Well, you really know the blog is getting somewhere when you start receiving 20-odd comments to posts and someone even mentions Bosch! Looks like your baby's growing up, Steve. Maybe we'll get that mention on Todd Hunter's blog after all!
I'm finding it difficult to make time to blog at the moment. But I know that you've all been losing sleep waiting for your latest anabaptist snippet, so I thought I'd hit and run...
One of the Swiss Anabaptists wrote in the 1530s, 'when someone comes to church and constantly hears only one person speaking, and all the listeners are silent, neither speaking nor prophesying, who can regard the same to be a spiritual congregation, or confess according to 1 Corinthians 14 that God is dwelling and operating in them?' Clearly, the Anabaptists sought to take 1 Corinthians 14:26 seriously. As a result, their meetings - which (because of persecution) were often held nightly in forests or homes - could go on for some time. One congregation near Strasbourg had a member appointed to circulate throughout the meeting with a lantern, tugging anyone who had dozed off and whispering, 'Wake up, brother'!
Steve's 'Distinctives of Emerging Church' post bears much resemblance to Bosch's pomo model of Mission which I have expanded on as part of our process...
Mission as Church with others
1. God's pilgrim people– community journey
2. Missio Dei; Mission as an activity of God, not of missionaries… not an activity of the church but an attribute of God
3. Evangelism: i.e. to those who are not yet or no longer Christians (not the same as church growth)
4. Mediating salvation, more than saving souls
Contextualisation, Church incarnate in the local (Acts 17)
Mission as quest for justice: beyond love and charity to the prophetic, justice and liberation [Freire]
1. The kingdom of God as humanisation
2. Questions the churches support of the rich and powerful
3. The place of church in societal reform
4. Questions of corporate/structural sin
5. Salvation as liberation from oppression (Exodus)
Mission as inculturation
1. The Gospel incarnate into a culture
2. Not modifying a prefabricated western theology, rejection of western cultural dominance
3. Values parts of culture that are not against the gospel
4. Reflecting local issues
5. Creative ways of thinking and symbolism, inculturation of worship
6. Indigenisation of leadership
Common witness: Ecumenism
Ministry of the whole people of God, of all believers.
Witness to other faiths: end of simple view of 'withering' other faiths, from conversion to dialogue
Creativity in mission/worship, Sensory comprehensiveness.
Mission as theology
1. Mission as the core of Christian life
2. Theology growing from authentic spirituality rather than academic exercise
I just had to post this quote. I know we’ve kinda moved away from quoting other people but see what you think:
“Jesus presented the rule of God, using images of food and drink and home as a roving banqueting hall by which God sought Israelites to be guests, then hosts. At this table they were offered reconciliation with God, a true home, and a spiritual and material abundance, as the basis for offering all these good things to each other, to others yet to come and even to enemies.”
I know it isn’t very commentable on, but I like it!! Jesus didn’t sit in a cosy little room saying “you can come to my party if you pass these tests”, he took his party to them. The great Messianic banquet was in town, but not as expected. Jesus took it to all the wrong people at all the wrong times. Whenever he ate or drank with people, entered another’s home or they entered his, he was celebrating with them the Day of the Lord in the Messianic Banquet that brings with it reconciliation, ‘home’, ‘life’. And we are now to be the co-hosts of the LORD’s banquet.
'Form follows function’, we are told dismissively, that this is a modernistic term…. so what? The post-modernist ‘King’ has no clothes on. Of course form follows function. Look around your home. Every thing you use attests this Fact; name a household item for which this is not true?
Look around the world, the bus you went to work on, the house you live in, the roads you drive on. This ‘Truth’ is not limited to physical entities. The relationships you have work, at home, in the church,’ Form Follows Function’, everywhere.
So why not in the church also?
Is it conceivable that the ‘master builder’ was not perusing a plan, that he was some how winging it, in a relativistic, from the hip, kinda way? No, Paul planted, Apollo’s watered and God gave the growth. Paul could reflect upon work well done, foundations expertly laid. He wasn’t wallowing around in some nihilistic abyss, groping for truth.
So I am suggesting that indeed form does follow function, in fact when it come to the church, not only does form follow function, function is the product of ones eschatological view. Well that will have to be another post for another day.
So ... it's Friday. In my other life that meant celebration of the end of the week. In honour of that I thought I would expose my secret escapism (ok not so secret):
www.shipoffools.com
Whether its "Gadgets for God" (my personal favourite) or the "Mystery worshipper" reports, you are sure to find a Friday afternoon laugh! Graham, that man of grace probably won't like "The biblical Curse generator" ("smite your enemy with the help of the hard men of the OT"), but to him I say: "May you go on a diet of crunchy, unsweetened locusts, O ye Amalekite dog!"
Found this somewhere on line....
Distinctives of the emerging church
Some of the distinctives and values you will find woven through this generation that affects the way we want to express church are:
1/ Building real church, this means being discipled, developed and used. Lots of people doing things for first time. Avoiding slick professionalism and taking lots of risks. Cultivating a culture of participation
2/ Based on community & belonging - an answer to the fragmentation of our societies and our families. Most of church life happens outside of the meetings in homes, pubs, sports clubs etc
3/ Non-hierarchical, humble leadership. Men & women leading together, alongside each other bringing out the best in each other.
4/ Justice and care for the poor is a strong heartbeat. We want to be active in campaigning and petitioning against injustices around the world. We are very keen to be ethical consumers and resist materialism
5/ Evangelism is not an activity, it's a way of life. We are the message- opening up the whole of our lives for others to join us. Therefore, the boundaries of church are blurred. Not "are you in or are you out" but "come along the journey with us". Church is open to all, inclusive and accessible
6/ Experimental & creative. Use of colour, art, multimedia. The message communicated through many mediums, not just through words
7/ A thirst for deeper spirituality. Learning from some of the ancient strands of the christian life. Talking about new monastic orders and discipleship vows.
8/ Breaking the dualism that plagues historic church - a fusing together of ordinary life and church so that we are more concerned with equipping and releasing the dispersed church than with maintaining meetings. Living with the premise that the whole of life is spiritual, we don't operate by compartmentalising our lives.
9/ Knowing that we're not there yet-an ability to keep evolving as we walk this journey.
Ok, I'm finding myself living in two worlds. A world of transition, of deconstruction and reconstruction and a world where church as we know it, is well and truly alive! I feel myself constantly slipping between the two paradigms. Holding two very different views of success in tension. I'm part of a movement of churches that was born out of church growth and in some unspoken way promotes success as being: big (in number)... multi-programmed... multi-serviced... and multi-media (please no more power point)... Its buzzwords are: Professionalism... Polished... and Slick... I don't know how long I can live in these two worlds?
