Howdy ya'll. Thanks for inviting me... more later. sacmission
.Posted by: Robb and Cara Lane | 1/31/2003 02:24:00 pm |
Todd Hunter has got a blog... he hasn't posted anything yet... but he's got a blog!!!!!!
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 1/30/2003 05:00:00 pm |
Some good stuff from John Campea's Blog
"Abortion, Gambling, Cloning? should the church be involved in politics at all?
Ok, let me stick my neck out and let some of you take a swipe at it. Over the last few days I've been involved in some really interesting discussions on Abortion and Gambling (they may be opening a new grand casino in Saskatoon). This has all got me thinking about the Church's involvement in these and other political issues. Here are some of my thoughts, take them for what they're worth:
1) Paul lived under arguably the most tyrannical government in the history of the world... the Roman Empire. From their occupation and subjugation of the Israeli people, bath houses where all kinds of unspeakable things happened, government sanctioned idolatry, a government totally void of any "Christian" influence, always at war with other nations for the purpose of conquest, the outright encouragement of what we would call sexual immorality, ect... ect... ect. What strikes me is that despite all these things, Paul NEVER used his time to speak out against any of these Roman practices (no matter how evil, except to those already in the church). Even when he was in front of major political leaders, all he spoke about was the gospel and issues of faith. That's it.
2) Some religious leaders tried to get Jesus into political issues and brought up the question of taxes to him. His response was quick and simple: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." (Matthew 22:21). Jesus himself never got caught up in any issues (no matter how good or noble they might have been) other than the essential truths of establishing the "Kingdom of God". His example was to use all his time, energy and attention for loving one another, serving each other, prayer and developing a community of faith that was so breathtakingly beautiful and offered a picture of what life could be like that people couldn't resist it. Jesus didn't even "fight" the execution of John the Baptist... His own cousin. Getting people to act the right way has no effect on brining them closer to God. A change of heart has to happen for that.
3) We give so much energy, money and effort into these non-kingdom essential issues (no matter how good and right they are) that we've taken our attention away form the ONLY things Jesus and Paul gave their attention to. Isn't this poor stewardship of our time, money and energy?
4) The Bible never tells us to even give a second thought to our worldly governments. Rather, it always seems to tell us to not even consider ourselves citizens of this world. So why do we spend so much time on "this world" stuff, rather than "our true home" stuff?
Ok, that's enough for now. Like I said, these are all things just rumbling around in my head. Any thoughts you'd like to share would be most appreciated."
My new toy... from Tammy for my Birthday
Pocket DV Camcorder
"Prepare yourselves for a revelation... This shiny new gadget is to digital video what the l'espion and Blink are to digital cameras." [ more ]
Today I preached conversation style (well more like that). Asking the congregation questions, getting feedback. Thank for the idea on that Graham - I really enjoyed it! Much more opportunity to wing it - always my preference!! I am however looking for more ways to induce conversation at our gatherings. Any ideas?
.Posted by: Mark | 1/26/2003 09:58:00 pm |
This week I have been looking through Ephesians 4:17 and onwards talking about Christian living. I am using the TNIV at the mo (I know, very controversial, but I get worse on this Blog) and I read 4: 20, which reads : “That however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ”. What stood out was its difference to the NIV “You however did not come to know Christ that way.” It is more literally (?) “but you did not so learn Christ”.
I know “what’s your point, Mark". Well, firstly, looking into it the TNIV is a better translation, since the word relates to the word for disciple – a learning and putting it into practice, not a getting to know in the sense of ‘how you got saved’. ‘Way of life’ puts following Jesus and a changed way of life right at the heart of Paul’s message. It starts to feed my renewed understanding if righteousness and holiness as primarily relational words – not about personal piety, so much.
Secondly and hugely controversially, it starts to suggest to me that the NIV is quite a ‘modern’ translation. It takes the word ‘learn’ and translates it in a very modern way ‘getting to know’ – head knowledge. And starts to apply it in a ‘getting saved’ sort of way. Maybe the fact that it is somewhat modernist is not surprising given the time of its writing. Does that then make the TNIV more ‘postmodern’??????
I think I’d better stop there.
