I'm currently reading Tom (N.T.) Wright's 'Luke for Everyone. This morning I read through his commentry on Luke 22:54-71, which particularly grabbed my attention in light of Graham's post on Steve Chalke, the atonement, and 'God turning His Cheek'.
Someone asked me today what it means to say that Jesus died for the sins of the world. I gave them a rather rambling but I hope adequate answer. But Luke isanswering that question all the way through this passage. Peter's weakness, the guards' bullying, the court's perversion of justice; all this and much more put Jesus on the cross. It wasn't just a theological transaction; it was real sin, real human folly and rebellion, the dehumanized humanity that has lost its way and spat in God's face. 'They said many other scandalous things to him'; yes we've all done so. As Luke leads our eyes to the foot of the cross he means us to feel not just sorrow and pity, but shame..Posted by: jonny_norridge | 8/11/2004 09:26:00 am |
No, I can't quite believe it either
.Posted by: jonny_norridge | 7/22/2004 09:41:00 am |
Following the Jonathan's talk at the organic church day about 'the Celtic rhythm method' (as he called it), I've been thinking about spirituality, balance and rhythm.
I remember seeing a diagram a few years ago with three arrows pointing out from a central point. Each arrow was labeled: 'UP', 'OUT' and 'IN' respectively. The 'UP' was to signify 'upwards: a life worshiping God'. The 'IN' in was to signify the time in community. The 'OUT' was to signify the journey out into the world. Now I condone all these points, but the diagram troubles me.
I'm a visual art-design type person (academically trained in it, professionally worked it, fanatically lived it), I also have studied the odd bit of maths ('math' for any US readers) and applied maths. Now to me visually the diagram is completely wrong — yes it's balanced, but you won't be going anywhere. In fact its more like your on some elaborate stretching rack. (... and why is God only involved in one of the 3 points?)
Rhythm could be a far more healthier model. Rather than the stretching rack, think about a pendulum with the fulcrum being God. In this model God underpins, or rather 'over-pins' all the movement. And there's the significance, with this rhythm comes movement.
Apparently the Celtic monks would spend months or years in remote places undertaking an inward journey with God, in order to then to go and spend time in the market place and in the community. I remember Jonathan talking about "Together/Alone" - the time socially has feeds the time alone with God, and the time alone with God feeds the social times.
After the discussion on the role of church I thought I would post my attempt to put into a diagram how church might look. It was the result of thinking about how the church is intended to demonstrate the reality of an invisible God to the world. As with any diagram there are weaknesses, but I find it helpful. Here are the reasons why:
1) Church flows out of the nature, character and mission of God. Church is there to make real the invisible and God.
2) God is by nature community. The Trinity is an interdependant community of persons
3) God reaches out to His world, climatically in Jesus, in a mission of love that is unconditional and non-preferential.
4) God draws people and includes them into that communal life.
5) God's people are those 'in orbit' around God, centred on Him, giving allegiance to Jesus. It is not primarily about 'beliefs' but 'orientation'.
6) God's people are to join God in his mission of love to the world, unconditionally and non-preferentially.
7) Reaching in love takes us to our neighbours, friends ans family and further to the 'unreached'.
8) Just as the church is drawn in to share in the loife of the godhead, so others are drawn in to share in the life of God in us. The inclusion is more about our orbit around God than it is about our own 'attractiveness'.
9) We include through openness and invitation.
10) People are drawin into the life of the community.
11) God's people are characterised by their orientation around God, participation in His mission of love and inclusion.
12) Hence they live out the realities of life in God.
It is not intended to make it look like the church is the primary place of God's activity, clearly God is in action throughout His world. But it does show that the People of God have a 'priestly' and incarnational role for the world. It is not intended to show that the church is the centre of the universe and that people must come to it. It assumes the fact that the church community has placed itself in the centre of the wider community and that it is continually placing itself in other communities.
So, let me know if it helps!
Update: Jonny has kindly uploaded the diagram in 2 forms for you to download if you wish:
Circles_of_Community.pdf
Circles_of_Community.zip
At last years NKOC conference, Mark N, Steve G, and Graham met my mate Jim, [who came down with me to the conference]. We all shared my brother's living room floor as a place to rest our heads at night - man that room stank in the morning! Anyway, during our conversation we were chatting with Jim about what he does and what he wants to do... the answer being he hangs around town, dj's and talks to people and he wants to be paid for it. Well..... this week, Jim was offered the job of Pub and Club chaplain, employed by the the Chruch Army/CofE Diocese overseeing Nottingham. Which is great news.