A lot of my peers think I've lost the plot or that I'm just down right irresponsible. The first thing they ask you is "how many people have you got?" As if people were yours to possess in the first place. or "How many small groups do you have?" "Have you gone to Sunday's yet or are you still in the pre-church phase?" As if at some point in church planting your not a real church until you're meeting on Sundays. According to the success charts we've failed, we should of shut up shop years ago... Yesterday was our 3rd anniversary of church planting. The original church we planted in Daventry grew to three groups. In that time we've seen people become Christian’s, but only to walk away again. We've done Alpha courses, church services in pubs, we've done it cafe style, with starbucks coffee (yumm) and even candle lit... but still we haven't seen the success they all talked about. In fact we've grown down to just one small group! (Not exactly church growth)
As we enter our forth year and hand-over this little church in Daventry to new leaders and as we continue in our new adventure in Northampton. What is going to dictate success for us this time round? What new rules are we going to play by? When someone asks us that "how big is your church" question, what clever answer can I give them? How do I stop that inner need within me sometime, to be like everyone else in our movement and play up to this success role? So many questions!
Indulge me, this is a thought for the day script I wrote for local radio:
Living With Children Will Keep You Young
‘Living with children will keep you young’, that’s how the saying goes. I’m not so sure it’s true, my wife and I have five children, ranging from a 12 year old to our youngest, Joe, who is six. I don’t feel that young, just worn out!
No matter how many younguns you have, you probably at times, feel that there is no place to hide, no sanctuary, and if like us, you have no lock on the bathroom door for safety reasons, you can run as fast as you like and never find a hiding place.
Children, for all their energy sapping qualities, do have a way of reminding us about the simple things in life that sometimes us older…. children…forget. Like, life can be FUN…!
For them the minutes and hours in a day are really just opportunities designed to have the FUN squeezed out of them.
I know, I can almost hear you shout at the radio; I’ve got responsibilities, mortgages, budgets and sophisticated relationships to build and maintain. Life is not as simple as it was, when all I had to worry about was my latest pus filled spot or whether I looked fat in my jeans.
As a nurse I have had the privilege of spending time with numerous people who were about to die. This experience always gave me a sense of awe; the immanence of death seems to focus the mind like nothing else, on what is really important in life.
Not once in all those years, did one of those dying people wish that they had spent more time at the office, gained more qualifications or saved and spent more money, but without exception, they looked back to the passionate moments in their lives, when they had spent time, just having fun with the people they loved.
This article saved me today. I was contemplating a depressing blog about how this whole church thing is far too much effort and we shoud, go and hide in a monastry somewhere, on a private journey to inner peace. This was a result of a key guy for me just not quite being able to see where i was coming from - even over a match with Man U winning - hope began to fade. And then I read this. Suddenly here was the vision for church being community and infecting community with the people living one unified life. What was most encouraging was the fact that it was in a totally different guise to how I am thinking - but there were some core values that where common. Maybe then the values are worth battling through for: a church having fun creating community, making disciples, blessing the nations. The heads go up and anything is possible (like Juventus in the last minute last night).
And then I remembered that the blokes from the church are going out for a curry tonight - the world is live-able again!!
I was at a church meeting last night. The leaders told us that they had come to a decsion, they were all happy about it. A big one that will affect everyone in the Body. We should have confiedence because they have confidence that they are doing the right thing.
It all felt like the workings of the corporation, a CEO feeding back to subordinates. I sat, feeling like 'Vision fodder'. The lead elder gets the vision and the 'vision fodder' (the people) work it out.
It all seems a million miles from the words of Jesus when he talked about church. In the context of church discipline he says, 'If he will not listen to the two of you, take the matter before the church'. Did he say, take the matter to the leaders', in order for them to make the descision and then feed it back, in a simple form (so they can understand) to the church? NO 'In the world your leaders lord it over you, not so among you.......they are to have the authority of slaves and children'.
Then I remembered shakespears 'Band of Brothers' speach and was moved, there are so few realationships in my life filled with anything like this kind of commitment and passion. I want to be outworking Faith within an atmosphere of community where mutal trust and 'Band of Brothers' type commitment is a tangible reality.
Act IV, Scene III: The English camp.
WESTMORELAND
O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING HENRY V
What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin:
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian:'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars.
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispin's day.'
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day: then shall our names.
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember'd.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
The Law Of The Garden
I am to gardening what Julie Andrews was to punk rock. To say I have anything near what would constitute green fingers would be a blatant lie; and if the Foliage Investigation Bureau had a most wanted list, I would be at the top. Everything green, if I touch it, dies, no ifs or buts. I am a serial vegetation killer!
I struggle to see the point, why? Why spend so much time cutting the grass, trimming the hedge, weeding the flower beds, building a compost heap and raking the leaves, when all you really need to do is pour a little concrete, build a wall and chainsaw down the tree!
I know gardens can be an endless source of enjoyment, and who doesn’t like sitting out back, with the barbecue burning and a glass of something cold in your hand, looking at those flower beds full of colour.
My wife would say that I’m just plain lazy, I want to reap the rewards of a gorgeous garden without paying the price in hard, sweat generating, work. To use a phrase from the Bible I want to reap without sowing.
The garden stands as an object lesson to those of us who want everything now. We live in a quick fix age, instant coffee, instant meals, instant hair-restorer, and, if the glossy magazines are to be believed, instant deep meaningful relationships.
The law of the garden stands as a constant reminder that there is no such thing as a quick fix. You do, sadly, only reap what you have in the first place sown. We are today, the product of choices made, and pathways taken in the past. The law of the garden will catch up with us all in the end.
I close with an anonymous piece of prose, which underlines this fact:
Sow an action, Reap a habit
Sow a habit and reap a character
Sow a character and reap a Destiny.
Today, if you are looking for a quick fix in any area of your life, why don’t you just stop kidding yourself…the law of the garden will get you in the end…
Rich Hall - the American Commedian - was a guest just now on the TV programme 'God Almighty.' (It's a Clive Anderson-presented version of Room 101. Guests have to say what kind of God they would be, what they would do with the earth, how they would be worshipped, what H & H are like, and who would go there). His very first statement was that "I would put a bit of Jesus in everyone. I would 'Adamise' Jesus."
How cool is that? Apart from the temptingly inventive use of the word Adamize I think he's really onto something. But then I thought to myself, isn't that precisely what God did? If humans were made in the image of God that must have been the triune God that Jesus is the perfect representation of. So, before we even see Jesus we get a foretaste of him in humanity. We are made in the image of He who is the image of God. Putting a bit of Jesus in everyone and 'adamizing' the image of God is precisely what God did.
I think this is why our logical problems with the idea of God becoming Man do not occur to the Almighty. God had already made allowance for that in Creation. To be human is to reflect God - it is the very nature of humanity. So, in one sense, the incarnation must have been the obvious opportunity for God to show us what he is really like. We have so turned our backs upon the blessings and responsibility of being the image of God upon the earth (though, truth be told, we cannot hide it as convincingly as we would like to), that God took it upon himself to reveal God through a Jewish Carpenter nearly 2,000 years ago.
It occurs to me that we use the phrase, '100% God and 100% Man' to solve a logical connundrum. But there is so much more to that than clever mathmatics. Jesus showed God in a way that God has never been seen before. He was 100% God: the real McCoy, technicolour, no-holds barred, 24/7 deity. And he was this precisely by being 100% Man. Jesus was humanity in all its glory: unveiled, unfettered, undiluted Man. The two don't cancel out each other. He could only show us what God was like because he showed us what it means to be human. Power made perfect in weakness.
(Btw, I keep returning to an article by Clark Pinnock on the Trinity. Thanks for reminding me of this with your blog, Mark.)
