come to church and win a car
We had some people visiting our tangent congregation last night. They had been doing the rounds of several churches – one of which was careforce church.
I was surprised to hear that careforce is offering an incentive for people to attend church by allocating you a number if you are new and you will be put in a draw for a brand spanking new car.
Is it just me or do you think this is a little crass?
What do we think about this method of evangelism?
Note: this is obviously hearsay. I tried to find mention of it on the web site but was unable to do so. But, even the principle is worth talking about.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Jack, I like your thinking and concept. I’d love to go one step further in the whole “no structures, organic” concept and be involved with others that isn’t necessarily called anything and has no need to identify anyone with any kind of titles, but helps to facilitate the many functions of “church”. I think I still have more learning to do in this area, but am well on the way with a bunch of friends already.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Jamesh I don’t think I’m at liberty to be specific about the church as the information was shared in a closed group and I would betray the confidence if began posting about it on the web.
I think the early stages of a church transition are highly charged and need to be managed very carefully.
What I can say is that this particular new pastor has every reason to emulate the Hill$ong model, but surprisingly has chosen to march to the beat of a very different drum. It won’t be easy for him so I don’t want to add any unecessary angst.
Jack-of-it you are right in that the elders do not have any power afforded them by God, but I would argue that by virtue of their function as elders they would have authority in your set up [perhaps even to discipline someone who was being unruly and abusive?], and by virtue of that they have small-p power?
There is power in every entity, its a matter of how it is shared or otherwise.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Zulu you said:
“Jack-of-it you are right in that the elders do not have any power afforded them by God, but I would argue that by virtue of their function as elders they would have authority in your set up [perhaps even to discipline someone who was being unruly and abusive?], and by virtue of that they have small-p power”?
The function of Eldership is one of recognising God’s gift to the Church in relation to the wisdom, experience etc necessary for Godly leadership.
The fruit of such a gift, in this case Eldership, largely depends upon the quality of relationships that the Elder invests in, with regard to those he seeks to serve (in Christ).
If such relationships are based on the Christ-like qualities inherent (to some extent) within the gift (underscoring the Lord’s reason for choosing such a person) then there is no need for power (or title).
If you need power to ‘persuade’ or ‘discipline’ someone; then you are admitting your relationship is shallow – and therefore your failure as an Elder.
In which case to then try to bring about change (as you see it) with a ‘stick’ would amount to an abuse of that relationship (perhaps irrevocably damaging it) and would be tantamount to forcing your will upon that person – we have had enough abuse of (self-proclaimed) power in the Church to last a lifetime.
Eldership is about relationship, as is discipleship, salvation and indeed everything that Gods purposes carries this underlying theme and is best reflected in the community (relationship) that exits in the God head.
Jesus invited us into relationship; with the Triune Godhead and with each other. The Pharisees and the Sadducees (and the other religious authorities) of Jesus day were ALL about POWER. So it is with so many today!
Why on earth would we want to give up the freedom we have in Christ, (which He secured for us through relationship) to simply to go back to (corrupt) power structures?
All power and its running mate authority have been vested in Christ alone! He does not delegate power (small ‘p’ or any other kind) he invests himself in the ‘gift’ and the ‘gift’ in the people … the people recognise Christ in the gift and respond to Christ - who alone has the power!
Why are so many in the Church so hung up on something they do not have and cannot be trusted with in any case?
I’ll give you one obvious reason … the institutions of man are coming under divine judgement … he has in many cases withdrawn His presence and left such organisations to their own devices.
Guess what some of those devices are … you guessed it ‘usurped power’ and ‘illegitimate authority’ … what an indictment on those who are destined to hear the following words:
“Depart from Me I never knew you … in response to their plaintive cry: “BUT Lord we did this … and that … and something else … in your name.
God preserve us from their number!
A footnote: While we bicker over the best model etc. the most recent NCLS stats provide a damning indictment of our so-called success at evangelising our Nation and our failure to correctly reflect the nature of God through his body - the Church!
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 7:44 am
“All power and its running mate authority have been vested in Christ alone! He does not delegate power (small ‘p’ or any other kind)”
Actually, I believe Christ did and does.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and that on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16: 19)
I think God delegates power all the time and is pleased to do so… but legitimate power is not self seeking or abusive: it seeks the good of another.