If anyone has any experience in this area then it'd would be great to hear from you.
This is a great blog post discovered by Sivin Kit. Here's a little bit to wet your appetite:
Charles de Foucauld, the missionary/monk who served as a witness to Jesus among the poor and largely Muslim communities on the living edge of the Saharah over 100 years ago, recently put this idea to work in my body. The visitation of Mary to her cousin Elizabeth, he says, is a model of evangelization. Mary, that wondrous host of God himself (Luke 1.31ff), enters her cousin's household and Elizabeth and John in her own womb leap for joy (1.41). She evangelized "not by her words but by silently carrying Jesus close to them, to their dwelling." Following her example, could we too "evangelize and sanctify the unfaithful by carrying Jesus to their midst in silence, by carrying him, our evangelical life, in our own lives which should provide an example of his.".Posted by: jonny_norridge | 6/14/2004 10:29:00 am |
Things which are exciting me at the moment:
[1] Barbecue's, food, and neighborhoods
I'm enjoying hearing stories like Eric Keck's street Barbecue, Andrew Jone's pizza parties, and Mark's feeding of the 50.00 Barbecue. We had our monthly smallgroup sunday dinner yesterday, and invited our closest neighbours [1 came!]. Our smallgroup Sunday roasts have been fantastic, a really family experience. Yesterday we did a barbecue and it was brilliant, perfect for inviting people too... we're going to do more... and maybe take it on tour to the houses of various smallgroup members.
[2] Hacking
Check Mr Jone's post on this one. We had an excellent smallgroup two weeks ago were I primed three people [actually one of them was me] to prepare some thing for worship. We had a video-clip linked with a lectio-divina hack, a labyrinth/meditation hack (so it could work with 12 people crammed into a living room and unable to move much) and ending with a slightly less hacked contemporary sung worship. It was amazing how it all tied together.
** I was working on this before Mark blogged the last post. I hope this comes across right **
The Apostle's Creed has to be one of the most well known and famous creeds. I've been thinking about it recently, and specifically challenged by the line "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church". It strikes me that Christians all around the world say this creed, but everywhere I've been and in all streams of church I heard people slag off whole sections of the Church, or imply that 'so and so' isn't really church. "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church".... Can you say this?! "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church". Can I say it?
Based on this take a look atthis thought on Jason's blog. I guess the challenge is: what primary characteristic is going to mark the 'emerging church'? "Reactionary"? "Anger"? "Love"? What impression will we leave people with?
Now I'm not saying there isn't any place for critique and correction. But how will this be communicated, and is it our primary message? Do you want to be a prophet of doom or prophet of hope?
Can we have more stories of hope please! Where have you seen God working in you community? How has God been refreshing you and you community with new things? How has God been revitalizing you and your community with rediscovered traditions? How have you been able to communicate God's love recently? How have you experienced God and learned more about Him and his ways?
This is taken from an interesting speach by Bono at Penn Uni:
There's a truly great Irish poet his name is Brendan Kennelly, and he has this epic poem called the Book of Judas, and there's a line in that poem that never leaves my mind, it says: "If you want to serve the age, betray it." What does that mean to betray the age?.Posted by: jonny_norridge | 5/26/2004 05:11:00 pm |
Well to me betraying the age means exposing its conceits, it's foibles; it's phony moral certitudes. It means telling the secrets of the age and facing harsher truths.
Every age has its massive moral blind spots. We might not see them, but our children will. Slavery was one of them and the people who best served that age were the ones who called it as it was--which was ungodly and inhuman. Ben Franklin called it what it was when he became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.
Segregation. There was another one. America sees this now but it took a civil rights movement to betray their age. And 50 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court betrayed the age May 17, 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education came down and put the lie to the idea that separate can ever really be equal. Amen to that.
Fast forward 50 years. May 17, 2004. What are the ideas right now worth betraying? What are the lies we tell ourselves now? What are the blind spots of our age? What's worth spending your post-Penn lives trying to do or undo? It might be something simple.
It might be something as simple as our deep down refusal to believe that every human life has equal worth. Could that be it? Could that be it? Each of you will probably have your own answer, but for me that is it. And for me the proving ground has been Africa.