What do you do at a green light…? Go. What do you do at red light? Stop…. and what do you do at an orange light…that’s right, Go faster!
That’s exactly what I had done on the morning of my daughter’s birthday, as the whole family sped towards the cinema in our red Mazda mini van, the light turned orange and then…red!
I know, I should have stopped, but panicked by the thought of missing the film, I accelerated through the stop sign. There is nothing like the sight of a flashing police light in the rear view mirror, to set the butterflies fluttering in the stomach, and I had no excuse.
After PC Smith had given me a telling off and written my ticket, I politely asked, whether he could spare the time to speak to my anxious children in the back of the van, who by this time were getting worried that daddy was going to be arrested.
As the door of the van slid back, five wide eyed faces greeted the police officer. ‘Hello’ he said ‘my name is PC smith’, and ‘your daddy has been a very, very naughty daddy’, ‘he has driven through a red light’.
At this point my oldest daughter, Amy, shouted out ‘He always does that’!
This tendency I have to speed up, when all the signs suggest slowing down would be better, is not limited to traffic lights, why is it in my life, that when caution should demand a slower pace, I tend to put my foot down.
The three points gained that day have now expired…. and the lesson regarding red lights has been learned, you can ask Amy if you don’t believe me.
Life, however, still has a way of flashing orange…. and I still need reminding to slow down from time to time.
If problems are looming large for you today, it might be, that you, like me, need to take your foot off the accelerator peddle and prepare to stop long enough to see your way though.
Haloscan have disabled the posting of comments! Should be back up at some point today!?
"Server Work in progress
We're doing some work on the server and will have the site restored soon. Thanks for your patience.
Update We have found that the cause of the recent problems with the service were caused by a hardware failure in the database server. We are working to replace that server completely but in the meantime we have a backup loaded. No comments have been lost but we have temporarily disabled the posting of comments to the server until we have the database server replaced. Everything should be resolved and running by Tuesday at the latest. Sorry about the problems and thanks for your patience as we resolve this matter."
I was going to comment, but with the comments disabled I've been forced to make my first post here :-)
The interview with Eddie Gibbs gave my brain a bump start. How do we measure success? It's been an issue for time immemorial, is it based on obedience to the bosses, bums on pews, intensity of spiritual experiences, impact on society? I guess I recognise myself in Gibb's comments, I don't want to be concerned with numbers, I certainly don't want to run a mega church! But modernity is a numbers game, and whilst I think I'm postmodern that still means there is some modern in me and I find myself talking numbers. People expect you to, when they ask 'How did the SPIRITzone go?' you know they want to know how many people were there and you feel they won't be happy till you tell them
Today I feel like that bloke who said, "I've got so much to do today, I need to spend the first couple of hours in prayer." (Or something like that!) This week I am so snowed under and rushed and blinded by agendas that I'm gonna take some time out to spend with my good friend Mark. I feel like the programmes are taking over a bit and it's time I reasserted my 'dominion'!
Mark and I were both members of a large Charismatic church in the Midlands about 7 years ago. We were both very different then. I suspect that we are still very different, but God seems to have been teaching us both similar lessons. It's amazing how much God can do with a life once he gets his hands on it! It reminds me of a quote that some guy gave during a sermon on Php. 4:4 - "Dare to believe that God knows what he's doing."
Postcards from Europe: Incarnational Mission in the Pop-Culture World. A Chat with Eddie Gibbs
The latest issue of Cutting Edge is out with some interesting stuff from Eddie Gibbs.
Church Planting
It’s interesting to see what church planting might look like in the emerging, younger generation. Gen-Xers don’t always connect with Boomers, but they love their grandparents! I see a real role for grandparents in mentoring. The young adult ministry at St. Thomas Crookes in Sheffield, England, is a good example. Many who are there at the service are from the dance culture. There are no seats, everybody sits on the floor, 80 percent are in their twenties. But there are chairs around the edge where 70 and 80-year olds are sitting. These grandparents have been part of this Anglican church from the start, and want to be part of things.
Church planters under 30 whom I’m meeting don’t seem interested in planting churches that will become mega churches. Rather, they want reproducible small churches—which, incidentally, matches what’s happening in the business world. Warren Bennis’ The Future of Leadership speaks of elephants and fleas. The elephants get all the attention, but the new ideas mostly come from fleas. [MORE]
PS. Comments are down till Tuesday!
The Articles section on the Central Vineyard website is now up and running - hope it is of some use!?
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 2/17/2003 06:02:00 PM |
Nick, you are a sheep! That's the point. Should all leadership be gotten rid of? No, of course not, only that type of leadership which is hierarchical, Jesus said 'In the world they rule over you...not so among you, leaders among you are to have the authority of slaves and children'. Is the model of the corporation appropriate in the Church? NO!
Church leaders have the power of persuasive teaching, based on the word and a godly life style, nothing less, nothing more.
When I spoke of professional ministers I meant, a person paid to deliver a service. I think that makes a paid minister a professional. I agree that in the strictest sense of the word he/she is not a professional.
One last question for you Nick, Who is leading you to maturity in Christ?
Could someone help me out here?
Have I come in at a bad time?
Mark (H) If the leaders are the problem, do you propose that we get rid of all leadership? I don't really care about what my title is, but I know that I'm to lead a group of people who want to follow Jesus. I thought that leadership was influence, that we all lead whenever we influence another human being. I've never sought to dominate others by my professionalism, in fact I wouldn't even call myself a professional. God's given me a vision and it's my duty to helpe others who want to be a part of this journey that we're on to get there. It's my privilege to serve people by leading them to maturity in Christ, (Col 1)to equip them for works of service (Eph 4), blah, blah, blah.
I don't want status, I don't want to be known, I want people to know Jesus. I want people to experience the rule and reign of God in their lives. And I'll do all that I can to serve them to be the people God has intended them to be. Not to us but to the Lord should the glory be given. Anyway I think the sheep are the problem!
The other day I was discussing my frustrations with church (too many meetings, no time for friends - and people love it!!??) and he responded - "well, what's your role then"! A good question! The thought that came to mind on the spur of the moment was the oft quoted difference between the Western and Eastern shepherds. I have found this thought returning often over the last few days:
Western shepherd: driving from the back, rod in hand ready to smack the butts of those sheep who don't go or do what he is wanting. He also has a sheep dog to snap at those who he can't quite reach. Communication is by whistling to the dog, an aloof other language the sheep can't understand
Eastern shepherd: Leads from the front. The sheep follow the shepherd "'cos they know his voice". They follow because they trust. The rod is used to help out of trouble rather than a sheep driving tool.
The temptation to drive the sheep to adestination is so tempting - and it reveals in me wrong motivaitons and goals - a security in how the church is going rather than how the chief shepherd thinks I am doing. That driving feels like churches I have been in.
"Follow me as I follow Christ" fits more the Eastern shepherd way?
The leaders are the problem
I have wrestled and am still wrestling with church and all that it should be and is not. I sit in meetings, larger, 100+, dominated by a professional. Trained, equipped, gifted, envisioned, holding forth to his people about this or that. Teaching in an erudite way thorough some book of the Bible.
