Earlier I was sat in a lecture on European Federalism. My professor was explaining how the institutions of the European Union were designed with different questions in mind (e.g. things like how to manage a strong centre, economic redistribution etc. with writers like Spinelli) and are now having to adapt to new demands. This got me thinking about what Todd Hunter says about the reformation and the fact that most of our explaination of Jesus/what church is etc. is designed to answer questions which people are no longer asking, that we have to learn to listen (like Eugene Peterson says) so that we can learn the new questions.
On Saturday I went to see my Grandpa. He told me that he'd been thinking about the fact that the word Christian seems to have so little meaning in today's world, it's a word used when you don't know what else to say you are (for some people). He was telling me how being a "disciple" or "follower of Jesus" is a far better term. I could only agree. I can't remember having chatted about that with him before but what he said to me sounded like what I could have said to him. Weird (and cool).
I can't help but think that it has only been since he retired as a minister of an Elim Church that he has started to get back to basics. It's like he's gradually letting go of all the religious legalism that he was brought up with.
Friday, March 28, 2003
We had a great central gathering last night. It was awesome to hear where everyone was at. The questions were "what first brought you here" and "why did you stay?" These are cool ways of encouraging each other to evaluate why you are part of the community you are part of and to get away from religiosity.
It was a time of encouragement - I love hearing the different perspectives people have on the same thing.
The vision is one of continuing to grow as a family. To see ourselves becoming the kind of people we were designed to be and to share that love with others. Through our lifestyles of vulnerability we can affect those around us.
It was a time of encouragement - I love hearing the different perspectives people have on the same thing.
The vision is one of continuing to grow as a family. To see ourselves becoming the kind of people we were designed to be and to share that love with others. Through our lifestyles of vulnerability we can affect those around us.
Wednesday, March 26, 2003
Friday, March 21, 2003
I love Jason Evans' blog from yesterday - particularly the statement "shut up and be something." It's so weird to think that there's this war going on on in a land far away and that there are innocent people just like us who are faced with such aggression. I heard an interview with a guy about to catch a train in one London station, when questioned about the war: "it's sad people have to die, but life must go on" as though his life is what life is about and those people the other side of the globe just don't matter. I get easily upset by things like that.
{Lord, bring good out of this tragedy of war. Make us more real and less selfish. Help us to see the Iraq as groups of innocent people who want peace, not as some far off entity.}
{Lord, bring good out of this tragedy of war. Make us more real and less selfish. Help us to see the Iraq as groups of innocent people who want peace, not as some far off entity.}
Friday, March 14, 2003
Luke 9
Sometimes the disciples were so dumb. Jesus had sent them on ahead to make arrangements for hospitality on his way to Jerusalem. They called off at a Samaritan Village and went to ask them if Jesus could stay there. The people refused. So James and John ask Jesus "do you want us to call a bolt of lightning down from the sky and incinerate them?" Let's blast them dude!
So how does Jesus respond? "Yeah guys, that'd be cool - let's burn them so hard that you can see the smoke rise." No, he ends things with a simple "course not."
I guess it just dawned on me that the disciples had never seen Jesus harm anyone with his 'secret powers' and yet that's exactly what they're willing to do at the first opportunity (once given Authority).
Before I sign off, I just remembered something in Luke 8. Jesus takes three of his disciples with him when asked to restore the life to Jairus' daughter. That's how he trained people. He was himself, he took people with him to see how he did things, later they were given authority to do the same.
Sometimes the disciples were so dumb. Jesus had sent them on ahead to make arrangements for hospitality on his way to Jerusalem. They called off at a Samaritan Village and went to ask them if Jesus could stay there. The people refused. So James and John ask Jesus "do you want us to call a bolt of lightning down from the sky and incinerate them?" Let's blast them dude!
So how does Jesus respond? "Yeah guys, that'd be cool - let's burn them so hard that you can see the smoke rise." No, he ends things with a simple "course not."
I guess it just dawned on me that the disciples had never seen Jesus harm anyone with his 'secret powers' and yet that's exactly what they're willing to do at the first opportunity (once given Authority).