Last Sunday we went for a ‘worship event’. No preach and no singing, just ‘worship stations’ and eating. I’m not sure what people thought. The idea of alternative worship is appealing in theory but in practice …
Our standard ‘charismatic worship’ is heavily loaded towards an encounter with God. The trouble is that it is something of a hit and miss affair depending on the mood or the songs. I.e. It can be really really good or really, really dire (rubbish time and no decent content to fall back on) – as dead as any old liturgy that we have traditionally poo-pooed. And therein lies the issue – the point is not what you do for your ‘worship’ but whether there is life in it. And that largely depends on the worshippers. What struck me as people rotated around a ‘painting station’, a ‘writing station’, a ‘reflection station’ and a ‘prayer station’ is that to really get something out of this you have to have a relationship with the Lord. To engage with him at an individual/small group level. Both the positive and the negative aspect of singing worship is the ability to carry the stragglers. Positive because we so often need the community to help us through, negative because we don’t need to fully participate to make it work.
Interestingly, from another point altogether, at college we had 3 guys from 3 countries on consecutive days talking about the spiritual state of each country (Jamaica, Philippines, Romania). The one common thread of each was the strong growth of Pentecostal worship “because of its cultural adaptability”.
Just got this from the Emergent guys!(the postmodern superfriends)
"Dear All,.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 1/23/2003 04:11:00 pm |
Our theological dialogue with Stanley Hauwerwas, and pastors and church
leaders has just finished. You will find handouts, powerpoint, and talk
summaries now on line from some of the keynote sessions.
Go to www.emergent-uk.org click the resources button, then click the
stanley Huaerwas file, and download.
The theme for the dialogue was peace and war, and dealt with issues of
death and culture, pacifism, in an emerging church context.
Thanks,
Jason Clark - Emergent"
My New Blog!!!!!!!!!
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 1/22/2003 11:45:00 pm |
From Iggie's Blog...
15 traits of postmodern apostles
1. Apostles have time for everyone.
2. Apostles know that the DNA of the church is to make apprentices of Jesus Christ.
3. Apostles function as soul friends.
4. Apostles are passionate about entire cultures, people groups, and regions.
5. Apostles know how to share Jesus with pagans.
6. Apostles are team-based leaders.
7. Apostles are obedient to a call beyond their own lives.
8. Apostles major on the majors, and minor on the minors.
9. Apostles are led intuitively by the Holy Spirit all the time.
10. Apostles are constantly innovating their methodology of reaching a lost world.
11. Apostles serve Jesus Christ in the midst of the people of God instead of serving the people of God.
12. Apostles pray without ceasing.
13. Apostles are real people, and yes they are human. And they know it.
14. Apostles understand the Matrix and can help you decide which pill to take.
15. Apostles are men after God?s own heart
The Gospel According to David Brent
My wife, emailed me this - for all you die hard Office fans
"I don't look upon this like it's the end, I look upon it like it's moving on you know. It's almost like my work here's done. I can't imagine Jesus going 'Oh I've told a few people in Bethlehem I'm the son of God, can I just stay here with mum and dad now?' No. You gotta move on. You gotta spread the word. You gotta go to Nazareth, please. And that's, very much like...me. My world does not end within these four walls.... Slough's a big place."
David Brent - The Office (Series 2, Episode 6)
Found this at Southpoint Church Blog, a very true statement which I think is what divides the whole house church movement down the middle!
"House Church 101"
I got together for coffee with my friend Johan the other day. He mentioned that he has connected with some guys who are wanting to transition into "house church" from a "big church" model. Part of our discussion was about the danger of always looking to another "better" model..."Once we get our model right...then we will experience some kind of success!". This is such a dangerous approach! The way we at Southpoint are "structured" may look like the house church model...but please, may that not be what we are defined by. Very quickly, this house church thing can become just as institutional and structured as any other (a few hundred books and conferences later!). Instead, shouldn't we be looking at they way in which we are living? Does the way we meet reflect Christ? Maybe we will see more happening when people actually see and experience Christ living amongst us.
Ok Graham, now you are getting serious! To make 'House Church' the issue, I think, is to reach for a fundementalist position, and it is at its heart Modern not in fact Post-modern.
