tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10954737103794690482024-02-20T01:28:40.601-08:00Alan MolineauxThoughts, Ideas, Musings, and humour from writer and speaker Alan Molineaux.Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-8175896129601527082016-01-30T11:36:00.003-08:002016-01-31T01:16:21.715-08:00Attacking Britain First is not as brave as one might think<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
It would seem somewhat churlish not to welcome the news that the UK's most prominent Christian denominations have denounced the organisation known as Britain First. It has to be a good thing when those who follow the Prince of Peace speak out against groups whose currency is fear and hate.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
Perhaps the problem, however, is that Britain First are too easy a target. Their tribalism is so very obvious that it is easy to identify as racism. Church members are hardly going to feel offended if their leaders say 'The actions of Britain First .... are not those of peacemakers.' It is hardly controversial. It would Have all the controversey of saying that Westboro Baptists were 'being a bit rude'.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
It's one thing to direct your criticism to the most overt examples of xenophobia but one has to ask where the voices are when it comes to objecting to groups that might appeal to some members of our congregations.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
When the BNP's Nick Griffin shared a platform with one time Ku Klux Klan member, David Duke, one wonders how many church leaders made public comments.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
Even more pertinent, is perhaps the silence from some senior church leaders when UKIP's Nigel Farage agreed that “In Ukip-land there would be no law against discrimination on the grounds of nationality”</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
Britain First are the obvious extremists in society who are easy to speak out against. UKIP, on the other hand, speak a kind of racism that resonates with some in our congregations. Speak out against them and we might lose church members. I have been unfriended on Facebook on more than one occasion for suggesting that UKIP's ideology was not compatible with Christianity.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
This intersectionality, between speaking out for peace on the one hand, and placating the inbuilt prejudices of our congregations in the other, is not exclusive to UK Christianity. It does seem to be a recurring problem.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
So whilst I tentatively welcome church leaders confronting Britain First's misuse of the Christian message, I am also comfortable with pointing out that they have done little more than attack an easy target; one that will cost them very little in real terms. Not the best example of being a prophetic people.</div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; font-family: SourceSansPro-Regular; font-size: 15px;">
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/29/britain-first-denounced-every-christian-group_n_9111138.html?1454146813</div>
Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-90701074340243825572015-02-06T15:07:00.001-08:002015-02-06T15:07:38.813-08:00Piers Morgan confuses journalism with sophistry when it comes to ISIS<p> <span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Piers Morgan has written about the horrific murder of an Arabian pilot by ISIS. He makes great efforts to say why such action should be stood against. In doing so however he makes a grave error that seems to be common amongst people of his political persuasion.</span></p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">He conflates the actions of ISIS with the responsibilities of every Muslim person. In doing so he:</span></p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">1) ignores the many statements by Muslim leaders condemning ISIS</span></p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></p><p class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><p style="margin-bottom: 6px;">2) suggests that all Muslim people need to watch the video in order to confirm their disgust of such actions.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 6px;"> </p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;">His writing is typical of propaganda politics - he states something everyone should agree with (the murder of this poor man) and then links it with an erroneous conclusion (it is a Muslim problem).</p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"> </p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;">This is sophistry not journalism.</p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"> </p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;">Here is his tweet and look link:</p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;"> </p><p style="margin-top: 6px; margin-bottom: 6px;">RT @piersmorgan This is now my most-viewed @DailyMail column:<a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2938746%2FPIERS-MORGAN-Watching-ISIS-burn-man-alive-abominable-thing-seen-Muslim-won-t-stand-barbarians-watch-too.html%3Fcb%3D13543&h=6AQESf9LJ&enc=AZNs2xBlGhAU1d9wJHNWR573SQMkF4i3hgIhFpveUEcajaRQwU37ifnkU05FCvV8IpH0fcuQsUuunThHgXiqpz6x_lxv3bYlSD4yCf4ijOOoXT2M46v9gKQepzrZwQI5zMlxZrQzo9_rtOal0LfWz63Wmz7j6SNGuxlc4j48noUaIw&s=1" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" style="cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/PIERS-MORGAN-Watching-ISIS-bur…</a></p></p><div style="text-align: right; font-size: small; clear: both;" id="blogsy_footer"><a href="http://blogsyapp.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://blogsyapp.com/images/blogsy_footer_icon.png" alt="Posted with Blogsy" style="vertical-align: middle; margin-right: 5px;" width="20" height="20" />Posted with Blogsy</a></div>Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-70554203720691676032014-05-23T06:23:00.001-07:002014-05-23T06:23:37.444-07:00Someone must be to blameGiven how many people have voted for UKIP I have looked at their methodology and decided to copy it. <br /><br />1) They paint a picture of when life was so much better. When you could leave your doors unlocked etc etc. Summers were warmer too. <br /><br />I have chosen September 16th 1960. <br /><br />That was when life worked well. We need to return to those days. <br /><br />2) You need to highlight when things got worse. There must have been a change. Something that happened. <br /><br />I have chosen September 17th 1960 after all everything was good on the 16th. <br /><br />3) Then you find a minority to blame. There were about 1500 people born on 17th Sept 1960 in the UK. Given that this is when it all changes it must be their fault. <br /><br />I would reckon that at least 800 must still be alive. <br /><br />We need to find them and send them back where they came from. That will solve everything. <br /><br />Hang on a minute! I have just remembered that I was born on September 17th 1960. I am a good upstanding member of the community. I can't be the problem. <br /><br />Come to think about it the 17th September was a good day back then.<br /><br />New plan - all the problems are caused by those born in 18th September 1960. <br /><br />Round them up. It's time for change.<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-66968526268637732422014-05-21T15:05:00.001-07:002014-05-21T15:05:31.742-07:00English Football and the Labour PartyI have been somewhat disillusioned with British Politics since 1979 when my first opportunity to vote saw my wishes ignored and Margaret Thatcher moved from being the milk snatcher to becoming the declarer of a society free country. In the years that followed I attempted to use my vote well in trying to secure some version of socialism; at one point even attempting to become a local labour councillor. I say 'attempting' in the loosest sense in that I campaigned in a rural part of Norfolk giving me less of chance of being elected than of David Moyes being invited to a Manchester United manager's reunion party.<br /><br />I like to think that perhaps Stephen Fry voted for me but I suspect he was too busy practicing his manservant skills.<br /><br />So here I am a fifty-something idealist considering repeating a lifetime pattern of voting for the Labour Party in both this week's European ballot box and the next general elections, still hoping for a bit of socialism to be brought back to the country I love. What I have seen over the years is a succession of Labour leaders trying to act like the Tories in order to gain power. In order to win.<br /><br />I have been somewhat disillusioned with the England football team since 1986 when Diego Maradona employed the 'hand of god' to knock our team out of the Argentinian World Cup. My dismay is not really with Diego but with the way we English place an expectation upon our national team to be what we are not.<br /><br />Every four years we are treated to a succession of English teams trying to play football like the Italians, the French, and a whole host of other countries. <br /><br />I wonder if we were to give up such fanciful notions and played to our strengths what kind of upset we might produce in international competitions. Trying to be what you are not generally brings about disappointment. <br /><br />The comparison between the English football team and the Labour Party seems to me self evident: both are trying copy others in order to win.<br /><br />In his excellent book Obliquity Professor John Kay suggests that setting our sights on the most direct goal, whether profit, winning, or success, generally brings about failure. In comparison the more oblique response has a way of often producing the success that we may hope for. 'The happiest people are often not those who aim to be happy' he suggests.<br /><br />So if Roy Hodgson ignored the possibility of winning the world cup and focussed on playing a style of football that suited our current crop of top players could it produce a better outcome. <br /><br />If Ed Milliband decided not to make residence in Downing Street his driving ambition but looked to express what it meant to be a left-leaning party would the voters respond to the freshness of a genuine opposition voice. <br /><br />Personally I would rather vote for a party that was less bothered about sound bites and more interested in principles. So Ed I implore you:<br /><br />Tell us that if we can afford to pay for war we can afford to pay for a health service. <br />Tell us that you will work toward full employment. <br />Tell us that you believe in good education for all.<br />Tell us that you will expect the rich to play their part in funding our nations infrastructure. <br />Tell us that austerity is not the only way of dealing with economic crisis. <br /><br />The country might not vote you into power but at least you will be true to what it means to be a socialist. You may not be asked to form a government but at least you will be a credible opposition with a voice worth listening to.