Defining God by Love
A recent response to Rob Bell's book at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary seems to have captured the imagination of those who are already suspicious that Bell has jumped the evangelical ship and deserves the nebulous term unorthodox. The quote in question goes something like this: 'Rob Bell is defining God by love instead of defining love by God' At first glance it might seem like an excellent assessment of how the subject has been dealt with given that Bell openly admits to have written with disconnected people in mind. When you dig a little further into the idea that we might be able to somehow define love by God you realise that it is possible more sophistry than sense. That is the problem with sophistry it always sounds like it makes sense. It has to be said that it is impossible to develop any theology that is not communicated in an anthropomorphic setting. Scripture itself is given in fully human terms that call upon the hearer to engage with the Divine in the words (inspired as they are) of a particular people at a particular time. It seems to be the way God has chosen to communicate with us: the divine in fully human terms. To accuse Bell of defining God by love and not the reverse is to not only ask the impossible, but to ask him to do what God hasn't done. My challenge in return to those who think this latest critique is correct is: go ahead, describe love by God without using human reference points. I guess we will find that it probably looks a little like describing God by love. But that's ok, incarnational thinking is not a new idea.
Who has the right to say what is orthodox?
Following the recent controversy regarding Rob Bell's soon to be published book about the meaning and nature of hell, one commentator suggested that Bell should no longer be considered as an evangelical.
Quite what difference this would make to the sale of this new book can only be surmised.
This statement did send my thoughts back to some study I had undertaken several years ago about the nature of orthodoxy.
All organisations and cultures develop their own plausible reality structure; one in which certain assumptions and beliefs are taken to be orthodox.
The evangelical community is no exception in this respect and has gathered around a general set of values and beliefs that have become sacrosanct over many years.
This is not to suggest that there is homogeneity of belief within the camp but that the centrally held tenants are seen as the prerequisite for entering into the fold; indeed for continued inclusion.
This said it would not be impossible to produce a list of many points of disagreement between various subsets from within the movement. Everything from eschatology to ecclesiology has the potential to bring division given the right set of circumstances.
From time to time particular subsets develop the loudest voice and therefore, by implication the greatest influence.
Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, charismatics, church growth movements have all been significant voices in shaping the evangelical topography. Usually such voices are initially seen with suspicion but have been able to ride the calls for exclusion on the grounds of orthodoxy due to their popularity.
Their stories are not unlike that of today's fresh thinkers: some of whom have welcomed the label emergent to describe the subset they find themselves within.
Others, like Bell, have earnestly tried to avoid such labels: perhaps in the hope of engendering a wider and deeper conversation.
It seems unavoidable that groups will attempt to define orthodoxy at some level and, by implication, will feel the urge to exclude those who differ significantly at those points that are seen as key.
The sadness is that the call for exclusion often comes at the beginning of the dialogue when questions are being raised.
If individual and groups are to be labelled as heretics for asking key questions about generally accepted views it is likely to create a culture that is all too ready to act as accuser than enquirer.
This stance will only ever lead to a clamping down on the essential element of theological discovery that has taken us from the worst aspects of Christendom to a faith that is able to cope with the nuances of modern life.
Leslie Newbigin once describe the missionary calling as being willing to leave the safety and vantage point of the hill of the cross in order to travel to where another human being exists. In doing so we must risk the notion that they may be right and we may be mistaken whilst trusting that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue to confirm the work of the cross.
Perhaps church leaders need to adopt a similar stance when looking to build the unity that is so implicitly a part of Christ's passion.
Leaving the safety of our long held doctrines to meet our Christian kinfolk. Taking the risk that they may well be correct we trust that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue and guide us to truth.
If I am honest I don't sense this willingness in the words of those who call for fellow Christians to be placed outside of their own version of orthodoxy.
We must do better.
Quite what difference this would make to the sale of this new book can only be surmised.
This statement did send my thoughts back to some study I had undertaken several years ago about the nature of orthodoxy.
All organisations and cultures develop their own plausible reality structure; one in which certain assumptions and beliefs are taken to be orthodox.
The evangelical community is no exception in this respect and has gathered around a general set of values and beliefs that have become sacrosanct over many years.
This is not to suggest that there is homogeneity of belief within the camp but that the centrally held tenants are seen as the prerequisite for entering into the fold; indeed for continued inclusion.
This said it would not be impossible to produce a list of many points of disagreement between various subsets from within the movement. Everything from eschatology to ecclesiology has the potential to bring division given the right set of circumstances.
From time to time particular subsets develop the loudest voice and therefore, by implication the greatest influence.
Calvinists, Baptists, Pentecostals, charismatics, church growth movements have all been significant voices in shaping the evangelical topography. Usually such voices are initially seen with suspicion but have been able to ride the calls for exclusion on the grounds of orthodoxy due to their popularity.
Their stories are not unlike that of today's fresh thinkers: some of whom have welcomed the label emergent to describe the subset they find themselves within.
Others, like Bell, have earnestly tried to avoid such labels: perhaps in the hope of engendering a wider and deeper conversation.
