Look local not international for leadership

I don't comment much these days on things theological and spiritual, but Andrew's comments on Bethel here reflect a helpful attitude when assessing ANY group and provide some seemingly balanced critique which may be helpful to those so minded to inquire.

• Of course I would also remind that local leadership is preferred to international leadership, congregations should be looking to God for themselves rather than attempting to replicate what is happening elsewhere (as if church was a business franchise - it's not ) 
• The reason be it Hillsong, Toronto, Rob Bell, Driscoll, Bethel etc has a season of being 'flavour of the month' before being cast aside is because they all speak to local church's disappointment at slogging away in the harvest field without seeing much fruit for their labours. 

Often these things come with a musical feel good factor which for a time also capture the attention of the flock, but when the rubber hits the road, and churches attempt to implement the bits they've cherry picked from the methodology, it invariably fails to make a significant impact.

• I think this is mostly because we need to travel the journey God has for us, enquire for ourselves at the temple of the Lord and discover how he would use us, rather than attempt to somehow shortcut that drudgery and go straight for the 'what God will do for us...'... but then, who of us isn't impatient?

So while I'd never say, eat the fish spit the bones because few can distinguish truth from a lie, especially when combined with feel good music [impulse purchasing in shops anyone?!] I do think we'd do well to focus our attention and those we have the privilege to lead to pursue Christ for ourselves... be persistent... be patient... but desperate for God to work in us, with us, for us, through us. Then the scale of what one movement is, won't be the attraction because we'll have our hands full at home.. in our local place.

Waiting is always the hardest part

In what is now my 18th unfinished blog post, I am wondering if this one will actually find its way to the WWW, I guess if you’re reading this I have!

As I approach my 40th birthday, I find my life in a state of flux. My youngest is 4 years away from adult hood, my wife has refreshed her employment skills and is now looking for work, and it seems that everyone is looking to transition to a new phase in their life.

As for me, I seem a little stuck. – not the stuck that most ‘nearly 40 something's’ feel as they approach the mid-life crisis years, – I think I did that a couple of years ago! – but the distinct feeling I took a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in a back alley.   I won’t bore you with the details of those things, because actually that’s not the reason for writing.. Instead I’ve been pondering the question of why it is that I find waiting so difficult…

Here’s how it works for me.

• I send an email, I expect a response in a reasonable period of time. Reasonable is a fluid period, but I suspect a response should be received within a couple of days.
• If I send a text message, I expect a response within the same day – After all, all sorts of things could have happened that might prevent the intended recipient to reply, such as not having their phone with them that day, or being in a place with no reception or has the phone switched off, but one would imagine that at some point during that day, the recipient would find time to reply.
• If I send an instant message to a person who is online, I expect a response rather quickly.. – I mean barring leaving IM on (which does happen a lot, actually) if I’m engaging in a conversation I expect a response no longer than a pee break.
• If I’m in a conversation with a person, face to face, I expect a response pretty much immediately. (again pee breaks accepted)

Perhaps your expectation isn’t too far away from this in respect of communications using various media. Such is my personality, that the longer the gap after the expected response period, the more paranoid I become that I’ve said something which was received poorly and my emotional hamster starts running wildly trying to work out what I could have said better, and whether my relationship with the recipient is damaged etc. It drives me nuts. Most often, something quite rational happened and they carry on oblivious to my angst, and the delay was nothing to do with me at all.

Now it’s not just in conversations that my emotional hamster gets all worked up.  If I’ve promoted an idea, asked someone for a decision on something, made an alteration to something then my anxiousness is the same. What will they think? Will they agree?  And if the result of their musing will mean a change for me, then my uncomfortability rises exponentially, because I really hate living in the end of a season space, where something is finishing and something else is starting..  Innovation always energises me, and having to finish something or having to wait to begin something is like just winding and winding an elastic band on a balsa wood plane propeller (actually much more like twisting a sachet of sauce in  Wetherspoon’s before it explodes).

And so it is with God too.. I generally don’t find God silent. Most of the time it seems easy to determine his will by reading, praying, thinking, strategizing and just making a decision to act and seeing how the spirit feels about that! – God loves a good decision maker and unless he has other ideas (which he seems to make known pretty quickly) He seems pretty intent on my life heading towards His destination by choosing whatever path seems right to me at the time. [ For instance, you want to live in a different place? Put your house on the market! If it sells and you find a place to move to you like, then it would seem good to you and the spirit, so move.  If you put your house on the market, and it doesn’t sell, then that seems a pretty good indication that this might not be the right time to be moving.. and therefore get on with your life.]

But there are other things that are not so easy to wait for.. life changing events, that make ‘getting on with your life’ quite difficult…  That period between putting your house on the market and waiting a period of time to see if it sells, for instance is a horrible place to be. [and how sweet the relief once the house sells or a decision made to come off the market] Or maybe it’s a change of job role, and you’re finishing off your old responsibilities and trying to get up to speed on new ones. Man that can be a difficult place. Pregnancy too, is a big one isn’t it.. the pensive state between not yet being with a new life, and yet, there it is, trapped in a woman’s belly!

But the biggest for me, is in breakthrough.  When God is seemly quite and weak. Where it seems that a decision is obvious but the timing isn’t right, or when it seems that you don’t know where to go or what to do. When you’re struggling through something and waiting for the end. When you’re struggling to get to somewhere and you’re helpless to bring about the change you need. When you simply don’t know what to choose between two seemingly attractive or catastrophic outcomes, and you’re just not sure which one to choose because it HAS to be A or B not both A and B. (like should we move to Australia say, and stay in England.. you can’t physically do both)  These are the most difficult places to be.. and perhaps where our emotional hamsters do the most roiling.  The what if’s come crashing like waves.. it’s difficult to plan, after all you don’t know what’s coming next, and there’s no comfort whatsoever in the  ‘take each day as it comes’ mantra that you whisper to your tortured soul.  It’s an intensely restless period, where peace and joy seems far from your lips and life, even the simple things (like managing freezer food) becomes a nightmare, life becomes painful, itchy and fragmented, relationships become tense or stupendously intimate as you both hold on and let go at the same time, and family tensions boil over into arguments, eggshell treading and lots of tears.

I hate these periods, and I’m thankful they don’t come often. Most of our life actually is quite controllable, and we can enjoy the benefits of planning and executing those plans, and dealing with any variations or course corrections as we go.  Minor alterations from a trajectory are easy to manage because you have momentum, and pretty much everyone is on the bus with you.

• So where you have seemingly difficult choices, but where they are in your power to make changes let me urge you.. just make a decision.  You’ll feel better once you have made a choice. It may be the right one, it may be the wrong one. – Maybe you just won’t know, but the paralysis of not making a choice, sitting on the fence forever or worse, trying to straddle both positions as they diverge will bring endless [avoidable] pain to your life.  Just decide and move on.  If God is seemingly quiet on the issue, perhaps he doesn’t actually mind which one you choose?  And won’t he bring ALL THINGS together for the good of those who love him? Romans 8 v 28
• Get on with your life. How often have you heard someone pray or prophesy using Jeremiah 29 v 11?  I wonder why they do that…  I think it’s a very unhelpful verse in the way it’s often applied, because it PREVENTS a person from making a decision, and REQUIRES someone else to tell them prophetically what to do. But the context in Jeremiah 29 isn’t wait on God till he tells you what to do AT ALL… in fact quite the opposite, take a look yourself… note the verses 4-9 a clear instruction to settle down, raise rugrats, eat and pray for your city to prosper.  then the kicker… v 10 WHEN you’ve been doing that for 70 years, THEN I’ll come to you and fulfill my promise BECAUSE [v11] I have plans to prosper you …  So God has a plan to prosper you, but work it out as you live your life.. don’t be paralysed waiting for God to speak, just decide what you want to do..  he’ll make it pretty clear if you’re stepping off plan.

And so with some certainty I feel I must pronounce that indecision is simply procrastination. It is a fear that we will choose wrong, which puts us in the same back alley that making a poor decision would put us in.. So you see, whether you make a bad decision, or no decision, this negative outcome is waiting for you…. The only way to attempt to avoid it is to actually make a decision… 

But if like me, you’ve made a couple of decisions and you’re now in the back alley you feared, there are still two choices!