<br /><br />Who knows, in an oblique way, by trying not to make winning your goal, at the expense of your principles, you might actually surprise a few people. And if you did get elected at least you will have a mandate to be truly socialist.<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-44427557694658671732014-04-05T09:57:00.001-07:002014-04-05T09:57:18.665-07:00The Emergent conversation has failed........or has it?According to twitter it seems that the emergent church is dead; or at the very least terminally ill. It's not unusual to see commentators describe it as 'the failed emergent experiment' as if a few of us tried to do things differently and had no perceivable effect. <br /><br />Recently during a facebook debate with the charismatic church elder statesman Gerald Coates on the LGBT issue he told me that the 'liberal' church was on the decline. The context of the debate, where some of us emergent evangelicals challenged his stand against marriage equality, reveals that he wasn't taking about good old fashioned liberals here but this new brand of progressives and inclusivists that are no longer willing to tow the party line. <br /><br />So is the emergent church a 'failed experiment'? Are liberal evangelical voices on the decline?<br /><br />Here are just a few thoughts:<br /><br />1) It is important to note here how new movements tend to see themselves within the context of the general culture that they are trying to critique. In addition we need to see how the prevailing seats of power respond to these voices. <br /><br />The recently deceased British politician Tony Benn spoke of how new ideas are treated by the established power base:<br /><br />"It's the same each time with progress. First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you."<br /><br />Although his remarks were made about the general political and social scene there does seem to be something of a familiar ring to them.<br /><br />During the early 70's the Charismatic Movement in Britain was fighting for its place in the wider church by suggesting that every new 'wave' of God is resisted by the previous one. In support of this argument they showed how Methodists rejected Salvationist, who rejected Pentecostals who were (at that point) rejecting the Charismatic Movement.<br /><br />I would suggest that Benn's statement could be somewhat true at each of these stages. At first the charismatic churches were ignored, then called crazy. They were soon declared as evil only to find themselves within a few years as key players within British evangelicalism. (To be fair this does not quite equate with acceptance by everybody as Benn suggests but I think the wider point is valid)<br /><br />Yet here we are all this time later and key establishment figures like Gerald (at the time of writing his facebook status declares that he has just been invited to Downing Street for talks with the Prime Minister) are re-enacting something of the very scene that they experienced all those years ago; this time against progressive/liberal evangelicals (often known as emergent).<br /><br />I haven't seen any evidence that Gerald and other critical voices have acknowledged this example of history repeating itself.<br /><br />2) At the moment very few liberal/progressive/inclusive evangelical commentators are self identifying as 'emergent'. I suspect it is because, as often happens with labels, the word has lost some of its original meaning. After all there was a point when the self proclaimed defender of 'real' marriage Mark Driscoll was described as emergent. <br /><br />In the earlier days of the conversation many people gathered around the idea of deconstruction (sometimes demolishing) the perceived norms found within the traditional evangelical places of safety. Of course being drawn together by an agreed dissatisfaction with the status quo does not mean that everyone will agree on where one should land after the conversations have been had.<br /><br />Some have revised there positions to remain within the structures that they critiqued. Some have used terms such as missional to offer an understanding of how the methods might change whilst the trajectory remains the same. Others have cut loose from the pain of rejection and found a home in other parts of the church more traditional understood as liberal. There are some of course who have wandered away from a formal expressions of church completely.<br /><br />Now I don't completely hold with the narrowness of the old charismatic argument that suggests that the new wave is always resisted by the previous one. I think it has something interesting to say but it tends to suggest that God is only working in one way at any given moment. It think this was a little presumptuous back in the 70's and is still so now.<br /><br />I do think however that what many are seeing as the 'failure' of the emergent movement could be what Benn describes as the 'Pause'. After all we have been ignored, we have been described as both mad and dangerous.<br /><br />3) I also think that part of the DNA of the emergent disquiet with the status quo was to redefine the markers of ecclesiological success.<br /><br />When someone who sees church success as being primarily, but not exclusively, large numbers, a visible presence, a seat at societies debating table, looks at the emergent church they will no doubt feel justified in declaring it a failure. <br /><br />Although I cannot speak for everyone I do know that some of us have come to the conclusion that our goal is, in keeping with an incarnational motif, more about hiddenness rather than notoriety.<br /><br />During Jesus' lifetime the majority of people on the planet were unaware of either his existence or his teaching. Even within his own culture the significance of his presence was not fully understood.<br /><br />In stark contrast to this are the usual markers of church success in a charismatic, Pentecostal, evangelical context. The goal seems to be distinction, size, excellence, and popular fashion. Churches are counted as successful if they are growing numerically and produce presentational excellence; with large screens, pa systems, and lights. Added to this is the regular challenge for individuals to be distinct from the world around.<br /><br />This may not be true of all, or even most of the charismatic and pentecostal churches but when one considers the influence of larger churches upon the rest we would do well to recognise the aspirational nature of this context. The language, markers, models, processes, and visions of the larger churches are presented as the gold standard in many quarters.<br /><br />So the pressure on many church leaders is to produce an alternative to the culture within which they work. Church youth clubs are funded rather than supporting existing local community venture. Departments and programs become feeds leading toward the centre; the church congregation.<br /><br />In contrast to this I would like to suggest that the incarnation is more about emersion within the community rather than separation from it. Perhaps building bridges rather than walls represents the way of Christ.<br /><br />The gospel message in the usual context sounds like an invitation for those ‘outside’ to come ‘inside’ and become like us. An incarnational message is more about a journey taken by the church towards the community.<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br />So if you judge the emergent church by whether it is being noticed, or by the use of the label, or by whether it has produced large vocal churches you might well conclude that it has indeed failed.<br /><br />You would do well to consider, however, that the questions that we have raised and the conclusions we have drawn are out there. They are in the minds of many of the people who fill more traditional evangelical, charismatic, and pentecostal churches. They might not vocalise it because to do so might be too much of a risk. You might think that they all agree with your stated evangelical set of beliefs but I am not too sure. <br /><br />So have we failed? I am not so sure we have! We might just be in the 'pause', described by Tony Benn, waiting for whatever comes next. You might be surprised by the revolution that has already taken place. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-17788765909456042442014-03-21T15:12:00.001-07:002014-03-21T15:14:39.351-07:00No Makeup - It's all in a good causeWithout warning my Facebook feed seemed to be filled with photographs of women who had decided to take selfies whilst not wearing makeup. Was this some kind of feminist statement I thought! <br /><br />No! It seems that each of these participants had felt compelled to do so in support of the charity Cancer Research; which at this point has raised in excess of £2 million. <br /><br />At first I was quietly impressed by the willingness of these aspiring models to bare all; at least as far as their faces were concerned. Then it struck me that each of the photographs contained a freshness that I wasn't really used to. <br /><br />Being the father of four daughters I was always aware that our culture contained some ingrained inequalities; I had even joked at how it is relatively easy to be a man when getting ready for social events. Even buying clothes was a stress free event compared with that endured by my wife and daughters. 'Shirt, tie, trousers, done!' I would exclaim after shopping as if I had triumphed at a major event.<br /><br />Even with the awareness that living with five females is bound to bring I still found these photographs surprisingly refreshing. They seemed honest, open, and dare I say it beautiful.<br /><br />Having had family members affected by the disease I am glad that Cancer Research have been helped by the campaign but I wonder whether there might be an added bonus to this. <br /><br />Perhaps men like me who have hopes of supporting the fight the feminist cause might become more aware of how hidden inequality is in the ordinariness of everyday life.<br /><br />I never, for one moment, feel the need to hide my true self behind makeup and yet my daughters and wife experience such pressures every day. This issue is not really about whether women should wear make up or not but about the unequal pressure placed upon women compared to men.<br /><br />I wonder whether this new found freedom to be photographed without camouflage might make us realise that true beauty is shown by people being willing to be their true selves in order that those in real need might be helped.<br /><br />These are very selfless selfies!