It seems unavoidable that groups will attempt to define orthodoxy at some level and, by implication, will feel the urge to exclude those who differ significantly at those points that are seen as key.
The sadness is that the call for exclusion often comes at the beginning of the dialogue when questions are being raised.
If individual and groups are to be labelled as heretics for asking key questions about generally accepted views it is likely to create a culture that is all too ready to act as accuser than enquirer.
This stance will only ever lead to a clamping down on the essential element of theological discovery that has taken us from the worst aspects of Christendom to a faith that is able to cope with the nuances of modern life.
Leslie Newbigin once describe the missionary calling as being willing to leave the safety and vantage point of the hill of the cross in order to travel to where another human being exists. In doing so we must risk the notion that they may be right and we may be mistaken whilst trusting that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue to confirm the work of the cross.
Perhaps church leaders need to adopt a similar stance when looking to build the unity that is so implicitly a part of Christ's passion.
Leaving the safety of our long held doctrines to meet our Christian kinfolk. Taking the risk that they may well be correct we trust that the Holy Spirit will meet us in the dialogue and guide us to truth.
If I am honest I don't sense this willingness in the words of those who call for fellow Christians to be placed outside of their own version of orthodoxy.
We must do better.
Five thoughts on the Rob Bell controversy
1. To those who think they know what the word Evangelical means and feel that all of their congregation believes the same as they do.
Ecclesiological labels don't work anymore.
2. To those who present a firm theological response on every subject.
There is a difference between having a good memory for bible verses and understanding the big story.
3. To those who want to reject people who have genuine 'life' question.
Ignoring important questions does not make your views more correct.
4. To those who spend time trying to defend a religion.
Deciding that someone is OUT of the orthodoxy does not mean they are.
5. To those who want to destroy a man in order to destroy an idea.
You can be wrong even if you were right.
- Posted from my iPhone
God and the City
A recent church leader’s conference in Belfast had as its theme the idea that cities are strategic for the growth and continuation of the church. This along with similar themes heading our direction from across the pond got me thinking about church life in rural Yorkshire; after all I don’t want to be wasting my time in the ecclesiological wilderness.
It does seem that the largest congregations in the UK, and indeed across the world, have church planting policies with a defined city focus. We might have Hillsong-London but it’s hard to imagine Hillsong-Dibley.
The idea appears to be set against the back-drop of, what commentators have called Salvation and Lift. Particularly relevant amongst churches that have been started in the poorer areas of our society during the mid to end of the last century, it suggests that once individuals have found the ‘salvation’ offered via the church they move on to experience a widening of their personal horizons; leading to greater aspiration in everything from education, healthcare, and career, to property ownership.
Although their newfound spirituality begins in the inner city church they soon wish to move to the suburbs in order to build better lives for themselves and their families.
Perhaps some church leaders feel the need to reverse this trend by encouraging congregation members to move back to the city.
So is this a valid claim and should I pack up my family, sell my lawnmower, and head for the high-rise flats of Leeds.
I suppose the bible does mention cities an awful lot and these examples are often trotted out as proof that cities are important.
A quick bible word search reveals that the word city is mentioned six times more than village; although things are evened up somewhat when you add the results for town. It needs to be added, however, that multi-storey car park isn’t mentioned a single time whilst manure has two references. At this point I could rest my case but it needs to be considered that very few of the initial Jesus followers would have been seen as the influencers of their day. The comments made about Peter and John being uneducated in Acts 4 seem to hint at this.
These biblical references are usually followed by a series of sociological ‘facts’ concerning the nature of modern life; not least of which is that people who live in cities are the movers and shakers of society and therefore city churches have a greater opportunity for influence.
At first glance this might seem true, yet when you consider that not all cities are the same you start to realise that perhaps the idea is somewhat flawed. The major capital cities of the world have a distinct role to play in their respective nation’s sociological make up that others smaller cities do not have.
No disrespect to the people of Cornwall, but Truro ain’t no Paris.
Therefore to present cities as a focus without specifying any of the potential differences perhaps misses the point. Secondly, most of the movers and shakers suggested as influential do not surely live in the cities but have built their homes in the towns and villages that fill our countryside. They may well commute to the city to fulfil their chosen role but they live elsewhere.
In this respect the church with the greatest opportunity of influencing such people must be the rural congregation.
So, if the real driver of this city focus is not biblical or sociological, what could it be?
Perhaps it is what the business world calls ROI or Return on Investment.
For those involved in commerce this is generally related to finances though I am not suggesting that this is necessarily true for those groups that focus their energies on cities.
It could be said, however, that any community based project demands a certain emotional, social, physical, and spiritual investment and that the human condition needs the encouragement of some level of return on this outlay.
In this respect the city offers the greatest opportunity for return on investment. Whilst the project might have more competition, so to speak, from other churches, it has a larger population from which to gain new members. There is also a higher chance of gaining disenfranchised members from other churches to give the launch a little more momentum.
The rural church plant can never match such an ROI and in many ways may always be called upon to give more than it receives. But this in no way lessens either its potential influence or indeed its value.
Having said all this it does strike me that there is another reason for questioning the idea on offer; namely it does not reflect how contemporary life works.