1. live in the back alley, give up and wait for death, or
2. turn around and do something different. 

It is exceedingly rare that God will open up a secret compartment at the end of the alleyway, taking you into an as yet undiscovered life, of extraordinary wonder and fulfilment, instead we have to take responsibility for any poor decision we made that brought us here, stop blaming others (or God) for ‘leading us here’ and TURN AROUND and get out of the hole we’re in.   

The reason friends, that waiting is so unbearably difficult, is that we’re on a journey [aren’t we?] and waiting isn’t much part of getting to your destination. If we’re waiting we’re wasting time.  Waiting should be an active temporary thing (like going to a bus stop, waiting for the bus to arrive) not a passive thing (waiting at home hoping a bus would stop outside your house). Passive is procrastination again.  So if you’re not seeing breakthrough with something, chances are you haven’t made the decision (or followed through with the consequences of that decision (which is the same thing as not having made the decision at all)). 

So where does that leave me?  For the things I can decide, things that are within my power to change, things that ultimate affect my journey/trajectory or ultimately my destination, I can make [and follow through] a decision or two and end my discomfort. I may make the wrong decision, but a decision at least will have been made and I’ll have to rely on God (at the end of my three core years and ten) to bring about those plans and purposes he has for me to come good. For the things I’m waiting for others to decide, hopefully they’ll not drag out the difficulty for too long, noting that it is destabilising for them also to have these things hanging about undecided.   I’m not sure what a reasonable period of time is to wait for that… but I can’t imagine being in the dead zone for more than a month will produce a happy bunny, so I guess that’s the yardstick by which I’ll get very twitchy.. Finally, I can be hopeful that whatever I decided and whatever is decided for me, there is a future hope that all things will work together for good, so I needn’t worry about how many wrong decisions I make, or how blunderous my steps, I just need to worry about how I am leading myself and my family, in Christ.  And if waiting isn’t a passive thing, then I’ll wait for my end of days, by living my life for the glory of his name while there is breath in my body. In the end, isn’t that what we’re all called to do?

What about women in pastoral ministry?

God can and does use all sorts of people (some very unlikely at face value) to fulfil his purposes, the question perhaps though is 'can and does God call women to Teach or have Authority' to which I'm not sure I've heard a satisfactory answer that confirms YES.  I'm inclined to agree with John Piper’s/Wayne Grudem’s reasoning that [authoritive] leadership is male, and hence since preaching conveys ‘at least a notion that a person is sanctioned to address the church gathered in ways which would not preclude them from leadership/eldership of it' such a task is prohibited to women, notwithstanding that I also infer that the literal interpretation of the relevant verses (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, 1_Cor 11:5 and others) makes the most hermeneutic sense. [I should clarify that I don’t think Paul’s intention was that women are totally silent, given the advice in 1 Cor 11:5]  more on these two themes here.

Now because I have a wife and daughters, I am mindful too of the effect of this position, and mindful too that no-one (especially not anyone who belongs to a body that believes in 'freedom') likes to be told that they *cannot* do something.. but if God does not call women to preach, then what (is it that they are being barred from that) causes them some notion of distress? It would be as ludicrous to me as being distressed that I am barred from giving birth or giving a child suck..  But even if I was certain that God does call women to Teach, why does that seemingly automatically follow that such calling need to be exercised within a pastoral context, and not say, within evangelism, women's ministries, missionary activity...? What drives the need to 'preach to the church' when they are prohibited (at least as far as I am currently concerned) with leading it...? The two things appear incongruous to me unless you also remove the prohibition to leadership which would be a next logical step, [and a step observable within several other denominations as one of the next lines..if preaching then why not leading, if leading then why not eldership?]. Whilst we are to employ logic, we may be on dangerous ground if we attempt to extend scripture on logic alone to suggest that scripture a + scripture b MUST LOGICALLY MEAN scripture c applies to whatever agenda we wish it to affect.

To be wonderfully vulnerable and transparent on this matter, and mindful that I may find few who agree with me, I, personally, would be more comfortable with exclusive male leadership within every serving and leading team within a body, not because of in-capabilities but because the kingdom order of headship appears to be male led within the family, and the church. Let me be clear though I am not a proponent of any form of subjugation of women, nor am I suggesting that they are unequal in respect of status in the kingdom of God. They are no lesser saved nor lessor inheritors...  far from it... but we really must distinguish function and authority from equally saved and equally heirs according to promise. Is Jesus greater than God the Father?  Do they fight among themselves secretly wishing that they can function as the other is doing?  If Jesus understood this key concept of submission, why don’t we?

Do I believe that men are infallible as a virtue of their sex.... far from it and I am (thankfully still living) testimony to that fact! Also I have great sympathy for those ladies who have had such poor examples of male leadership whether in the home or church that they have felt it necessary to step up to lead in the vacuum, but however understandable or mitigating it may be, I believe that practice to be in error and never enables either male or female to reach their full potential in Christ.

That there are some women preachers who are eloquent (and seemingly effective) speakers, does not imply retrospectively that they have been given authority to preach nor infers therefore an understanding of scripture that permits that activity.  Scripture must be a higher authority than our own wants, observations, or social cultural bias surely?  And of course eloquence is not the domain of either sex and I am certain that I have heard enough poor, uninspired, life sucking, sermons to fill many days from men! So it is not 'the sex' of a person that determines this but other factors which are not the subject of this post.

I recognize that this is a sensitive and topical issue for not just women but for men and indeed the [newfrontiers] church.  I welcome opportunities to examine my convictions in light of biblical argument, but I'm cautious of arguments based predominantly around attempting to negate biblical instruction as 'societal/cultural' emphasis....as we seem to have a habit of revising history to fit our uncomfortability with scripture!  In the meantime, I sit where I have outlined and because of the need to guard my heart against every wind of doctrine and a desire to test and approve what God's will is I cannot at this juncture submit myself to the teaching of a woman or to someone who suggests I must.

Ephesians 4:14-16
New Century Version (NCV)
14 Then we will no longer be babies. We will not be tossed about like a ship that the waves carry one way and then another. We will not be influenced by every new teaching we hear from people who are trying to fool us. They make plans and try any kind of trick to fool people into following the wrong path.15 No! Speaking the truth with love, we will grow up in every way into Christ, who is the head.16 The whole body depends on Christ, and all the parts of the body are joined and held together. Each part does its own work to make the whole body grow and be strong with love.

Being quiet

I’m quite a loudperson.  I don’t usually need a microphone to be heard in a room, I’m confident to speak to several or few (though I struggle to mingle in a crowd), and I usually have thought through (or can think through quickly) common subjects and discussion topics.  I like to think, enjoy a good debate (political, social or theological), engage with opinionated people who are iron to my iron regardless of view and I ask lots of questions and appreciate the answers.

I find being quiet really hard.  Listening for the still small voice is easier in the quiet than in the noise of an active mind. For me, to be quiet takes extraordinary amounts of effort and patience, and usually people who know me ask ‘what’s wrong’ because their perception is that it’s abnormal (for me).

All followers of Christ are charged with communicating the gospel of Christ, and living a life which displays his radiant glory (words & actions) yet also require humble service and quiet obedience. This dynamic is interesting to present when humble, quiet, obedient, service is by definition almost unnoticed and is certainly obfuscated by verbal communication and demonstrable conviction. I wonder about where blogging fits into the mix.  In many ways it’s a loud activity, communicating to any who stumble upon my musings, and perhaps it gives a glimpse into my heart or head for those with an eye to delve behind the words to the motivation for them.  But is the still small voice evident in the words? is it actually helpful to any cause? Is it quiet, humble, obedience too?

And what of the struggles with my marriage? Surely a man must first lead his household well? – Yet, even when that leading isn’t going to primary plan, does that mean for that season we’re totally useless to God, lest we become hypocrites, believing one thing and doing another?   If I can lose the way here where I have spent most effort, and invested so heavily, isn’t it all the more possible to lose the way in other areas? Shouldn’t that cause me to be silent for now?  - but if a gift is given surely it is to be used – not left unexercised?  It seems to me that if God is the same, yesterday today forever, and if his primary calling to us remains unchanged, and if we’re to be honest with each other as we do life together, then struggles alone do not disqualify us, and disqualifying ourselves only places ground into enemy hands.  We needed saving because we were sinful and we still need his spirit because we are weak. His strength is made perfect in weakness so perhaps I need to be all the more vocal of my own weakness so that He may be glorified in me?  Or have I misunderstood what Paul was talking about?