<br /><br /><br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-30311071741644515622014-03-19T00:10:00.001-07:002014-03-19T00:10:36.498-07:00Peace, peace when there is no peaceThe latest episode in the recent Mark Driscoll saga has produced predictable responses from those who have a tendency to support him and other high profile mega church pastors. I am sure that others could also have predicted the response from those, like me, who would offer a critique. <br /><br />I am particular concerned with those who choose to call for a quieter response to his recent open letter of apology. Not withstanding that it could be suggested that his letter was neither open nor an apology, it seems that his supporters want us all to calm down and accept his humility as a sign that everything is rosy in the Mars Hill garden. <br /><br />The calls for peace seem to fall in to two main categories:<br /><br />Firstly, there are those that suggest we should remain quiet because the bible encourages us to speak to our sister or brother directly. If this fails we should include a few others as direct witnesses of our conversation. <br /><br />Secondly, some are suggesting that now that Pastor Mark has apologised we should receive this with grace and move on. Of course this sounds like the Christian and noble thing to do. Keep the peace, act in a gracious way, look for unity. All the marks of good Christian advice.<br /><br />But I, for one, have a considerable problem with this challenge for two main reasons:<br /><br />1) Despite what his supporters suggests Mark is not acting in just a 'local church pastoral' context. He has used, and to some degree abused, the global system to his advantage. His motives may well have been to further the message that he believes in so passionately but he has gained personally in terms of both finance and notoriety. Mark has purposely placed himself into our context. <br /><br />You may well argue that 'you don't need to buy his books' but that underplays the role that multi-site, multi-context ministries play in the life of a local church. As a leader in a church some several thousand miles away from Seattle I can see how his particular form of Christianity bleeds into the consciousness of people who read his words at face value without knowing the construct that governs his worldview. We would be perhaps acting in a negligent way if we remained silent in order to spare pastor Mark's feelings.<br /><br />2) I may have been able to take the calls for peace, unity, and silence more seriously if many of Mark's supporters had previously spoken out on behalf do those hurt and damaged by some of his previous behaviour. Note here. I do not just mean those that have attended Mars Hill in the past but those who have been the subject of increased ridicule because they fall into the categories mark has chosen to ridicule in the past.<br /><br />Surely the calls for peace can only be taken as seriously as the silence we have seen with regard to justice for those who have been hurt. You surely can't have one without the other.<br /><br /><br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-39014094867776828402014-02-06T15:45:00.001-08:002014-02-07T01:21:41.394-08:00Three Phases of Engagement in Church"Without a vision the people perish" so goes the oft quoted biblical proverb. In our church experience it has been used by leaders to suggest that 'the' vision of the church leader(s), and therefore the church, is worth fighting for; it is possibly even more important than the hopes, dreams, and lives of the individual church members. <br /><br />Paul Scanlon, who for many years headed up the Abundant Life Church in Bradford, England, wrote in his book 'Crossing Over' about his vision of moving from their existing building to a larger complex built on their campus site. He spoke in a sermon about those who left the church during this period and used the phrase 'we lost them in the car park'. <br /><br />Paul isn't alone in finding it preferable to overlook the stories of those who seem resist to change. There are countless times that my wife and I have been at leaders meetings and felt the surge of power invested in the delegates to return to their pulpits and join Isaiah in setting their faces 'like flint' in ignoring the dissenting voices in our congregations in order to fulfil our destiny: the metaphors and narratives might change but the meanings don't. <br /><br />Over time we became increasingly weary of such teaching as we realised that it didn't really resonate with the picture we see in Jesus who would not only 'lay down his life' for his sheep but would willingly leave the ninety-nine in order to find the individual who had become lost. <br /><br />On considering both our own experiences and the stories told to us by others we have begun to see several patterns emerge in many of the scenarios where the vision has been held up as the highest reference point for success. <br /><br />Firstly, church engagement is not a single entity; it is certainly not an upward journey of increased adherence. This is, of course, true of all human organisations, I use the same model when training managers in business, but has particular resonance for our church context. <br /><br />I would like to suggest that there exists an organisational entropy when it comes to a person's engagement to a group, community, or vision. Most of the models that I have seen explaining how to secure human engagement tend to paint a picture of an onward and upward journey toward increased adherence. I am not sure that this is either possible , or even perhaps desirable. <br /><br />I would want to suggest a three phase journey experienced within a community: <br /><br /><br /><a href='http://photo.blogpressapp.com/show_photo.php?p=14/02/06/919.jpg'><img src='http://photo.blogpressapp.com/photos/14/02/06/s_919.jpg' border='0' width='400' height='300' align='right' style='margin:5px'></a><br /><br />1) Enthusiastic<br />2) Realistic<br />3) Apathetic<br /><br />Each of these phases have particular narratives, drivers, and feelings associated with them.<br /><br />1) Enthusiastic <br /><br />In this phase the church members tend to believe in the vision expressed by the leaders. They are immune to, or choose to ignore, many of the ways that leaders act that cause disengagement in those in the other phases. <br />When leaders speak in hyperbole they choose to nod in agreement and repeat the messages to new people. When they are asked 'what's not to like about this?' they cannot think of anything but a positive response. <br /><br />In churches that have a tendency to be highly driven by vision there is often little room for doubt to be expressed. Sermons often contain conversation halting statements like 'you cannot out give God'. In this context any questions raised about the church tithing policy are painted as representing a lack of faith. <br /><br />In addition membership, or commitment to the church vision, is conflated with faithfulness to God and so it is not rare to hear statements like 'if you are not in church you are not in the will of God'. Again this stops honesty and further discussion by placing a heavy weight on disagreement. Now you are not just disagreeing with the church you are disagreeing with God. (See Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Criteria for Thought Reform for more on this)<br />There are several possible reasons why those in phase 1 find it easy to ignore what seems obvious to others. Sometimes it is because of the promise of perceived benefits to be found within churches that adopt an aspirational model. It likely will be suggested that adherence to the vision will result in the possibility of the individual's personal vision or goal being fulfilled; leading a team, speaking from a platform, playing in the worship band or the like. The model often fails because it tends to adopt the same numbers game model used by TV talent shows. That is; promise enough people personal fulfilment and a few will have the talent or gifts to make the dream a reality. These then become the trophies of success that encourage others to believe in the process. <br /><br />In addition to this are other motivational factors such as the need to belong or the desire to be part of something successful. It is hard to resist the comparison with pyramid selling schemes at this point. <br /><br />Whilst the individual's journey is progressing towards the aspirational goal it will be relatively easy to ignore what those in other phases find difficulty with. <br />This enthusiasm and adherence is fuelled because leaders will encourage those who appear to be in phase 1 by including in them in conversations, valuing their input, and involving them in what appears to be an inner circle; at least at a surface level. <br /><br />2) Realistic<br /><br />I would suggest that it is almost impossible to remain in phase 1 for an extended period of time. In fact most leaders do not reside in the Enthusiastic phase even if they appear to do so. Pete Rollins speaks of this when he highlights the presence of twin, competing narratives within organisations. The headline narrative of a church, he says, might be 'God heals' but the unspoken or hidden narrative that most people, including the leaders, really live by is 'God heals: but if you are really sick go to the hospital'.<br /><br />In the realistic stage there is a greater influence upon the individual from this unspoken narrative. The dissonance between the message from the platform and what people see in practice becomes harder to ignore. The outward behaviour of people in this phase may at times still look like that of the inhabitants of phase 1 but internally questions are being raised and the process of disengagement has begun. <br /><br />Even so people in this stage will still likely stay in the church. This is driven by a variety of factors.