Africa makes a mockery of what we say, at least what I say, about equality and questions our pieties and our commitments because there's no way to look at what's happening over there and it's effect on all of us and conclude that we actually consider Africans as our equals before God. There is no chance.
The worship in many churches is now chiefly made up of songs, more specifically the songs that make it on to popular worship albums. When choosing songs for a worship album one consideration is whether it is commercially viable. Will people buy it? An album has to make a profit so subsequent albums can be made. So our worship has become ‘commercial worship’, dictated by commercial markets. In the process ‘Worship’ or ‘Contemporary Worship Music’ has become a genre of music in itself, with its own particular melodies, sounds and arrangements — the result is a sort of Christianized Soft-Rock. If commercialism is humans giving other humans what they are prepared to pay money for, then has our worship has become human focused and self-serving? The thing that concerns me, is that is my reaction to it also self-serving? Am I bored of Pop Worship because it no longer satisfies me? Perhaps I need something like Andrew Jones’s ‘deep ecclesiology’ (embracing the Church in all it’s forms). Anyone for some deep worship?
* - Paraphrased from: The Story We Find Ourselves In (preface)
We just popped out to Tesco at 6.30pm to get a bottle of wine, so we can have a nice night in together in front of the TV - we got back at 7:15pm to find our door had been kicked in and my laptop taken with my case which also had my PDA in it... they can keep the laptop and the PDA...
It's the invasion of my home, not wanting to leave our house, not wanting to be here. It's the years worth of church accounts, the 4 years worth of art work and endless word doc's and stuff I've written... that just p's me off... big time!
Arrrrhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Please pray for Tammy, she's feeling really insecure about stuff...
From May 3rd of my Schott's Original Miscallany desk Calendar:
Characteristics of Living Things
One of the main points I came away from the round table was to do with a new model for church. One reason I've given people in the past when they said, "So Jonny, when are you going to plant a church?" is "I wouldn't know what to do, I haven't seen a model for the type of church I'd like to 'plant'". Having said that, I have seen many good examples of church but none to copy out right. After last Saturday it occurred to me that my very answer showed how I'd missed a vital point.
One thing that came up a couple of times during the day was "what if instead of planting churches we plant seed of the gospel and nurture what grows." Andrew Jones said a similar thing at the NKOC conference last november. Now, I been thinking along with many others across the blog world what it means to be church and a follower of Jesus in the context of todays culture. I guess I've been thinking in terms of time/history and cultural paradigms, and thinking about what it means to plant the gospel in that situation. A good start, but what occurred to me as Jonathan Roe and Mark Berry spoke was that not only are we planting the gospel in time but all so in specific places and more importantly among specific people.
So what? Well, I'm starting to think, I will never find a model for a perfect type of church to plant in a postmodern culture. Because, I believe, for a church to work in this context it must be a natural expression of the specific people that make up that church. I suppose this is 'indigenous church' — a reaction to the globalization of church culture, where a one size fits all church culture it put on everyone (and if you don't like it then thats your problem). I'd been thinking (in hindsight very modern thinking) of coming up with a perfect model and then getting people to join. What if you see God working in peoples lives and see what the Spirit is doing in you particular context and locality and nurture that. As you do this you still won't know exactly what you model for church is because it will be something that evolves and changes as the Spirit moves among the people. I think Steve has just posted similar thought to this. So is there no model or is the model indigenous-evolving church? Planting seeds of the gospel and nurture what grows, making disciples of all types of people.
A sign of the times maybe, I've decided to fast tomorrow but instead of going without food I'm going to leave the computer off all day ... pray for me, it's going to be way harder than skipping a couple of meals!
.Posted by: Sarah | 4/23/2004 09:25:00 pm |
LICC sent out a very interesting 'Connecting with Culture' written by Brian Draper [who's articles are always worth reading]. Anyway here's the article:
My eight-and-a-half-year-old friend teaches me to follow Jesus. Thankfully, she hasn't yet learned all the Bible-blurring jargon of the Christian world. She believes with child-like depth, curiosity and wonder, which sadly we lose as we grow up into socially constructed, rational human beings.
It came as a shock, therefore, as she returned from a camp this Easter, to hear that she had become, in her own words - 'a proper Christian'. She'd gone with a friend and, at the end of the week, had said the 'believer's prayer', received the booklet and joined the club.
The news was hard for her parents to swallow. They've carefully nurtured her capacity to believe - in a positive, non-manipulative way, throughout her short life. What had they done that wasn't 'proper' It also came as a surprise to her Sunday school teacher. How, all of a sudden, had she changed, beyond being another conversion that someone else had scored?