I need to find the quiet voice that leads the way. There are times I’ll need to be quiet to do that. But perhaps I also need to continue to be noisy in declaring who God is, the extent of his grace, the provision of the cross and the call to his kingdom?  I cannot fear man, what can they do to me? if they kill me, do I not still gain the prize? So death holds no barrier to action..  only my own stubbornness or embarrassment does?

Marriage: Mark Driscoll

I’ve been a bit disappointed with Mark Driscoll's latest series on Marriage. 

Really Good bits:

It would be remiss of me to not mention right at the outset that there is much to be thankful to Mark for in this series: his head on tackling of the need to be friends, the openness about his journey with Grace, the emphasis on working through issues - not working a way out of the relationship, the Q&A sessions at the end of each sermon, having the book in advance to read and work through, and a complementarian view of the husband and wife dynamic within a Calvinist perspective.. not to mention making the sessions free online.

The sessions are set up to be very helpful. The intent is that as the particular component of a marriage relationship is examined corporately, sin is repented of, commitments are made and communion is shared between couples within the corporate meeting.   I suspect that it provides an opportunity to commit semi-publically to change tack whilst still preserving intimacy within a couple. As an example of corporate couples ministry it seems helpful.

Here’s where I find the problem:

In this weeks session – The respectful wife - if I was a woman I’d struggle to have heard any message other than ‘put up and shut up’, and it sounds a lot more like a description of a dominant/submissive set up than mutually submitting to one another as to Christ – which I don’t think he really means to communicate. I’m all for strong men, leading strongly, but we also need to stress that there’s a mutual belonging to each other, not (as Mark seems to espouse) that women are (property and) merely a husband’s ‘helper’.

And why chose ‘respect’ rather than ‘follow his lead’? I can imagine he didn’t want to use submission because its an emotive word and often misunderstood, but respect?  I agree with many of his observations, but it’s not ‘disrespectful’ for a wife not to submit to her husband but sinful! (just as it is sinful for him not to be submissive to her). Mark also suggests that it’s not a wife’s job to ‘love’ her husband, but isn’t submission all about ‘following the way of love’ (Eph 5:1)??  but Mark doesn’t mention this so can’t communicate his helps to women within the context of loving and mutually submitting to each other, and barely mentions that following his lead is first modelled by him as he follows Christ.

I can imagine that as this was one of Grace’s chapters in the book, and given Mark’s character, perhaps this was a big issue for them..  and it’s not that I disagree especially with the points he raised.. but how he presented the session leaves me uncomfortable.   Mark’s usual style of ‘I shout at you cos I love you’, and his presumptions that because (as he seems to see it) the baggage in his relationship with Grace was more from her than him (and ergo his presumption that this is the same for every other marriage) make it difficult to see how his advice to women to respect their husbands can be received open handed.   Often he doesn’t sound very gracious either, and though in the previous session he spoke with Men to realise their responsibilities and deal with their sin, I find myself being more offended by the delivery than the message and having to re-tread the ground later to try to hear the principle behind the smash and grab.

Personally:

I guess what I’m saying is that unlike several of his other series I will be very cautious about who I would recommend this series to, and especially cautious to recommend to anyone whose relationship is in a fragile place.  The writing in the book is a little softer though and perhaps it might be better to read his book and hear the whole discussion in context than attempt to follow in sessions.

When we come together

What is it that I expect when we gather for corporate praise and worship of God.  Do I expect songs and prayers? Contributions from the congregation?  Does it all have to be ‘on theme’?

http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/14-26.htm

Everyone has..

If this is true, why then don’t we make space for what everyone has… Have I prepared and thought about what I have to bring?  Or do I wait for last minute inspiration from the spirit?  Do I have a problem preparing to ‘lead’ by the spirit because I first don’t prepare myself?

A Hymn:

If one has a song, let him sing.  Does it matter if that song is a solo, or congregational?  Does it have to be in the language everyone understands, or can my soul just sing?  What if my heart song is different to others, in a different direction, can a place be found for that?

A Word of instruction:

I guess I expect the instruction from those with authority to preach. But is there room for others to teach?  How does the spirit inspire us to teach in a corporate setting?  How do I understand teaching to be ‘worship?’  Is the attitude of teaching one of humble service, or is it really only an attempt to encourage people to think my way, or draw attention to myself? How do I allow instructions to affect how I worship?  Am I open to responding differently to my natural inclination?

A revelation:

How is a revelation different to a word of instruction? How can revelations be incorporated into our meetings.. Do I need to say ‘Yes, I understand! The scales have been removed from my eyes and my heart is open to receive this truth or instruction I am hearing’.  Or do I need to share how the revelation changes how I will live differently?  What if I receive this revelation during the notices? Can I interrupt (as long as in an orderly way?) Or would we find it offensive if pennies dropped at different times and interrupted the flow of our co-ordinated, spirit led meeting? 

A Tongue:

Am I comfortable with tongues to edify God and ones to edify myself? those that build the church and those that speak only between ourselves and God?  Do I switch off when others bring tongues, because I don’t understand what they are saying, or am I open to the spirit to shape in me the context of their utterings?  How do I feel strengthened by a tongue?  Do I judge the speaker?  Are tongues only helpful during singing or praying? Should I expect my heart to respond to instruction or revelation with a tongue?

An interpretation:

Do I listen to the spirit for an understanding for myself? Do I feel confident to share what I understood?  Do I weigh what is presented, or give space to receive what is said?  What do I do if an interpretation seems radically different from what the spirit seemed to be saying to me?  Do I treat tongues and interpretations as authoritive?  Do I understand them to be God to us, or us to God?  What do I do with an interpretation that seems to be directive? 

To strengthen the church?

What is my motivation for participating? How is my participation both personal and corporate?  Does what I have to say, sing or bring move others towards God or away? How do I encourage someone who brings a contribution? Do I find the contributions others bring encouraging or distracting? Do I judge someone else’s contribution because it comes from a different place to where I am at, or what I want to say to God or others?  Do I recognise when I feel strengthened, or see the effects of the gathered church being strengthened?  Can I identify when a contribution has affected many of us? Am I open to be strengthened by others contributions or am I too defensive?  What does it say about my relationship with God if I remain silent ‘when we come together’? Do these contributions only have a place in our formal meeting, or should they be in evidence whenever 2 or 3 are gathered, perhaps over coffee? or walking to the car park with others?  How closed is my attitude to what’s appropriate, contemporary or relevant? Do I ensure that as a living stone, I have to play my part irrespective of my hearts state or feelings?

Getting the tension right

One of the things I find most difficult to get right is how to manage the work, home, life tension.  I’m fortunate in that I can work at home for the majority of time, but this often means that I blend home and work time and often home loses out.  Work is where we spend a lot of our energies and the bulk of our workdays,. making sure that work doesn’t encroach, but making sure I do a good job is tricky.  Add to that the need to spend time with friends and interact with people in our community and we can be stretched more ways than we can accommodate.

The principles that seem to be important here are :

• Try to listen as much to the Spirit as to people’s requests for time
• Don’t make promises I can’t keep
• Prioritise family over friends but be aware of strangers needs
• Ensure that rest isn’t sacrificed to activity
• Enjoy everything I do because our time is short

I don’t believe in Social Action

Too often social action is described as a project to meet a need.  Some projects and organisation to meet objectives are really helpful, important and necessary, but the poor and needy are not projects to be managed, they are people we are to love and be responsible for.   We cannot, we mustn’t think that because we’re involved in a socially minded project we have fulfilled our obligation to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, heal the sick.  Instead I believe a better terminology would be social responsibility.   It means being aware that our neighbours and strangers we meet have needs, and that we are responsible for meeting those needs. It is to our homes that we are to welcome the stranger, to our table the hungry to be fed, to our wardrobe that the naked are clothed, from our businesses the poor find employment.