People are no longer making social connections merely by geography. In fact the evidence suggests that geography is becoming the lowest driver of connectivity for those under thirty. In this respect the opportunities for influence are not limited merely by the churches postcode.
It doesn’t seem to work either biblically or sociologically; although it may well work from a business perspective. Perhaps this is why the energy of some of the world’s largest churches is focussed on cities rather than towns and villages. I am grateful for many of those larger churches and their leaders, and I wish them well.
As for me; I will keep spreading the manure and avoiding the multi-storey car parks.
http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Articles/175063/Newfrontiers/United_Kingdom/News/e_news_archive/December_2009_Issue_17/Redeem_Cities_Conference_Belfast.aspx
http://vimeo.com/17880474
It does seem that the largest congregations in the UK, and indeed across the world, have church planting policies with a defined city focus. We might have Hillsong-London but it’s hard to imagine Hillsong-Dibley.
The idea appears to be set against the back-drop of, what commentators have called Salvation and Lift. Particularly relevant amongst churches that have been started in the poorer areas of our society during the mid to end of the last century, it suggests that once individuals have found the ‘salvation’ offered via the church they move on to experience a widening of their personal horizons; leading to greater aspiration in everything from education, healthcare, and career, to property ownership.
Although their newfound spirituality begins in the inner city church they soon wish to move to the suburbs in order to build better lives for themselves and their families.
Perhaps some church leaders feel the need to reverse this trend by encouraging congregation members to move back to the city.
So is this a valid claim and should I pack up my family, sell my lawnmower, and head for the high-rise flats of Leeds.
I suppose the bible does mention cities an awful lot and these examples are often trotted out as proof that cities are important.
A quick bible word search reveals that the word city is mentioned six times more than village; although things are evened up somewhat when you add the results for town. It needs to be added, however, that multi-storey car park isn’t mentioned a single time whilst manure has two references. At this point I could rest my case but it needs to be considered that very few of the initial Jesus followers would have been seen as the influencers of their day. The comments made about Peter and John being uneducated in Acts 4 seem to hint at this.
These biblical references are usually followed by a series of sociological ‘facts’ concerning the nature of modern life; not least of which is that people who live in cities are the movers and shakers of society and therefore city churches have a greater opportunity for influence.
At first glance this might seem true, yet when you consider that not all cities are the same you start to realise that perhaps the idea is somewhat flawed. The major capital cities of the world have a distinct role to play in their respective nation’s sociological make up that others smaller cities do not have.
No disrespect to the people of Cornwall, but Truro ain’t no Paris.
Therefore to present cities as a focus without specifying any of the potential differences perhaps misses the point. Secondly, most of the movers and shakers suggested as influential do not surely live in the cities but have built their homes in the towns and villages that fill our countryside. They may well commute to the city to fulfil their chosen role but they live elsewhere.
In this respect the church with the greatest opportunity of influencing such people must be the rural congregation.
So, if the real driver of this city focus is not biblical or sociological, what could it be?
Perhaps it is what the business world calls ROI or Return on Investment.
For those involved in commerce this is generally related to finances though I am not suggesting that this is necessarily true for those groups that focus their energies on cities.
It could be said, however, that any community based project demands a certain emotional, social, physical, and spiritual investment and that the human condition needs the encouragement of some level of return on this outlay.
In this respect the city offers the greatest opportunity for return on investment. Whilst the project might have more competition, so to speak, from other churches, it has a larger population from which to gain new members. There is also a higher chance of gaining disenfranchised members from other churches to give the launch a little more momentum.
The rural church plant can never match such an ROI and in many ways may always be called upon to give more than it receives. But this in no way lessens either its potential influence or indeed its value.
Having said all this it does strike me that there is another reason for questioning the idea on offer; namely it does not reflect how contemporary life works.
People are no longer making social connections merely by geography. In fact the evidence suggests that geography is becoming the lowest driver of connectivity for those under thirty. In this respect the opportunities for influence are not limited merely by the churches postcode.
It doesn’t seem to work either biblically or sociologically; although it may well work from a business perspective. Perhaps this is why the energy of some of the world’s largest churches is focussed on cities rather than towns and villages. I am grateful for many of those larger churches and their leaders, and I wish them well.
As for me; I will keep spreading the manure and avoiding the multi-storey car parks.
http://www.newfrontierstogether.org/Articles/175063/Newfrontiers/United_Kingdom/News/e_news_archive/December_2009_Issue_17/Redeem_Cities_Conference_Belfast.aspx
http://vimeo.com/17880474
The Great Cake Conspiracy
It is several weeks since the end of the recent holidays and I need to confess that I am still eating Christmas cake.
I set new year course towards a more healthy lifestyle but I hadn't considered on one thing; namely a friend of ours called Christine.
I feel sure that everyone must know a Christine and that their lives are enriched by the experience. For she is one if life's bakers. Not by trade you understand but by way of a hobby.
Every social occasion, when we gather with our friends, she takes the opportunity of bringing some tasty offering that is sure to beat even the most determined fitness resolve.
Banana cakes, scones with strawberries and cream, lemon flans, and her now famous Christmas cake.