Still more, ‘open worship’ dominated by a few, the usual suspects, ‘God told me’…’ ‘hold on, He is coming through now…He says….’ Musing, I am transported in my imagination to the Throne room as the Son looks accusingly at the Father, ‘did you say that to her…?, ‘was it you’? the Father asks the Spirit.
I have arrived at a tentative conclusion, the problem with Church is the leaders!
Why?
Control, most leaders, no, every leader I know, even a little, suffers from insecurity to some degree or other, often finding far to much of their identity from what they do for their people, seeking to justify the enormous amounts of money they cost, with a ‘complete vision for the world, starting right here where we are’!
‘Not so among you, those who lead are to have the authority of slaves and children’, The two people groups at the time who had NO authority at ALL. Why do I struggle so hard to lead……?
An old saying that always raises a rye smile ‘you can call me a servant, but don’t you dare treat me like one
This is what I don't get: my brothers in sisters in Christ want to call me "Reverend." To be revered? Me?! Any form I fill in has Mr/Mrs/Miss/Rev. What's that about? Is reverend like a separate class of human being - I am no longer a Mr, I am a reverend?! The fact is that that *is* the party line. We are told that at ordination (and I would love to come back to that) we undergo an 'ontological change' - a change to our very being and status before God. God now sees us differently: we are CLERGY! I'm sorry, but that's bollocks.
So now I have the right to go into numerous churches and conduct services that the plebs cannot. I carry the label "Rev" around with me like it is some sort of "licence to Minister" (with a capital 'M'!). I just don't see it. God's raised me up to pastor and teach this flock, so what the hell does that have to do with some church down the road who don't know me from Adam ('cept they might know me as Rev. Adam)?
More to the point, how appropriate is it to suggest that I am to be revered because of a role that I play? I only see one Reverend in my Bible. How is it anything short of blasphemy? So I will refuse to call my brothers and sisters in Christ in this town 'reverend this' and 'Father that.' I will refuse to elevate them any higher than myself or my daughter. You are who you are in Christ. So am I. And we are equal in his eyes. You are not defined by your role. I don’t call Harry 'Barman Harry,' or Chris 'Deacon Chris'. I will gladly call you brother or sister or James or Liz. But I will never call you reverend.
My wife complains that I'm being pedantic and that no one uses the word in that way nowadays - it's just shorthand for Church Leader - but I wonder. Besides which, I still can't see how the revered title is anything but a disregard of Mt. 23:8-12. Maybe I'm wrong to take that so literally? It just seems plain wrong to me.
What do you think?
Found the following words of wisdom at Kafkaesquí's blog.
Seldom Used Debate Methods
"I'm right because God said it in the Bible."
"That's not what your girlfriend told me in bed last night."
"I'd refute the speaker's statement if she wasn't such a butthead."
"How much will it cost to beat the other team?"
"A numerological examination of your point says..."
"If I don't win I'm leaving, and the podium goes with me!"
"Pick a card."
"Pretend I just said a bunch of very well reasoned stuff."
"I will now fart my rebuttal."
"My Dad, who works at a thinktank, says my opponent's points are stupid."
"The gun in my pocket should make my argument crystal clear."
"Logic schmogic."
For some reason, that really makes me wanna do my own list. Oh, check out the take on creation on the same page. Whilst I'm plugging other blogs (or "plogging") Real Live Preacher said a rude word today. 'Nerdy' is not polite in any language.
Coach Hunter has finally blogged again. Worth reading, but wha tis with that speeling!?
Back to the Anabaptists: At the time of the Reformation, with the greats like Luther, Calvin & Zwingli, priests often referred to one another - but no one else - as 'brothers' as an expression of their 'fraternity.' You'd hope that the Reformers counteracted this, but unfortunately they did exactly the same. This obviously sits uneasy with some of the stuff that they were opposing in the Catholic Church - there is no mediator between us and Christ, we are all on an equal footing in the eyes of God. This demonstrates the reason why groups like the Anabaptists felt there was a need for a 'radical reformation.' It wasn't enough to just reform (naturally, those bits which we don't like). We have to reform to the root.
However, Luther and Calvin got caught up with the whole Christendom project and the pressure of leading a State Church meant that they turned back from certain principles they once held. (Luther had what we might call 'house church' leanings. Zwingli was even one of the leaders of an unofficial Bible study from which many of the Anabaptists sprang. He held to believer's baptism at that point.) The Anabpatists had a lovely naivete that said we've gotta do it His way or not at all. I guess it can't really be called naivete even; they saw first-hand the cost involved in such radical obedience - they saw it from the very ones who claimed to be reforming the Church.
The reason the Anabaptists were so opposed (apart from the presence of certain 'fringe' groups going mental Waco-style) was that they were seen as a genuine threat to the State. If they refused oaths, who would they swear allegiance to? If they refused infant baptism, could their children even be considered children of the state? The bottom-line was that, for them, someone else called the shots. So, when Jesus said "do not be called Rabbi" and "do not call anyone on earth your father" and even, "do not be called leaders/masters/rulers" (Mt. 23:8-12) they had the nerve to take him seriously! The very point that Jesus was making was that only One deserved such deference. We can never afford to seek the position that belongs to Him and Him alone. Neither should we seek it for others. And, I am increasingly convinced that we should actually oppose it in others. (I'll come back to that at a later date.)
So every member of the Anabaptist congregation was addressed as 'brother' or 'sister.' They were fully aware that they were each members of the priesthood of believers - in status and in function. No one had a rank or role more noble than another. Each had the privilege and responsibility of being a minister (with a small 'm'!). It may seem like a small thing to us, but this is revolutionary. If Jesus is Lord, no one else, then He directs our lives and communities, no one else. No council or authority or persons or traditions or nations or thrones or pressure holds sway over our lives. And that's dangerous.
The trinity - What is that about?? Oh I so wish that I could describe what God is like....or do I? It is so easy to want to capture God in our box, to be able to encapsulate him into a little word or saying. The doctrine of the trinity certainly prevents us form doing that. The trouble is we are trinitarian in doctrine but not in experience often. I am constantly amazed by the fulness of describing God as we draw in every aspect of how he is revealed in the Bible. By the Spirit we participate in the Son's communion with the Father. The Son has offered himself to bring us into the reality of life with God - but that is not just a past event, but by the Spirit we share in the Son's life and worship and intercession with the Father right now!!
The Spirit is the realtiy of God's presence on the earth now in us!! That's why, as the song goes - "fears are stilled and strivings cease". Striving, fear so much trademarks of our lives when we find ourselves outside the experiential reality of sharing in the Son's communion with the Father by the Spirit. A reality that we particpate in not create, worship and prayer that precedes our worship and prayer.
God help me to allow you to initiate and me to yield to your life and leading.
We had a 'Church Vision Meeting' last night (hence the unusual busyness and not being able to blog). Since October we have been praying and seeking direction and unity of purpose. As a church, we've had our ups and downs and this was part of the whole process of 'starting afresh.' In one sense I abhor the whole '5-year plan' thing. It's not wrong, it's just not me. But the longer I've been here the more I've seen that DBC needs some kind of sense of why we are here: what's the mission that God's got for us in Daventry - and what kind of church do we need to be to fulfill that mission? And they don't just need grand and lofty goals (to glorify God, to show Daventry the Kingdom of God etc.), they also need the little steps along the way that are all part of that.