<br /><br />It might be that the fear of being rejected might hold them to the group. This in turn is fuelled by the leadership's well-defined descriptions of what is 'in' and what is 'out'. Added to this are the oft pejorative descriptions of what the 'other' looks like. The implication is that other church's are not where the real blessing is to be found. <br /><br />Sometimes people stay because of the possible effects upon other family members or because they may well be on church staff and so are tied financially to the vision. <br /><br />Leaders, if they perceive this is happening, will tend to treat this group differently that those in the previous phase. Rather than people feeling included they will have a sense of being used to fulfil the vision. Their value is therefore linked with their usefulness to the ultimate goal. <br /><br />Any hints of dissension will be tolerated because it is likely to be hinted at rather than overtly stated. Behaviour that does not fit with the standard set as the norm will be challenged from the platform. We were in a large church some while ago and the senior leader announced from the platform that 161 people had arrived at least 2 minutes late for church that morning. The congregation were then 'encouraged' to give their full commitment to God; in essence conflating church attendance with obedience to God. <br /><br />3) Apathetic<br /><br />With an increasing sense of awareness of the narrative dissonance described above it is almost certain that people will find the need to disconnect emotionally from the central vision of the church. <br />People will have a greater awareness of feeling like a commodity in the process of moving towards the vision. Seeing others being 'lost in the car park' tends to make those who remain feel used too. How you treat those who leave has a direct effect upon those who stay. <br /><br />Leaders will often ignore or even demonise those who are in phase 3 in an attempt to create a narrative that undermines any complaints that they might raise. Once someone is painted in a bad light it is easier to ignore their voice. <br />Eventual, if employed, they will be dismissed. If a lay member they will be discouraged from having a voice thus making it almost impossible for them to stay. In a sense this is like the ecclesiological version of constructive dismissal. <br /><br />The only two choices they are left with is to either remain silent but internally disconnected or to leave the church altogether. <br /><br />In the above I am not suggesting that the motives of the leaders are always in question. Bev and I have been both hurt by such a construct and been part of group building the problem. I think the wider culture of theological training, denominational fervour, and leadership teaching encourages the behaviour described. <br />Whether fair motives or foul, however, the result is that individuals and families are sometimes sacrificed on the alter of achieving the vision: even if we just call it losing them in the car park. <br /><br /><br />I will be posting further on some ways we might tackle this issue.<br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-16410986573937872282013-10-20T23:01:00.001-07:002013-10-20T23:01:15.517-07:00From 'farewell Rob Bell' to 'You're fanatics charismatics'It's not that long ago that John Piper felt confident in excluding Rob Bell from the evangelical playground with his infamous tweet. Many others piped in (no pun intended) to declare that Rod was now confirmed as a heretic. I presume he had been on the slide for a long time: that sort of behaviour is likely yo get you kicked out of the playground. He had been a very naughty boy in suggesting that God might be a bit more gracious than some Calvinists had hoped for. <br /><br />At the time I had many an internet debate with my charismatic conversation partners about whether Pastor Piper had been too quick to make such a statement and I was surprised at how few understood my concern at the use of the 'H' word against someone to whom we find disagreement with.<br /><br />Well now John MacArthur has raised his voice in support of the idea that we can exclude others from the playground by declaring that Pentecostals and charismatics are in fact worse than Rob Bell and other so called liberals and should be considered in league with the devil: or at least in swing with him.<br /><br />At the time of Bellgate I was a little dismayed at how few key leaders spoke in defence of Rob's right to raise legitimate questions about how we understand the grace of God. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, it seemed to me obvious that exclusion was not helpful.<br /><br />Now, some of the voices that tried to defend John Piper's tweet waving goodbye to Rob are becoming louder in reaction to their own rejection from the fold by John Macarthur. It doesn't seem quite so comfortable now does it?<br /><br />Let me declare my hand by saying that I became a Christian in a Pentecostal church and spent many years as part of a charismatic stream. I am, for sure, nearer to Rob Bell's thinking than most charismatics would want to admit but I have not rejected all of my pentecostal heritage. As such I completely disagree with Pastor MacAthur's cessationist theology.<br /><br />Having said this my argument is not with him or his gang of strange fire reformed baptists. My concern is with those who remained silent when Rob was being thrown out of the fold and who are now complaining because they are being given the same treatment. <br /><br />It seems that the use of the 'H' word is easier to live with when it used against others.<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-87207680622206636252013-07-10T13:18:00.000-07:002013-07-10T13:33:13.259-07:00My Hidden Advantage When it comes to Gender IssuesI have been commenting on a blog by Mike Duran entitled '<a href="http://mikeduran.com/2013/07/are-christian-feminists-hurting-their-cause/comment-page-2/#comment-122287">Are Christian Feminists Hurting Their Cause?</a>' In which he suggests that the recent response to Emily Weirengy' piece called '<a href="http://www.prodigalmagazine.com/the-lost-art-of-servant-hood-a-letter-to-my-feminist-sisters/">The Lost Art of Servanthood</a> (letter to my feminist sisters)' has pushed him towards complementarianism.<br />One or two comments have been overtly against how I see the world - even suggesting that t might be noble for a woman to stay in an abusive situation. I have been misunderstood in some of my response. I don't particularly mind this but it does show you how we all come to such issues from diverse points of view. <br />I have tried to suggest to Mike that the hiddenness of our prejudices make it almost impossible to not be affected when we engage in debate. In light of this it is important for us to recognise the advantage we have before we look to comment on how another group might respond to a particular issue. In one sense, as a man, I may well be sympathetic towards feminism, I may even call myself a male feminist, but I cannot truly be one because I have been given the invisible advantage of being male in a patriarchal society. The thinking goes like the: <br />1. When two people engage it is highly likely that one person will have an advantage over the other that they may not be aware of; but it exists. In a patriarchal leaning society the male will have travelled through life with an invisible passport not possessed by the female; this will have given access to areas in education, work life, church, and wider society that operates in an invisible way. It is not overtly expressed but is conditioned by all of the images around us. <br />It is not just with gender but also with race, sexuality, education, family background. So many ways. It is said that doors will have been opened more for a good looking person compared to someone less visually appealing by societies standards. This is about advantage.<br />2. There's is a saying in Britain that the Queen thinks the whole world smells of fresh Magnolia paint. This is because when she is about to visit a place someone will have just painted. Because of this she cannot know what the world smells like for the rest of us. At one level this might be said to be not her fault because she doesn't write to people to ask them to paint. The people do it because of some conditioning about what a queen should expect. At another level, even though she can't change it, any comments she makes will either be unconnected, if she doesn't acknowledge her privilege, or connected, if she does acknowledge her privilege.<br />3. When men comment on how women have reacted to an issue (as Mike has done with his blog) he does so from a position of privilege. I am absolutely certain that he has not intended to cause offence to anyone. In fact I feel very sure that he writes about what he sees as a genuine issue for Christian communities. It is, however, the lack of acknowledgement of privilege that makes the words that seem reasonable from one perspective unreasonable from another perspective. Has Mike done this on purpose; no. Is he being intentionally patriarchal; no. But the positions we have that are fuelled by the advantage we have use the patriarchal system that has given them the advantage.<br />So when Maya (one of the commenters who challenges the main thrust of Mike's blog) expresses her frustration that somehow there is a mismatch between how she might be treated as a woman and how I might be treated as a man, it is fuelled by the hidden advantage.<br />I know this because I have journeyed to try to work through my own hidden use of the patriarchal advantages that I have been handed. At first I wanted to react against it because I have always seen myself as being against sexism. The problem however is far deeper than we can often see.<br />Mike responded thus:<br />'Alan, so is there any way, any man, can suggest any woman, is ever wrong w/out having it “charged with hidden advantage”? I apologize, but this sounds more like feminist theory psycho-babble. And if you “have been where some of the men are who are commenting” and have overcome your “privileged status,” isn’t it possible that some men have overcome that bias too…but just disagree with you?'<br />My response was as follows:<br />1) Of course we can offer critique and challenge. We just have to be aware of our advantage. <br />2) You might want to dismiss it as feminist theory psycho-babble but I would encourage you to think again. It is wider than just a feminist issue. If I take my own context as a white, western, educated, male, church leader, then I look to be aware that:<br />- When I meet with my UK Asian friends I have had doors opened to me that they haven't.<br />- When I speak to those from say Africa I have a western advantage of both resource and opportunity.<br />- When I meet with those who have not had the educational opportunities that I have had I recognise that doors have been opened to me not based on intelligence but on being able to convert my thoughts in to exam results.<br />- When I speak to church members I try to recognise that I am afforded treatment in our community that they do not receive. <br />Now it is of course true that each of these advantages can have negative aspects: a bit like the fact that the queen doesn't have some of the freedoms to roam that her subjects have. She can't just pop out for a walk. But any complaint about these tends to sound like the millionaire pop star who is annoyed that his fans keep asking for autographs. It must be annoying but it is nothing compared to the privilege of their wealth and fame.<br />3) I don't feel I have overcome my privilege and really that is not the point of what I am saying. How much I try to work to level out the gender injustices I know that I cannot make enough difference to change the way we are conditioned to view people in certain ways. It is however the ongoing acknowledgement of the advantage and the continued debate that can make us aware of its affects upon us all.<br />By the way it is worth noting that you and I can also be subject to the negative affects of this hidden advantage given the right context. I am from the north of England and and have a distinct accent - in the UK there is a perception that Received Pronunciation (posh accent) opens doors that would not be readily opened for me. In a similar way it would be highly unlikely that I would have studied at Oxford or Cambridge because the top 5 private schools fill more places than the next 2000 UK schools. <br />I know you might want to dismiss this as psycho-babble but it is worth considering further. Alan<br /><br />What this thought process does is to frame all of our comments in a context that makes us aware of the magnolia paint.<br /><br />Think about how this changes the way we speak and deal with others who do not share your advantage.<br /><br />What are your thoughts on this important issue?<br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-25321302740823757802013-06-13T11:47:00.001-07:002013-06-13T12:17:31.889-07:00It's not about the humour.....Having just retreated from a social media debate about the above video Bev and I sat and licked our wounds as we talked about the difference in the way it seemed that most people has reacted. <br />
