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.

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.

Predestination and Salvation's call

The biggest issue I have with predestination is that I may not be, or people I'm connected to may not be part of the elect.  Though I can be comfortable with God's sovereignty in many areas, that he may distinctly not chose a family member or indeed me makes me very uncomfortable (and unable to know how to adequately respond).

I'm comforted with the passages that also promise whosoever will may come to God, but  isn't that a bit like lining up to play football and being the last to be picked? You're not really wanted there, but since there's no-one else you can play the game?  Perhaps I have the wrong view of election and predestination, perhaps its for similar reasons I struggle to believe that God has to regenerate a person's heart before they can respond to God, when clearly those who might respond to God already understand that their efforts to reach him on their own merit aren't enough and they need 'saving'.  The unregenerated heart still feels the disappointment of success in worldy terms and still reaches for more longing for wholeness and belonging that nothing other than God can bring. This seems to me to  be 'built in' to the dna of a person.  It would be a very odd person who would wish that should God be convincingly demonstrated to exist they still wouldn't care a fig what He thinks of them.

In the end, though for God to be God doesn't he have to set the rules of play?  Isn't it really up to God who he saves and who he doesn't?  Why should he be subject to my preference?  Yet he is loving, gracious, holy and just.    but for totally selfish reasons the challenge for me is to know who God has chosen and who he hasn't.  I want to know if I can ever say to anyone again with certainty that 'God loves you', or is there some way that I can see a permanent banishment from God as somehow loving?    I want to be able to resolve satisfactorily in my head and heart that Jesus' sacrificial gift was perfectly executed, and includes everyone irrespective of whether everyone responds and without what appears to be heretical universalism.   I want to know what the point of evangelism is, if salvation is simply a spirit enabled, sovereign act of God, and HOW to evangelise without misrepresenting the truth and preaching a gospel other than one that saves.

Maybe the truth is that  there is a synergy in the saving grace from God. Maybe it is not we reach for God or he reaches to us, but perhaps it is that both reach for each other from the beginning of time? perhaps looking for a linear logic to understand the cause and effect is too limiting for an action of a God who is so sacrificial in his Love for us? perhaps the paradoxical approach is the only one that fully combines the scriptures which extol the grace of God and our need to respond to the yearning for God that is within every human heart?

But what of comfort?  What of the certainty of where we go when we're finished with our mortal body as we await our resurrection and face the final judgement? "God knows" seems poor comfort when a person has lost the physical comfort of some loved one's presence.  Do we need to be able to determine whether those who have lived with us are included in Christ?   and do we need certainty of salvation to attempt to live right? Isn't the law, still the law?

All I can say for sure right now is that with everything in me that can, I want to love God.  I'm convinced that to the fullest of my ability to respond, I'm organising my thoughts, actions and hopes heavenward, mindful that there are some areas of my life that are yet to be subject fully to his law - even after all these years of trying to follow Him.   If my sins are able to be counted paid in Christ, then I am grateful his sacrifice, grace and love is sufficient for me.  Even if I am not counted as covered by his blood, it does not remove the need to comply with his law which is still a better [perfect] way to live with each other even if there is no eternal reward.  Whether I am or not chosen, elect or disqualified from his saving grace, I hope I can graciously live to bring little shame to his name while I am alive in my body.  God is still God, He is still creator and author of life, I still owe him everything whether he wants me with him forever or just for now.  He is important, I am just a flicker in the flame of life... a gust in the wind... a moment in history.

I'm at a funeral today. I hope that it gives me opportunity to talk about death, life and God. I hope that my own struggles don't get in the way of pointing to Christ. I hope that in pointing to Christ I don't lead people to disappointment, but to life. I pray that to whatever measure possible in my regenerated or unregenerated heart I can be influenced by the Spirit of God to be wise, humble and loving.  I pray that theology doesn't just affect thinking, but action, and that action comes from the heart and the head.  If the power of the resurrection is available to me, I trust that i will use it well to proclaim Christ, and him crucified so that those who can respond to the Gospel of Christ [by whatever method is valid] can do so and there may be a party in heaven for those that are welcomed in.

Why are so many people struggling with their identity?