I, of course, feel it is my duty as a friend to try all of the produce on offer; well! It would seem rude not to.
Mrs M, my bride of almost thirty years and self-appointed personal nurse, has her own opinion on whether this approach is helpful for my general well-being.
We had a friend with similar skills when we lived in Norfolk. Ros would also bring to our social gatherings a selection of tasty mouthfuls that would often become a pleasant feature of the evening.
Her speciality was chocolate and toffee shortbread and she was so aware of my attachment to this particular item from her repertoire that she brought a whole box full to our fiftieth birthday party last year.
So, as I experienced in Norfolk, I am still eating Christmas cake well beyond the resolution deadline.
There is another similarity between our two baking friends; both of them are not particularly keen on sweet things, meaning that they bring all this delicious ware but do not eat anything. In fact both of them, unlike this wayward writer, are slim. Some may be cruel and say that I am fat but I prefer to think of myself as jolly.
This provision of delicious produce by friends who don't like sweet foods has started me thinking. What if these lovely folk are actually part of a big conspiracy by thin people to keep us tubby ones from losing weight.
I put my idea to our friend Christine last week when she tempted me with fruit filled cake, and she chuckled, treating my comments as just a humorous aside. She didn't technically deny it however.
Mrs M, as usual not crediting my thoughts with any seriousness, said that such a theory does not remove any sense of my own responsibility.
I responded with 'My name is Alan and I love cake!'
Even after my wife's dismissive attitude, I still feel that I have hit on a valid theory.
So Christine and Ros, along with the rest of you conspirators, I know what you are doing. So please stop bringing so much cake in order to keep my rotund.
If Mrs M is not listening, however, can I have just one more piece of your delicious Christmas cake.
After all I don't want to appear rude!
- Posted from my iPhone
I set new year course towards a more healthy lifestyle but I hadn't considered on one thing; namely a friend of ours called Christine.
I feel sure that everyone must know a Christine and that their lives are enriched by the experience. For she is one if life's bakers. Not by trade you understand but by way of a hobby.
Every social occasion, when we gather with our friends, she takes the opportunity of bringing some tasty offering that is sure to beat even the most determined fitness resolve.
Banana cakes, scones with strawberries and cream, lemon flans, and her now famous Christmas cake.
I, of course, feel it is my duty as a friend to try all of the produce on offer; well! It would seem rude not to.
Mrs M, my bride of almost thirty years and self-appointed personal nurse, has her own opinion on whether this approach is helpful for my general well-being.
We had a friend with similar skills when we lived in Norfolk. Ros would also bring to our social gatherings a selection of tasty mouthfuls that would often become a pleasant feature of the evening.
Her speciality was chocolate and toffee shortbread and she was so aware of my attachment to this particular item from her repertoire that she brought a whole box full to our fiftieth birthday party last year.
So, as I experienced in Norfolk, I am still eating Christmas cake well beyond the resolution deadline.
There is another similarity between our two baking friends; both of them are not particularly keen on sweet things, meaning that they bring all this delicious ware but do not eat anything. In fact both of them, unlike this wayward writer, are slim. Some may be cruel and say that I am fat but I prefer to think of myself as jolly.
This provision of delicious produce by friends who don't like sweet foods has started me thinking. What if these lovely folk are actually part of a big conspiracy by thin people to keep us tubby ones from losing weight.
I put my idea to our friend Christine last week when she tempted me with fruit filled cake, and she chuckled, treating my comments as just a humorous aside. She didn't technically deny it however.
Mrs M, as usual not crediting my thoughts with any seriousness, said that such a theory does not remove any sense of my own responsibility.
I responded with 'My name is Alan and I love cake!'
Even after my wife's dismissive attitude, I still feel that I have hit on a valid theory.
So Christine and Ros, along with the rest of you conspirators, I know what you are doing. So please stop bringing so much cake in order to keep my rotund.
If Mrs M is not listening, however, can I have just one more piece of your delicious Christmas cake.
After all I don't want to appear rude!
- Posted from my iPhone
Lydia the Snail Farmer
Mark Driscoll recently made a statement indicating that men should not be stay-at-home dads. He went on to inform his listeners that if anyone did to choose such a lifestyle they would face church discipline. Although the comments were mainly aimed at men, career women were obviously included as a target.
It is hard to think that such statements would be made this far in to the twenty first century yet we should not be too surprised. This offering comes as part of the general backlash being raised against the rising tide of a more progressive approach in the evangelical scene.
The forthright pastor used 1 Timothy 5:8 as his proof text, a verse that records the Apostle Paul saying ‘Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’
I could spend most of my time commenting on his lack of understanding of the text or the fact that he takes the whole thing out of context but I think there is a deeper issue here. I will, however, briefly point out that the preacher ignores the earlier reference to widows and places the emphasis upon men when the Greek text does not.
I need to mention at this point that I am the father of four beautiful daughters and I am proud to be so. Their mother is also beautiful and somewhat feisty and together we have raised our girls to be capable young women. You may think that this would make me somewhat biased when it comes to talking about such things. I will admit to the potential for bias if you will concede that my circumstances may well have focussed my mind a little sharper on the issues involved.