Cases in point. Parents have legitimate authority over their children which is delegated by God. A responsible parent will use appropriate discipline for the good of a child… parents are negligent if they refuse this use of power. My mother-in-law has enough years up her sleeve to have seen a lot of different children come to adulthood, and feels about the worst thing you could do to a child is over-indulgence… it breeds the kind of irresponsibility that sets someone up to shipwreck their life. She’s seen it plenty of times.
(Note to Homer… by discipline I don’t mean pummelling a small child with a stick… the “rod” is a symbol!!! 99.9% of parenting is modelling and teaching IMO… but one mustn’t shirk from the 0.1 %!)
I have worked in teaching for many years… and again I’d suggest a teacher who will not discipline is negligent. It doesn’t need to be harsh discipline, but if a line is overstepped and is not corrected, it leads to group mayhem. This is a use of power, and it is a completely legitimate use of power for the good of everyone in the class.
Jesus and Paul both wrote about church discipline… Jesus in the context of someone who refuses reconcilliation after sinning (Matt 18:15 - 20), Paul in the context of scandalous sexual behaviour. Again, I think this is perfectly legitimate use of delegated authority… although of course, exercising this right must always be an agonising decision, because we have to test ourselves (are we casting the first stone? Are we hypocritical to exercise judgment because of our own sin? Have we attempted private dialogue? etc.)
I’ve spoken in this thread about the dangers in being reactionary… it is possible to so react against abuses of power we’ve seen in institutions that we refuse to acknowledge or exercise legitimate God-given power. Yes, God is patient and gracious… but yes, God does discipline us for our own good, yes, God does delegate authority to church leadership who in turn should be delegating authority and empowering others. But there may come a time, even in the most “level” organisation, where someone is behaving in such a toxic fashion that those who have spiritual oversight had better take gutsy action. Otherwise the whole group can be damaged or destroyed.
I know even saying the word “authority” will make people cringe who’ve emerged from places where positional authority was abused… but just sometimes servant leadership has to be hard. We follow the One who drove out money changers from the temple with a whip… we don’t always have to be wishy washy nice hoping that love will eventually solve everything.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Jack-of-it you are preaching to the converted with respects to power.
I guess I meaning something a little different. I’m trying to point out that no matter how flat your structure or organisation is, no matter how intent on servanthood, your group will have power, whether you like it or not. Emergents like to soapbox about power structures within IC ad nauseum without realising that they themselves have it and use it.
By virtue of your very well developed and firmly held views, and no doubt those of your fellow ex-pastors, and by the outline you have given of how you organise yourselves, there is evident a firm notion of how you want to do church, and I imagine that any attempt by new people to change that will be resisted.
In fact, if anyone has a rigid view of things, its emergents. Their rigidity often stems from a well developed view of what they DON’T want, and what they reject and want to get away from.
They will hold the line on this, quite rightly so, in an attempt to birth a new culture. There is pecking order in everything.
I guess I’m weary of the speck being picked when there’s logs about. One side of the debate claiming to be a power and authority vacuum when clearly we all have potential in this arena.
Its especially hard when much of my suffering stems from the way I am often used and abused in my own church setting, only to read and hear constantly about how somehow I’m in the business of perpetuating abusive power structures. The reality of of my daily life in ministry contradicts that prejudice.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Ministry is a really tough road. I guess Jesus was misunderstood by everyone at some point… he’s the ultimate role model of the suffering, misunderstood, abused and frustrated servant!
Godly leadership is lonely sometimes.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Janet you said:
Jack-of-it You said: ‘All power and its running mate authority have been vested in Christ alone! He does not delegate power (small ‘p’ or any other kind)’
“Actually, I believe Christ did and does.
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and that on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt 16: 19)
I think God delegates power all the time and is pleased to do so… but legitimate power is not self seeking or abusive: it seeks the good of another”.
In your example above, Peter was NOT given power. He was given the opportunity to lead by example (in co-operation with God) … let me explain.
When a matter requiring some action as implied above occurs, do you really think that Peter acted arbitrarily, by either ‘not permitting’ (binding) or ‘permitting’ (loosing)?
Or perhaps you think he paused before acting, consulted God and then acted? Either action IMHO exposes a lurking pride.