Let's start at the top - how we read the bible. Modernist evangelicalism - "just do what it says in the text" - result: 70's house churches with women with lovely flowery scarves on their heads (worse - borrowing a hanky from their husbands to lay on their head 'cos they want to prophecy but forgot the anointed scarf). Our more enlightened (!?!?) post-modern readings of the text allow us to take culture seriously, and recognise the Western Cultural imperialism we bring to the text. It allows for a broader Hermaneutic. Result: we begin to realise that the early church wasn't the tidy place that maybe we thought it was. The Jerusalem church may well have been highly different to Pauline House Churches. Anyway Luke gives us very few clues on how they actually met. Arguably, it was highly 'big man' orientated - after all it was all about the apostles teaching, people brought their posessions to their feet in offering, people died when they were dishonest about it. Some want to imply that the choosing of 'Deacons' was more about setting up a structure for the Greek speaking Jews, as opposed to the highly Aramiaic focus of the Apostles.
Then we think about Pauline House Churches. Clearly they met in homes, but whose? The homes of the rich. Why? They were the only ones who could get all the people in and there was no where else to go. Oh then there was the fact that it suited the Patriarchal culture that placed it all in the control of a few influencial people and their slaves....
What I am saying is that the early church situation is not as simple as we might want to think. Accepting the cultural implications of all these things must mould our application. I am also not saying that division and patriarchal structures were acceptable - certainly not to Paul. It seems that the church was birthed into a culture which expressed what it means to be the people of God in a certain way - Paul spent much time subverting the culture and placing the message of the Servant Messiah at the centre, much as Jesus himself had done.
Biblical interpretation is not about atomising the text into key principles and timeless truths that can be easily applied to any age (this lead to the Systematic Theologies the "Cathedrals of Modernity" - Brian McLaren . That is where the story of the bible and the early church in the NT works - we must allow their stories to interact directly with ours and allow the transformation in our lives to occur.
Hence House Church is not the issue - authenticity is.
...................maybe....................
Reading Mike Bishop's article I begin to realise that we use the word Church like we know what it means. Surely it is a word so culturally loaded over 2000 years that it should be jetisoned from any bible translation. We say 'it is not a building', but it is the people, but then get preoccupied with structures. As has been said, it is not about structures it is about authentically expressing values ('philosophy' in my language?).
In planting a church people often ask me what 'model' I am using. If I am honest, I always felt a bit stupid saying I am not sure and that it depended on how it was when i got there (bearing in mind I am starting with a group of people some of which I am just getting to know). I felt and feel that the issue at the heart, and what I want my people to get before I talk about 'structure' [i.e. how community life will run] is being the people of God, being God's renewed humanity on the earth, the first-fruits of the future consummation of God's plan for his creation. That, it seems to me, is a large aspect of what the word 'ekklesia' meant to first century Christians? Paul's use of the word to apply to the small local congregation must have blown them out of the water at first(?). If, as the likes of Tom Wright would lean towards, that a good translation of ekklesia is 'Community' or to make it more specific 'God's Community', then doesn't the issue become authentic expression of what it means for your 'Community' to be the people of God.
What I am saying I think is that I go with a cultural expression of Apostolic 1st Century Christianity. At the very least, it seems to me, what people see of the church is what they presume of God. 1st Century Jews knew what Jesus' eating with sinners meant even if they didn't like it. If there is a culture where eating together didn't express intimacy, unity and fellowship, we wouldnt expect Christians there to do it would we?
I think its too late!
"Form Follows Function" I’ve been thinking about this today... It's another architectural term and very MODERN one at that! My question is, “How the whole form follows function thing sits in the post-modern context?”
Yeh, sure I know that is the very thing we all go after… The how to’s of “doing church” RIGHT, having the RIGHT plan, working on the RIGHT structure etc… I was reminded of the forum I was at with Todd Hunter last year and how he avoided starting with any of the how to’s. Even though that was all we wanted to hear. I'm going to try and write something about this whole Structure V’s Philosophy thing. But for now all I know is God was doing something in my heart (which I think is the whole philosophy thing), long before I found the structure. (House Churchin’)
Someone (Mark Harris) once asked me what was the most influential book; article or teaching in helping us make the transition to house church. I think he expected me to say something like Wolfgang Simson’s book, Houses that Change the World or something by Robert Banks or even something from the Restoration wing of house churches. But I would have to say no to all those (even though I’ve gained lots from all of them). I would say the two most influential things I’ve read would have to be first, Todd Hunter’s, The Tale of Two Gospels. And second that formidable quote from the business world “Our systems are perfectly designed to get the results we’re now getting”.