If we are blessed with a place to rest our head, with food in our cupboards, with clothes on our back, with employment to earn a living we must not hold it only to ourselves. There is much good that can come from employment and having possessions to share, but we must not become consumed with self advancement or only benefitting our family or our friends. We must walk with eyes open to see where the needs are among our communities.  Galations 6:10 says that ‘as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people…. that doesn’t sound like a project environment to me, instead isn’t it a readiness to respond to needs as we discover them.  What then do we need to do differently to be in a responsive position?  Perhaps it might be that we purchase extra food so that we can bless our poorer neighbour (do we really need a food bank to do this? – though again they can really help) it may be that we cut the grass for all of our neighbours. Maybe we take out all the bins. Maybe that we take people shopping or offer to do laundry.  Maybe we look after people’s children so they can go to work? Maybe we help them organise their money?   Whatever the needs are around us, the peril for not responding is clear…  Ezekiel 16:49 tells us that The sin of Sodom was that they were proud, well fed and comfortable but “did not help the poor and needy”..    I hope I can become more socially responsible!

Changing roles of marriage and sex

 

The variety of ways our society adapts marriage to accommodate different outlooks and desires is as complicated as it is numerous.   I came across a diagram by Franklin Veaux that perhaps exemplifies some of the more common approaches that we might discover if we are to probe beyond the venear of ‘married’ sorts to see what lies beneath.

 Click here to open a very large version of the Map, with labels.

 

Many of the people who are involved in so called alternative lifestyles  often describe themselves as ‘spiritual’ and are therefore prime candidates for us to introduce to the ‘God they don’t yet know’. But for many, their sexual identity is as important to them as their spirituality and many of us will struggle to get beyond our feelings about their sexual lifes to see the person with spiritual needs beneath.

There are (or should be) many similarities between people who are living any sort of radical life, so we should be able to find a great deal of common ground on which to open conversations

For instance:

• Communication, Forgiveness, honesty are integral to sharing and being open.
• Community [‘belonging'] and acceptance [common ground] is shared between many people who practice similar lifestyle choices
• These relationships take a great deal of work to keep together (just like any marriage)

however, many Christians will struggle to deprogram their judgement that sex outside of marriage is wrong sufficient to enable any such dialogue to open up easily.  It is quite natural for those in these lifestyles to feel ‘different’, ‘outside’ of our expectations (the very term alternative suggests not ‘mainstream/normal/acceptable’ to many…) and the challenge to us is to know how to be loving towards these very different yet searching people.

People not projects:

I think one of the reasons we struggle is because we can’t projectise reaching these communities.  It’s hard to imagine church missionaries going into swinging clubs, disrobing and attempting to get on ‘their level’.  While we can meet prostitutes on the streets as they go about their work without being one, we can’t very well turn up at a couples home pronounce our judgement and then expect them to listen to us telling them how they should be living their lives.  So clearly designing a project to tackle the problem is NOT going to work.

But relationship evangelism, seeing a person and loving them… could that work?

If we can see people as people ‘not projects’ or ‘unsaved’ then we have an ability to love them.   What we would perhaps naturally do with our friends, we would be able to naturally do with people who are different to us.. ? As with all our neighbours, it starts with starting to talk.. Say hello. Invite them for coffee, talk about your life, talk about theirs. Don’t condemn, judge or give opinions. Listen and understand what their life is like. What makes them tick. What’s important to them. Talk about what’s important to you. Find common ground.

If someone were to come to our church meetings, we will need to be more careful.  Pastors and welcomers have a supremely important job to protect people under their care.  That care can be temporary (for the time they are in the building) or extend towards offering services (counselling, practical help) and SHOULD include keeping at bay well meaning but ungracious/unskilled people.  It will have taken amazing amounts of courage or a significant need to cajole someone so obviously different in lifestyle to walk through our doors, and the way we approach them should not be left to chance.

People who are naturally good at making friends should be introduced especially if there are things in common such as employment type, children, geographic location or history. But their remit should be specifically to grow freindship, not to counsel.

Now about spiritual gifts, I don’t want you to be ignorant

 

I think the Holy Spirit gets a bum wrap.

1. He’s important, often ‘neglected’ [except for what we can get from him], and misunderstood because he’s poorly spoken about and we look for evidence for him and his interactions with us in poor places.
2. I believe that the fruits of the spirit are helpful, wonderful and central to being a Christ follower.
3. I believe the gifts of the spirit are relevant [for today] and helpful, but finding evidence of authentic ones and using the gifts appropriately is difficult.

in regards to the spirit and how we interact with him..

• I’m often scared of him (not in a holy fear kind of way) but just scared because I don’t understand what’s going on sometimes.
• He seems to be presented so different and out of control than ‘Jesus’ – or probably who I’ve made Jesus to be in my head? - But perhaps it’s not the holy spirit I’m scared of but rather people supposedly affected by the spirit?
• Totally comfortable with the fruits of the spirit “love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self-control” (note ‘self-control’) no-one could disagree that these are great characteristics.
• I couldn’t get through the day without the direction of the spirit or the ability to have his help to examine my motives/actions/thoughts…
• Though I get that in an attempt to be helpful we have talked about him living in my ‘Jesus shaped hole’ (think about that mental image for a minute) – I am uncomfortable with the ‘go on being filled’ if that means anything other than ‘maintain and enjoy / seek out a relationship’ with this person of the trinity.
• I don’t get why we do ‘spirit filling stuff’ [at the front] in church meetings (almost as a spectacle) when we cultivate our relationship with Christ in private, but share his effect on our lives publically.
• being filled with the spirit isn’t a ‘sign and wonder’ as far as I can tell (anymore than God is, or Jesus is)
• I don’t know what the shaking, screaming, laughing, wobbling is.. (I mean I know how we describe it, but I don’t think I have any measure to discern what it is when I see ‘it’ occurring) and I’m uncomfortable with it. – especially if it doesn’t lead to more of the ‘fruits’ of the spirit being displayed in our lives. 
• The filling of the disciples/apostles at Pentecost didn’t require the ‘laying on of hands’ to be filled, and though they acted pretty weird, they were fully able to say what was happening to them.
• If the only time I was aware of the spirit was in meetings it would be like ignoring one of my children except on their birthday. Surely, either we accept and worship the spirit as the third member of the trinity, be as focussed on him as we are on Jesus and God the father, or our understanding and our worship is lacking?

 

In terms of gifts.. 