<br />
The clip is called 'It's not about the nail' and can be found <a href="http://youtu.be/PMkwy3ZR0JE">here</a>: <br />
<br />
<br />
The discussions go something like this:<br />
<br />
Person A on Facebook 'This clip is soooo funny'<br />
<br />
Various friends of person A 'Lol' or other approving comments. <br />
<br />
Bev or I 'this undermines women'<br />
<br />
Everyone else 'you need to get a sense of humour'<br />
<br />
Bev and I 'ouch'<br />
<br />
So what is going on here. Are we right in wanting to point out what seems blatantly obvious. Are 'they' right suggesting that it a just a bit of fun and that our sense of humour is deficient.<br />
<br />
Firstly, the video is written and filmed in a humorous way and it does reflect the type of conversations men and women might find themselves in:<br />
<br />
Woman: there is a problem<br />
<br />
Man: let me fix it<br />
<br />
Woman: you never listen<br />
<br />
Man: I know but I can see what needs fixing<br />
<br />
Woman: it's not about the nail<br />
<br />
Audience: LOL<br />
<br />
Now let me explain what Bev and I saw immediately as we watched the video clip (we watched it independently)<br />
<br />
Firstly, the 'nail' or woman's problem is so blindingly obvious that anyone, including other women, could see it. What the woman needs to do is stop talking and let the man take the nail out. <br />
<br />
Secondly, if the piece was merely about the different ways that women and men view things then it would not have been just a nail. A nail is not an issue of perspective. In this video the man is seeing the obvious, and true issue, the woman is ignoring this and blaming the man's need to fix things. <br />
<br />
Granted, my two observations are not as funny as the video so in one sense I can see how our interlocutors would view us as having no sense of humour. <br />
<br />
The problem for Bev and I is that the video IS about the 'nail' but the problem that it highlights is NOT about the humour.<br />
<br />
I would simply leave you with these two thoughts. <br />
<br />
Men: if this video massaged your feelings of being hard done to when in conversations with your partner then pause for a minute. Did you want to turn to her and say 'see! This is what I have been saying. Pause and reflect. Is the problem she speaks about as obvious as a nail in the head?<br />
<br />
Women: if the video made you laugh because it reflected the kind of arguments you have with your partner then pause for a minute. Consider the next time you argue that your husband might simply say 'let me take out the nail'. Will it feel funny then? <br />
<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-18248236758576133952013-06-03T15:08:00.001-07:002013-06-03T15:08:31.059-07:00The Queen thinks the whole world smells of magnolia paint....When living in Norfolk several years ago I happened to be completing a speaking engagement on an RAF base not far from our home. It was about a week before Queen Elizabeth was due to visit to inspect the camp. <br /><br />I was given access to one of the married quarters that would be used to show the Queen how this section of her loyal servants lived. The room had been given somewhat of a makeover in order to create a good impression; new carpets, freshly laid lawn (borrowed from a local cricket pitch), a chandelier in the lounge, and a toilet that had been soundproofed just in case HRH needed to spend a royal penny. In addition the whole house had been repainted. <br /><br />This taste of unreality is what the Queen experiences everywhere she goes. Each of numerous hospital wards, charity buildings, factories, and other assorted venues will have been freshly painted just prior to her visit. Hence the phrase 'The Queen thinks the whole world smells of magnolia paint'. Magnolia being the standard cover-all colour of choice by builders and decorators up and down the United Kingdom.<br /><br />It is not directly the queens fault of course. She cannot truly know what she doesn't know. In a similar way each of us 'smells' or views the world in our own unique way and we don't completely know how other people perceive things. <br /><br />So it is with issues of race, gender, and sexuality; we can do our best to empathise but we can only know in part. This is additionally complicated by the fact that some of us occupy positions of privilege. I, as a white, western, heterosexual, male, walk around a freshly painted world compared to the world experienced by those who do not fit into these categories. <br /><br />Now there is understandably nothing I can do about these categories; without wanting to turn this into a musical 'I am what I am'. It does, however, present me with both a challenge and a responsibility. <br /><br />Firstly, the challenge is for me to acknowledge the privilege that is delivered to me often without my knowledge; to acknowledge the presence of the magnolia paint and to recognise that this is not the reality for others who are not offered such a privilege. <br /><br />Secondly, I have a responsibility to both listen to those who do not have the advantage of privilege and to become part of movement of change. <br /><br />When I come to engage with issues of race I must first acknowledge my position of privilege in that I live in a society that is weighted in the favour of a white person. The popular press would like to present a different picture when dealing with issue such as immigration but I know that my path is eased by the colour of my skin. <br /><br />Similarly when tackling issues of gender I can never fully know how it feels for a woman to deal with systemic gender bias.<br /><br />Likewise when addressing issues of sexuality I am also privileged. I have been struck by some of the arguments raised against the proposed inclusion of homosexual marriage that seem to suggest those with a more traditional view are being victimised. It is my view that this stems from a lack of appreciation for the privilege position of being heterosexual in our society. We can never know what it is to face the kind of rejection and negative treatment experienced by our gay friends and family. <br /><br />In first century Palestine it was thought shocking connect with Gentiles, Romans, Prostitutes, the sick,and Tax Collectors yet these are the kinds of people that Jesus related to even at the risk of being condemned himself. In doing so he showed us that no earthly constructed privilege hierarchy could truly define the value of human beings. He came to show us that all are equal and all are equally loved by God. <br /><br />At the beginning of his major sermon highlighting just how things were meant to be in a kingdom where God was in charge he declared that the poor in spirit were to be known as blessed. The ptochoi pneuma (spiritually breathless) where to be makarios (free and unfettered). <br /><br />Challenging the place of privilege, even in ourselves, is turning the system upside down so that inequality is shown for the evil that it is. Challenging the place of privilege is declaring that in God's kingdom the first shall be last and the last shall be first, even if it costs us to do so; perhaps even if it makes us look Christ-like and costs us our lives. <br /><br />So here I am a white, western, heterosexual, male and I admit that the world smells of fresh magnolia paint in a way that is not true for others and I am committed to becoming part of the answer. <br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-52186408056697255852013-05-31T08:17:00.001-07:002013-05-31T08:17:20.680-07:00If Simon Cowell ran a church......In our many musings about how to do church my wife and I were struck by the, not original, thought that much of what we do reflects the culture in which we work. In once sense this is in keeping with an incarnational model that looks to express the gospel in the words, images, and memes of the world in which we find ourselves. <br /><br />As I have expressed before each of us will have a narrative of our lives and a subsequent narrating voice that will set the scene. I have long wanted mine to be like Clint Eastwood or Liam Neeson with the resultant 'Go ahead punk; make my day' or 'I will find you and I will kill you'. It all sounds so masculine; so Mark Driscoll. I fear that my narration is done by Alan Bennett simply expressing 'he sat down with a pot of tea and a garibaldi biscuit'. (Use your imagination here)<br /><br />What, however, would the church look like if the narration of our church was done by Peter Dickson, the announcer on the X-factor and other Simon Cowell shows: 'for ONE NIGHT ONLY our first hymn is TO THINE BE THE GLORY'. (Again try your best to imagine this spoken by Peter)<br /><br />So what would a church look like if Simon Cowell was in charge and he used the same methodology employed on shows like Britain's Got Talent. Firstly let us look at the key features of Simon Cowell's TV model. <br /><br />1) It relies on the involvement of as many people as possible so that a few talented people could rise to the top and shine. The numbers game is very important here and only a few stories become relevant.<br /><br />2) Some people are given a voice for a moment as long as it serves the presentation as a whole. Little care is given to how they might feel after the programme is aired.<br /><br />3) The production is maintained by a group of people who have managed to make their way through the original rounds in order to fill appropriate positions. All of them, however, will be motivated by the possibility of being noticed and elevated to a more prominent position, even though most of them are unlikely to achieve their aspiration. <br /><br />4) The key players, Simon and his judges, experience the joys of the seclusion and rarified air of the Green Room so that they don't have to mix with those that are merely commodities of the process. The statement 'The Queen thinks the whole works smells of Magnolia paint' fits here suggesting that everything they experience is removed from reality because others have been there before to prepare the way.