Here is that Dallas Willard quote I mentioned to you on Friday :
"The Gospel of Sin Management presume a Christ with no serious work other than redeeming humankind. ...they foster 'vampire Christians', who only want a little blood for their sins but nothing more to do with Jesus until heaven, when they have to associate with him..."
Beautiful, fantastic, inspiring, challenging etc etc Graham, thanks!
A bit better than the quote I was going to post this morning. Must be said in a Glaswegian accent!
"God doesn't want to bless ya', he wants to kill ya' ". It was a memorable sermon to be sure, as he recounted his (one??) opportunity to preach at a conference at the Toronto Airport Church. Reading Philippians 1 this week i am beginning to see again what he is talking about. "To live is Christ" - Paul's absolutlely priority is on Christ. His one line it seems is the question "is this advancing the gospel?". Whether it was good or bad for his personal circumstances, meant he was rich or poor, cold or hot, a prisoner or free, even death or life, maybe even 'house church' or 'cell church' or whatever - all of these things are judged by the same criteria - is Christ and his gospel of grace being preached. He stands in himself as a model for how Christ lived - life laid down for others. An absolute confidence in his future hope attracts him forward, but the purpiose of his life here and now is an anchor - glorifying God by strengthening His people and being part of God's grace reaching more and more people. His death has already surely happened - "To live is sacrificial death for Christ, to die is a sacrificial death for Christ and to be with him". "When Jesus calls a man he bids him come and die" (Bonhoeffer). In the words of the Glaswegian Targgart-like preacher: "This is holy murder!".
Graham: Chuckle, chuckle. Not bad!!
How about this as a thought for the day. It is a conversation I had with Jack yesterday (he's 4.5 yrs):
Jack: "God was a lovely baby wasn't he".
Dad: "Well, Jesus was a lovely baby"
Jack: "God was born before jesus, wasn't he"
Dad: "Actually God wasn't born, he has always been"
Jack: "What even when the earth was all blank?"
Dad: "He was the one who made it all"
Jack: "Wow, you mean when there was just planets and aliens"
Am I failling as a Dad and a Church leader!!?!?
Am I lowering the tone of this otherwise high quality website?
It seems that I have left my first blog to the New Year. Well here we go onward and upward. I start the New Year having sorted a meeting venue for the New Church only to find that next door they usually have children's disco's on a Sunday afternoon when we meet! Great thanks for telling me guys! Maybe that's what you get for meeting in a bar. As i now search frantically for another option for next Sunday I start the new year once again thrown on the provision and grace of God. Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't be complaining.
Looking forward to more stimulating and meaningful, oh and preferably funny blogs. It seems I need some practice!
You may have seen this over on our community blog: Bolds Fold
Now let's be honest, how many of you have wanted to do that?
Here's my first blog of the New Year...
I've been thinking a lot over the holiday, thinking where we've been and where we're going. It's exciting and frightening all at the same time. Here are 10 things from this last year that make me smile! :o )
1/ People's willingness in our network to learn to do church in simple ways (home churches)
2/ Planting a third house church in Northampton, when this time last year we didn't think there would be any church...
3/ The challenge that this has made on my faith and what it really means to be a Christian (I don't have a whole lot of answers anymore)
4/ Seeing people in our network buy food and toys for 11 one parent families this Christmas
5/ Finding creative ways to find people of peace, one church gave out "Christmas TV Guides" to all the neighbours near the house where they meet, this has opened up a door to one family over the street from the church. Another church targeted a very needy part of their community with Jesus Videos and Questionnaires and ended being invited in to one families home. Another girl (with 3 kids) over the street from us has ask if our little network of churches can help her out with food on a regular basis.
6/ Knowing that church is more than an event, program or an activity.
7/ Learning to lead as a servant and not as the man at the top....
8/ Giving up my paid role in the church... arrrhhhhhhhhh
9/ Connecting with other like-minded people, locally, nationally and even internationally.
10/ and finally... well what could it be? I know! It's knowing for the first time in about 4 years it really doesn't matter how big my (sorry his) church is... the numbers game... what's that?