So, I presented my ideas regarding the way forward and shared some of the vision that God has given me. I'll post some of it below:
Vision for the direction and future of Daventry Baptist Church
Estate mentality
As newcomers to the town, Elaine and I noticed within our first week that Daventry and Daventry people are very Estate-minded, almost "tribal". If you've lived here all your life, you may never have even noticed this; but it is there. I cannot speak for everyone, but many people appear to have a distinct attachment to their particular estate, be that Lang Farm, Southbrook, Steffen Hill or wherever. If you ask someone where they live, they will firstly tell you the Estate. (This is strange for such a small town.) And I have been surprised to see that some people who have lived in Daventry for years still don't know the names of the different Estates or exactly where they are! If this is true of DBC, how much more will it be the case for non-churchgoers? [What?!]
I have thought long and hard about this state of affairs. Of course, it is neither good nor bad, it is simply the way things are. Yet it will effect how we attempt to reach this town. I've spoken to Helen Wordsworth [Mission Enabler @ the Baptist Union] about this and I was relieved to hear that with her wealth of experience and knowledge she agrees with this fresh-faced kid straight out of Bible College! It seemed to Helen (and it seems to me) that the only way to reach Daventry is to reach the individual estates. To think that we can reach the whole of Daventry in one foul swoop is over-ambitious and unrealistic. I believe that we need to reach Ashby Fields as Ashby Fields, The Headlands as the Headlands and The Grange as The Grange etc. (For example, just because an Alpha Course or Parenting Course is an effective means of outreach on one estate does not mean that it will necessarily be so on another.)
My Vision for the future of Daventry Baptist Church involves a "house group" (and I use that term very loosely) on each estate on Daventry - each group having its own feel and structure and emphases. We would then tailor our evangelistic efforts differently depending on the estate that we were targeting. Each group would be committed to reaching its own estate in a way that is meaningful to the people living on that estate. 'Daventry Baptist Church' would then be the name for this group of groups, this collection of communities. It might help if I describe how I imagine the church in 10 years time…
A vision of the future?
I see at least one 'group' on each estate. I see some of these meeting at the weekend and some during the week. I see some of them meeting in living rooms, in schools, in community centres - and some in coffee shops and cafes. I see these groups reaching out through Pizza nights, Carol singing, Pub Quizzes, Parenting and Marriage courses, Barbecues, Door-knocking, Baby-sitting, Car-Washing, Alpha courses, counselling and good old-fashioned friendliness! And I see all of these different and distinct groups coming together on a Sunday morning for joint fellowship, worship and teaching.
The groups will have different styles and structure and sizes. They will also reach out and serve their communities in different ways. Some of the groups may follow the sort of pattern that we currently follow on a Sunday. Some of them will seem a lot more like mid-week house groups. Some of them will seem like an Alpha course. And some of them will appear little different to a Fellowship Tea round Anne and Ivan's! The important thing is that each group will be designed in such a way as to best reach their estate with the gospel and better serve the people there.
Now that is at least 10 years down the line. And I hope that none of us feel threatened by that. I don't know exactly how we get from here to there, or how quickly we should progress. I do think that a lot of it depends on us giving House groups their proper significance - and doing all that we can to enable as many people as possible to attend. Beyond that, I have just as many "what ifs" and "what abouts" as any of you! But I think that it may help if we keep our eyes on that vision of what the church could be in 10 years.
This may all mean that our understanding of how we grow as a church needs to change. Many churches seem to adopt an Old Testament approach to church growth. That is, they call the nations to come in and join them. However, the New Testament approach seems to be that the Church goes out to the nations. It seems to me that rather than calling more and more people to join us and building our numbers up higher and higher, we should be making it our aim to spread out further and further. This may actually involve not building up as high in order to reach out further. A church of (for example) 200 people meeting in one central place may have less impact on a town than (for example) 2 groups of 50 people, 1 of 40, 1 of 30 and 2 of 15 spread throughout the town. Basically, the former would produce an Old Testament Church, whilst the latter could be an example of New Testament Church.
The thing that I find most exciting about all of this, apart from the vision of reaching our town with the good news of Jesus, is that the first step may be upon us very soon. Let me explain…
A 'South Daventry' group?
2 preparatory observations:
There is a definite need for a non mid-week-evening House Group
There is a need for a non-Ashby Fields/Lang Farm group
A number of people work late during the week so cannot attend House Groups. Others have children or work shifts and so cannot always make it out in the evenings. Thus, all of our emphasis upon House groups being central will (for these people) either fall upon deaf ears or simply lead to frustration. It is necessary to begin a group that can therefore cater for these people or stop affording House Groups such a high priority. My view of Church does not allow for the latter option.
There could appear to be an imbalance in the church that leans towards Ashby Fields and Lang Farm. The majority of members come from these estates and that is obviously where we meet on a Sunday. This is not a bad thing, it is a simple geographical fact. However, we need to be aware that due to the 'tribal' nature of life in Daventry this may have a negative effect on our mission to reach the town with the gospel. We are, after all, Daventry Baptist Church, not Ashby Fields (or Lang Farm) Baptist Church.
Proposal
Assuming that these observation are accurate, I would propose that we begin a new House Group on either Southbrook, Headlands or the Grange, and that this House Group would meet on a Sunday late-afternoon or early-evening. The nature of this group would be such that its style and structure might be slightly different to what happens on a Sunday morning or Wednesday evening. The group would initially be concerned with reaching the lower part of Daventry. As we grow, by the grace of God, we would then spread the groups out so that there is at least one group targeting each estate.
Each group would 'adopt' a particular estate - and this would be the focus of their prayers, evangelism and practical service. It is not necessary that every member of the group lives on that particular estate. The important thing is that they have a heart for the estate that the group is trying to reach.
I would also suggest that we begin to take seriously Jesus' words in the great commandment about loving our neighbours and in the great commission about going out to all peoples to make disciples. Lovingly reaching them means doing so in a way that is meaningful to them. If the church is the body of Christ, then it is important that we are an 'incarnation' of the gospel to the people we are trying to reach. When God chose to redeem humanity, he sent his Son to become one of us - to reach us in a way we could understand and relate to. He sacrificed his comfort, dignity, reputation and exalted position to reach out to others. As those seeking to 'embody' the gospel, can we afford to do anything less? So, for one group, an Alpha-type course may be ideal, whereas another might feel that it is more appropriate to start a Pub Quiz team or go door-knocking. One group may feel that 10 members is their maximum limit, whereas another may grow twice as large. The gist of this vision is that each group spends time and energy discovering what it means to embody the grace of God for their estate. This may involve sacrifice and 'dying' to what is comfortable for us - but that is what being the body of Christ is all about.
Conclusion
Daventry Baptist Church was first planted with these values at the forefront, but for one reason or another, they have fallen out of focus. I believe that this new venture - given the backing and support of the Church - could go quite some way to seeing the initial vision re-focused and restored. More to the point, we may begin to reach our town with the good news of great joy that we have found in Jesus.
