfilling the biblical understanding of what it means to be ‘church’ then our primary experience of gathering together needs to be in more of a household / familial setting rather than a large community worship & teaching event.

On Sunday we looked at the theological and biblical reasons for a church to be both large and small, as well as the practical and pragmatic reasons for preferring small or large. While you can argue quite convincingly at a pragmatic level for either option, (‘big’ or ‘small’) the exercise we did together showed quite clearly that when we consider the biblical descriptions of church the evidence for ‘small’ is much more compelling.

Perhaps the critical word in this conversation is ‘primary’. I am not suggesting there is no place at all for a larger group to get together or that a large gathering is redundant, but I am seriously advocating that we see the larger gatherings as being of secondary importance. For example, most churches I have been part of say ‘come on Sunday and if possible be part of a home group or similar’, but if you can only do one of those two then choose the Sunday event. I believe it more appropriate to say ‘make sure you are part of a smaller gathering and if you are able, join with the rest of the crew on Sunday – but if you can only choose one, then choose small.

We managed to come up with 8 biblical/theological reasons for the primary experience of church to be small and only 2 reasons for it to be large. See the chart below. We whiteboared this stuff on Sunday as well as looking at the practical / pragmatic reasons for either option.

powder blue dvdrip viagra from canada legitimate

As we did this exercise on the whiteboard, the bleeding obvious was that the ‘theological/biblical’ reasons for church being large quadrant was almost empty.

The question that arises out of this, that we will be exploring as a church is ‘what does this mean for us?’ I know many people will prefer ‘large church’ as the main event, but if we are ‘people of the book’ (as we Baptist like to imagine ourselves) then what do we do with the biblical descriptors of church?

So, I am interested to see how others perceive this issue. Bearing in mind the question is about primary expression not ‘only’ expression. I see a sociological value in different size groups and I do see that different objectives can be accomplished by different groups.

But if our primary task is to make disciples I find it hard to see the large group as the first port of call.

That feisty Eugene Petersen has some good stuff to say on this:

“You can’t do gospel work, kingdom work in an impersonal way. We live in the Trinity. Everything we do has to be in the context of the Trinity, which means personally, relationally. The minute you start doing things impersonally, functionally, mass oriented, you deny the gospel. Yet that’s all we do.”

from here

Jon Reid has also added his own thoughts on this matter. Skip over here

to read his mind…

stir crazy free download augmentin and diarrhea

Re-imagining… a Challenge

In light of the previous couple of posts I pose a serious challenge.

Can anyone provide a compelling biblical argument for the existence of paid pastoral staff within a local congregation?

In the absence of a ‘biblical’ argument I will accept a pragmatic one (as I feel this is where the majority of our arguments may have their teeth.)

I can find several reasonable pragmatic arguments for someone to be paid for their local church ministry role, but I am less able to earth this argument in scripture.

I don’t write this to be a smart arse, but because it is a question I find myself asking daily. What biblical understanding are we operating from that allows us to see local church ministry as a profession?

If I were to offer one of my own compelling reasons for being willing to pastor a church it would be around the sense of calling and vocation I experience. As I know God I feel deeply like he has created me to be someone who gives a significant slab of their life to Christian leadership and some of that will involve leading a community of people. I hear some of you say ‘but you don’t need to be employed to do that’ and this is where I find the tension.

If it requires a significant amount of time out of my working week – time when I would otherwise be gainfully employed supporting my family – ought I be ‘supported’ by the people in my church for doing that work – especially if they are in agreement with the need.

I may yet write a post that is a ‘compelling argument for paid ministry’, but I’d like to see what others have to say before I give it a whirl!

download war free

Extremes

I once had a school student who refused to become a Christian because he believed that if he was ‘predestined then he would be saved anyway’… and he would have no say in the matter.

I have been pondering today that theology is quite a balancing act. To reconcile the sovereignty of God with human free will is quite a feat. Typically we err on one side or the other of any given issue, depending on our church tradition and our own personal preferences.

The caricatured Calvinist / Arminian debates are a classic example of this kind of issue. To assume ‘its all God’ or ‘its all about our choice’ usually leaves us with some warped understanding of how the world works.

I do think there are doctrines where extremity is ok – even necessary – grace is an example. If grace isn’t extreme then it probably isn’t grace!

But where two truths exist in tension to pick a side and push it to an extreme will inevitably result in a theology that is at least a little wacky.

last emperor the dvd download

sleepy hollow online name of the rose the free

Shift

How long do you reckon it will be before homosexuality will be completely acceptable to the church? By homosexuality I mean practice of same sex relationships – even same sex marriage.

Whatever your views on this issue – and mine are pretty conservative – I believe it is only a matter of time before we see a major shift in how we view this issue.

I was reflecting last night on how we have shifted in our stance on the issue of divorce in the last 30 years. We went from a church where divorce was totally unacceptable and divorcees were ‘unwelcome’ to a place where the opinion on divorce ranges from ‘oh well’ to ‘still wrong, but sometimes the only way’.

I doubt there would be too many mainstream churches that would have a similar view on divorce to what they do on homosexuality. Yet as I read the Bible divorce is spoken of in numerous places as wrong – possibly even more blatantly than homosexuality. What’s with the way we make these decisions?!