Many people, like Saul of Tarsus, can remember the time and place they began following Christ. For them, the flash of light is blindingly real; the scales really do fall from their eyes. Others have a more gradual realisation; after Peter left his fishing nets, he experienced several defining moments (and even after declaring 'You are the Christ', denied him three times). Still others shape their faith through profound moments of doubt; we remember Thomas at Easter, who, not unreasonably, needed to see before he believed that a dead man could walk. All three followed Christ, but their experiences varied greatly.
Today, many Christians judge whether others are 'in' or 'out' by whether or not they've 'converted' and conformed to the patterns of the church. Many do convert, of course; but others walk the road less travelled without enjoying the particular, cultural rite of passage my friend encountered. Such journeys are no less valid, and we've much to learn along the way from those who don't conform to our own idea of 'proper' - whatever that might be.
That's not, however, to belittle my friend's experience. It was probably authentic, and significant. I can't help wondering, though, whether she described it in her own way, or whether she began, while at camp, to speak in a different language. If I'm really honest, it's left this particular grown-up a little lost for words.
I haven't posted anything here for ages, but wanted to throw this out - just a picture that Steve had the other day which is proving to be pivotal in where God is taking us at the moment, I thought it might speak to some of you as well. Not being a paid church leader (the gospel according to Veggie Tales really *is* as far as it gets!!) I don't have time to think in long words like most of you, I can't put labels on our thinking, but thankfully God is still speaking to us ;o) Now we've just got to work out what to do about it ...
We are standing on the platform of a train station, with lots of other people. The train arrives, and everyone gets onto it, apart from us - we look at the train and realise that it's the wrong train, and not the one we're supposed to be travelling on, it's going to the wrong destination.
That was it - then it was like God was saying to us - how long are you going to stand on that platform, just because it's what you've always done, or because your families did it before you, or even because lots of your friends are doing it? That train might be the right one for them, but you know full well that there is another train for you. Now get moving! Your train is leaving from a different platform - you might not know your way around the station, or even know which train it is, but don't stay on the wrong platform!
I'm starting to think I need to be careful when i bring up dichotomies of modern and postmodern. In the wrong context it can be very unhelpful and sound exclusive. I remember when there was a time when people would say "I'm a Christian" and others would ask "What type of Christian are you... are you a _______ Christian." Of course we're postmodern so we would never ask that question, would we? Ony I find myself putting people into categories, "they must be a modern thinking Christian" or, "they must be a postmodern thinking Christian"
I wonder Paul (if writing a letter to us today) might say something along the lines of: in the Body of Christ there is no modern and postmodern because God is in all and overall.
1 Corinthians 12 | Galatians 3 | Colossians 3
Having said this... the last time I made this mistake was last night. I'm getting better, but I've still got a long long way to go.
I posted this over on my blog a few days ago. I wanted to see if my thoughts resonates with anyone else?? It seems God is doing this work in others:
Cara and I attended a church service on Easter Sunday over at Radiant Life Church. It was the first time for me in 2 1/2 years that I was actually excited to "go to church." Easter probably contributed to my excitement but I believe that even if it wasn't Easter, I still would've been excited to attend. In fact, Radiant Life does a worship/music celebration every other Friday which Cara and I have decided to participate. For me, I feel like I am able to engage and be an active participant during music in a service. I have so missed this in my life and it seems that God is giving it back.
As we left the service on Sunday, some thoughts emerged:
> I am definitely not made to be a pew sitter. Everything within me screams out, "I am not made to just 'go to church' and passively sit." I feel that God has a bigger plan for me.
> As a result of the above thought, I feel that I am set apart for ministry. It's not an issue of holier than thou or being better than my other bro's and sis' in Christ. I am a firm believer in 'the priesthood of ALL believers.' My passions emerge when it comes to The Church, her mission, calling and effectiveness. I feel I come alive whenever I dream about reaching the world for Christ. After 2 1/2 years of sacrifice (because it is what God has asked me to do), I have come to realize that I am made to make a difference. This is my purpose, no doubt about it.
