We are all theologians. I learnt this when I was 18 off a bloke called Bob Plumb.

But… some of us are better read and more abreast of the wider issues than others. I am a ‘theologian’ in the same vein as I am a missionary. The term ‘backyard missionary describes not just a person doing mission in their own locality but in Oz the term ‘backyard’ refers to ‘hack’ or the ‘experimenter’ who makes it up on the run – but often seems to have a real nack for it – think ‘backyard mechanics’ who can fix anything with a bit of fence wire and spit.

Scot McKnight is not a backyard theologian. He is a professor and writer amongst other things and yesterday he began a series of posts on the emerging scene giving attention particularly to Brian McClaren’s stuff. Here are two quotes from his first post:

“Now, I want to make a claim about the Emerging Movement that undergirds everything Brian and many others are saying: the generous orthodoxy that is being called for is an evangelical generosity and orthodoxy. It is a generous evangelical orthodoxy.”em>

I have been reading Scott’s stuff for a while now and he has some great insights. (His series on conversion was excellent also.) Its not hard reading so all you backyard theologians like me – you can head on over and probably understand most of what he says! winnie the pooh a very merry pooh year free download

• bingo download free

bullitt download

Google Earth is an amazing program!

For those who are interested in our little patch of the world, here are some images (a little dated) of where we live. In fact for those in the know, although you can see the first stage of Brighton and the lakes, the land hasn’t even been cleared for our houses in this image.

The first is of our local area – some of the places I go to regularly. It is about 8 kms from bottom to top

The second is a big scale image of where we have lived in Perth and where we moved from to get to Brighton.

The third shows you how old this image is as it is a close up of where our house is supposed to be.

"The wise man built his house upon the rock…"

So starts that old kid’s song that those of us who grew up going to Sunday school would know. It compares the wise man who built his house on the rock with the foolish man who built his house on sand. And the basic conclusion is that the bloke who built on sand is on a very shaky foundation.

Here’s the question though:

What does Jesus mean when he speaks about building our ‘house on rock’?

Think about it before you read on…

(The picture is of Pete showing the kids what happens when you build on rock and sand. Actually I reckon we learn as much here as the kids – visuals are powerful)

If you said the rock is ‘Jesus’ then you are WRONG. Although I sense that is what many of us have grown up believing – that or some permutation of it.

This passage comes right at the end of the sermon on the mount in Matt 7 where Jesus says some rough stuff – where he calls his disciples to radical counter-cultural living and then he finishes by speaking about:

– the narrow path – only a few will find it

– not everyone who says to me ‘Lord Lord’ will be saved but only those who do the things I say

– and then he says "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on a rock’.

Who’s the wise man?

Simple – the person who hears Jesus words and actually does what he says. It seems that Jesus is saying a life of submission to him and conformity to his will is a solid foundation.

Its funny how often you hear people looking for a church with ‘good teaching’, but how I have never heard someone look for a church that ‘actually puts into practice the things Jesus said’.

This isn’t rocket science, but neither is it an area we have done particularly well on as the church. The whole idea of ‘doing it’ seems to resonating with me very strongly at present. Disciples are people who do the things Jesus said – not think about them, talk about them, agree on them…

Today I learnt a new word. Theodicy is the study of how a good God can co-exist with evil.

As Danelle and I were talking yesterday this issue came up and it got me intrigued. I am particularly curious about the origins of evil – the ‘first cause’ so to speak.

I had a crazy day lined up today, but all my appointments from 10.00-3.00 cancelled so i wandered down to the library and waded thru about 20 different theology text books to try and uncover some insights into this subject.

It was valuable and I was at least able to come to grips with the different philosphical options that exist (Alvin Plantinga is like reading a maths text book!) even if I don’t have a decent answer yet.

The problem with so much of the stuff written is that you need a philosophy degree to be able to read it. Its heavy going, relies on logic and prior assumptions etc etc.

And you know what?…

Its way to difficult to summarise in a blog post…

Sorreee.

Today I learnt a new word. Theodicy is the study of how a good God can co-exist with evil.