Before I sign off, I just remembered something in Luke 8. Jesus takes three of his disciples with him when asked to restore the life to Jairus' daughter. That's how he trained people. He was himself, he took people with him to see how he did things, later they were given authority to do the same.
Luke 8
Jesus says "let's go to the other side" then falls asleep while the others get him there. It's quiet but soon a storm breaks out - they really and truly believe that they're going to die, so they wake Jesus up to tell him so - he clicks his fingers, the storm stops, then he tells them off for not trusting him. Why did he tell them off?
I guess it must be because he, God had given them orders to get to the other side and being God, when he said it he didn't mean "head for the other side so I can wipe you out on the way" - he meant "go to the other side." The passage really spoke to me. So often I'm so absorbed in what's going on around me that I think "how am I ever going to get through the storm?" But God has told me that he's taking me to a place beyond that, so why should I give up trusting him just because the weather's changed. If he orders, he'll provide the resources.
Jesus says "let's go to the other side" then falls asleep while the others get him there. It's quiet but soon a storm breaks out - they really and truly believe that they're going to die, so they wake Jesus up to tell him so - he clicks his fingers, the storm stops, then he tells them off for not trusting him. Why did he tell them off?
I guess it must be because he, God had given them orders to get to the other side and being God, when he said it he didn't mean "head for the other side so I can wipe you out on the way" - he meant "go to the other side." The passage really spoke to me. So often I'm so absorbed in what's going on around me that I think "how am I ever going to get through the storm?" But God has told me that he's taking me to a place beyond that, so why should I give up trusting him just because the weather's changed. If he orders, he'll provide the resources.
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
Stuart Murray-Williams cont...
I realised that I had so much to write on tithing that I didn't mention anything else to do with his talks...I thought they were great, although aimed at a more traditional audience. Although he confessed that he didn't know the Vineyard all that well, I had hoped that he would provide a certain insight into where we as a movement had come from. That doesn't however mean that the christendom factors weren't relevant to us.
I would have loved to hear his thoughts on sex, for example - particularly when Jay had mentioned spending most of his time trying to get (unmarried) people to stop having sex with each other! The explaination that most things in the new testament were not directly applicable, but that all are indirectly applicable was certainly helpful, but I would have liked him to expand on his ideas a little. Perhaps some 'scholars' would have a better idea of how to apply that concept to a fresh reading of scripture but I'm afraid I don't (please comment if you have any tips!)
War
His reference to war was certainly an eye opener. I'd been long prodding this issue with a number of people to whom I had spoken. Some had mentioned the 'Just War' theory. SMW gave some insight to this idea, how it is a product of Christendom, and related it to our current situation - what is a 'just war'?
1. War must be for a just Cause
2. War must be with good intention
3. There must be reasonable expectation of success
4. War must be waged by proper means
5. War must be the only possible way of removing evil
6. War must be declared and fought by a legitimate Authority.
He pointed out that the current US-UK-Iraq situation does not fit cleanly into this criteria. The circumstances are in fact closer to those of the ("more Biblical") concept of a crusade. This thinking is a breath of fresh air. I couldn't get my head around the idea of Jesus waging war in a physical, or political domain and so the just war idea had never sat comfortably. Now I know why.
If I think of anything else I shall blog on this topic further...until then "roll on death of Christendom!" I pray that it will be the quickest thing I ever learn and unlearn!
I realised that I had so much to write on tithing that I didn't mention anything else to do with his talks...I thought they were great, although aimed at a more traditional audience. Although he confessed that he didn't know the Vineyard all that well, I had hoped that he would provide a certain insight into where we as a movement had come from. That doesn't however mean that the christendom factors weren't relevant to us.
I would have loved to hear his thoughts on sex, for example - particularly when Jay had mentioned spending most of his time trying to get (unmarried) people to stop having sex with each other! The explaination that most things in the new testament were not directly applicable, but that all are indirectly applicable was certainly helpful, but I would have liked him to expand on his ideas a little. Perhaps some 'scholars' would have a better idea of how to apply that concept to a fresh reading of scripture but I'm afraid I don't (please comment if you have any tips!)