<br /><br />5) Even if someone reaches the centre stage or wins the competition they will never fully shape or inherit Cowell's empire. <br /><br />Of course church is very different from television so perhaps our Simon would not be able to fully have his way if he became a mega church pastor. After all if he did we might see churches where the following were key indicators:<br /><br />1) Success would be marked by the numbers of people who attend. <br /><br />2) Any story would be included as long as it was positive and affirmed the main vision of the church. Afterwards there would be little support for the person themselves. <br /><br />3) People would be valued as long as they served the vision. It would be constantly suggested that service would produce fulfilment and success in life. <br /><br />4) The main leaders would generally be separated from most of the church community. They would smell the magnolia paint if you will.<br /><br />5) Even when someone has been a key player, whether they have written songs or served on the main stage, they will reach a stage where their gift is redundant. They will more than likely not be a key figure in the future of the church. <br /><br />I am just glad to say the Simon is not a church leader and churches that follow this model do not exist: or do they? <br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-6538352257872155242013-05-09T15:10:00.001-07:002013-05-10T04:44:55.252-07:00When making the rules means missing the point!During my theological training in Cambridge I had the pleasure of attending several lectures by Dr Edward Kessler of The Centre for the Study of Jewish-Christian Relations. Central to much of his teaching was a passion to help Christians understand the Jewish world of both the Old and New Testaments. <br />He detailed how Jewish thought placed wider teaching around the central idea of loving God in order to help adherents to remain faithful. You will see this depicted in the diagram below. Given that the central teaching of the Hebrew Scriptures is that we should love God there is a need to place a set of laws, the Ten Commandments, around this to ensure that we remain faithful to the instruction to love God. <br />Our need for certainty doesn't stop there are we look to build a further fence around these laws in order to ensure we do not risk failure. These are known as the Mitzvah which represent the other 613 laws detailed in the Old Testament. <br />In order to ensure adherence to the Mitzvah another fence is added called the Halakha. This literally means walk and contains instruction on he the laws might be lived out. <br />All of the above is informed by commentary writings known as Midrash. <br />So we see how each fence, aimed at ensuring obedience to the central instruction, removes us further away. In the end it becomes harder to see what the main point is and so our discussions become focused on the rules rather than on God. <br />At this point it might be easy to consider the pictures of the Pharisees in the New Testament. Before we paint them as necessarily having wrong motives we should pause for a moment. Could it be that that in their genuine search to remain faithful they created too many extra fences. We in the church seem to find it all to easy to fall into the same trap. <br />I read a blog recently reminding us of Wayne Grudem's attempt at providing 83 rules to help churches know when are where women are allowed to serve (link below). <br />As I read this list I was reminded of Dr Kessler's teaching about the Pharisees. <br />How does a church become so focussed on rules that, in producing 83, it fails to see the God who longs to liberate all without reference to gender. <br /><br /><br /><br /><center><a href='http://photo.blogpressapp.com/show_photo.php?p=13/05/10/383.jpg'><img src='http://photo.blogpressapp.com/photos/13/05/10/s_383.jpg' border='0' width='500' height='375' style='margin:5px'></a></center><br /><br />http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/12/03/wayne-grudem-83-biblical-rules-for-gospel-women/<br />To listen to my sermon on John 3:16 in which I explain some of the above, click on the link below:<br />www.airevalleycommunitychurch.com/wp-content/uploads/AJM-For-God-so-loved-210413.mp3<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-44326968286348661372013-03-10T14:11:00.001-07:002013-03-10T14:11:30.845-07:00The Male Gaze and The Complementarian ChurchIn 1975 the feminist writer and theorist, Laura Mulvey, highlighted a problem to be found in the film and media industry in how it portrays women. She suggested that:<br /><br />The male gaze occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance. The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film, as well as the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of 'patriarchal' order and it is often seen in "illusionistic narrative film". Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.<br /><br />The key element here is that women are essentially referenced by men in terms of value and function. I would suspect that very few evangelicals would disagree with her view that women are over sexualised in such a way. I would like to suggest, however, that the same critique can be used in response to complementarianism; in terms of value and function if not in sexualisation. <br /><br />Let's see if this theory works:<br /><br />1) The male gaze occurs when the preacher puts the congregation into the perspective of the heterosexual man.<br /><br />2) The woman is usually displayed on two different levels: unregenerate whore or wholesome homemaker. <br /><br />3) The man emerges as the dominant power within the created ecclesiology. <br /><br />4) The woman is passive to the active leadership of the man. <br /><br />5) In complementarian churches the male gaze typically takes precedent over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry. <br /><br />The destructiveness found in the media industry is worthy of challenge. The effects of the theological male gaze in church is equally in need of question. <br /><br />Discuss!<br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-14761344181191963572013-03-09T01:48:00.001-08:002013-03-09T01:48:12.550-08:00One man's ceiling is another man's floor - Evangelical SophistryHave you ever listened to a sermon or read a blog that seems to have the ring of truth about it but leaves you with misgivings because you recognise that what's on offer it is not the whole story. I heard one recently and it left me with the need to dig a little deeper into what was being said. The speaker made huge statements about key issues facing evangelicalism at this time and linked them in ways that appeared to be legitimate. It didn't help that his audience seemed to be lapping up every word. <br /><br />He was attempting to make a reasoned, and thought out argument, but what we were given was a great example of sophistry. <br /><br />At its heart sophistry is an argument, viewpoint, or thesis that at first sounds plausible but is essentially misguided - at least in the way that the case is made. It is not that I am saying that the conclusions are without merit but that the style of argument does not prove what the speaker intended. <br /><br />It went a little like this (shortened for the sake of space):<br /><br />Speaker 'we need to be biblical' - Audience 'yes'. <br /><br />Speaker 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />Speaker 'family life is breaking down'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />Speaker 'people have no respect for God'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />Speaker 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />Speaker 'She/he is undermining God's word'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />Speaker 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'. - Audience 'yes'<br /><br />At first glance it may not be completely apparent why this is problematic; let me try to explain. <br /><br />Sophistry can take many forms but in the context discussed here it follows this well worn pattern:<br /><br />1) The speaker/writer makes a number of statements that are seemingly easy to agree with. For example 'we need to be biblical' or 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth'. <br /><br />Neither of these two statements are easily measurable. To quote Paul Simon 'one man's ceiling is another man's floor'. The listener/reader is inclined to agree with what is on offer because they judge them from their own context and so are drawn into the sophistic trap. <br /><br />Most Christians will concede that having the correct mix of grace and truth is essential because it suggests to them a comforting balance; but who is to judge what the correct mix is. <br /><br />I am a big of a fan of television cooking competitions. Watch a few shows and it is not long before you hear the idea offered that good cooking needs the correct balance of both sweet and savoury. Here is where the difficult lies. Every judge has a different palate. They approach the dish in different ways. They can agree with the idea of balance but they cannot agree with how this should be achieved. In this context the statement 'good cooking needs a good balance of sweet and savoury' becomes a truism in that it does not offer any useful, measurable guidance. So it is with the notion of 'a balance between grace and truth' - we can agree with it as a statement but how on earth can we measure whether we are agreeing with the same theology or practice. <br /><br />2) The next stage is to introduce statements that appeal to the hearers sense of fear. Often these revolve around the various levels of dysfunctionality found in society. The link is made to the problems highlighted in point 1 and so we see cause and effect confirmed in the mind of the listener/reader. <br /><br />3) Added to the above is a good number of statements about unrelated subjects that show how poor the theology is of the Christian preacher being disagreed with. Quite often there is enough reference to the original speakers work to be recognisable but in truth what is offered is a caricature. <br /><br />4) It is often at this point that questions are raised about the opponents evangelical pedigree; sometimes even to the point of calling them a heretic. Firstly it is worth noting here that the original meaning of the word was 'a free thinker' and used to identify those who didn't tow the party line so to speak. This is where evangelicals have a problem; essentially there is no formal party line. For sure people will trot out various reference points that suggest there is common agreement, but most groups are subject to being called heretical by other sincere evangelicals at some point. It is not that long ago that some reformed evangelical Calvinists were throwing the accusation at Pentecostals. Indeed, if you care to read the comments section on most Christian blogs it still occurs today all too regularly. Again Paul Simon's ceiling and floor analogy is useful to us here in understanding our own folly. <br /><br />All of the above is intended to ensure that the audience agrees with the stated position of the speaker. This is done by a growing sense of the hearers need, or inclination, to say yes to the various statements being proposed. <br /><br />We emotionally say 'yes' to the truisms of 'we need to be biblical' and 'we need to have a balance of grace and truth' even though they are subjective and not measurable. <br /><br />Our insecurities are engaged and we agree that 'family life is breaking down' and that 'people have no respect for God'.