My wife and I dealt with the egalitarian argument and women in leadership some years ago when we took the time to read every available book on the subject and speak with many church leaders from a variety of backgrounds. My bride of thirty years is a capable preacher and leader in her own right and, I might add, has changed the mind of more than one theological seminary teacher on the subject.
As we studied the material and reflected on the biblical texts we were mindful that we wanted to get this right for our daughters. We were determined to face up to the truth we found which ever way it went.
What we discovered was a shocking display of bad exegesis and bias from some of the world’s leading theologians and systematic teachers. They approached the key texts on such matters in ways that they would never approach other parts of the bible. We were left slightly shocked as we heard such arguments as the following examples.
In answering how God can use a women to lead in the mission field and yet not in the church we heard; ‘God will sometimes use a woman until he finds a man to take over the lead role.’
In answering the question about women who write books we were offered; ‘I prefer to not see these books as teaching and view them more like a conversation over coffee.’
There were, of course, some on the opposite of the argument who spent their time deconstructing the Apostle Paul, trying to say that we should ignore some of what he says because he was biased.
So what were we to make of it all in the light of our own experiences, our reading of scripture, and the future of our four young daughters?
There were several things that struck us during this time that helped us to form a view.
1 We have to allow for some contextual understanding of the texts. Everybody does this even if they declare otherwise. Most evangelicals view Luke in a different way than they see Leviticus for example. We had to try and understand what was being said to the original hearers.
2 We had to allow the life and teaching of Jesus to help us interpret the rest of scripture. This sounds like basic stuff but as we researched we realised that most of our doctrines had been based upon the letters of Paul with only a cursory glance back to the teaching of Jesus.
3 We had to realise that God did not make us to be church members primarily; he created us to be children of his kingdom. In this respect God does not differentiate between what happens inside the church and outside of it. We tend to ask ‘How can we be good Christians?’ when the Holy Spirit is urging us to be good human beings.
From these thoughts we decided that Jesus affirmed and released women. He included them at the most important parts of his life and ministry. We also saw some of the best examples of obedience from the female members of the cast.
Added to this were some of the revolutionary ideas found in the very verses that have become a difficulty for us. 1 Timothy 2 tells us that ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.’ The church has focussed on submission without seeing the almost culturally offensive idea that women should, in fact, learn. Quietness and submission were a mark of learning for men and in this sentence Paul includes women at a level that would not have been generally accepted by his community.
We also began to realise that God has a holistic approach to our lives. If, as we see from examples like Lydia the Snail Farmer in Acts 16, God is pleased to have women lead in business, medicine, education, politics, and most other arrears of life, why would he confine them in the church.
Granted, these few thoughts might not be enough for your to make a decision about such things, but for us it felt like a release.
So, if one of my daughters wants to pursue a career and let her husband raise the kids then they will receive my support. If one of my son-in-laws is better equipped to run their family home, then so be it.
And if any of them, male or female, feel that the Holy Spirit is guiding them towards church leadership I, for one, will say a loud and hearty Hallelujah!
- Posted from my iPhone
It is hard to think that such statements would be made this far in to the twenty first century yet we should not be too surprised. This offering comes as part of the general backlash being raised against the rising tide of a more progressive approach in the evangelical scene.
The forthright pastor used 1 Timothy 5:8 as his proof text, a verse that records the Apostle Paul saying ‘Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.’
I could spend most of my time commenting on his lack of understanding of the text or the fact that he takes the whole thing out of context but I think there is a deeper issue here. I will, however, briefly point out that the preacher ignores the earlier reference to widows and places the emphasis upon men when the Greek text does not.
I need to mention at this point that I am the father of four beautiful daughters and I am proud to be so. Their mother is also beautiful and somewhat feisty and together we have raised our girls to be capable young women. You may think that this would make me somewhat biased when it comes to talking about such things. I will admit to the potential for bias if you will concede that my circumstances may well have focussed my mind a little sharper on the issues involved.
My wife and I dealt with the egalitarian argument and women in leadership some years ago when we took the time to read every available book on the subject and speak with many church leaders from a variety of backgrounds. My bride of thirty years is a capable preacher and leader in her own right and, I might add, has changed the mind of more than one theological seminary teacher on the subject.
As we studied the material and reflected on the biblical texts we were mindful that we wanted to get this right for our daughters. We were determined to face up to the truth we found which ever way it went.
What we discovered was a shocking display of bad exegesis and bias from some of the world’s leading theologians and systematic teachers. They approached the key texts on such matters in ways that they would never approach other parts of the bible. We were left slightly shocked as we heard such arguments as the following examples.
In answering how God can use a women to lead in the mission field and yet not in the church we heard; ‘God will sometimes use a woman until he finds a man to take over the lead role.’
In answering the question about women who write books we were offered; ‘I prefer to not see these books as teaching and view them more like a conversation over coffee.’
There were, of course, some on the opposite of the argument who spent their time deconstructing the Apostle Paul, trying to say that we should ignore some of what he says because he was biased.
So what were we to make of it all in the light of our own experiences, our reading of scripture, and the future of our four young daughters?