War
His reference to war was certainly an eye opener. I'd been long prodding this issue with a number of people to whom I had spoken. Some had mentioned the 'Just War' theory. SMW gave some insight to this idea, how it is a product of Christendom, and related it to our current situation - what is a 'just war'?
1. War must be for a just Cause
2. War must be with good intention
3. There must be reasonable expectation of success
4. War must be waged by proper means
5. War must be the only possible way of removing evil
6. War must be declared and fought by a legitimate Authority.
He pointed out that the current US-UK-Iraq situation does not fit cleanly into this criteria. The circumstances are in fact closer to those of the ("more Biblical") concept of a crusade. This thinking is a breath of fresh air. I couldn't get my head around the idea of Jesus waging war in a physical, or political domain and so the just war idea had never sat comfortably. Now I know why.
If I think of anything else I shall blog on this topic further...until then "roll on death of Christendom!" I pray that it will be the quickest thing I ever learn and unlearn!
Tuesday, March 11, 2003
I've noticed recently that there are two parties in our community (don't worry it's nothing "essential") - those who like the word church and who apply it to everything (i.e. I do church in a cafe with my mate, on a boat, in a moat (reminds me of Father of the Bride!)) and those who feel that the term is no longer useful to us, that it's so full of misconceptions that we'd be better to drop it altogether.
There are two ways of looking at it:
1. Firstly to use anything other than church can cause confusion, for example trying to explain to someone that you're part of a 'missional community' might get a bit tiring.
2. On the other hand there is the argument that when you speak of "church" they have images of the lifeless, the boring...
Should we redefine the term, or use something different?
There are two ways of looking at it:
1. Firstly to use anything other than church can cause confusion, for example trying to explain to someone that you're part of a 'missional community' might get a bit tiring.
2. On the other hand there is the argument that when you speak of "church" they have images of the lifeless, the boring...
Should we redefine the term, or use something different?
NLC cont...
Jay Pathak
Jay spoke on Acts 1 on the second night. It was the most I've laughed in a long time. The idea of the apostles sat around a camp fire with Jesus asking him "are you going to take over Israel this week?" then him saying "no, I'll go away and you do it" and then being "taken up into the sky."
He painted a picture of the disciples, on hearing that they were going to be involved being like "hey we're the dudes" and then when Jesus floats off them being like "who asked that question anyways - you scared him off!" I had never noticed that they stood looking up (:10) until these guys in white robes came and asked them why.
His message was basically that if we don't really believe that Jesus can change peoples' lives, we won't be able to draw people into him. If we as leaders don't have our own stories of peoples' lives being changed, then those who follow us won't believe they can be changed.
I got some prayer and God was really breaking my heart, his spirit was all over me, it was awesome. I saw those I know who don't yet know Jesus and could feel the love that God feels for them.
On the Thursday he spoke again on Thessalonians 2. On the things that Paul lent into in order that those he ministered to could do the same:
1. He leans into Perseverence
2. He leans into Tenderness (7-9)
3. He leans into Holiness (10-12)
4. He leans into Evangelism (13-16)
People need to see the kinds of change we want to see in our church in us. He challenged us that if it's not our story, we shouldn't use it and that we should only use stories that are 4 months old or less!
Jay Pathak
Jay spoke on Acts 1 on the second night. It was the most I've laughed in a long time. The idea of the apostles sat around a camp fire with Jesus asking him "are you going to take over Israel this week?" then him saying "no, I'll go away and you do it" and then being "taken up into the sky."
He painted a picture of the disciples, on hearing that they were going to be involved being like "hey we're the dudes" and then when Jesus floats off them being like "who asked that question anyways - you scared him off!" I had never noticed that they stood looking up (:10) until these guys in white robes came and asked them why.
His message was basically that if we don't really believe that Jesus can change peoples' lives, we won't be able to draw people into him. If we as leaders don't have our own stories of peoples' lives being changed, then those who follow us won't believe they can be changed.