• Speaking in tongues. I get that. it makes sense, let the heart speak without the hang up of words.
• Speak to edify yourself
• Speak to build up others (praying in/with the spirit)
• Speak to strengthen the church – don’t know how this works, but if it does, fine.
• pray in the spirit, by the spirit’s prompting – seems to make sense and be helpful.
• Interpreting tongues.  this seems to be helpful if the church is to be built up
• Does God speak to us in tongues?  Seems like an extraordinary hurdle that is unnecessary. – rather like when the catholic church only spoke in Latin…
• If he doesn’t generally speak this way, why are interpretations of tongues often phrased as if God is speaking?
• The potential for abuse of tongues then prophecy combo is huge, and though I generally trust our leaders and the people to be well intentioned, I wonder if we ever really correct things that are spoken that assume an authority that is not required, given or appropriate?
• How do we assess if someone has the gift of interpretation?
• Anyone with knowledge of scripture should be able to efficiently and intelligibly speak to remind us of it’s words without attaching to a tongue,
• I wonder, if what is interpreted is speech from someone to God or someone to the church the ability to interpret may be more easily recognised and validated! 
• Though a speaker might not know themselves the words they speak in another tongue, surely they would know whether the interpretation is consistent with what they feel or believe? 
• Or that what they are speaking about is something they have never thought about or are concerned about?
• Prophecy, I get that – if God is alive and well, he’ll surely speak, won’t he?
• Either God speaks or he doesn’t.
• if he speaks, we need to learn to listen to what he says and more importantly do it!.
• If he doesn’t speak, what on earth is all this stuff we hear ‘God’ saying?
• I don’t get a lot of the language that we use when we prophecy.  Sometimes I think we use prophecy as another way of being ‘opinionated’ or to show how ‘holy’ or ‘close to God’ we are.
• So much of prophecy seems very namby pamby.
• I struggle to believe that the God who told Noah what wood to use and how to build an ark would speak so vaguely or so restrictively to those who are attempting to follow his lead.
• Jesus spoke in parables, and though the meaning may be unclear, the holy spirit is supposed to be our helper/advocate.  in which case one would expect his communication to be intelligible, clear and helpful?
• So I’m not at all sure that much of what we hear is prophetic.  Inspired, maybe.. Prophetic? I’m not certain.
• But if we agree that God does speak to us directionally, what do we do with that?
• Authority is an elder function – so what do we do when prophets speak ‘authoritatively’? 
• I worry about the ability to pose and move ‘agenda’s’ by using prophecy. 
• I wonder just how much God really cares about some of the things we think are important? [his ways are higher than ours afterall]
• When we talk to people about how to hear God, why do we often limit their expectation of God speaking [to those without a confirmed gift of prophecy] as saying Yes, No, wait?   This doesn’t seem scriptural or helpful.
• Can you learn to prophecy, or practice it? 
• If it’s a gift it should come from the spirit.
• Understanding if you have the gift perhaps takes the wisdom and discernment of others? 
• Learning when to prophecy is helpful?
• Prophecy workshops?  what are those?
• That we both seem to highly revere prophecy, but not to include it as canonical but also need to weigh it [I’m not clear on who should weigh], AND that we ensure that nothing is considered prophetic if it is not consistent with existing canonical scripture seems a difficult balance to maintain for Christians who just try to live for Christ as well as they can.
• healings, This is always awesome when they are genuine. That God the creator has power to heal and wants to, how can anyone find that difficult. 
• There are pranksters, charlatans and people who just want attention out there. In that regard, Derren Brown clearly makes a great point and i am thankful he exposes the trickery some have clearly used… Hands up anyone who wants authenticity, not showmanship in our meetings where healings are purported?
• Whether a provable physical healing takes place, or that someone no longer complains of an affliction but accepts they have one (and is therefore made more ‘content’) seem to me to both be healings. I don’t know if the emotional healing is given as much credit as it deserves, and surely it is up to God to choose how he heals us?
• I’d love to see more physical healings.  It demonstrates as clearly as a life totally turned around that God is alive and is powerful.
• Discerning of spirits. I don’t really know what this is.
• There seems to be a lot of talk about demons and angels and spirits of the age but I don’t think I’ve really heard good teaching on this subject to be able to know what this discerning really is and how we can evidence it’s operation.
• There does appear to be a lot of nonsense talked about where we see demons in and on people who belong to Christ. I don’t see how this can be possible. If we are new creations, the old has gone the new has come. We now belong to His kingdom, and sin and evil has no dominion over us. If Christ and his spirit is ‘within’ us, how can a demon also be resident?
• I think we confuse demons with sinful actions we chose to do, and use demonic forces as an excuse to not take responsibility for the good we fail to do and the evil we chose to do.
• Wisdom.  Everyone needs more of this. this has to be a good thing
• Get wisdom, get understanding…   if we need the holy spirit to illuminate the scriptures to us, then I hope this is a gift we all have.
• Of course wisdom is nothing if it doesn’t affect our actions.
• it’s hard to be wise unless we read, learn and grow.
• Is the gift of wisdom something more than understanding what is wise?
• Knowledge. it’s surely a wonderful thing if God gifts us with knowledge supernaturally.
• Just because we know something doesn’t mean everyone needs to know.
• surely God speaks to us about more than ‘joe blogs has a dodgy knee’ – I haven’t in recent years observed much of people saying God told me about ‘situation’… I hope though that this is exactly what IS happening..
• I wonder do we maybe get knowledge confused with Prophecy?
• I don’t know how we recognise this gift, nor how we enable the benefit to be used widely.
• Faith.  How rarely do I talk about or ask for this as a gift of the spirit?
• Salvation itself requires faith.  is this gift of faith somehow different?
• surely one evidence of a gift of faith is that miraculous stuff is able to happen…
• mountains leap in the sea
• situations are miraculously altered
• is another evidence of a gift of faith the ability to impart faith into a situation where someone (else) is faithless?
• Seems to me, more than any of the other gifts, this would be a fabulous one to persistently ask God for and practice?
• Miracles:  Signs and wonders:  I guess this would have to be the ‘staff’s into serpents’ and ‘water to wine’ and stuff?
• I haven’t heard of ANY cases of anyone doing these things in modern day. 
• We see miracles as healing (and salvation) only  but what has happened to the signs and wonders stuff that perhaps to our eyes would seem more like ‘magic’
• I’d really like to be able to turn water into wine (the best stuff that people will want to drink)

 

Why have I written these things down?

It’s because if I who have been around church and Christ followers, and have attempted to follow Christ myself for much of my nearly 40 years can be concerned and confused about things of the spirit, how much more might we need to explain to those who observe us?

Isn’t it refreshing when leaders admit what they don’t know as much as what they do?  Surely it gives those who journey with us hope that they are not ‘hopelessly lost’ or incapable of contributing in the family of God whilst they wait to be with Him?

We have real questions to answer when we start talking about the spirit. I cannot be alone in having concerns and worries about what I observe [maybe I am?], but we have nothing to fear about being truthful and open about what we understand and what we don’t. 

We have to accept that there have been terrible abuses and follies. We have to be honest that we don’t always know what’s happening. We have to be clear that the Holy Spirit is God and we’re still learning how to interact with him appropriately.  (and maybe those who do have wisdom on such things, need to help those of us who don’t)

I would like to think that we are word and spirit people.  I cannot ignore this person of the trinity because some things make me uncomfortable. I cannot ignore his prompting, and I mustn’t for the sake of ignorance attempt to squeeze him out of our worship of God. Where i struggle, I want to be open to believe, have faith and know/experience more.  Where I understand, I want to grow in stature and live well.

Is Newfrontiers abandoning it’s commitment to Male Leadership?

 

In 2008 Mark Driscoll addressed the Newfrontiers leaders conference and commended our movement for holding to the biblical principle of male Eldership. Following the conference a critique of Newfrontiers position by a methodist minister, Dave Warnock suggested that our understanding of scripture on this matter was incorrect and several of our newfrontiersbloggers attempted to clarify and explain the position.

To answer my principle question, I do not believe at this time that there is any credible suggestion that Newfrontiers is abandoning it’s commitment to male leadership, but in my own recent research looking at the media download sections of several UK Newfrontiers churches it is clear that our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 differs widely enabling nearly 40% of our churches to [occasionally] permit women to teach when the full congregation is assembled.  (Teaching is assumed to be an eldership function, and as such the preserve of men)

Among my research, I found even  Wendy Virgo addressed an assembled congregation in Horsham on Mothers day (though interestingly CCK in Brighton – until very recently the longtime home for Wendy and Terry - is not one of the congregations that has permitted a woman to take to the pulpit on a Sunday) and in the first minute of her talk she taught that  “we don’t usually make a habit of women preaching on Sunday’s but we do feel that at time’s it’s appropriate”.    I found that this statement was somewhat odd. Either, we have a ‘habit’ [Note: not a biblical principle] that prevents women from exercising their gifting to teach, preach and encourage or we believe that preaching and teaching to a congregation that includes men requires authority that is provided by church government which is exclusively male led.

However I don’t want to get into the discussion that would require greater theological mind(s) than mine to probe questions such as: what exactly is teaching, what  is someone doing when they speak from the assumed pulpit on a Sunday, can women speak formally as long as they don’t teach, is the teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 something that is in reference only to her husband, can single women then be free to teach since they have no ‘head’ in the home, can elders delegate their authority to others, can those that have been delegated to set direction and all such other questions… as these are not the subject of this post… .

The nub of my question is, since a number of our congregations draw the line of where women can teach in different places sufficient to allow some to teach the assembled church, and with many church denominations already opening governmental positions to women, does that mean it’s only a matter of time before one of our congregations elevates someone to the leadership team (beyond children’s or women’s ministry) and enables them to have a directive or authoritive role (rather than a complementarian influential one) in church governance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven’t seen the vision and values statements or who haven’t been following Terry Virgo’s series on these statements here’s the relevant ones to this topic.

