argumentative

That's a dangerous line isn't it? That says that the world is crap because we have not been strident enough with God and that because we have not been God is effectively punishing creation for our incompetence. Which means that we will be judged most severely…

Yes. I like it except for that implication. I like the acceptance and permission of argument as a legitimate part of prayer. And I like the challenge not to accept the world as it is, and to compare that to what God has promised. But the suggestion that the state of things are a direct result of us not nagging God enough? Hmm.

theologically correct?

Why doesn't the bible say what I want it to say?

It would make resource writing a whole lot easier.

Why not just let it say what you want it to say?

That's what everyone else does.

Hehe.

It'll only come back and bite me later though won't it?

Of course that was not a suggestion you should go with the flow.

Do you think trying to be theologically correct professional Christians with no formal training is a help as we don't think in straight lines or traditionally, or a hindrance as we tend to fly off on whacky tangents pursuing culturally motivated novelty?

At it's best, I think (hope?) it's both and that's a good thing. We can think outside the box more because we haven't been trained into the box. (Does that imply that theological training is like house training a puppy?) And potentially we can relate our theological thinking to culturally relevant stuff more easily too. Having said that, I now feel like I'm accusing anyone who's theologically trained of being narrow minded and set in their ways, which clearly isn't true.

At worst, we get distracted by cultural stuff, or led off down our own ranty cul-de-sacs and perhaps don't have the theological tools to get ourselves out?

Or we believe stuff that is not true.

Although perhaps theologians do that by habit as well?

Yes, I think that's sort of what I meant by the ranty cul-de-sacs. Everyone gets hung up on things that aren't (quite) true sometimes don't they?

Is it all about expectation?

Reality is we discuss stuff that we're interested in (and because it's sometimes easier than doing real work?)

No I find work easier!

...and that we're passionate about. I wouldn't expect that we'd come up with any groundbreaking new theological gems, although there's always a chance. I also don't imagine that many people, if any, are reading the stuff we've blogged, and those that are probably aren't looking for a definitive theological statement on anything. So as long as we don't become deluded and start to think that what we've got here is absolute truth and nothing else is valid, we're probably OK.

Perhaps a dose of humility in with that ingenuity and improvisation?

Sounds ok to me :-)

grace and dogma

Church & Culture Blog: Whatever happened to evangelism?

Worth a read...

Interesting.

In many cases he's probably right, but he seems to ignore the integrity that comes with social evangelism. To use his example, why should "Tom" listen when i witness to him if my Converse shoes and their widely publicised inhumane factory policies communicate a different message? Surely in Toms shoes, whatever I say is supported by my clearly ethical choice of clothing? He does sort of say that towards the end in talking about bread for soul and stomach but he talks about us needing to provide both, still ignoring the fact that perhaps both can or should go hand in hand. What was that cliched saying? "People don't care how much you know..."

Obviously my response is a simplistic as his original view and the reality is neither as black nor as white. But both baby and bathwater can be useful sometimes...

Oooh - you got into it there. I am about to switch off for the night so reply will be disappointingly short.

Let him who weareth not Converse cast the first stone...

Even Jesus was rude to people sometimes, and it would have been the religionists like us he would have been rude to. So grace and dogma probably ok but you have to know what you are on about.

hope of the world?

Church & Culture blog: Is the church the hope of the world?

What would you answer?

Good question.

Is the church the hope of the world? No. God's love is the hope of the world, and his grace, his mercy, demonstrated through Jesus, made possible today by the Holy Spirit. And the church is the vehicle through which God has chosen to deliver that hope to the world.

I like what she says below - being part of the Meck church has obviously impacted the lives of her and her family. But what's actually made the difference is God. Perhaps she wouldn't have encountered God in that way if it weren't for the church. But the hope that she has found is from God through the church, not from the church. If we get this focus wrong, surely we're heading towards idolising the church rather than using it/being it to glorify God?

What would you answer?

what's your filter?

Remembered another interesting bit from Brian McLaren's talk last Thursday evening. Before we'd arrived, he had obviously mentioned that when both Jesus and Paul quoted the Old Testament they often left out chunks. Specifically the nasty judgement bits. Later on, someone asked why. He gave a few examples. The one I remember is where Jesus quotes Isaiah 61 in Luke 4 but stops half way through a sentence, leaving out the bit about the day of vengeance of God. Then there were 2 Paul examples, one where he quotes a psalm but stops before the violent crushing of people's heads bit, and another one where he talks about rejoicing with the Gentiles but leaves out the bit about God coming to wipe them out (that might be in Romans 15 where he quotes Deuteronomy 32 but my googling hasn't been helpful yet!)

His reason why, for Paul, was that Paul used to use what he read in the law to persecute Christians and when he met God, he realised that's not who God is so he stopped teaching that bit. Said we had to read all of the Old Testament through a "Jesus filter" to work out which bits were actually relevant for today.