What was the impetus for the shift in our view of divorce?

I tend to think it came from the increasing number Christians who for whatever reason (I realise there are good and bad reasons for divorce) chose to leave their marriages – or were left by another. It started as a trickle, but soon it became a flood and we needed to accomodate a cultural shift so we went back and re-interpreted scripture so that these folks could be welcome within the church.

My understanding of how we see divorce now in church is that it is still considered wrong – at very least ‘not what God had hoped’, but that there is forgiveness and grace so we can move on and re-marry etc without carrying the ‘sinner’ stigma. Our growing acceptance of divorce has – funnily enough – seen a growth in its occurence…

Now church leaders who divorce can be back in positions of authority and influence within a matter of months and very few people bat an eyelid.

My point is not to debate the merits of our theology of divorce or our theology of homosexuality, but it is to observe the trend within western Christianity to accommodate the shifts in lifestyle practices with an accompanying shift in theological framing.

With the growth in both acceptance and practice of homosexuality especially among younger people I imagine it will be only a matter of time before something shifts and we a) welcome them into the church as practicing homosexuals rather than as ‘recovering homosexuals’ or defective second class Christians b) accept that if you’re part of the body then you are as eligible for leadership as anyone else c) see it as a dead issue

So with that in mind I predict that in 30 years time we will have homosexual leaders in most conservative evangelical churches and we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Given the potential for mis-understanding and misinterpretation with most of what I have written above I am tempted to just think this but not say it…

But it is a really important issue ie. how we form theology, so I’d just ask that we ‘play nicely’ in the comments. My own view continues to be a conservative one, yet not without awareness of the complexity of the issue and our own duplicity as the church on issues like this.

And he hit ‘publish’…

What Motivates You?

I have been given this passage to preach on in a few weeks. The beauty of having that sort of lead time is that you really get to meditate and chew on the text. I like to print it out and carry it around with me so that I can ponder it in different settings and feel what it says depending on my mood, environment and time of the day.

2 Cor 5: 11Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade men. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience. 12We are not trying to commend ourselves to you again, but are giving you an opportunity to take pride in us, so that you can answer those who take pride in what is seen rather than in what is in the heart. 13If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God; if we are in our right mind, it is for you.

14For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. 15And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again. 16So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

2 Cor 6:1 As God’s fellow workers we urge you not to receive God’s grace in vain. 2For he says, “In the time of my favor I heard you, and in the day of salvation I helped you.” I tell you, now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation.

Two phrases I was drawn to immediately were v1 ‘since we know what it is to fear God’ and ‘for Christ’s love compels us’. Paul says that because we know what it is to ‘fear God’ we try to persuade men (and maybe even women…)

It seems the fear of God is to be an underlying source of our motivation in sharing the gospel -a gospel that involves persuasion. And the second phrase speaks clearly of another primary motivator – ‘Christ’s love compels us’.

The second is probably more acceptable in more progressive circles, while the first may be seen as either poor motivation, or leading to poor action. Should we really try to persuade anyone?… Isn’t that imposing our will on them?

Paul seemed to think so and he did it fairly regularly. I think Paul knew what he was on about.

Those are some first impressions as I read and they will probably give shape to what develops. I sense there is something to be learnt in here about how we are motivated in the mission of reconciliation. I have a few weeks to see what develops and to explore it more fully so I imagine it will come into clearer focus as I do that.

I appreciate the challenge of preparing new messages because so much of the speaking I find myself doing around the place is quite repetitive – or at times I allow it to be so because I am lazy. Its so much easier to pull out one your ‘greatest hits’ than to develop a whole new message that might fly or might bomb.

North Beach Baptist have had me there a few times lately and each time have given me a set passage to speak on. When Craig gave me the date of this one I baulked at first – its a busy time with a number of other speaking commitments, but then I read the passage and felt something spark…

So ‘no’ quickly became ‘yes’.

I’ll be preaching it at East Fremantle Baptist in the morning and North Beach in the evening of August 31st

Hamo The Kid’s Minister Rides Again…

I have been sitting here doing some prep for the kids stuff we do on Sundays.

But I’m not so sure I want to go the route ‘the book’ is suggesting. Given my disaster last time I’m not sure I should be trusted with a Bible around young kids…

The theme has us looking at 4 significant mountain experiences in the Bible. The first – the one Danelle and I are responsible for – is Mt Moriah, where God has Abraham lead Issac up to be sacrificed. (Can anyone see a great simulation game developing?…)

I find this a testing story at the best of times. I don’t ‘get’ the way God works in this one. I wonder if we do our kids harm by telling them about a God who gives a man a son then asks him to kill him, albeit as a sacrifice.

Its not an ideal ‘kids story’, is it?…

Then again this is all part of the narrative and another part of me says we shouldn’t hide kids from the parts of God we find difficult or confusing. They might even ‘get it’ better than we do.

The other bit I am pondering is the theological framing of the lesson, which says God can’t really use us unless he has tested us. And if we fail the test then we have to wait until God tests us again before we can be of use to him. Maybe I’m overthinking it, but to me that’s a fairly broad generalisation and probably not a message I would subscribe to.

Anyway… will see what develops