+++ And that's it! I kinda dropped it like a bomb-shell and left the room (not quite, but nearly). Thankfully, no one asked what we do after 2013! We've got a week to pray about it and then we need to give it the green or red light (there's a reason for the hurry, but I won't go into that). So, please pray for us as we now consider this paper and the practical implications it could have. Pray that the church would be blessed with an (uncharacteristic!) attitude of faith and a dogged-determination to do and be that which God is calling us to.+++
Okay, so my Anabaptist gems are becomming less than daily! I haven't got much time this evening (what's happening to the world when a bloke hasn't got time to blog?!), so I just wanna post something briefly about tomorrow's blog. I am eager to carry on exploring the Anabaptist committment to 'practicalise' rather than 'spiritualise' the words of Jesus. If I get time I'd like to look at the whole issue of 'clergy titles.' You know the sort of thing - Reverend, Right Reverend, Senior Pastor, Bishop, Your Worship - and all that X&@!*C?%.
I thought I'd post a head-start by pointing you to Darryl Erkel's essay entitled Church Leaders & The Use of Honorific Titles. Admittedly, Darryl's one of those pesky restorationist types, but he has written some really penetrating stuff on Church issues. His essays on sermons, participatory meetings and Church Growth have really helped me at different times.
Anyway, have a read of his essay on 'honorific titles' and let me know what you think. I'll let you know what the Anabaptists thought next time I can get on-line.
Well, the case is closed I need broadband!! So many thoughts to blog, but by the time I manage to get myself sorted behind computer all the energy is lost - surely broadband is the answer (I am not sure Maddy is convinced). Maybe it is as much the point that I have just started a job that i worked full-time last week. I have just realised that this is the first job for 18 months - what with bible college. To be honest the first few days were great!! Mainly because God's provision is fantastic, and life is about celebration!
On that note I think it is time that apologised publically ... to Graham. Not something I enjoy doing, but I find myself in the exact same situation he talked about back on Wed 15th Jan, to which I gave a fairly direct response! Now I find myself locked into a corner with respect to 'house church' kind of thinking. I am not sure if i have some kind of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but I keep finding myself talking myself round to only one way of doing church - small, authentic and reaching out from homes. My strong values keep leading me only one place. I am sure that I am not way out on the radical edge of said fanaticism, but i am certainly 'left of middle'. What is going on?
The crunch came a little today during my monthly trip to Derby - my sending church - to catch the gossip and talk about where we are at. To get the context, Community Church, Derby calls itself a "Purpose Driven Cell church" - and to be fair to them they have turned a church culture inside out. There is, as you would guess, a strong emphasis on growth. In response to the question: "Where do you see things going, Mark", I found myself responding "I don't want my church to be any bigger than it is" qualified by "I just want lots of them" (tongue in cheek). Just verbalising it has taken a weight off my mind, and they were very gracious and supportive. I know however that things are not yet fully formed in me. I hope God is in this somewhere 'cos otherwise I am in real trouble!! Maybe I am anyway!
I'm reading Robert Webber's new book "The Younger Evangelical" at the moment and come across the following on the subject of "Absolutes"
'Younger evangelicals are attracted to absolutes. But they don't want to arrive at absolutes through evidence or logic. They are, as Todd Flanders has pointed out, attracted to the kind of absolute that Pascal referred to in his Pensees. They want truth that is a matter of "heart as well as mind." Pascal remarked that "truth is so obscured nowadays and lies so well established that unless we love the truth we shall never recognize it." It is this approach to truth that is the path of postmoderns. The importance of truth is not so much that it is understood but that it is loved and lived.'
I was talking with my brother Rob the other day about objective and subjective truth. It seems in the modern world everything had to be objective. Subjective experience was always secondary or to the more fundamental, worthless. But it struck me (as I continued to talk about this with Graham) how modern Christian thinking is just as subject, particularly when we compare it to the pre-modern world of Christianity. We start to realise some of our absolutes, were not absolutes for our pre-modern brothers. Things like the Father, Son and Holy Spirit relationship, some church fathers just didn't believe it!
So what am I asking/saying? well, wherever we stand in our understanding of truth, are we really there because it was totally objective to be? and are we really willing to say that no level of subjectivity helped to put us there? In an earlier chapter of Webber's book he address' the subject of inerrancy (that every single word in the bible was divinely inspired) this was introduced through the development of the scientific method (part of the modern worldview). Question, Is the Bible the Inerrant word of God? If it is, do I know that in an objective way? or is it safe to say I know it subjectively? Is it just a mix of both? Going back to Webber, "...The importance of truth is not so much that it is understood (objective truth) but that it is loved and lived (subjective truth)!"
Maybe there is no such thing as objective truth? but then again maybe there is, but all we can do is reach for it in a subjective way, because we live this side of heaven? oh yeh, and we're not God!
Oh no I think I'm talking crap again............... arhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Just found the following article by Mike Riddell - Beyond Ground Zero: Resourcing Faith in a Post-Christian Era.
I know, I know, it sounds a bit pompous. But apart from that, what d'ya think?
I'm sure you've all read this before - but it just needs to be repeated:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen - not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." (C. S. Lewis)
Found this via Andrew Jones' blog: The Four Spiritual Laws - The Flash Version.
That's it, all my pre-christian (it's better than non) friends must see this site - and then they can all pray the prayer at the end and get to go to heaven when they die......... It's so simple!
Many, if not most, of the early Anabaptists refused to take oaths. Like the Quakers, they reasoned that when Jesus said - 'Do not swear at all... Simply let your "yes" be "yes" and your "no" be "no"; anything beyond this come from the evil one' (Mt. 5:33-37) - he meant it!
Even for today's Mennonites, not swearing oaths is, first and foremost, a question of truthfulness. As John Perry asks in a recent copy of The Mennonite Review, "If I swear in order to emphasize that what I am saying is true, does that mean I can lie when I do not swear?" Swearing simply introduces levels of honesty and openness that are not appropriate for followers of the One who is Truth. The Mennonites and the Anabaptists before them recognise that refusal to take oaths binds one to absolute and radical obedience to Jesus. His Lordship and my Discipleship actually affect how we live and who we are.
Throughout the 'Sermon on the Mount' Jesus takes Jewish religious practice and intensifies it, so why do we always insist on spiritualising it?! Why do we so often insist that Jesus wasn't literally saying, "don't take oaths" - when he seems to go to great lengths to make precisely that point. Don't make any oaths of any kind, he says - if you do it comes from the evil one. The whole series of sayings in Matthew 5-7 aren't to be spiritualised, but quite the opposite - they are to be practicalised. This is Jesus' whole point - following him boils down to how we speak and pray and give and react to persecution. In a word, discipleship is real.
My daughter (Ellie, 5 and a half) once asked me to promise her something and I rather pompously tried to explain why I don't make promises - she would just have to choose to believe me. A while later I heard her telling my wife (Elaine, older than me), "You wouldn't need to promise if you never lie." Then last week we were leaving her with a Baby-sitter whilst we went out for the whole day. Before we went I sat her down and asked her if she was going to behave, do as she was told and be helpful etc. She said she would and then I said, "right, I'm choosing to believe you." Her eyes then widened as she realised the significance of what she'd just said.