I got some prayer and God was really breaking my heart, his spirit was all over me, it was awesome. I saw those I know who don't yet know Jesus and could feel the love that God feels for them.
On the Thursday he spoke again on Thessalonians 2. On the things that Paul lent into in order that those he ministered to could do the same:
1. He leans into Perseverence
2. He leans into Tenderness (7-9)
3. He leans into Holiness (10-12)
4. He leans into Evangelism (13-16)
People need to see the kinds of change we want to see in our church in us. He challenged us that if it's not our story, we shouldn't use it and that we should only use stories that are 4 months old or less!
Vineyard National Leaders' Conference (UK) 2003
I had a great week. It was great to hook up with some peeps in similar circumstances. I really met with God and was challenged on loads of things...
Stuart Murray Williams
Stuart talked on the "death of Christendom" which was interesting. He asked what this death means to those who are doing church here and now. It was very interesting, if mildly pessimistic. I didn't really feel that I had experienced a lot of what he talked about. I've never, ever contemplated Church being at the centre of society, having always been surrounded by those who don't know about Jesus.
His thesis on tithing is that we have lifted it from the Old Testament out of context. Originally it appeared at the time of Jubilee and was just one of the things that people gave away (out of 40%). He argued that when Constantine introduced tithing as a kind of 'tax', giving in the Church became about "charity" rather than redistribution of resources. His argument ran that we should 'call off' tithing for 6 months and then re-examine the Biblical references and see what we come up with. It's oppressive to those living in poverty and allows the wealthy to give little.
I spoke to a number of people with different reactions to the whole thing. Some were horrified with what he said, perhaps seeing it as a threat to their 'full time ministry,' while others were saying that they agreed with everything he said. I heard examples in the first group who said that people in their church had read SMW's book and had stopped giving altogether saying "we are actually supposed to be giving far more" and yet are not giving anything.
I'm somewhere in the middle, though undecided. I don't think that just dropping tithing would help us all that much...in fact I don't think we ever really took it up in any formal way. We've never expressed it in an oppressive manner and have always spoken about "giving" rather than "tithing." The key issue seems to be "are we making followers of Jesus" or just "Christians"?
If, by cancelling tithing, someone reacts "now I have more money for me," the problem clearly isn't that they are oppressed by tithing, but that they are so self-absorbed that they do not automatically try and give as much as they can. In a church full of disciples, the cancelling of tithing could only really lead to more giving (if there was any change at all) as the people who were once ‘confined’ by tithing are released to discover for themselves how much they should give.
I suppose my argument is that SMW's self-confessed bee in his bonnet is about a secondary issue. The question is not “is tithing wrong?” but “are we communities of disciples” or just religious theatre goers? If we are just theatre goers, why not pay a tenth of our incomes to sit back and enjoy the show!
Finally, for those who struggle with issues of generosity with finances, giving the first ten percent of their income can be a kind of spiritual discipline (i.e. learning to give) and can help a great deal with budgeting.
I had a great week. It was great to hook up with some peeps in similar circumstances. I really met with God and was challenged on loads of things...
Stuart Murray Williams
Stuart talked on the "death of Christendom" which was interesting. He asked what this death means to those who are doing church here and now. It was very interesting, if mildly pessimistic. I didn't really feel that I had experienced a lot of what he talked about. I've never, ever contemplated Church being at the centre of society, having always been surrounded by those who don't know about Jesus.
His thesis on tithing is that we have lifted it from the Old Testament out of context. Originally it appeared at the time of Jubilee and was just one of the things that people gave away (out of 40%). He argued that when Constantine introduced tithing as a kind of 'tax', giving in the Church became about "charity" rather than redistribution of resources. His argument ran that we should 'call off' tithing for 6 months and then re-examine the Biblical references and see what we come up with. It's oppressive to those living in poverty and allows the wealthy to give little.
I spoke to a number of people with different reactions to the whole thing. Some were horrified with what he said, perhaps seeing it as a threat to their 'full time ministry,' while others were saying that they agreed with everything he said. I heard examples in the first group who said that people in their church had read SMW's book and had stopped giving altogether saying "we are actually supposed to be giving far more" and yet are not giving anything.