7. A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed.

8. A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship with trans-local ministries.

Contesting the incontestable: No2AV/Yes2AV debate

 

It is undeniable that the Alternative Vote (AV) system produces a result that is different from first past the post (FPTP) in constituencies where there isn’t a clear favourite among that electorate.   That AV doesn’t favour (nationally) either of the main parties (as FPTP does) is to its credit because it levels the playing field on which parties with broad support can compete.

• Voting to keep FPTP (because you don’t like AV or you would prefer Proportional Representation (PR) is saying to the government that you are not interested in electoral reform and support the current demonstrably unfair system
• FPTP is unfair in a race with more than 2 candidates, because in nearly every election, the winning candidate will only gain the support of around a 1/3rd of the electorate that bothered to turn out. In FPTP a candidate wins with a minority. 

 

According to the Telegraph.. Twenty MPs from the new intake – ten Labour and ten Conservative – have listed ten incontestable objections to the Alternative Vote system.  (Telegraph points in Italics, my response in normal case)

1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea
1. It is correct to say that AV is only in use for national elections by three countries, but even in the UK there are many different forms of alternative voting that take place for different ballots.  In that regard AV is not obscure, but actually favoured for some elections including the election of the conservative leader!
2. The banality of this argument is obvious though… and one of principle, like saying that we shouldn’t have an NHS because other countries don’t.
   
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
1. Alternative votes only come into play if there isn’t a candidate that passes 50% of the turnout in the constituency AND because their first preference is eliminated.
2. I understand that there will be a threshold in which the votes for fringe parties will be reallocated in the event that none of the candidates reaches that 50% in the first place.
3. This position assumes that those who might vote green or UKIP or even BNP would choose to show a preference for any other party than their own… or at least another one that might raise enough support across the constituency…  In the case of extremist politics, I think that’s highly unlikely.
4. In reality everyone’s vote in AV is counted the same amount of times in the constituency until there is a clear winner. What changes is the allocation of the vote preference. (your principle vote for a labour candidate or a conservative one will most likely be counted in every round against your first choice candidate)
5. In relation to the existing system, FPTP national elections are decided by a small number of marginal constituencies. All this proves is that with each proposed system there is some level of unfairness to some, the question is, is AV more fair than what we have now or less?
   
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone’s fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone’s else’s first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with’ another.
1. No, AV treats someone’s second or third choice with a similar importance in the event that no clear winner is determined.
2. The truth is under AV EVERY voter has an equal chance of influencing the result. – This cannot be said about FPTP.
3. In FPTP, everyone who tactically votes is likely to be voting for who there 2^nd ,3^rd , 4^th etc choice.
   
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL’ THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
1. Though the Jenkins report suggested that AV could produce IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES even less proportional results than the current system, the recommendation was that the best system for Britain was AV+ where 80-85% of constituency members would be elected ordinarily through AV whilst the remaining 15-20% would be elected on a corrective top-up basis. But regardless, the general point is moot because neither AV nor FPTP claim to be proportional.
2. AV isn’t proportional representation, nor does it claim to be.  It is simply a method of enabling more people’s vote to be ‘FOR’ a candidate or candidates, reducing the amount of wasted votes and enabling more people to be engaged with politics, and the result.
3. The reality is that the result will reflect the choices people actually make.  In recent history the most likely outcome is more seats for Liberal Democrats. (if you consider the actual share of the vote nationally)
   
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE’ – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
1. This is nonsense.  With FPTP with more than 2 parties and electoral constituencies with massaged boundaries the only predictable thing about FPTP is that the result won’t reflect the will of the majority of the UK.
2. The reality is that democracy, when allowed to be truly democratic, is unpredictable. I think that is a good thing, because it will return politics to issues.
   
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”.
1. What is not wanted is AV to be the system that endures, but nearly all see AV as a stepping stone towards PR.   The likelihood is that if we don’t vote against FPTP by voting for AV, you will not get another chance to change the electoral system in the UK.
2. If AV is not wanted, then that is what the outcome of the referendum should decide.  But I want it (over FPTP) and so do lots of others. So the general statement is not only incorrect, it is also premature.
   
7. AV IS NO-ONE’S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
1. The Liberals would prefer PR to be on the ballot paper. It isn’t.  Given that the only options are FPTP and AV, AV is the first choice.
2. NO ONE voted for the coalition manifesto. That doesn’t mean the same as No one wants electoral reform 
3. The referendum is on which is BETTER, not which one is perfect.  I can’t see that FPTP is better than AV.. though I can certainly see faults with both.
   
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
1. This is a nonsense too.  In Australia after AV was introduced the turnout rose.. This was BEFORE they introduced compulsory voting.
2. Anyone who can count to three can vote in AV. It takes no explaining.  Rank your preference 1^st choice, 2^nd, 3^rd.
3. I agree that voting should be compulsory (even if people only spoil their paper)  but with turnout being voluntary no-one really knows if it will increase or decrease.. wouldn’t it be interesting to try?
4. My own view is that anything that rewards peoples action to vote is likely to encourage voting.
   
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won’t be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
1. This has already been refuted.  Manual counting is not just possible, but possible in similar time. 
2. Where there is a clear winner, the count will be exactly the same
3. In the event of reallocation of votes, the second and third rounds will take much less time because only some votes are being reallocated.
4. The benefit of electronic means of recording or counting the vote is a separate issue to be addressed whichever system of voting is used.
   
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That’s why it’s a shame that we’re about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
1. I agree that other reforms are needed. But that doesn’t mean this one isn’t needed, and this is the one before us on May 5^th.
2. Do you think it is likely that the Government will offer further reforms if we don’t turn out to vote?

What does a Christian need to be for lesbians and gays?

I am becoming convinced that the language and intent we use to talk to people (especially in existing gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, swinging, polyandrous or liberal communities) needs to change to be consistently crystal clear on:

• God's love and OUR love for PEOPLE,
• the redemption Jesus offers through the cross to everyone who believes ,
• the acceptance and support provided by a church community towards anyone wanting to follow or find God,
• what sin is and it's effects on our ability to be right with God, (why we all need to change)
• sexual orientation/preference is not the sin, it’s what you do that matters
• and our personal assurance, integrity and openness that we have no room to judge what others struggle with

… because

• we all struggle in different ways and seasons to eradicate sin and live up to who God made us to be.
• it is next to impossible to say to someone in a supportive like-minded community to switch to an unsupportive, judgmental church community
• it is up to God to change people’s hearts, it’s our delight to celebrate and encourage the changes
• conviction is a work of the holy spirit, not the judgements of our own intolerant hearts
• if we have been unconditionally accepted by God, wouldn’t we want to extend that same acceptance to each other?
• we cannot compromise on what the bible calls actions that are sin, but neither must we compromise on continually loving each other and extending mercy, forgiveness and grace

Why I‘m voting YES to AV on May 5th

 

There are several reasons why I’m voting Yes to the Alternative Vote (AV) on May 5th 2011 that I’d like to share with you.

I’m REALLY tired of politicians being elected by less than a third of the people who turned out to vote.    This major factor means that nearly everyone can complain they haven’t got who or what they voted for, and gives cause for them to disengage with the political process and opt out of responsibility.

Here’s the results table for Cannock Chase 2010

Name	Party	Votes	%	+/- 2005
Aidan Burley	Conservative	18,271	40%	10.1%
Susan Woodward	Labour	15,076	33%	-17.9%
Jon Hunt	Liberal Democrat	7,732	17%	3%
Various	Other Parties	4,480	10%	5%

In Cannock Chase District, in 2005 Labour won with 51% of the vote. Under AV that result would stand without a second round. In 2010 Conservatives were elected with 40.1% of the vote, leaving 33% voting for Labour and 17% voting for Liberal (on a 61% turnout).  The voting majority of Cannock Chase (nearly 60%) did not appear to want a Tory MP as their first choice but that is what they got which to my mind is clearly unfair.  First past the post (the current electoral system) works really well in a 2 horse race, but with the vote as fragmented as it is between more political parties it just doesn’t make sense to use a system that can elect a person/party without a true majority of support.

AV is all about MAJORITY PREFERENCE. Under AV, If there is a clear winner (50% of any vote) that person is elected straight away with no second round count.  This means that it is as easy as ever to remove a dodgy MP, but it’s also as easy as ever to ELECT a person we think might do our county good. But because a prospective MP (or returning MP) has to get 50% of the vote to avoid second round counting, they have to work hard for us for more than the 6 weeks before an election.  They cannot just rely on their party affiliated supporters to see them through, they must win over floating voters and those from other parties by their actions.   That to me seems a jolly good.