My understanding (of this passage) would go something like this:
The Triune God, in the divine council, considers a particular situation and determines a judgement (or verdict) this then is conveyed (by way of the Holy Spirit) to a SERVANT (not a power wielding authority – IC or EC) of God.
The servant (in this case Peter) acts on that verdict expressed as homologéō or ‘confessing the same as’ i.e. agreeing with God and then acting on that agreement. This then preserves the Master/Servant relationship and places appropriate boundaries on Peter’s authority – which rightly rests IN Christ!
In the passage above it is more correct to say:
“…whatever you bind on earth will be (already have been) bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be (already have been) loosed in heaven” (Matt 16: 19)
This rendering acknowledges the Lord’s sovereignty and man’s (Peter’s) co-operation in regard to that sovereignty. (cf ‘Prevenient Grace’).
The rest of your comments centre on discipline, which I have no quarrel with, per se; but in the Church setting, such discipline is NEVER to be carried out arbitrarily …we (the Eldership) must FIRST wait upon (NOT ask implying an already formed opinion) God for His desired action (without preconceived opinions as to what that might be) and then seek to act.
The POWER rests in God alone … we (His servant leaders) are often called upon to utilise ‘legislative authority’; for want of a better descriptive, to see God’s righteous demands carried out. But let’s not think that WE have the POWER!
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Zulu you said:
“Jack-of-it you are preaching to the converted with respects to power.
I guess I meaning something a little different. I’m trying to point out that no matter how flat your structure or organisation is, no matter how intent on servanthood, your group will have power, whether you like it or not.
(Please refer to my response to Janet on this point)
Emergents like to soapbox about power structures within IC ad nauseum without realising that they themselves have it and use it.
(I agree …that’s why I don’t identify with either group although my leaning is towards the EC)
By virtue of your very well developed and firmly held views, and no doubt those of your fellow ex-pastors, and by the outline you have given of how you organise yourselves, there is evident a firm notion of how you want to do church, and I imagine that any attempt by new people to change that will be resisted.
(Not so much resist … the Lord sometimes uses ‘iron to sharpen iron’ … we would be gracious and await the Lord’s determination and be open to change ourselves. Your example does not imply the need for swift action – where serious disregard for ‘………’ has occurred; but we would of course not rule it out if required. We are not ‘seeker sensitive’ but rather ‘God sensitive’.)
In fact, if anyone has a rigid view of things, its emergents. Their rigidity often stems from a well developed view of what they DON’T want, and what they reject and want to get away from.
(I think this is somewhat understandable … particularly during the ‘detox phase’. However rigidity can be a sign of immaturity – change is the one constant in the Kingdom)
They will hold the line on this, quite rightly so, in an attempt to birth a new culture. There is pecking order in everything. (Only … ‘rightly so’, if ‘defending the faith once delivered’ but NOT if mere opinions are involved)
I guess I’m weary of the speck being picked when there’s logs about. One side of the debate claiming to be a power and authority vacuum when clearly we all have potential in this arena.
(The power that some of us ‘think we have’ is mostly of our own creation eg ‘titular authority’ wields power … that why I am against titles and these are found in both camps. I continue to pray for the restoration of true servant leadership in the Lord’s Church – some I believe are there … some are close … but most are not within a bull’s roar!).
Its especially hard when much of my suffering stems from the way I am often used and abused in my own church setting, only to read and hear constantly about how somehow I’m in the business of perpetuating abusive power structures. The reality of of my daily life in ministry contradicts that prejudice’.
(I can certainly empathise … I think much more Grace needs to be applied across the board. I for one, certainly appreciate your sincerity of heart and the authenticity of your desires for God; I can hear them ‘loud and clear’.)
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Jack-of-it you seem to have arrived at the assumption that the default use of power in church is abusive or arbitrary. This is not my experience, although I accept that it is prevalent.
Its difficult to conduct a conversation about say, how power is used in a baptist setting, when you may be referring to a mega church, but that’s the limitations of blogging!
We have a number of refugees in our church [and other churches around here] from a church called BCF - Brisbane Christian Fellowship, who are a cult like church run by apostles out of Brisbane and Melbourne, who have developed an esoteric teaching called the ‘gospel of headship’.
Basically the ‘word of God’ is spoken fist by the prophets, then by the men, who speak ths ‘word’ to their wives and families. Any non-compliance results in children being put of the home, or the church eldes instructing either a wife or husband to leave the home. They literally order people out of the home, out of marriages.