The article in gospel coalition which questions whether we are making disciples or deists raises some interesting discussion points.

1. Should Christians be happy?
2. What reasons for salvation did we communicate to those being saved?
3. After Alpha ( a good start point, but has it’s own theological glaring gaps) how do we prioritise teaching good biblical theology?
4. Is our sermonising ‘self-help’ with a biblical flavour, or is it good theology with life application?
5. Do we expect our thinking to be revolutionised when we come to Christ, or harmonised with our secular humanism?

The ages old precept of read your bible, pray every day is often replaced with journaling [or blogging] and counselling, and our midweek meetings tend to retain a semi-pastoral emphasis rather than seeking to engage with how we understand then apply theological understanding, and tragically few people know how to make alive what they are reading sufficient to share with each other, encouraging and building one another up.   The concept that we are followers of Christ together, having being radically transformed by the gospel, and the regenerating work of the spirit seems to be partially if not totally lost despite our theological reformed (calvinist) bias.

Could it be that the degree to which the common person (one that doesn’t hold a church office) is encouraged to educate themselves theologically has been reducing to the extent that anyone who enquires for themselves is now considered the oddball?   Moreover, I’ve lost count of the number of leaders who suggest their expectation of those in our pastoral care won’t read the bible for themselves, let alone understand what it says. Leadership may then become focussed at compensating for this loss of theological understanding and bible reading, rather than encouraging and working with the spirit to lead, teach and guide.  It’s almost as if for many we’ve understood our ‘service’ culture to be ‘serve me’ rather than serve each other and that we need to be spoon-fed from our leaders rather than running with them to hunt down and consume the meat.  It is wondrously surprising that despite the plethora of translations into understandable language, and the number of copies in the average Christian (sic) home the book is largely unread week to week.  If we truly believe that God is revealed through it’s pages it behooves us to dedicate our time and energy to knowing what it says and living it out.  Proverbs 4 tells us to get wisdom and understanding, and that surely is a call to educate ourselves.. not leave it to others.

But where can the common man go to aid their understanding?

• Though Wayne Grudem’s systematic theology is a reasonably easy read, most of my contemporaries ironically use it as a reference book to dip in and out of, rather than to systematically read, so that perhaps is not the best starting point. 
• Discipleship groups then? these could help, except it reinforces a leader, follower mentality which removes ownership of study from the learner – but we all have to start somewhere, so perhaps this has some merit.  Perhaps our midweek groups should do more than ‘unpick’ the Sunday sermon? 
• What about visiting each others homes daily to encourage one another, to pray, break bread and encourage one another while giving praise and thanks to God? – perhaps that seems too religious?

By far the biggest challenge here is not one about what the church does and doesn’t do to grow followers of Christ – though we need to look at what and how we do that - it is fundamentally that we have miscommunicated what a follower of Christ looks like, and take few steps to correct it.  This lack of clear identity, ‘what a Christian looks like’ allows all manner of alternative outlooks to find a foothold and delay our move to biblical thinking and attempting to change it after birthing people poorly is hard work, problematic and should be unnecessary if we do it right the first time!

What, you thought your life was going to be easy?

You wouldn't face any hurdles, obstacles, challenges or difficulty? (John 16:33)  Isn't it for this reason we are to edify ourselves and speak in tongues regularly? (1 Cor 14:4-5) singing psalms and hymns to each other (Eph 5:19) - so we understand what God's will is? (Eph 5:17) And what of the armour of God? (Eph 6:10-18) Is that only for decoration?  

The harvest field won't reap itself (Luke 10:2) but the corn is ripe in the field (John 4:35), waiting for you to harvest it!  It'll be hard work, you'll sweat, your flesh will be torn and you'll suffer (Phil 1:29), but you'll rejoice in those sufferings (Rom 5:3) because it produces fruit in you of hope, peace and joy that will quieten your feelings and purify you (1 John 3:3). So get dressed and be ready for service (Luke 12:35), be obedient and humble (Phil 2:8), be thankful and pray continually (1 Thess 5:16-18) be kind, compassionate and forgiving (Col 3:12-17) do good to all (Gal 6:10)  and if you are to go on living in your body make sure your labour is fruitful (Phil 1:21-22) while you press on towards the prize (Phil 3:14)

Surely you know these things are true? - Don't waste time listening to the whispers of fear from your feelings whilst ignoring the shouts of life and encouragement from the pages of the bible and from the Spirit. Are you being a giant (Num 13:30) or seeing giants (Num 13:33)?  For nothing is impossible with God (Luke 1:37) and he chose you and predestined you according to his plan so you can live for the praise of His Glory. (Eph 1:11).