> When God asked us to leave FBC Redondo Beach, the confirmation from the Lord was Gen. 12:1, "Then the LORD told Abram, "Leave your country, your relatives, and your father's house, and go to the land that I will show you." And in God's confirmation, he told me, "I have a different plan for you. A different way of showing Me to others. It will be different than anything you have done. This plan is reserved for you but first I must take you to a place of discomfort, restlessness, sorrow, lostness, doubt, and pain. Will you still obey me?" I have said yes to the Lord for 2 1/2 years and will continue to obey what He asks me to do.
> It is truly ironic that on Easter Sunday, while sitting in a church service, my spirit would experience a resurrection. I believe God is doing this work in me. As a result, I feel I am opening up more and more to Him. Keep it coming Lord Jesus!
Following yesterday's 'Ecce Homo' piece, I've made a Flash version which continuously loops through various images whilst music plays.
I've also created stand alone files which you're all free to use*
- the PC version is here
- the Mac version is here.
- new link! Mac OS X download
The stand alone version does not include the music (as it's not mine to give it away) - its by the post-rock band 'Godspeed You Black Emperor!' and you can buy it on Amazon
(* - please don't use it to make financial profit)
A while ago Steve suggested I create some visuals for a stations of the cross thing. I still haven't done it but as a route to that I've decided to try out some stuff using the tradional artisitc theme of "Ecce Homo". Above is an early sketch.
On Wednesday I got to watch The Passion of the Christ. UGC cinema put on a free showing for Church pastor’s in Northampton [they deserve a bit of free publicity from that, probably].
So what do I think? Well, it is always weird going to the cinema at 11am at the best of times and this was no different. Especially considering the nature of the film. The first word that I would use is harrowing. It is certainly one of the most graphic, violent films I have seen. That needs to be made plain: it is not for the faint-hearted. But let’s be honest, we have all watched Jesus of Nazareth and been offended by the crucifixion scene there because it has very little relation to gruesome reality. There is no chance of that offence here. The audience is barraged with gruesome and bloody scenes for 80% of the film. The film felt long and drawn out, like 12 hours of suffering with an inevitable conclusion. I came out in emotional turmoil, drained, messed up. But I think I would prefer this presentation to the it’s relatively clinical predecessors. I have spent my upbringing persuading my parents of the ‘necessary’ violence in certain movies in order to portray reality [Saving Private Ryan] or the ‘artistic’ nature of violence that is required to make a point [Pulp Fiction; T1 & T2?]. I guess I still think that. And if those arguments are made then they are also to be made here. I should add that, personally, I feel it is over played though – blood just doesn’t run that freely!!
I appreciated the real, human nature of the film. There is nothing like a pictorial portrayal of something that you have only read about, be it Lord of the Rings or The Miracle Maker etc. Here the reality of Jesus humanity is emphasised, the fear that engulfs him, the pain that he suffers, the compassion that remains present. I felt one of the most powerful moments of the film was Peter’s denial, again you are faced with the reality of what he did and the potential for you to do the same. Points of drama were beautifully crafted, finding points of grace from Jesus amongst horror and desertion, such as the cutting off of the centurion’s ear by Peter. Every character was carefully introduced to the main plot journey bringing a reality to the encounters. Flashbacks added to the overall picture, giving light relief from the suffering, and giving some context, a touch of purpose [that is of course apart from the ridiculous one about Jesus making a table – was that purely for comedy value?].
I was less satisfied with some historical aspects to the film. The comparative presentations of the Roman authorities and the Jewish authorities, I felt, were not as I see them. Pilate is presented to be a reflective, compassionate ruler, just desperate to keep the peace, talking openly with his wife, who is presented as a semi-Jesus Follower. This I think is overly flattering. The Jewish authorities are presented as being single-minded and proud, comfortable with entering the house of Herod and being around blood and the crucifixion site. I feel that this does not deal fully with the complicated political and cultural issues of the day.
It is also clear that many of the decisions with regards the portrayal of those issues not covered in the gospels come not so much from a desire to provide an historical reconstruction, but to pull in various Catholic sources. For example, Veronica appears on the scene from the 6th station of the cross, the devil figure’s temptations in the garden of Gethsemane are from Anne Catherine Emmerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact she is also responsible for many of the details of the film [check more: interesting points; outline of the issues; list of items taken into the film ; frequently asked questions ]. There is not a problem with this, of course, as long as people are aware.
Overall this film has, and is, impacting me hugely. Brian McLarens’ article sums it up very well, I think, this is not ‘a great evangelistic opportunity’. Its value, for me, lies in the role it takes in my own Formation, and in that sense its value is proving to be high. I feel more aware of Jesus’ suffering, I feel aware of the grace carried in it, I feel faced by the reality of the discipleship call, I feel challenged to make a passionate response of devotion to “my Lord and my God”.