It is truly frightening to listen to the stories that survivors tell of their time there. On the surface they are a pretty normal looking church, made up of well educated professional people, who somehow come to accept the most bizarre behaviour and teaching from the ‘apostles’.
Dating, marriage etc is controlled and decisions by the elders are binding. Failure to comply has terrible consequences, and excommunicated people, or people who have left of their own accord are cut off.
When I think of the abuse of power, that’s what I think of. I don’t think about fair dinkum local fellowships trying to do their best by God and serve their local community. When I feel that by virtue of not being in some bona fide EC group I’m being lobbed in with the tyrants of the ecclesiatical world I tend not be receptive and learn nothing.
January 30th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Zulu
You said: “Jack-of-it you seem to have arrived at the assumption that the default use of power in church is abusive or arbitrary. This is not my experience, although I accept that it is prevalent.”
(No …I’m merely pointing out that the ‘power’ is the Lord’s not ours. If we have this understanding, (i.e. the Master has the power the servant [leader] enacts His wishes) then I think there is less possibility of misuse/abuse in any setting.
I agree that ‘blogging limitations’ often do not permit accurate communication. This is the main reason why I dissect a post and try to answer it within the specific AND overall context).
“When I think of the abuse of power, that’s what I think of. I don’t think about fair dinkum local fellowships trying to do their best by God and serve their local community”.
(Appalling abuses of power exist (Exclusive Brethren in the news of late … down our way) but such power (obviously) does not originate from God or a correct understanding of His power and the means by which he exerts His will.
I am certainly not meaning to imply ‘abuse of power’ across the board in the IC or EC in any personal way. However, I do think it is possible to ‘misuse’ or even naively misunderstand the true nature of power (I did), and then by virtue of ‘toeing the company line’ etc (this of course varies to some extent among the denominations/Mega churches) can be found guilty of misuse etc.
This is not (necessarily) a judgement upon the individual (although personal responsibility is in play) the organisation (IC or EC) itself can demand certain follow-on actions by virtue of our allegiance to said organisation).
“When I feel that by virtue of not being in some bona fide EC group I’m being lobbed in with the tyrants of the ecclesiatical world I tend not be receptive and learn nothing”.
(I can certainly understand that, but rest assured; from this end, I have NOT done so. Remember … I’m NOT in any ‘bona fide EC group’ myself; in fact I may even be an anomaly to them our worse still (perhaps) an embarrassment).
I enjoy our chats.
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Wayne you said:
“Jack, I like your thinking and concept”. (Thankyou)
“I’d love to go one step further in the whole “no structures, organic” concept and be involved with others that isn’t necessarily called anything and has no need to identify anyone with any kind of titles, but helps to facilitate the many functions of “church”. (This is exactly what we are trying to do … but it is a process.)
I think I still have more learning to do in this area, but am well on the way with a bunch of friends already”. (Don’t we all … when it’s all said and done … we are all fellow pilgrims! Let’s enjoy the journey together.)
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Wayne,
Found this, an intersting article written by a ‘Detoxing (ex) Pastor’ thought you might be interested here’s the link:
http://www.theofframp.org/Detox.html
January 30th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
The rest of your comments centre on discipline, which I have no quarrel with, per se; but in the Church setting, such discipline is NEVER to be carried out arbitrarily …we (the Eldership) must FIRST wait upon (NOT ask implying an already formed opinion) God for His desired action (without preconceived opinions as to what that might be) and then seek to act. The POWER rests in God alone … we (His servant leaders) are often called upon to utilise ‘legislative authority’; for want of a better descriptive, to see God’s righteous demands carried out. But let’s not think that WE have the POWER!
I agree… I have been talking all the time about delegated authority, which is always ultimately God’s power and authority.
I’m a bit of an M Scott Peck fan, and he writes a lot in “A World Waiting to be Born” (and other places) about appropriate / ethical use of power… which is always power used in submission to God.
But it would be naive to suggest people do not exercise personal power for good or for ill… if you put two or more people in a room there is always politics happening and always power dynamics at work… the trick is to redeem this as much as possible, to surrender our hearts, minds and relationships to God as much as possible… to be motivated by servant love in obedience to God as much as possible.