If you only want ONE vote to be counted against your candidate, then you can choose to ONLY mark ONE box on the form. There is no compulsion for you to vote for more people than you want.  So if you can determine that the values and policies of only one politician are ones that you can support then you can continue to exercise your vote in the way you do now.  In the last election, I found that I was most in agreement with one party, somewhat in agreement with another, and definitely opposed to the policies of another.  It would have been likely under AV that I would have exercised my first and second choice only.    In the 2010 result, if I had voted for either Conservative OR liberal, then given the coalition government that was formed I should feel that my vote really made a difference in who is running the country.

However, I think one of the greatest benefits of AV is that for the first time in a long while you can actually vote for who/what you want, not for what you don’t want.  Your first choice will count towards the first round just like now. If you however have also indicated that you would be happy if another parties candidates policies were successful  then if there was not 50% of the vote, your primary vote can be reallocated to a second round candidate.

We have no way of truly knowing what might have happened In Cannock Chase but given that 60% didn’t want a conservative candidate where could the remaining votes have gone? Would there have been enough residual support for Labour to elect them in the second round once they had a bloody nose from the first?  Would Liberals have captured a popularist surge from people who would normally vote Conservative or Labour (because they had more chance of winning) but feel more comfortable with Liberal policies? Or would the Conservatives have won over those who were making protest votes with minority parties in the first round but would feel comfortable that Conservatives had a workable plan to put us on a path to recovery?    We can debate that forever and a day, and we will never really know.. but I would have liked to have found out.

Certainly AV is a change in how we vote now.  How we approach change in our lives is really important.  Often we approach it with a mixture of fear, nervousness and sometimes excitement. There may be many questions you have about what AV is and what it isn’t, and you may think that there are some things you don’t want to have happen that will force you to vote against AV.  One of those thoughts is that AV could allow the BNP to be elected, but let me ask you, just how likely is that? Remember, they would have to get 50% of the population believing that their policies are helpful sufficient to get 1st, 2nd or third round votes allocated to them.  In the last election only 2,168 people in Cannock Chase voted for the BNP, so how likely is it that another 20,612 people would be convinced enough to add them as a second or third choice sufficient for 50% of the vote from those who turned out?  I don’t think very likely at all, even as a protest vote.

I have given you some reasons for voting for AV you can find out more from the Yes2AV campaign. The No2AV campaign will provide several reasons for you to fear the Alternative Vote system, what I would ask you to think about is, what is it you want, rather than what you don’t want.

Is the Church really the hope for the world?

The developing thought stream on Martin Charlesworth’s blog and his observations through to part 4 of  Jesus's manifesto resonated with me deeply, but I was caught off-guard by the inclusion of Bill Hybel’s quote that "The local church is the hope of the world". I haven’t read where that particular quote comes from (though Bill's twitter page includes a quotation that embodies a similar theme), but as I read it, and connected it with Martin's observation of Jesus's mission in manifesto part 4, I thought ‘surely, Jesus Christ is the hope for the world?’

I fully appreciate that in any Christian quiz unless the answer is a squirrel, it is always Jesus, and it is so in this case isn’t it? When the church with it’s projects and activities, becomes more important than Jesus, when our actions are tempered not by his grace and mercy, but by our missional objectives, don’t we begin to believe that our program is what will save people, rather than salvation being a sovereign work of Christ by grace through faith?  [When we think of our Catholic brothers isn't our observed criticism that it's their tradition that has replaced relationship with Christ? That format and function has replaced action and purpose?]

Secondly, though Martin affirms "that the life of the church should naturally spill over into the society within which it is set", he appears to miss that the reason “social activists feel marginalised in local church” is not because the church doesn't provide programs, but because the church refuses to legitimise their participation in anything that is not church branded/run (as if church meeting or project participation is the only contribution that matters). 

Don’t we have to cease the somewhat childish pursuit of identification through branding? Isn't the identification of being 'follower of Christ', 'salt and light' enough?  It is surely wholly irrelevant whether a member of our community serves in our local church project or in some other (church or secular) project, so long as we have contact with those in need and are able to help, expressing the love of God as we go? Isn’t it true that where 2 or 3 are gathered there he is amongst us? If 2 or 3 are serving, isn’t church existing and visible? If the only way we can accept that the church operates in social action is in function, project and structure we surely miss the countless thousands of souls who would pass by our buildings and projects unaffected because we wouldn't step outside our paradigms to meet them.

Martin is right though to highlight that church leaders have a pivotal role in empowering it’s social activists, and I appreciate too that he hasn’t in this post (or yet in this discussion) outlined the ways in which that empowering might occur - so he may be coming to observations similar to mine, but I sincerely and humbly hope that he agrees with me that unless Church leaders legitimise life giving activities outside of the four corners of their building [and continue instead to attempt to squash God given passions into the restrictive shoes that the leader provides or his programs enable] we will not recover the everyday social action that was prevalent in the early church.

Finally, though I’m in danger of standing on my soap box ranting… the western middle class church has become clunky and unwieldy, stylised and way too comfortable and ineffective [reminiscent of the churches many of us left 30 years ago!]  It’s almost as if we need to hear Christ tell each one of us to ‘sell our possessions and give to those in need’ before we will be confronted with just how far we have moved from the early church life and the love and care they expressed to each other in the course of their daily life. When we are giving only from our plenty it is costless to us. When a Basic’s bank for example is established, it is not food from our table that we are sharing with the poor it is too easily Pharisaic-like wealth that we are showing off. May the Lord have mercy on us and preserve us from our church branded 'plenty' schemes for we know not what we hypocritically do to further damage people or damage the name of Christ however well intentioned our actions.

1 Timothy 4:7-10 (Amplified Bible)

⁷But refuse and avoid irreverent legends (profane and impure and godless fictions, mere grandmothers' tales) and silly myths, and express your disapproval of them. Train yourself toward godliness (piety), [keeping yourself spiritually fit].     ⁸For physical training is of some value (useful for a little), but godliness (spiritual training) is useful and of value in everything and in every way, for it holds promise for the present life and also for the life which is to come.     ⁹This saying is reliable and worthy of complete acceptance by everybody.     ¹⁰With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] ^[a]suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Saviour (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him).

How do you read controversial books?

Thomas Stanley’s blog post has been twittered in the #lovewins stream because he suggests 5 tips for reading controversial books, and Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived specifically.  You can read his post here.

His five points are:

1. Chew the meat, spit the bones
2. Don’t discount the 2000 years of thought
3. Don’t believe it just because it’s Rob Bell. Don’t ignore it just because it’s Rob Bell
4. Use this book as an opportunity to deepen your perspective on this issue
5. Consider the larger perspective

I read the list yesterday and felt uneasy about it… but couldn’t quite figure out why… having had time to sleep and reflect, here’s some thoughts…
Assume for a moment that there was no controversy surrounding Bell's book, should the advice be the same?  I think it wouldn’t be and here’s why.

1) It’s the Holy Spirit’s Job to illuminate truth

What is the role of the Holy Spirit here?  If we approach a book simply with a subjective 'take what is good' approach, aren't we in danger of doing that with the Bible too?  wouldn’t the net effect be that the things we find difficult to understand/apply we would simply reject?
And how is someone to know what is good and what isn't?  Imagine for a moment that we're talking about a book on occultic practices. Now imagine that as part of that book there was a chapter on meditation and centering, which got you to breathe in a certain way, and open your mind to the possibility that what you know is real, isn't and that the consequence of spending time in this state would be a greater appreciation for your fellow man. Now image that book had been given to everyone in your christian community. Can you still take what is good?

2) Major Doctrines have been debated and decided already

Church history is littered with theological branches right back to 4AD.  There is some academic interest in reviewing the what and why's of these arguments, but isn't it preferable to start from a thorough knowledge of what is established doctine/statement of faith now?  Since Bell doesn't paint one, it's difficult to reflect backwards.  What the church suffers from is clarity of belief expressed in communicable action.