JUST DO IT  !

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?

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!

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.

Thinking about marriage

There’s always been a bit of a furore about marriage and sex in Christian circles. I wonder is it possible that we confuse our biblical understanding of marriage, betrothal, engagement and responsibility when looking the lens of [western] legal marriage concepts and societal expectation and if so how easy is it for us to separate what we have practiced as the norm from what the bible actually says?

For a whole host of reasons, I’m not offering an answer to that question – this is after all a blog which captures some of my struggles to understand and live right and I wouldn’t want to knowingly or unknowingly [Rob Bell like] lead any reader to conclusions I don’t support - but I share below some of the questions that have challenged my assumptions/perspective…

• Hypothetically: If it could be proved that Jesus had a sexual relationship (with Mary Magdelene ) would that challenge His divinity, or our understanding of sex[ual sin]?
  • If Jesus did ‘kiss Mary on the mouth’ (as suggested in gnostic gospel of Philip), and ‘loved her more than the other disciples’ (as Philip and gospel of Mary Magdelene suggests) does that redefine what we might see as appropriate loving contact ‘prior’ to marriage [if we assume that had Jesus have been married it surely would have been recorded?]
• Might the growing trend towards co-habiting, civil partnership and alternative lifestyle choices in our communities require us to redefine how we speak about marriage so that we are clear about what we communicate is God’s plan? If indeed God has but one blueprint for the way in which each of us should live.
• In cultures where plural marriage is permitted by law would we define God’s understanding of marriage differently? (Does God actually care how many wives/husbands we have (or had?). Is it important that the Trinity is 3 not 2 persons? Do we speak of responsibility to wives rather than singular wife? Do we promote divorce as a method of ‘making right’ something which is ‘wrong’?)
• In cultures where there is no marriage ceremony but where there is an understanding of ‘belonging’ would we define sexual activity within that relationship to be sinful?  If not, how do we respond to co-habiting couples in the West? – ie what exactly are we communicating is biblically sinful? (sex without legal contract? sex without clarity of exclusivity?)
• Is it right to conclude that faithfulness is not about how many wives or concubines a husband might have, but how you care for them? 
  • Is marriage then more about faithful responsibility (provision and offspring) not sexual monogamy?
  • What then is the biblical definition of adultery? Since if one even looks with the eye at another he has committed adultery in his heart (even before a sexual act has taken place!)
• Paul seems to suggest [1 Corinthians 7:32-33] remaining single is preferable to marriage, and that marriage is reserved for ‘if you can’t control yourself’… [1 Cor 7:36] So is God for marriage or against it?
  • For elders and deacons is it essential they are married?…
  • or if they ‘are’ married essential for them to only be married to one woman (presumably at once)?  
  • What then do we make of ‘it is not good for man to be alone?’
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of men available to sire children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, wives and sex subtly change?
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of women available to bear children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, husbands and sex be different than if men were in short supply?

 

What I’m pretty certain of is:

• Marriage is a good thing for lots of reasons. Some biblical, some practical. some personal
• Taking responsibility for each other is serious and important.
• Providing stable environments for child rearing is essential.
• Loving relationship (as an antidote to brokenness) is always on God’s heart.
• How we speak about how people live demonstrates to them what the kingdom of God is like.
• I don’t think Song of Song’s is primarily about God and us,  nor am I certain (from the text) that the sexual activity was exclusively post marriage. [but then I voted for the Alternative Vote so what do I know :) ] .

You may find some answers to the questions above in some of these links: (* determine for yourself their validity to speak on the subject) better still do your own research / ask your elder..

• http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/whats-wrong-with-sex-before-marriage.htm
• http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
• http://www.thelivingwordtbc.com/1cor23.htm
• http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/07/is-john-piper-okay-with-polygamy/

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.