That is so controversial yet what we all want to hear (apart from a few conservative-types perhaps?) He talks about it more in 'A new kind of Christianity' , which if you haven't read you should as it will give you (more) hope. The new kind is a kind that does not end the world shortly with God burning non churched but involves the churched working alongside the unbelieving to reach the shared goal of a just and Godly Kingdom on earth now, where Jesus is the head and the role model. The logical extension of that is some kind of universalism and even in MacLaren's case a question mark over heaven. Bell, Chalke and others have adopted a similar line and it neatly deals with the excessive judgement issues of God punishing remarkably good people for ever in agony because they never said the sinner's prayer.

For me this changes the whole way I think about the world, about what church is for, about evangelism and even about God. We still evangelise because Jesus tells us to in the great commission and because people need Jesus in their lives but we don't have a guilt labelled message of turn or burn' to scare them into the kingdom with, rather a 'turn and thrive because it's the right thing to do' message.

Question is whether the last 2000 years of Christianity have largely got it entirely wrong and were just a product of their crude and violent cultures or whether the New Kind is simply a woolly gay friendly misinterpretation born of it's culture mixed with too much liberal theology.

Perhaps only God knows, but I know which one I prefer.

where are they?

Here's a question then... if after 22 years, the passion gives way to cynicism, how can today's young people make the best use of that passion now while they have it?

Good question! Firstly keep away from leaders who do not share it. Secondly, find a balance between their youthful silliness verses the energy to take actions without prejudice by seeking mature role models who can model the correct attitude for them. Not to mention WWJD of course. Thirdly, live holy and avoid beating themselves up when they fall. Marrying at the age of 17 may help, being realistic and keeping their eye's fixed on their heavenly calling is an alternative. Not to mention WWJD of course. Fourthly, believe in better and don’t be afraid to take on the adult world and attempt to elicit change. (Get your facts right though and don't be a prat.) reminding the adults about the pension deficit and the fact that you will be paying for their NHS wheelchairs and dentures may help them to listen to you.

Somewhere in there, some of those young people are prophets. How do we find and listen to them?

I'm sure many of them have the potential - you only have to read some of the comments on an orison wall to spot it. The key word is 'empowerment' - letting them see that they CAN do something about it. How about a young people's Dragon's Den for charities. Young people with prophetic vision who want to see something changed in their area or even within their sight, pitch to experienced facilitators with the best being given a grant of (very few strings attached) cash along with arm's length management input to see if it can be made to work.

saw it coming?

Do you know of anyone who prophesied the riots? Just thinking of the prophecy about the outpouring of grief before Diana died, the "spirit of Jonah" prophecy just before the whale swam up the Thames etc. Many people are saying that the only useful response to the riots (and related causes) is spiritual - just wondering whether anyone prophesied and, if so, whether the prophecy had any more in it about what to do next?

So, Maclaren, and Bruggeman and others tend towards stating that a prophet is less the one who with long hair and rough attire stares from darkened sockets and mutters - 'repent or perish' but one who spots an unjust situation and boldly speaks out about it whilst also offering a solution rich with possibilities, new life and justice. Sometimes they may say 'God told me about this' but perhaps in our climate such theocratic implications with the implied inability to questions would devalue the message in the eye of many.

Which somewhat flies in the face of the old faith filled heroes like Kuhlman and Wigglesworth - 'God said, I believe, that settles it' - although they were probably referring to holding scripture at face value rather than the word of some hirsute fundamentalist.

Either way, as attractive as the Maclaren ecclesiology appears - as rational, as well thought out, as balanced, as believable, as comforting as it is for those with our dilemma, it seems also to allow the replacement of the supernatural with a God who works within the rules of science and prophets who speak with the words of natural justice , not dissimilar in fact to Amnesty and the UN. Not that those bodies are wrong, but clearly within their remit men are very much encouraged to be good without God, not because of Him.

And from there, it is only a very short step to thinking of the title of one of Tim Keller's books 'What Good is Good?' and coming to a very different conclusion to that of it's evangelical author.

22 years ago I first heard the song Angry Young Man by Billy Joel (vocals start at 2.02 if you are in a hurry) (note the advert that appears for free bible downloads!)

I believe I've passed the age
Of consciousness and righteous rage
I found that just surviving was a noble fight.
I once believed in causes too,
I had my pointless point of view,
And life went on no matter who was wrong or right

I knew then that I was not supposed to believe those words, that the exact antithesis was where it was at and wife and friends were keen to advise me 'not to go there' . But that verse has recurred like some kind of melody hook through an epic movie, a dark Dr Zhivago theme (is there an H in there?) that try as I might has been tough to escape from and the more I see and hear and read and the older and fatter and more tired I get, the more powerful the lure of the dark side, or cynicism as it is more commonly known, or perhaps, unbelief, becomes. Unless it isn't any of those things and is just… life?