3) It’s the narrow gate that leads to life

I mainly agree here, but what concerns me isn’t that Rob Bell wrote this, it’s what it says or doesn’t say.    We don’t need more skeptics, we need more believers.. who can clearly communicate the loving Gospel.

4) Perspective isn’t it… it’s what you believe that matters.

• Scientific research suggests you start with a hypothesis which you rigorously try to disprove. Only when you can't disprove it do you consider it can be true and try to confirm it.  If you can both not disprove it, and reproducibly prove it, the probability of it being true increases.  
• Christian research however starts with a belief. That belief is by faith, built on your understanding of the bible, illuminated by the spirit, and experienced through relationship with the risen Christ.  

While we can approach some validations of scriptural truth scientifically, the key element required for ‘belief’ is faith. Faith needs to be built on what is dependable.  Perspective isn’t faith.

5) Perspective of what?

We can change the actions of christian culture where we have become lax in applying sound biblical doctrine. Certainly I could agree [with Bell] that we should be more loving and more serving in our dealings with people, and certainly less closed off to the world..  But when we’re talking about christian culture aren’t we really talking about ‘what the kingdom of God looks like?’  In that regard, shouldn’t that be based on dependable truth?  Such as we all have sinned, we all deserve punishment, that punishment is total permanent separation from God, But Christ who was fully God, fully perfect, took on himself the penalty of sin for us all as the sacrificial, substitutionary, atonement. In taking the punishment, He defeated death and enabled a restoration of relationship with God which, if we respond to his forgiveness, justice and mercy, enables us to enjoy that relationship with Him forever?  Isn’t that the Gospel that nearly all of us subscribe to who call ourselves part of the kingdom of God?  And isn’t it from that understanding that our hearts and our actions are compelled to live differently (if imperfectly)?  

Finally, I would not encourage new Christians to read any book that is not consistent with mainstream christianity and to be read ‘within’ the context of membership within a church community. There is a place and time for debate around issues and it's important to have that debate, but movement leaders need to be clear to be giving direction, straight answers to questions and being crystal clear on beliefs and conclusions.   The apostle Paul encourages us to 'have a reason for the hope we profess' and this reason shouldn't come from what you've read from Bell, McClaren, Piper, Keller, or the Daily Planet but should come from the Bible, illuminated by the Spirit.

Which Supermarket is the most ‘ethical’

 

Last Sunday I was in Southampton and I heard a compelling argument for why Christians needed to be concerned with ethical practices of the stores they used.  Now I’m not hippie (though it’s true I drive a 73 VW camper van), and considerations of where we buy our food, clothes and products for a family of 6 has usually come down to ‘where is the cheapest’. 

On that Sunday, I heard the suggestion that Tesco and Asda (Walmart) were amongst the least ethical, and in my own internet research I’ve had to look hard to find ethical claims or policies for other supermarkets. (even before you get into looking at the issue of large supermarkets killing off town centres, reducing overall employment and pricing little local guys and convenience stores out of business.)

For the preacher, the overriding principle (or golden rule) that we should look at when determining our purchasing is:  Matthew 7:12 (ESV)

¹²"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

at first glance this doesn’t seem to be relevant to the discussion until you see what the effects are of shopping in a place known to use exploitative labour.  The net effect is that I’m saying it’s OK to exploit child labour, underpaid labour, stupidly long manual labour so that I can have produce at a cost I want to pay… and given the above, I therefore acknowledge that I want to be exploited so someone else can have what they want at the price they want…  - see the problem?

Three things have begun to concern me (and I must confess at this point, I’m at the beginning of a journey, not anywhere near to reaching fully actionable conclusions across the board)…

1. Purchasing locally, from local producers ensures a local economy, local jobs, and fewer miles travelled (carbon footprint) why then do I (or any of us) need to purchase items that have travelled hundreds if not thousands of miles and have had to be covered in chemicals to keep them ‘fresh’.   But where I struggle here is that even though the conditions may be squallid and I wouldn’t ‘choose’ to work in them, in an environment where there is such mass poverty and very few jobs am I hurting them all the more by not buying the produce that is bought?  Certainly the effect on the ‘chain’ from UK is very likely to be nil by the inclusion or exclusion of my money, so I will also need to look at what I can do to work positively in the local regions of the food producers.  It really isn’t as simple as boycotting something and promoting something else.
2. What I’ve NOT seen to date is Supermarkets INVESTING in production environments to enable reductions of production costs.  So for supermarkets to be able to undercut other providers either means they,
   • have to carry an item at a loss,
   • have to squeeze the producer for the lowest possible cost,
   • use unscrupulous methods to produce, transport and provision items for our consumption. 
3. I am stinking rich compared to any folk in the developing world. I have stuff, far more stuff than I need and far more than I use. I am wasteful and materialistic, my surroundings are deferentially comfortable but not basic, I have more electronics than required to do my job.  I don’t turn things off to save power, I don’t consider walking much instead of driving and I’ve rarely thought about the effect on people other than those that I can see in the way I’ve chosen to live my life.

There may be all sorts of objections to what I’m concerned about, some legitimate, some just belly aching that perhaps we might have to examine another area of how we live… and it’s certainly easy for me to come up with objections of why this is not a current priority for me, and why it needn’t be for the church of God.

What struck me though in my own reflections on this, is the following 2 verses in Matthew 7

¹³ Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. ¹⁴For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few”.

I don’t want to infer that because the doors of Tesco (say) are wide they are the route to destruction… but just because a lot of people travel through them, doesn’t make it right.

So what am I doing about it?

• Food: Francine and I are discussing changing our food shopping habits.  This is painful for us because while there are two supermarkets that have ethical policies that seem very much on the right lines (co-op and Morrisons) neither deliver, which means that there is a cost right there to Francine in how we do shopping and how much time and effort it is going to make (Francine is not a woman that enjoys shopping!)  it is also going to mean that we will have to drive to a supermarket/town to get items that we would have had delivered and shared the cost of delivery with the other shoppers on our round… so there’s an actual cost…   and then there’s the inconvenience of having to get used to a whole new shopping place/items and costs… at best these will be opportunity costs, but I suspect there will also be some real cash costs to this too.
• What I’m finding particularly hard to work out is if the situation for any supermarkets has actually changed.. – I’ve read articles like this one that suggest that Tesco is being forced to review it’s policies, but that was 2007. Connecting the dots and finding out what the position is now, is very hard.
• At the moment I have no idea what this means to the budget for NEWDAY when we will be food shopping daily for around 80 people… Do I have a right or a responsibility to enforce ethical shopping on everyone else?  Especially when several of those people will be ones who can ill afford any increase in cost.  A thorny question indeed..
• Clothing: With very few exceptions I’ve been happy to buy my shoes from ebay and my clothes from Tesco. I’ve even bought things from Primark. I have looked in charity shops and have bought the odd ‘for best’ item for weddings or events from more expensive shops.   I will have to review where I can shop, and make more ethical choices…   I’m not sure if there are resources I can find to help me..  seems to me I could be making more ‘expensive’ mistakes, and I’d hate for those to go to the hands of business leaders rather than to the hands of manufacturers labourers where families would be fed.
• Banking: We’ve been making use of a one account.  This has enabled us to increase cash flow, which in turn has enabled us to be generous with giving.   I have no idea at this point how ethically each bank is run (and whether that ethicalness is limited to retail or investment sectors, or whether that should matter.  What I am certain of, is that if we need to move banks and ergo the mortgage that’s gonna cost us.
• Environment:  How we treat the planet is not a hippie notion, and my current selfish view of ‘the effects are unlikely to be significant for hundreds of years – assuming there are effects that we control’ just isn’t gonna cut it.  I’m going to have to consider if it is justifiable to work 100 miles away from home and whether the transport I use to get to there is protecting the environment I would want to inherit if I was to be born in 300 years time.  I need to consider the damage I’m doing by what I consume and what I throw away.   This is a big area to think about, and it’s gonna take some time to research it.

I’m sure there are going to be other things I need to consider.. but it’s a start, no?

Here are some resources I’ve pulled together which might help anyone else thinking of starting off down this road

• Why buy Ethically
• What is FairTrade?
• What is Christian Ethics?
• Make Wealth History
• OXFAM strategic plan