What if we all caught a glimpse of the wide-eyed reality of discipleship? This is not just words, or services, or prayers or smiles. This is for real! If it doesn't actually make a difference to how I live here and now - to my giving and speaking, working and loving, praying and parenting - then it's simply empty words and rituals. Alternatively, this just could be about living all of life under His reign. For real.
The (De)Central Vineyard
Ok, I don't know how all the details are going to work, but change is about to happen, big time... Our little network of churches is splitting up (sorry dividing, no multiplying, oh I don't know what the right word is anymore) As some of you know our small network of churches are quite geographically spread out, the one church (in Daventry) is 12 miles away from the other two in Northampton. Daventry is where we started planting over 3 years ago and it is my hometown. Over the next few months we're going work towards releasing the Daventry church to be an independent Vineyard. So what’s changed?
Well, firstly last year, when we started this there was times when we didn't think there would be a church left in Daventry. People were disappearing left, right and centre. (We went from 3 groups to 1 in the space of 18 months) But to our joy a core of people remained. That core has spent the last 8 months developing a fresh vision and desire to see God do some amazing things there.
Secondly, our thinking has changed. When things first kicked off in Northampton, we kind of thought Northanpton would act as the hub in term of us reaching out to the rest of the region. But over the last few months we’ve been more focused on becoming ‘decentralised’ than we have about being ‘centralised’. We still want to impact our region and we still want to see small missional communities scattered across it. Just how we get there I think has changed.
Thirdly, for me it’s about learning to let go. Daventry’s been my baby, my sacrifice, my dream, my time, my energy, my vision… it’s mine!!!! (I feel like Bilbo Baggins, when he asked to look at the ring for one last time) But the words of Job keep coming back to me time and time again. “The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; may the name of the Lord be praised.” It’s all His, and that is all that matters. We’re just the weak vessels he chooses to use to do it with or not as it would seem!
+++ So people please pray for us as we continue our journey of decentralisation. Please pray for Rob & Ange as they'll be taking on a bulk of the leadership and also the rest of the church in Daventry, they've been through some hard stuff as a church family this last few months. Lastly please pray for Mark & Laura (who get married in the summer) and are planning on moving to Daventry to be part of the church. Pray that Mark finds the right Job and house by the time they're married. Also Larua is in her last year at bible college, please pray for her and the work load etc... +++
Seen this house on Hunter Street for £84,995, it's within the area we want to be in (see post from the other day)
See more details here!
As promised, my first question: I have been thinking a lot in the last few years about how much commitment God calls us to. Actually I'll rephrase that - I've felt called to go deeper with God and have been challenged with questions like: is this just for some, or for everyone who follows Jesus?
It was suggested to me many months back that there is a minimum level commitment and then there is more for those who want more. I'm not sure if that comment was more about "Church-commitment" than it was about "Jesus-commitment." The answer came in response to a question I had on spiritual disciplines and the point of the response was that Jesus doesn't say "you have to have me AND SD's", "you just need me" (which I suppose is similar to the message that Mumf gave at last years' vineyard leaders conf. on Ephesians - and the whole circumcision thing - i.e. that they were saying "you need Jesus AND to be circumcised" and Paul is saying "You need Jesus.")
Now I'm reminded of a statement that Carl M made about Jesus being the pearl: "If you've really seen the pearl, you'll understand why you'd sacrifice everything to get it." (which Willard also addresses in his latest book Renovation of the Heart) Carl also went on to say that if you can't understand this then "you probably haven't seen the pearl." Which makes me ask - are we surrounded by "Christians" who, while 'committed' to a set of beliefs haven't actually found the pearl?
The next stage in my thinking is that if, when you've seen the pearl you will sacrifice everything to get it, why are we so half arsed so often in our approach to issues like being disciplined? I'm aware that this issue skirts the fine line between bounded and centred set models (if applied to whole communities.) I've heard some describe Church of the Saviour as having a high value on commitment and yet they excell at being a missional community. How do we draw the line between being inclusive and being a people who are called out, who are actually different and therefore change their locality?
I suppose one answer is that we are saved by grace, not by works - but that out of that grace we're inspired to participate in God's Kingdom, therefore works flow from grace...
I hope that this has come out coherently enough. I'd love some input on this one and ideas on how you feel this affects how we do, or be, church.
Wahey! The Coach is finally up and blogging!
Here's ur daily Anabaptist gem. The Anabaptists (at least the early guys) remind me of the early Quakers in many respects. For example, most of them were pacifists. In the mid 16th Century both Catholics and Protestants lived in fear of the growing military might of the Turks. The Turks, it seemed, were intent on completely wiping out the Christian civilisations in Europe. So it is understandable why Michael Sattler's statement, shortly before his burning, caused such offence:
"If waging war were proper, I would rather take the field against the so-called Christians who persecute, take captive, and kill true Christians, than against the Turks...for the following reason: the Turk is a genuine Turk and knows nothing of the Christian faith. He is a Turk according to the flesh. But you claim to be Christians, boast of Christ, and still persecute the faithful witness of Christ. Thus you are Turks according to the Spirit."
And I thought I was counter-cultural!
Hi guys, thanks for inviting me to join you in your dialogue. As you may have guessed I'm part of the Cardiff Vineyard. We've been working through a lot of stuff recently which seems to relate to the discussions you're all having on this blog - what's church, what's community, etc etc. I don't know about you but it seems that every revelation brings with it new questions. It's all very overwhelming. Perhaps I'll ask some of them in my next blog!
.Posted by: Jonathan | 2/07/2003 06:45:00 PM |
Someone was talking about Leadership styles the other day. Well here's a FREE Myers-Briggs personality/temperament type thing. Let me know what you come out as!!!
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 2/06/2003 11:41:00 PM |
We had a good time together tonight, a few people from our little community were away, so we went for 'fish and chips'. We then decided to walk and pray around the area. God really filled me with a real excitement for this little part of Northampton (The Mounts). We also prayed about moving there, finding the right jobs and so on...
I was reminded about something Todd Hunter said about us no longer being parish church parishioners, but missionaries in the community and that church planting in these small missional communities, might mean all we can handle is a handful of streets. So for the next few years here's our stomping ground, from Hervey Street to Colwyn Road.
I've decided to bless your socks off by daily posting a little snippet of Anabaptist history or values. The following story was the cause of my initial interest in Anabaptism. Enjoy!
The story of Dirk Willems is probably one of the most famous stories about Anabaptist martyrs. Dirk, an Anabaptist was caught, tried, and convicted during the rule of the Duke of Alva. Dirk escaped from prison by lowering himself ou t of his prison window with a rope he made of knotted rags. A guard saw him escape and gave chase. Dirk quickly ran across a lake which had just frozen, and the ice was very thin. Dirk, thin from prison rations made it across the lake, his pursuer, howeve r, did not. The guard cried out for help and Dirk turned back and pulled him from the water. The ungrateful guard then seized Dirk and took him back to prison. Dirk was burned at the stake later that year in a slow and painful execution. A street in Asper en was recently named in his honor, for his courage in risking recapture and death to save the life of his persecutor.
Is it me, or have a number of the comments gone missing?!