Do I want to see it again? No, not for a long, long time …
P.S. See Rick Warren’s response to Brian here.
P.P.S. Classic quotes:
- "I am a Christian and I am not so much against the movie but the merchandise that they are selling along with it, things like nail necklaces, How tacky and sick!" - random public [better leave the necklace with a cross hanging on it in the box then, luv!]
- "At least I have an answer to sanctimonious religious people who don't like my love for horror films now" - BBC reporter
- "I love horror films ...... it's an exploitation film, and I love that .... so it's a good film in my book" - same BBC reporter
P.P.P.S. Repentence Follows...
I work with a Mormon Bishop who is an evangelist. He is unapologetic, sincere and genuine, and very effective. He, along with a team of others, are initiating an agenda (political in nature and under the table) to reach the whole city of Elk Grove, CA. The core of what he is doing and why he is doing it is 2-fold: 1) Based on his belief system, his effort(s) merit God's favor and a ticket to heaven (gaining status in the after-life furnished with many planets to his name 2) The real goal is not to convert everyone to becoming Republican (although this is the platform by which he stands on)... the ultimate goal is that their prayers and baptisms on behalf of the 'lost' will eventually convert and convince them to Mormonism. Pretty smart method, but effective? He (and "his team") seem to think so.
The truth speaks for itself... our (Followers of The Way) 'pure motive' methods are failing and not reaching the culture. Oh, when will we ever come to grips with this truth! On the other hand, when will we (I) begin to obey the harvest work before us. Do we just sit back and say, "Holy Spirit, lead us as we wait for your hand to move?" This is a great foundation to build on, but we must not camp there. The exciting thing about the Kingdom of God is that we ALL get to participate and work with God in this Harvest work. What does this look like? "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves." James 1:22 (NASB)
I must confess that I have found myself stuck in some "new ways of thinking." It has trapped me into a life of regular rhetoric and less doing. Rhetoric and conversation is not bad... the danger is that it easily and subtly weighs down our feet and hands. Acts 1:11 reads, "They said, "Men of Galilee, why are you standing here staring at the sky? Jesus has been taken away from you into heaven. And someday, just as you saw him go, he will return!" (NLT)
Let's challenge and sharpen one another towards active Kingdom Work. Let's stop gazing, pay attention to what the Spirit is whispering, and respond. I need this kind of sharpening in my life, so I invite you to do this to me!
I was thinking today how useful it would be to try to layout some of the different ways of looking at the nature of salvation. We have discussed before the predominant evangelical view: law court imagery in which humanity has transgressed the law, Satan is the accuser, God made a guilty judgment, then laid the judgment on Jesus, mankind goes forward ‘free’ to have a relationship with God again and from the judgement of ‘hell’. This has been widely accepted as ‘the gospel’.
As I thought about putting some thoughts on ‘paper’, I remembered a book that sought to do that a little: “God so loved the world: a Christology for Disciples” by Jonathan Wilson. The book seeks to take a narrative approach to Christology by laying out the ‘story of the messiah’ and covering different ways the story has been framed. He then covers three ways in which the Gospel event in Jesus could be viewed: Christ as Victor, Christ as Sacrifice, Christ as Example. He does this by covering the NT evidence, the ways this has been approached in Church history, and finally laying out what that means for “God”, “Humanity”, “Sin” and “Salvation” by placing them in the context of the story he started with. I tell you this because I quite like the methodology – trying to draw out some threads of theology from the context of the biblical story and interpretations through church history. Unfortunately, however, the book does not quite succeed – it feels like it is trying a little too hard to use the right language, while covering up a ‘traditional’ systematic theology underneath. That is in addition to trying to cover too much ground in a small book. His broad conclusions, however are interesting starting points:
1) Christ as Victor
- God as warrior, conqueror and liberator
- Humanity as victims, captives and hostages
- Sin as enemy and prison
- Salvation as triumph, liberation and homecoming
2) Christ as Sacrifice
- God as judge and judged [note: relational judgment over legal]
- Humanity as perpetrators, rebels, collaborators and criminals
- Sin as rebellion
- Salvation as forgiveness, pardon, innocence, righteousness and peace
3) Christ as Example
- God as teacher, enabler and lover
- Humanity as ignorant, feeble and alienated
- Sin as ignorance, weakness and separation
- Salvation as knowledge, power and love
What do you think? Are all valid? Do you favour one over the rest? Do we need all of them [and more?] to get a full picture?