As Danelle and I were talking yesterday this issue came up and it got me intrigued. I am particularly curious about the origins of evil – the ‘first cause’ so to speak.

I had a crazy day lined up today, but all my appointments from 10.00-3.00 cancelled so i wandered down to the library and waded thru about 20 different theology text books to try and uncover some insights into this subject.

It was valuable and I was at least able to come to grips with the different philosphical options that exist (Alvin Plantinga is like reading a maths text book!) even if I don’t have a decent answer yet.

The problem with so much of the stuff written is that you need a philosophy degree to be able to read it. Its heavy going, relies on logic and prior assumptions etc etc.

And you know what?…

Its way to difficult to summarise in a blog post…

Sorreee.

download marrying man the dvd I’ve started doing some work on this whole area of ethics and find it quite invigorating. As one who likes to think and enjoys intellectual challenge the area of ethics definitely does that.

I’m in the process of exploring various ethical frameworks and overviews as I sense that getting a hold of the different approaches will be the key to processing ethical decisions.

After that its more a matter of dealing with the issues in each individual decision. (I just made it sound very easy didn’t I?… 🙂

Yeh I know you gotta give money and a tithe is a good place to start… blah blah blah… but all too often it ends there too. I have actually been quite proud at times that I have simply tithed – woo hoo!

Now that’s gotta be healthy…

I have mentioned several times on here that I don’t see tithing as a practice we should embrace in our churches – and I thoroughly believe that.

It was Stuart Murray Williams excellent book that significantly reframed my view on this. You can read a review of the book here, by Graham Old

, but if you’re serious about exploring what we ought to do with money then do yourself and your church a favour and read the whole book.

So goes the evangelism self talk we hear about evangelistic events that see just one person respond – sometimes because they are the only ‘non-christian’ present anyway…

Rod commented on this in my previous post – and it is a thought I actually wanted to address myself.

Is it really all worth it for the one?

Ought we think that way?

I wonder about the time and energy that goes into running evangelistic events for ‘the one’. I wonder if time would be better spent out amongst ‘the one’.

Actually I don’t wonder.

A decent evangelistic event where people who don’t know Jesus actually front up and are engaged is a valuable thing, but they’re as rare as Tasmanian tigers. Having run plenty and spoken at plenty I know its more often than not preaching to the converted.

And it is all worth it for the one? Maybe we could use our resources more effectively and reach 10 or 20 or 50 even?…

I just wonder what people mean when they say this?…

What is the difference between ‘milk’ and ‘meat’?

It seems often people want to be challenged more intellectually. Yet I have a feeling we aren’t doing half of the stuff we already know, so what’s the point in learning more stuff to not do?…

Give me a break.

Maybe the difference betwen meat and milk is that the meat challenges us to action and the milk simply warms us up.

Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

As much as we may want to take a more holistic approach to defining / describing the gospel and make it about much more than ‘heaven or hell’ sooner or later we need to discuss issues of sin, forgiveness and atonement.

In some of the pendulum swinging that I have observed in the last few years it is as if some people have wanted to avoid this kind of language / emphasis, yet at the centre of our faith stands the cross, a reminder that no matter how good we live we still needed someone to die in our place.

In the centred set idea of evangelism (which I believe has much merit) we can often see people as simply ‘moving towards Christ’ – the ‘facts’ of doctrine don’t matter – and yet I tend to think that at some point a person does need to come to grips with their sinfulness before God, their need for repentance and his salvation. There needs to be a ‘realisation’.

It seems to me that sooner or later there is a cognitive element to our salvation where we come to grips with the reality of what Jesus has done for us. Of course that cognitive experience will vary from person to person and we can’t expect a child to have the same reasoned thought process as an adult (they might ‘get it’ better!)

Of course the danger in what I am writing is that we make intellectual acceptance of the gospel the key, and I’m not saying that. It seems salvation is a very mysterious process when we try to nail it down! But in y own experience when people move towards Jesus sooner or later the questions of the significance of his eath and resurrection must arise.