There were several things that struck us during this time that helped us to form a view.
1 We have to allow for some contextual understanding of the texts. Everybody does this even if they declare otherwise. Most evangelicals view Luke in a different way than they see Leviticus for example. We had to try and understand what was being said to the original hearers.
2 We had to allow the life and teaching of Jesus to help us interpret the rest of scripture. This sounds like basic stuff but as we researched we realised that most of our doctrines had been based upon the letters of Paul with only a cursory glance back to the teaching of Jesus.
3 We had to realise that God did not make us to be church members primarily; he created us to be children of his kingdom. In this respect God does not differentiate between what happens inside the church and outside of it. We tend to ask ‘How can we be good Christians?’ when the Holy Spirit is urging us to be good human beings.
From these thoughts we decided that Jesus affirmed and released women. He included them at the most important parts of his life and ministry. We also saw some of the best examples of obedience from the female members of the cast.
Added to this were some of the revolutionary ideas found in the very verses that have become a difficulty for us. 1 Timothy 2 tells us that ‘A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.’ The church has focussed on submission without seeing the almost culturally offensive idea that women should, in fact, learn. Quietness and submission were a mark of learning for men and in this sentence Paul includes women at a level that would not have been generally accepted by his community.
We also began to realise that God has a holistic approach to our lives. If, as we see from examples like Lydia the Snail Farmer in Acts 16, God is pleased to have women lead in business, medicine, education, politics, and most other arrears of life, why would he confine them in the church.
Granted, these few thoughts might not be enough for your to make a decision about such things, but for us it felt like a release.
So, if one of my daughters wants to pursue a career and let her husband raise the kids then they will receive my support. If one of my son-in-laws is better equipped to run their family home, then so be it.
And if any of them, male or female, feel that the Holy Spirit is guiding them towards church leadership I, for one, will say a loud and hearty Hallelujah!
- Posted from my iPhone
Incarnational Church – UK Context FOUR Growing Pains
Growing Pains
‘Numbers are not important’. How many times I have heard that statement in connection with church growth? At one level I agree with the sentiment but not as an excuse for stagnation. I speak from experience because not everything we have done in our local church has produced numerical growth.
Growth, of course, is far more involved than merely the numbers of people who attend. There is a breadth to growth than needs to be seen in every area of the life of the people.
If we again take the life and ministry of Jesus as our example we can understand more of the implications of growth. There is a core of mystery as to why God sent the Son in the way that he did. Why did he come as a baby? Why did he live for over thirty years?
It seems to me that the context of the incarnation has significance. I am struck by the words of Hebrews chapter 13, verse 8 that describe Jesus as being the same ‘yesterday, today and forever’. At first glance it seems that change is out of the question.
Yet we also know that change took place. The Word ‘became’ flesh.[1]
The unchangingness of Jesus is to be seen in his essential character. His goodness, his truth and his faithfulness are all undiminished by the passage of time. In fact he is completely unaffected by the constraints of time other than in his own choice to be self-limited by it. The Kenosis[2] is the expression of this absolute commitment to his mission. The act of ‘becoming’ is the important factor for us here. God is showing to us in graphic and eternal terms how we are to ‘become’. The eternal, creative Word has become flesh in order to fulfil the will of God. We, the church, are to follow a similar path. We are to be unchanging in the essential nature of what God has made us to be yet, at the same time, we are to become a willing vessel for God.
The development of Jesus the man is shown to follow a similar pattern to that of other human beings. He is shown to learn, grow, hunger, cry and feel fatigue: the full range of humanities experiences. This means that the incarnation was not merely some singular event but a pilgrimage.
It is in this context that we in the Pentecostal church can learn a great deal about church growth. Pilgrimage is essential. We expect if of our natural children when we encourage them to explore and learn about themselves and the world around them. Parents and teachers consider the appropriate lessons that need to be learned at each stage of the growing process. So it is with those who come to faith and begin a journey within the community of the church. Richter and Francis speak of the importance of journey in their writings dealing with those who leave the church. ‘The church that is best at retaining its members is one that presupposes that individuals grow in faith, in their own time and in their own way.’[3] This is often a difficulty for Pentecostal churches. As with other revival movements a great deal of emphasis is made upon the crisis of conversion. Even where there is talk and consideration given to discipleship it is often done in very narrow terms with them emphasis placed heavily on conformity of belief. People find acceptance when they jump through a series of evangelical hoops and so even where doubt exists there is a pressure to conform.
Pilgrimage, however, is a life giving experience. It is possible to both hold to the idea of a cross encounter whilst encouraging an Emmaus Road journey.
Incarnational Church – UK Context FOUR The Way You Start.......
Birth
My wife is a qualified midwife and when she was training I spent many hours listening to her descriptions of the birthing process. She always used to remind me that pregnancy was not an illness but a beautiful experience. I have to say that much of it sounded like an illness to my inexperienced mind. Some years later, at the birth of our first child, I saw the beauty for myself. Amazed to see this human being who previously ‘wasn’t’ now taking her first breaths. Now, four amazing daughters later, I am still completely in awe at the birth of baby.
We know, of course, that the birthing process can be problematic and every health care professional watches for the tell tale signs of danger.