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

What is death?

I find some scriptures really confusing.

The bible uses the word death or dying in a number of places and it is not always clear whether it’s talking about physical death, spiritual death, eternal separation, decay, what happens to our old man when we accept Christ.

I’m not a studier of Greek or Hebrew, so I have no idea what word is being used and in what context other than from the translation provided by hopefully learned folk who have attempted to translate the text faithfully into a language I sort of understand.

This morning then I was reading in John 8. There is a discussion between Jesus and the Jews which culminates in Jesus explaining that not only does he know Abraham (despite being less than 50 years old) he has spoken with him. [Presumably eluding to eternal life and to recognisable states of existence in the after earthly life]

So far so good…

But the bit that confuses is what is to be understood by John 8:52

⁵²The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.'

• Are they talking about the same death?
• Is Jesus suggesting that people who hold to His teaching never cease to breath the air of this blue/green sphere?
• Is the death we won’t taste that Jesus is suggesting the same as the one in Matthew 16:28?
• Or what about Hebrews 2:9? What death did Jesus suffer for all of us so that we don’t all have to ‘taste death’?

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

Rob Bell says he isn’t a universalist, but….

If you haven’t yet checked out the Rob Bell interview on MSNBC with Martin Bashir, questioning just exactly what Rob is saying in his new book, please do check it out..

 

I’m not going to comment further, check out what he says for yourself.

Is there a problem with how we argue the sanctity of life?

"... [In their attempt] to thwart the abortion movement many well-meaning Christians unintentionally exalt man by declaring him to be of infinite worth. Abortion should not be fought on the basis that killing a human being is wrong because he or she is so valuable, but on the basis that, when a child bearing God's image is slaughtered, it is God who is attacked because that child bears His image. If you tear up a picture of my wife, you'll have me to answer to -- not because of the intrinsic worth or value of the paper and print that you destroyed, but because you have insulted my wife. An attack on the image of God is serious, not because of man's supposed great worth, but because of the One whose image he reflects" (Dr. Jay E. Adams, A Call to Discernment, pp. 18-19).

Dr Adams’ argument seems to be directed as an “offence to God” and I must admit I just never thought of it that way, but isn’t that the reason like murder that it’s so abhorent?

• Does this, should this, affect how we determine to minister to women (and men!) who are faced with an unplanned pregnancy?
• If we don’t discuss the impact of potential actions from a biblical perspective, won’t someone who later comes to faith say ‘when I had an abortion no-one told me I was offending the Father?’
• Are we perhaps guilty of only attempting to provide sympathy and understanding with no attempt to be biblical and direct?

I’m not sure I have any answers here… I’d be interested in peoples comments…

Rob Bell, Theology & the battle for mindshare

I'm inclined to agree with Phil Whittle that trajectory isn't necessarily the best marker for indicating what most of us believe – given that far too many of us (me included) are far too influenced by the thoughts of others and not our own carefully thought out, researched position guided by the Holy Spirit?… but shouldn't leaders, particularly ones with lots of followers be especially careful to be consistent?

I think it's helpful for Rob Bell to ask questions about what we believe and why we believe it, as much as it is for all of us to have answers for the hope we profess, and if it drives our church leaders to be more explicit on areas of theology especially ones that we are generally quiet about, then it's net effect can only be good for our congregations too...

But I also have some regard to Matt Hosier’s understanding of trajectory. Mark Driscoll suggests that he wouldn't have some people in his pulpit, because he sees that a principle responsibility of a shepherd is to 'protect' the flock. In that regard I too don't encourage the use of Rob Bell material in our congregation and would be cautious in who I encourage to use or read his material because the conclusions that I draw from his teaching to date do lead to spirituality over relationship and ultimately universalism.

One final thought. There are hundreds of pages written everyday that tout theologies that are different to mine. We don’t generally come into contact with them regularly and neither do our congregations.  Perhaps, in giving media space to Rob Bell’s forthcoming book, we are giving it prominence that might give reason for some to select his book to see what the fuss is all about.  In that regard, maybe we are just as guilty of causing others to stumble?