<br /><br />It seems obvious that 'Pastor X has questioned beliefs that we hold dear' and that 'She/he is undermining God's word'.<br /><br />At this point the hearer has become so used to saying 'yes' to the statements offered that the final premiss is agreed to without question ensuring that the audience will feel comfortable in dismissing Pastor X and their 'heretical' views and nod assent to the conclusion that 'this means that they are no longer an evangelical'.<br /><br />The reason that the above example can be called sophistry is because it sounds like a reasoned argument when in fact the link between the initial truisms (being biblical and the need for grace and truth) and societal dysfunctionality has not been proved, at least not in this sermon. Added to this is that Pastor X's views are being linked to the other statements in a spurious way.<br /><br />I suggest that this form of argument treats neither the subject nor the audience with respect. If we feel the need to disagree with another's theology surely we can do so without resorting to sophistry. <br /><br />I intend to write a further blog on how preaching and propaganda can overlap. Watch this space!<br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-49996149168259022802013-03-03T15:05:00.001-08:002013-03-03T15:05:39.994-08:00Does God owe us anything?It is a regular Calvinist suggestion, when questioned about the harder issues of life, that 'God owes us nothing'. I presume that the statement is either meant to stop us on our tracks or to shame us into becoming silent followers of a doctrine that presents God as a vulnerable and careless creator (rather than the sovereign and benevolent deity that they try to offer). <br /><br />I think, however, that such statements are far from rooted in the teachings of Jesus even though Calvinists are at pains to display their 'biblical' credentials.<br /><br />Perhaps the greatest, and most consistent, teachings of Christ about God is the idea of fatherhood. Leslie Newbigin highlights this when he shows that the use of the aramaic term 'Abba' in the predominately Greek New Testament shows a care for the actual words of Jesus in showing an intimacy within the creator/creature relationship. <br /><br />Every parent has a responsibility for their child that must include the space for 'why' questions. This alone demands that the parent owes the child both a duty of care and a responsive attitude to the pleadings of their offspring. The alternative would suggest that the parent is lacking in both responsibility and love. <br /><br />So it must be with God; the creator, or parent, owes the created, or child a loving response that must be open to question. In this space questions of 'why' become sacred rather than sinful. <br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-52641935055505567012013-01-25T02:51:00.001-08:002013-02-17T12:24:26.012-08:00The Polite Misogynists are The Worst KindThere has been a recent row concerning the treatment of Mary Beard, Cambridge Professor, after her appearance on BBC's Question Time. A discussion website called 'Dont Start Me Off' contained comments from contributors that were incredible offensive. <br />I support the idea of free speech and am reluctant to say that some things should be censored. The level of abuse seen here, however, that included comments about Mary's female body parts and suggestions of rape, were an affront to the gift of free speech that we long to protect.<br />Argue with Mary's opinions if you like but do not demean humanity by making it about things that really don't concern others. <br />The owner of website has since closed it down but not before suggesting that Mary hasn't got a sense of humour. <br />Then came an article by Rod Liddle in The Spectator suggesting that Mary wasn't blameless in the whole debacle. According to Rod we need to be a little more grown up about things. Thankfully Rod is grown up and to prove it says that he runs a competition on his website called 'The Most Stupid Woman to have appeared on Question Time in the last 12 months'. <br />Now before you look to make your nominations it's worth noting here that Rod is only looking for Stupid Women. It could be that Question Time doesn't allow stupid men to appear. Or it could be that Rod is revealing his own misogyny, albeit in a refined and humorous way. <br />It seems to me that whenever I see vile, misogynist, and aggressive people expressing their views they are quickly followed by eloquent and seemingly reasonable commentators who reinforce their objectionable opinions; often calling women "whiners" or "shrill" in order to undermine a woman's viewpoint.<br />The overtly vile are, in one sense, easier to dismiss; people like Rod are not because they have what looks like a legitimate voice on a legitimate platform.<br />This behaviour is not good enough; no matter how refined it appears. <br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-12392213143651358722013-01-20T07:56:00.001-08:002013-01-20T07:56:54.864-08:00Steve Chalk and the Silence of the ShepherdsI have been struck by the relative silence on the Internet and media in reaction to Steve's recent statement about reshaping the evangelical attitude to the LGBT community. The public reactions seem to a fallen into a number of camps:<br /><br />1) There are those, including me, who have offered support to Steve and see his comments as both useful and brave. <br /><br />2) There are those who have made a definitive stand against what he says; some of whom have questioned his evangelical status. <br /><br />3) There are some who have expressed support for Steve at a personal level but have have critiqued his conclusions. <br /><br />4) There are some who have remained silent. <br /><br />It is this last group that interests me most as, understandably, we have no way of knowing what has motivated them to remain silent at a public level. There are some key Evangelical voices, shepherds, that are yet to be heard on this matter. <br /><br />I propose that there could be two main reasons for this lack of public response:<br /><br />One - It could well be true that some wish the subject would just go away. They are perhaps hoping not to add any fuel to the current fire of discussion so that it extinguishes itself. <br /><br />Two - It could be that some are where Steve Chalk was a few years ago. They have legitimate concerns about the usual evangelical stance on homosexuality but have not yet found the place where they can speak openly. In fact to speak openly will cost them a great deal and so they remain silent.<br /><br />Whatever causes these key voices to remain silent I would simply say the following:<br /><br />To the first group - The subject is not going away, you will have to deal with it if you want to live in the real world. <br /><br />To the second group - It is time for the kind of bravery shown by Steve. <br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-1655133059623478912013-01-18T15:26:00.001-08:002013-01-18T16:12:46.915-08:00Calvinism's Untrustworthy GodThose who know me will have little doubt of my dislike of Calvinism. I am not dispassionate about it because I believe it to be a dangerous belief system not least because of the way it suggests to its adherents that the value of some human beings is less than that of those who are elect.<br /><br />Of course the theologians who support this version of reformed belief will give reasons why these un-favoured created beings are not of less value and that it is all to 'the glory of God', but I am not convinced. <br /><br />I have theological reasons for disagreeing with them and can find significant scriptural support for saying that they have created a closed system that is wrong. <br /><br />Here however I want to offer an emotional, and hopefully thoughtful, response to their view that God has favoured some people before they were even born.<br />I find no comfort in being loved by a God who, without explanation, chooses to include me and yet not others. You have to remember that, given the Calvinist's belief in total depravity there is nothing moral about the one elected that sets them apart from from the one damned. In this environment their can be no security. To counter this argument they offer the idea of the Perseverance of the saints (once saved always saved) in order to make sure that believers do not lose hope.<br /><br />Of course they produce scriptures to prove their point but it is not hard to show that the weight of the New Testament in general, and the life and teaching of Christ in particular, shows a God who loves all that he has created. <br /><br />The favoured child of dysfunctional parents will never be free from the neurosis caused by being surround by love that is selective. It is only unconditional love that is complete: it is only inclusive love that is able to satisfy.<br /><br />My wife and I have just watched a television report about people, mainly women, being raped, killed, and burnt in Syria. The majority of those victims would never have had the opportunity of hearing, at least in any meaningful way, about God's answer in Christ. The Calvinist answer would be a mixture of 'none of us deserve salvation anyway', 'God is just', and 'we shouldn't question God'. Occasionally you will hear the real truth of their belief from a particularly devout commentator: 'God hates some people and loves others'.<br /><br />I fail to be impressed by such ideas. I fail to be impressed by a God who would have no compassion on those who we witnessed being brutalised in Syria. How can God have less compassion than we have.<br /><br />You may wonder at why I am so passionate in my objection to Calvinism. It's not as if Calvinists would perpetrate the kind of behaviour seen in Syria. It is difficult for me not to draw a comparison, however, with the wasteful acts of those who would do such things in this life and the suggested fate of those who are supposedly predestined to suffer condemnation without hope in the next. Holding a belief in a God who is so selective must influence one's view of the value of humanity: especially of those who are deemed to not be 'in' the elect.<br /><br />In this regard I have no wish to be loved by a God who has favoured me whilst possibly damning those I love without offering them the opportunity of being included. I am pleased to say that they are wrong: God IS love and he is not a untrustworthy.<br /><br />Now that is good news!