The birth of a church should be watched in a similar way. Yet ultimately it is not the possibility of danger that should occupy our minds. This is a wonderful and awesome event as God breathes new life into the lungs of an infant church family. Its birth has to be inspired and managed by the Holy Spirit who blows wherever he wills. If a church begins for any other reason than the will of the Spirit then the results can be quite horrendous. A group of people might start to meet together after separating from another church. There may have been hurt and disappointment during the birthing process. Although this is not always the case the group can end up congregating around their disaffection for the previous group. Many of these people might have very little else in common: they may not have received prophetic input into their new situation. They are simply together because they no longer want to be with the previous church. This cannot be an acceptable birth and quite often groups like this either fold or they have to revisit the issues raised by the events of their beginnings. It must be an act of God that births a church. Schillebeeckx highlights the importance of the work of the Spirit even above an actually confrontation with the historical Jesus. His point is valid because only the very first churches were directly influenced by those who had seen Jesus in his physicality. One would expect that seeing Jesus would be the ideal beginning for any new group, but the plan of God did not contain this component.
In a similar way some of the things that we value most within our church communities can seem to be non-negotiable when it comes to forming churches. There is a heavy sense of value given to a particular style of corporate worship within the Pentecostal and charismatic movement. No doubt most Pentecostal worshippers would include this in what they consider to be an effective church. However a church that is conceived of by the Holy Spirit can be birthed and established even if there is a paucity of skilled musicians. On the other hand a church with the highest standard of musical expertise can flounder because it is not built on the right foundation.
I am committed to finding ways of raising the standard of the functions of the church but that in itself will not determine its success.
My wife is a qualified midwife and when she was training I spent many hours listening to her descriptions of the birthing process. She always used to remind me that pregnancy was not an illness but a beautiful experience. I have to say that much of it sounded like an illness to my inexperienced mind. Some years later, at the birth of our first child, I saw the beauty for myself. Amazed to see this human being who previously ‘wasn’t’ now taking her first breaths. Now, four amazing daughters later, I am still completely in awe at the birth of baby.
We know, of course, that the birthing process can be problematic and every health care professional watches for the tell tale signs of danger.
The birth of a church should be watched in a similar way. Yet ultimately it is not the possibility of danger that should occupy our minds. This is a wonderful and awesome event as God breathes new life into the lungs of an infant church family. Its birth has to be inspired and managed by the Holy Spirit who blows wherever he wills. If a church begins for any other reason than the will of the Spirit then the results can be quite horrendous. A group of people might start to meet together after separating from another church. There may have been hurt and disappointment during the birthing process. Although this is not always the case the group can end up congregating around their disaffection for the previous group. Many of these people might have very little else in common: they may not have received prophetic input into their new situation. They are simply together because they no longer want to be with the previous church. This cannot be an acceptable birth and quite often groups like this either fold or they have to revisit the issues raised by the events of their beginnings. It must be an act of God that births a church. Schillebeeckx highlights the importance of the work of the Spirit even above an actually confrontation with the historical Jesus. His point is valid because only the very first churches were directly influenced by those who had seen Jesus in his physicality. One would expect that seeing Jesus would be the ideal beginning for any new group, but the plan of God did not contain this component.
In a similar way some of the things that we value most within our church communities can seem to be non-negotiable when it comes to forming churches. There is a heavy sense of value given to a particular style of corporate worship within the Pentecostal and charismatic movement. No doubt most Pentecostal worshippers would include this in what they consider to be an effective church. However a church that is conceived of by the Holy Spirit can be birthed and established even if there is a paucity of skilled musicians. On the other hand a church with the highest standard of musical expertise can flounder because it is not built on the right foundation.
I am committed to finding ways of raising the standard of the functions of the church but that in itself will not determine its success.
Incarnational Church – UK Context THREE A Genius Genesis
Conception
As soon as we begin our new-life journey we are faced with the frightening concept that we are joined together with a group of other people; the church. The moment I call God my Father I have to accept others as my sisters and brothers. Our union is as complete as our belonging to God.
What ever our experience of the church, the body of Christ, it was conceived of by God.
As soon as we begin our new-life journey we are faced with the frightening concept that we are joined together with a group of other people; the church. The moment I call God my Father I have to accept others as my sisters and brothers. Our union is as complete as our belonging to God.
Belonging is, in fact, a key mark of the New Birth event. Our sin, having separated us from our creator, has been defeated and the spoils of this cosmic war are that I am now re-connected to God. Not merely in a creator-creature relationship or a master-servant contract but as Father and beloved child. The cross, the greatest equaliser of all, demands that everyone who dares approach should bend the knee to the one Lord. Our self-sufficiency, our abilities, our wealth, our depravity, they are now neither aid nor hindrance to us. We all come through the same door, Christ Jesus.
As we embrace the Christ we have to embrace the idea that the church is a conception of God. It is often so easy, whether through disappointment or fear, to see the church as an optional extra in the plan and purposes of God. No matter how many times we experience the failure of the church we have to face the unending reality that it is God’s idea.