I'm somewhere in the middle, though undecided. I don't think that just dropping tithing would help us all that much...in fact I don't think we ever really took it up in any formal way. We've never expressed it in an oppressive manner and have always spoken about "giving" rather than "tithing." The key issue seems to be "are we making followers of Jesus" or just "Christians"?
If, by cancelling tithing, someone reacts "now I have more money for me," the problem clearly isn't that they are oppressed by tithing, but that they are so self-absorbed that they do not automatically try and give as much as they can. In a church full of disciples, the cancelling of tithing could only really lead to more giving (if there was any change at all) as the people who were once ‘confined’ by tithing are released to discover for themselves how much they should give.
I suppose my argument is that SMW's self-confessed bee in his bonnet is about a secondary issue. The question is not “is tithing wrong?” but “are we communities of disciples” or just religious theatre goers? If we are just theatre goers, why not pay a tenth of our incomes to sit back and enjoy the show!
Finally, for those who struggle with issues of generosity with finances, giving the first ten percent of their income can be a kind of spiritual discipline (i.e. learning to give) and can help a great deal with budgeting.
I'm back blogging! I've been around since Friday but really haven't had the chance to sit down for long enough and process my thoughts. On Saturday I went to Viv's party after work which was cool. Happy Birthday for tomorrow Viv! It was cool to chill out and listen to some professional musicians sing Jazz and stuff. We then got roped in to doing a song - we actually rewrote the words to "Breakfast at Tiffanies" by Deep Blue Something in order that they were appropriate to Viv (cardboard table, scones etc.)
It was quite embarassing actually, I think PJ was the wiser for not joining in. I then crooned my way few Iris by the googoo dolls (once I remembered the words) and exited the stage (but not after singing a few bars of the "la" song). Sorry to those of you who were there...
On Sunday night Kirsten and I went to see Jackass the movie. I was surprised that I didn't laugh as much as I used to at it. My theory is that the bigger their budget, the less entertaining they are. It's the same thing that happened to Ali G. He was hilarious on the 11o'clock show, but by the time he got his own show it all started to go downhill. Perhaps people flourish in obscurity?
It was quite embarassing actually, I think PJ was the wiser for not joining in. I then crooned my way few Iris by the googoo dolls (once I remembered the words) and exited the stage (but not after singing a few bars of the "la" song). Sorry to those of you who were there...
On Sunday night Kirsten and I went to see Jackass the movie. I was surprised that I didn't laugh as much as I used to at it. My theory is that the bigger their budget, the less entertaining they are. It's the same thing that happened to Ali G. He was hilarious on the 11o'clock show, but by the time he got his own show it all started to go downhill. Perhaps people flourish in obscurity?
Monday, March 03, 2003
Sunday, March 02, 2003
I was introduced to being seriously misunderstood last night as I explained the way our church works. I think the biggest mistake was that I was sat in his church building telling him how we'll be unlikely to get tied to a building at any time in the future - we'd rather free our money up for the poor etc. Anyhow I think he interpretted what I said as an attack on the way he was used to doing things, rather than explaining how exciting it is that we get to do church in a different way.
In fact what I said was more of a reaction to his statement "so you're just starting out...I'm sure you'll grow and be able to afford a building at some point" as he named a number of other events based churches which grew and then bought a building (as any other respectable church would!) I suppose I was just taken aback - I'd read about such misunderstandings, but had never really experienced it.
In fact what I said was more of a reaction to his statement "so you're just starting out...I'm sure you'll grow and be able to afford a building at some point" as he named a number of other events based churches which grew and then bought a building (as any other respectable church would!) I suppose I was just taken aback - I'd read about such misunderstandings, but had never really experienced it.
Saturday, March 01, 2003
I just road home from work (M-Store) only to get completely soaked to the skin. I guess it's only to be expected in the British climate. It must be like some kind of social contract, Rousseau stylee - where at birth you contract to be soaked for the majority of your life...ok now I'm just rambling. I'm dry now anyhow and may even return with some serious thoughts in a bit...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)