<br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-17980742449294672052013-01-16T12:25:00.001-08:002013-01-16T12:45:19.815-08:00Steve Chalke: Brave or Foolish?In light of Steve Chalke's statement on the evangelical response to homosexuality I am struck by a few thoughts regarding the reaction offered by some commentators. The following are three of the observations that I trust will be of use in the conversation.<br /><br />1) I am concerned that some of those who oppose Steve Chalke's position wish to all too quickly suggest he can no longer be considered an Evangelical. This behaviour only serves to silence the conversation it does remove the need for it. It is a lazy form of debate to use this tactic. <br /><br />2) I have noticed that some have suggested that Chalke's motives are questionable. I always find this a concern as no-one can really know what moves another person to act in the way that they do. It also serves to distract us from the discussion at hand. Take this tweet from Andrew Evans (@andysstudy) <br /><br />RT @andysstudy: New on the blog: Steve Chalke's selective reading of Scripture lacks compassion and seeks to make himself God<br /><br />I appreciate that Andy has a valid opinion but I am somewhat bemused that he would state that Steve 'seeks to make himself God'. There is nothing in Steve's original essay that suggests he is motivated by wanting to be God. In fact I see a certain humility in his writing as he looks for the very compassion that Andrew says he lacks. <br /><br />3) In offering a defence some have tried to suggest that many evangelical churches are infact inclusive even if they don't share Steve's acceptance of homosexuality in a committed relationship. The difficulty here is that as soon as weight is placed on acceptance of the usual evangelical position it makes it almost impossible for people to have an open discussion about the subject. The fear that one may be perceived as unorthodox is likely to silence anyone who wants to ask deeper questions. This in itself raises questions about the type of inclusion that some are suggesting is already present. <br /><br />In areas that have the potential to be controversial it is all too easy to speak to our own constituency. Steve expresses that this pressure was one reason he has struggled to speak out before. If we fear being rejected by other leaders, our denominations, and our congregations we will be less likely to engage in the level of honesty that such subjects warrant. <br /><br />Where others have viewed Steve as foolish I have considered him brave. Where some have suggested he has been unbiblical I feel he has expressed a Christ-like compassion. <br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-58820939769421556752012-12-24T00:19:00.001-08:002012-12-24T00:19:58.517-08:00The Sacred Place of HiddennessI can't imagine today that anyone in our country has grown up without some passing knowledge of Jesus. Having said that I am pretty certain that most people have a fairly sketchy view of the basic information. <br /><br />I recall once taking an assembly at a primary school and being informed by one of the younger pupils that the mother of Jesus was Mary Mandolin; which to be honest sounds more like a 60's folk singer than a Blessed Virgin. <br /><br />Given his fame over the past two-thousand years it is interesting to consider that in his lifetime Jesus was relatively unknown. For sure a few thousand people in Palestine had heard of him but in many ways he was irrelevant to most of the world's population. <br /><br />The incarnation sees God becoming man in relative obscurity; he could have chosen to become a Roman emperor but preferred to be the child of an unknown maiden. <br /><br />The following decades saw his fame travel across the known world but his incarnation was rooted in hiddeness. <br /><br />There were other babies born to young Jewish girls. He was just one of many carpenters. He would have been compared with other travelling Rabbis of his day. His cross would have blended into the background of the numerous crucified trouble causers on the hill of Golgotha. Even his resurrection was somewhat understated in that he could be mistaken for a gardener. <br /><br />I write this not to undermine his significance but to highlight the hiddeness chosen by God in bringing hope to the world. This was God becoming like us not highlighting some kind of cosmic divide. God became so part of our story that he was able to feel our pain. <br /><br />Consider this in stark contrast to the way that we evangelicals see success in a church context. We call for distinctive lines and a sense of being separate from the 'world'. We categorise people as being either 'in' or 'out'. We tell stories that emphasise that we are different. <br /><br />I wonder whether our mission should be to discover the sacred place of Hiddenness? To look like other people. For our churches to merge into the background of life a little more. <br /><br />Our ecclesiology makes us want to celebrate those who have done notable exploits for God; planted churches, written books, composed worship songs, run missionary organisations. <br /><br />By doing so perhaps we miss those who are hidden yet still bringing the kingdom of God to their communities in an unnoticed way. <br /><br />The single mother who fights to give her children a better quality of life. The worker who shows diligence in producing quality product. The project leader who draws lonely people into community. The person struggling through failure trying to make a fresh start. <br /><br />None of these make the headlines but it doesn't mean that they are incidental in God's plan. It is tempting to think that the more visible expressions of church are the most successful. Perhaps, however, it is those churches who become so close to their communities that they are able to feel the pain of the world that truly mirror the incarnate God. <br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-68058588869536741852012-11-22T00:48:00.001-08:002012-11-22T00:48:02.584-08:00Its time for the Bishops to stop moving diagonallyIt may well have been a close run thing, six votes in fact, but the possible consequences for the Church of England are huge. <br /><br />Even though Rowan Williams was gracious in defeat it is clear that the bishops were frustrated by the behaviour of the lay members of the general synod. <br /><br />It seems that some of the vocal evangelical wing exercised the kind of influence that the top leaders can only dream of. <br /><br />Leading up to the vote the bishops were attempting to stop division within their ranks and where keen to work within the rules that govern changes for worldwide Anglicanism. <br /><br />It may well be that playing within rules of the game feels better when one is trying to act in what seems to be a Christian manner. <br /><br />There are times, however, when the matter at hand is so important that staying within the well-defined squares of the chess board seems distinctly not Christ like. There has to be turning the table moments in every journey towards freedom. <br /><br />It may be the lay members who scuppered the plans for female bishops but it is the leaders of the church who have failed to make this happen. <br /><br />Diagonal moves may seem reasonable but sometimes there is need to knock down a knight or two and move some pawns out of the way in order to do what is right. <br /><br /><br />Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-82626262651387744622012-10-09T07:03:00.001-07:002012-10-09T07:26:38.367-07:00Conspiracy Theories - CreationismI did a recent post on different styles of debating. In it I describe the oft used tactic of Antithetical arguments; where too seemingly opposite view points are presented as the only available options. There was a perfect example of the problems caused by this in the BBC3 programme 'Conspiracy Road Trip - Creationism' At this point you may suspect that I am about to come down hard on the producer and presenter of the show, but hold for a moment. Granted, the television company did what they tend to do by creating space for maximum conflict, but the focus of my frustration lay elsewhere. It seems to me that some sections of the evangelical church have suggested (even taught) that there are only two positions available in the faith vs science debate. Namely; you either believe the bible or you believe evolution. I felt sorry for most of the participants because they had obviously not been encouraged to have an open mind about such things and so began to defend their faith instead of discussing science. And this is what I believe to be the problem. If we are told that there are only two options available then it is easy to conclude that accepting any alternative evidence is akin to 'letting the side down'. There are many evangelical Christians, who hold a considered view of the bible, and who are not uncomfortable with the idea of evolution. My frustration is that churches equip their members to take a stand on areas that do not necessarily undermine the Christian faith. There are more places to take a stand on the issue than simply the two options presented. Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1095473710379469048.post-66325255176263523762012-10-08T09:25:00.001-07:002012-10-08T22:54:30.863-07:00Evangelical Morphodoxy I have noticed a trend over recent days when engaging with the Christian blogosphere; it seems that some quarters find it all too easy to shout heretic at even the slightest questioning of any given evangelical construct.
This is nothing new of course; the 'H' word has been used in all kinds of situation to silence dissenting voices so that those in power might feel safe in their chosen sphere of comfort.
Thankfully nowadays we are more likely to be roasted on the Internet than burnt at the stake.
It seems that some are afraid of the very idea of questioning current interpretations of orthodoxy, as if God might be offended by our need to understand.
To a watching world it must make the creator of the universe look a little insecure if he has left the task of his honour being defended to the likes of us. Surely questioning is as much a part of the faith journey as any other spiritual discipline and yet you will be hard pushed to find it encouraged in some sections of the church.
I can do nothing but take my lead from the incarnation; this moment when God took the ultimate risk of becoming human. In this act we see how full commitment to the idea of 'becoming' can have eternal consequences.
It seems plain to me that the church, as Christ's body, should have the same desire to 'become' what it needs to be in every generation and to every tribe.
The very notion that the church should look exactly the same in every context seems to ignore the Incarnational motif. By definition there needs to be difference: there needs to be change.
For this to happen questions need to be asked. At times the kind of questions that risk the use of the 'H' word.
The search for orthodoxy is perhaps subservient to the need for evangelical Morphodoxy. Molineauxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17889454294950917556noreply@blogger.com6