There is no ecclesiological failsafe on offer. This is not in anyway to excuse the church, including my own, from past errors and faults. It is just that we must begin our journey with this knowledge in our minds to ever have enough strength to allow God to finish the work he has started. If we believe that the church is somehow inferior to our own experiences and relationship to God then we will all to readily give up when difficult times appear. It is my continual sadness to meet Christians who have embraced the idea of personal salvation only to reject the church in response to the pain of rejection that they themselves have felt.
This in no way excuses those who have given up ‘meeting together’, but those of us in church leadership have to face the fact that we have often left a wake of disappointed and disconnected sisters and brothers behind us in our search for the holy grail of visionary success. I face the same question every time I think of those who have left our church feeling hurt and bruised. We pray for them often that they might know the blessing of God in a church family that can offer them what they need at that time.
Incarnational Church – UK Context TWO Heavenly Branding
The Marks of Incarnation
If the incarnation story continues in the church then surely it follows that there will be indicators that can be seen within the life of the church.
Snyder proposes ‘While the Incarnation is a mystery, it provides the essential model for the believer and especially for the church’s corporate life and mission in the world.’
I have never particularly enjoyed looking at my own reflection in the mirror. I like it even less now because the passage of time brings me greater distress. The recurring thought that springs to my mind is that I look like my father more than my father’s son. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, should he read these words, it continually reminds me that I am connected to my parents. I recall one day waking up from one of those mid-day naps that seem to be the comfort of middle age, looking down at my hand in that half asleep half awake state and thinking that my dad was in the room.
In a similar way, if we care to look, the whole of creation bears the impression of the thumbprint of God: every galaxy, star, planet, flower, animal and sunset, every human being reflecting God. Both in terms of physiology and history all created matter and therefore human life images our creator.
In the incarnation the Word, the second person of the Trinity, embraced this ‘creative’ fingerprint personally and thus reflected the creative act in both physique and purpose.
As we look at the life of Christ we can see the mind of a purposeful God. Every aspect of the life of Christ has the thumbprint of God upon it: from conception, through death, to resurrection. At conception we see the will of God unfold in a manner that although spoken of by the prophets of old was, in many ways, unimaginable to the human mind. His birth, so ordained to fulfil the prophetic utterances of the people of Israel, bringing together Divinity and humanity. His growth as a child: expressing his willingness to be self-confined within the human condition. His ministry: breaking into the mundane of human frailty, yet always with a mind upon the ultimate goal of the cross. The passion of the self-sacrifice of the creator God, as a seed dies in order to produce much fruit. The stunning glory of the resurrection: with all its mystery and wonder. These are things that surely no human mind could have conceived. God, the author and finisher, has been at work.
As I have already stated, what can be said of Christ, the Head, should be said of his body, the church. The incarnation continues and thus, the marks of incarnation, the very thumbprint of God, should be visible in the church. Locally we should touch our communities with these marks. Globally, we should shape and guide our world towards the creator.
To be continued............
‘Liberating the Church’ Howard Snyder Marshalls 1983 pg109
If the incarnation story continues in the church then surely it follows that there will be indicators that can be seen within the life of the church.
Snyder proposes ‘While the Incarnation is a mystery, it provides the essential model for the believer and especially for the church’s corporate life and mission in the world.’
I have never particularly enjoyed looking at my own reflection in the mirror. I like it even less now because the passage of time brings me greater distress. The recurring thought that springs to my mind is that I look like my father more than my father’s son. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this, should he read these words, it continually reminds me that I am connected to my parents. I recall one day waking up from one of those mid-day naps that seem to be the comfort of middle age, looking down at my hand in that half asleep half awake state and thinking that my dad was in the room.
In a similar way, if we care to look, the whole of creation bears the impression of the thumbprint of God: every galaxy, star, planet, flower, animal and sunset, every human being reflecting God. Both in terms of physiology and history all created matter and therefore human life images our creator.
In the incarnation the Word, the second person of the Trinity, embraced this ‘creative’ fingerprint personally and thus reflected the creative act in both physique and purpose.
As we look at the life of Christ we can see the mind of a purposeful God. Every aspect of the life of Christ has the thumbprint of God upon it: from conception, through death, to resurrection. At conception we see the will of God unfold in a manner that although spoken of by the prophets of old was, in many ways, unimaginable to the human mind. His birth, so ordained to fulfil the prophetic utterances of the people of Israel, bringing together Divinity and humanity. His growth as a child: expressing his willingness to be self-confined within the human condition. His ministry: breaking into the mundane of human frailty, yet always with a mind upon the ultimate goal of the cross. The passion of the self-sacrifice of the creator God, as a seed dies in order to produce much fruit. The stunning glory of the resurrection: with all its mystery and wonder. These are things that surely no human mind could have conceived. God, the author and finisher, has been at work.
As I have already stated, what can be said of Christ, the Head, should be said of his body, the church. The incarnation continues and thus, the marks of incarnation, the very thumbprint of God, should be visible in the church. Locally we should touch our communities with these marks. Globally, we should shape and guide our world towards the creator.
To be continued............
‘Liberating the Church’ Howard Snyder Marshalls 1983 pg109
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)