Going back to that Todd Hunter question, can you imagine anyone saying "Follow me as I follow Christ"? Seems to me that I've often seen that as my goal - when I get there I know that I'm really maturing as a leader. But recently I've begun to think that that sort of question would immediately disqualify me. Wouldn't it?
Maybe it's a sign of my persistent immaturity, but I find myself constantly turning round to people and saying, "What the Hell are you doing following me?! It's Christ you're meant to be following!" The trouble is, the more you say something like that the more people go, "Ooh, isn't he humble? Let's follow him." So, maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe Paul wasn't at the peak of spiritual maturity when he wrote those words. Maybe he'd just fallen out with John Mark or narrowly avoided getting off with the Jailer's daughter. Maybe he was human after all - and maybe that's the whole damn point.
'Cos if following Christ is all about being genuine and stumbling along and learning from our mistakes - hey come follow me! If discipleship is about making room in our lives for the grace of God, relying on His strength rather than our own and doing our best to see his light in the smog of life - feel free to stumble along behind me. Feel free to see the grace of God at work in my life as I cock it up again and again and He restores me again and again. Always.
If this thing of ours is all about authentic discipleship - ups and downs and turn-arounds - follow me. But if you're looking for someone with all the right answers, all the right methods and secrets, the sublime prayer-life and the flowing miracles - you've picked a real dud. All I can do is try (and fail and try again) to show you how to be human - with all the crap that that involves - and in that show how His strength really is made perfect in weakness, even weakness like this. If that's what leadership is all about, sure, follow me. (But stick close, 'cos I haven't got a clue where this path goes!)
Kevin is still worth reading on leadership, btw.
Everyone go and see: http://www.webdesignlab.co.uk/niksthings/masking.html
.Posted by: Central Vineyard | 2/06/2003 01:48:00 PM |
Hey, the Organic Church family is growing. That's a good thing. I'm working on a defintions thing - What do we mean by organic, and "Church" and what the hell is a blog? I'm also still desperate to do that response to restorationism, but someone needs to nag Steve to do an articles page!
Kevin Rains has got some good stuff to say on leadership. It's discussion-starter stuff but it's good. Is it me or is this a weakness in this thing of ours? I tell you, being a Baptist and a Leader is a pain in the arse; all this stuff about elder lead but congregational rule. Steve described my leadership style as "passive autocratic" (is that right?), but I think I'd say it was "manipulative dictator"! I like the people to choose for themselves, but I like them to choose what I say. I guess that's my heritage coming out - more than once Charles Spurgeon told his church that they were free to vote how they wanted, but if they didn't vote the same way as him he would leave! Now, I'm not comfortable with that, but it sure would speed things along a lot. Mind you, at the moment I'm not sure that it would work and it's an awful big bluff!
Oh, the URL for our church has changed to www.daventrybaptist.co.uk. We've lost the other one for the time being, which is a bummer 'cos we've only just sent out a load of advertising with it on. I'm off to get an early night and consider the prospect of going to war and being on the wrong side. Where's that Dylan song I posted?
I want to return to a discussion Graham started a while back - the issue of 'the home' today. Certainly there are many issues for our homes that are different from First Century and even different from N America.
It seems to me that the home is the place where you are really yourself. You come home and you veg, you flop, you let it all hang out. It is the place where you take you mask off that you have been wearing for the world and you just BE. For many people they try wearing a mask at home, but in the end the intensity of relationships mean that they can't manage it for long - that is why wife beaters, child abusers, family break-ups can all happen even when people seem the nicest people in the world. The result is that the home is the place of greatest vulnerability. To invite someone to your home is to invite them into your life, to see you as you really are. As Christians that is why it is such an important place to reach out from and include others in. BUT (and its a big one!!) the consequence is that many people 'out there' are extremely nervous about going to someone's home and certainly about letting others into theirs. In my experience (let me know some other experiences) people feel more comfortable meeting you in a neutral place than at home. The home is a barrier to cross. I think that the Englishman's home is definitely still his castle - a place of self-protection and separation. Clearly all that has implications on the way we do church. Maybe that is why it is thought that House Churches are more suited to the next generation - built on open and honest relationships [or is that idealism] and that few have homes and families??
Would anyone disagree with my exegesis of the 21st Century Western Home?
I have been wanting to respond to Steve’s copied blog below entitled “Abortion, Gambling and Cloning” for while. It won’t all fit into a ‘comment’ so here it is.
Although can understand where this blog is coming from, the direction that it ends up taking, it seems to me, is extremely worrying. I understand that political involvement by the church, especially in N America has mainly been around protest and trying to prevent things happening. This creates an image of trying to enforce Christian values on a post-Christian world. Making the church look judgmental and Scrooge-like. As the next generation rise up with a better understanding the issues of pluralism, no longer thinking that the church has a right to have a voice in national politics as many still expect and lament the loss of, they look to a radical new engagement with the world. However I think that the position presented could lead to a radical disengagement.
I believe that we too easily slip into the modern/Enlightenment Public-private divide. I.e. The gospel is about changing the beliefs of individuals and not allow that to start to influence the public arena. I am absolutely convinced that this thinking affects us more than we know. It certainly affects how we interpret Jesus. We seem to think that Jesus avoided talking about national topics and started to take everything to the 'heart', and bringing timeless truths. The Temple we must remember was not just the religious centre of Israel but the commercial and political centre. Hence Jesus was constantly challenging the heart of Jewish political life. His message was partly about how Israel should respond to the invading forces. This issue was political, religious, commercial, eschatological all rolled into one. I don't think that you can take Jesus' comments about paying taxes to Caesar without understand what was going on - trying to catch him out as to his political agenda. If Jesus wasn't being political then why did the authorities have him killed? The same really could be said for Paul, who constantly talked about the true Lord, over against Caesar, and yet still encouraged submission. What I am saying is that in the first century the world did not divide so nicely - 1 Corinthians at the very least lets us know about that (the idol temple issues that were integral to all aspects of 1st Century life). "Let's not get involved in politics and just concentrate on issues of faith" was just not an option in a world that mingled the two. The removal of that dualism, I think, is crucial to a new Gospel and a new Christianity for a Postmodern world.
The question that must be asked is how then should we engage with the world and not retreat into a privatised world of faith. It is clear that the days of shouting moralisms from behind the established church or demonstration placards has gone - and praise god for that! I believe that the engagement must now come not about what the church is telling others not to do, but about what the church is doing to help people. That, more and more these days is 'political'. Steve Chalke is a shining example. He gets a voice with the prime minister, not because he is moaning the loudest, but because he has earned it by serving poeple and demonstrating that the gospel works - the result is that people want to know what you have to say, in the political realm. The message then is not a defense of ‘Christian Values’, for example, but a demonstration that supporting the nuclear is a good way to go for the health of the nation individually and corporately. That makes the voice not defensive and therefore aggressive at times, but genuine and caring. Being involved in politics is, I think, an essential part and integral with "Love your neighbour" in the democratic Western world.
As Newbiggin says: "The church is to be a sign, instrument and foretaste of the sovereignty of the one true living God over all nature, all nations and all human lives”. That is not just about ‘getting people saved’ but making a difference in the world and allowing people to taste a little of what the Kingdom is like.
Another late night blog (the other one didn't work)