Of course living in the Christian world it would take a very foolish sceptic to deny it all, all that occurs, all the wonders and signs, all the extraordinary people, all the good and glory and Godliness that abounds in the shadow of the abundant and often more public self-promoting empire-building cack. BUT it would be so nice, so nice, if a little of that head attitude I think is called faith could be trepanned into the heads of the lifelong wrestlers and strugglers who, despite it all, often seem to be found amongst the ones who get stuff done, hobbling after what they think they believe in. Perhaps because they have a very good, innate understanding of what might happen if they stop?

The problem is, both those caricatures can be prophets, both can be ignored and both can be wrong (as well as right.)

I don't see myself as a prophet but "one who spots an unjust situation and boldly speaks out about it whilst also offering a solution rich with possibilities, new life and justice." sounds a lot like what happened when Project L started. Seem to remember you called it a prophetic idea at the time too. I don't know if it was or not, but it came more out of watching a TV programme that inspired compassion than out of hours spent in the early mornings communing with the Lord. But once it was there it was THERE. For that first 6 weeks, everything said "Make L happen" to me. It just wouldn't go away. And as I said before, it got off the ground remarkably quickly, after I did little more than talk to anyone who would listen. Act of God? Or do I just have extremely proactive friends?

Society won't listen to the prophet who stands and declares that "God has spoken... therefore they must..." any more. Because they don't care. And there are too many lunatics. Sadly, it seems many churches and Christians don't listen either. Maybe it's not fashionable any more? Maybe there's a better way to present the same info?

As for the cynicism, isn't it "I'm sure things should be better than this" cynicism, rather than the "it's all crap" kind? Not so dark after all? And on good days, it's what drives the things that make a difference.

If God can speak through a donkey, he can use us miserable cynics ;-)

a serious thing?

Reading book about Kathryn Kuhmann - you know of her? Much odd behaviour, shutting out friends in time of crisis. Yet loads of mind blowing miracles and emphasis on prayer. Wondering if I am guilty of not believing in the supernatural side of spirituality anymore, happy to spend time and money on doing the stuff whilst having little expectation of God doing His stuff. Where are you on this?

Never heard of Ms Kuhmann but just looked her up. Looks like her story differs depending which source you read? Wikipedia is very negative, whereas her website is positive and super-Christian but really really vague. This one is quite interesting reading. (Err, hi, I'm easily distracted!) That said, it's easier to find stuff online that disproves faith healing than anything positive. Who wrote your book?

Do you think the shutting out friends stuff is related to the miracles and prayer stuff?

Day to day there's not much supernatural about life here. I just get on with the stuff I have to do. Actually I find prayer really difficult. I get distracted within seconds. And apart from my arm getting healed 10 years ago, no mind blowing miracles either - still not healed, still playing hokey cokey with the overdraft. There's loads of stuff which feels like it's in the grey area - amazing things that could be attributed to God, or to the fact that I know some amazing people who put in a lot of hard work to make things happen (Project L getting off the ground in just 6 weeks, Project O's entire existence, all but one of the houses/flats we've lived in have been perfect for what we needed at the time etc) Or maybe both?

Probably best describing my approach to supernatural spirituality is that I totally believe in it for other people - "you should get someone to pray for that for you" Someone else will get healed if someone else prays.

Kuhlman was very controversial in everything from her real age through to her bizarre death, but the number of genuine and extraordinary healings is not really disputable, although no doubt as they healed die off the legacy will fade. Strangely in 60 and 70's USA there were a dozen or so wild characters of whom we would certainly not consider sound and all of them seemed to see amazing miracles. I'll loan you some of my library one day...

Despite have a good friendship with the one guy who seems to have inherited their mantle, and despite having been on a team vetting the healed last year in Italy (him: 'can we have a testimony from anyone who has been healed from blindness?' Us 'how many would you like?' ) And despite seeing a woman get out of a wheelchair - I am still in the same place as you. Why on earth is that, and are we apostates? And how does it get changed? Years of habit are hard to break but I do sometimes dream the same dreams of my youth - boldly praying for the sick, believng there is a right answer.

Has post-modernism and post-christendom helped make the club more acceptable but trended the noisy, uncontrollable and not very fashionable Holy Spirit out of the equation? And if so, is that not actually quite a serious thing?

plenty of reasons, no answers

Read this:
"Editor-At-Large: A class imprisoned by tribalism, lack of work and filthy food" (Independent Newspaper article)

Everybody knows the reason but nobody has the answer. Even JSP concludes with "every one of these kids needs support from their community." Yes... but what? If you give people a simple achievable idea they will do it. Saying "3.5 million children live in poverty in the UK" doesn't motivate people into action. They feel moved, but the vastness of the problem is overwhelming, too much for one person to tackle so depressing. But if you say "cook a few meals and ask the school to invite the right kids," out come the saucepans... Same with the riots. Everyone knows the young people need support, communities need to come together. If we can just come up with a simple enough practical idea, they'll do it