P.S. Maybe that is why Mel couldn't put in the meaning of events in his recent film like some would have liked ...
You may have heard that the Passion is 'the–greatest–evangelistic–oportunity–in–the–last–2000–years' (just how did they survive before the invention of the cinema) — Rubbush! Blatantly this is: Saved! the movie.** In a world where irony rules communication this will be the film for me and my friends.
** = OK so I messing about. If any film is the–greatest–evangelistic–oportunity–in–the–last–2000–years then we're doing something very very wrong. Tip: try waking up in the morning living an authenic life following Jesus.
I imagine it will be okay to rant... in love. My Spirit is experiencing an unsettling concern for what seems to be taking place. Recently I read a handbook on 'house churching' and as I flipped through the pages I had to put it down. I had this overwhelming sense in my spirit and God told me, "People in N. America do not need 'house church' for spiritual answers, they need Me." My reason for bringing this up is not to bash on those who house church, rather to exhort in love... we must not fall for quick, get-em-saved, evangelistic gimmicks or models that eliminate the foundational base for our walk(s) with God and that's constantly LISTENING to the Spirit and RESPONDING to Him in obedience. For the longest time, God's people have attempted to find the quickest, easiest gimmick to reach the culture. We must be committed to breaking the cycle! How? By seeking Jesus' heart as to what He wants to do in reaching those around us in the context we find ourselves in. My point is that this will look very different for each of us. Please, please, let's not 'package' and market house churching. I am sorely afraid that this type of effort is already out on the shelves in Christian bookstores, websites, etc. BTW, I would consider myself (our community of believers) as people who desire to be an ACTS church and probably to some it would look like a 'house church'. But it is not my (our) desire to go out and convert (believers and unbelievers) to this form of structure. We are asking ourselves, "God what is your desire for us as we seek to be missionaries here in Sacramento (as opposed to simply a gathered community)." House Church is not the answer... Jesus is and always will be!
Wanted to throw this question out there: what is leadership in relational church, simple church, organic church, house church, etc? This has been on my heart and mind for several weeks and God is not allowing me to 'shake it off.'
Some thoughts? Look forward to the conversation. Peace!
Last week I got chance to go to the leaders conference for the 'movement'* of Churches I belong to (yes, there is a Norridge boy in all the major charismatic-evangelical networks). Had a good time. It was great to have time to chat to people including Steve, and a brief chat with Jason.
The highlight, for me was the sessions by Gorden Fee. He did three talks on Philippians, and was persuaded to do two extra sessions which were, 'the pastor and his Bible' and a question and answer session. The Philippians stuff was great - some of it I heard before from listening to previous Gorden Fee lectures on tape, but even hearing this again was inspiring. As expected he was incredibly passionate and insightful. Interestingly he seemed keen on using phases like "community of faith" - in preference to "church", and "followers of Jesus" in preference to Christian.
The Philippians stuff was given some useful historical context. I'm a sucker for history so I loved this. Fee talked about Augustus (Octavia) giving Philippi to the loosing army in the battle on the plains in north Greece and making the citizens of Philippi citizens of Rome. Philippi was therefore an 'outpost of Rome', Fee drew this along side Paul's writtings to the believers in Philippi, saying (words to the effect of): you the church are an outpost of heaven, citizens of heaven, our life together should reflect that of heaven. Augustus' action also lead to him being pronounced "Lord and Saviour" - which Nero also took on when he became Emperor - again I've heard this before but to hear how subversive Paul is to declare Jesus "Lord and Saviour" over and above any earthly empire is good to hear and be reminded of.
Other snippets which caught my attention in the Philippian's talk were:
- 'Joy' in Paul is usually a verb and not a noun - it's not something you feel, but something you do. "I rejoice... ...make my joy complete (fullfillied)"
- 'when people loose sight of the future they become religious' [I wonder if people have a mis-guided view of the future then they also become religious, so bad eschatology makes bad religion].
Well, that's a few comments on the Philippians stuff, oh did I mention he handed out copies of the TNIV to go through this with us?(so we got lots of - "I was determined that we translated this bit right this time")
(* = still not convinced thats the right use of the word, but that's a whole another subject)