This is where I resonate with what Zulu is saying… no organisation involving human beings is completely egalitarian… there are always those who are more influential and more gifted in leadership… and always those who prefer to be led than to take on responsibility.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Thanks Jack! Appreciate the link….
January 30th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Janet you said;
“I agree… I have been talking all the time about delegated authority, which is always ultimately God’s power and authority”.
Perhaps a ‘blogging limitation’ …? The discussion has centred around POWER not authority - see my response to your post #157. That is what I’ve been trying to address, by way of answering specific questions posed (mostly) by Zulu.
“But it would be naive to suggest people do not exercise personal power for good or for ill… if you put two or more people in a room there is always politics happening and always power dynamics at work…” (No one is - at least I’m not - suggesting anything like that. I have been addressing the issue of power as used or misused in Church settings).
“… the trick is to redeem this as much as possible, to surrender our hearts, minds and relationships to God as much as possible… to be motivated by servant love in obedience to God as much as possible”. (Isn’t that in accord with what I have been saying?)
“This is where I resonate with what Zulu is saying… no organisation involving human beings is completely egalitarian… there are always those who are more influential and more gifted in leadership… and always those who prefer to be led than to take on responsibility”. (Again isn’t that what I have been saying? We were talking about the abuse/misuse of power by leaders in a Church setting. However, given that your comment is undoubtedly true, should we not recognise it as a poor reflection of what the Lord desires and aim higher?)
I think we are essentially on the same just sorting through some of the debris.
Jack
January 30th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
One day, not so long ago, I stepped into a church building. Something I hadn’t done on a regular basis for over 25 years.
Although the building was churchy on the outside it had physically different arrangement inside, but I didn’t really register that as important. The numbers were small, but I understand that churches are declining in the West, and, anyway, that wasn’t important. Some of the people didn’t seem to be the full quid, others weren’t wearing their “Sunday best”, but then I’m not exactly “Mr Fashionista”, either, so I thought perhaps they won’t mind another underheight and fugly drop-in.
They still had a bit of traditional structure, you know, some songs (new ones that I didn’t recognize), a prayer or three, a little message. And their was some friendly banter afterwards.
I liked the message, though. Although I’m not a “born-again” or any other type of Christian, I could find practical application of the “pastor’s” message in my own life.
Didn’t give a shit about the ambience. Didn’t bother me that there was no 20-piece band or choir or mosh-pit or slick fuck pressing the flesh. Didn’t have to put up with an “alter call” or 5 minute pleading for donations.
No, it’s really the people, the teaching and the sense of community. That’s what Church has to offer.
It’s really simple folks. It doesn’t require a 5 year Masters degree in theology, either. But 25 years of experience helps.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Nice post, Sanders.
I’ve often found that the most inclusive churches are actually those where people sit in pews and follow a relatively traditional order of service. This isn’t to say I don’t like alt worship or emergent communities - I most definitely do. It’s just to point out that the IC isn’t getting it all wrong, and in my experience, there’s lots of little ICs that are getting a hell of a lot right. It’s just that they don’t tend to get the coverage the big ICs do.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Hey Jack of it… probably like much of the conversation, we argue about semantics but agree on almost everything. In the context of the discussion… we agree it’s all about the Kingdom, it’s all about Jesus, it’s all about obedience, and it’s all about living out that to which we’ve been called.
Lovely way with words Sanders… I think the IC will continue to offer that which it has for hundreds of years… a space for pilgrims to find some kind of spiritual home, a bit of space for quiet, and a community to be alongside.
January 31st, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Bec, I’ve been reading about IC and EC, but as an outsider it looks like a non-issue.
I’ve always thought that Church was all about a community of Christians working in the world trying to spread the good news about the Kingdom of God to outsiders, people on the margins, the poor and anyone else who will listen. Everyone knows that. Why the big discussion around the church scene about traditional versus non-traditional ways of doing the same thing? I don’t get it.
Like Nike say, just do it.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hey Sanders, I’ve been reading the womans weekly and as an outsider (ie: male) I find it quite interesting.
Your langauge betrays the fact that you are no outsider - you have had plenty of insider involvement - outsider’s don’t talk aobut the kingdom of God a great deal. Your point none the less is valid, however Peter and paul had arguments about how best to relate the Gospel to non-jews and therefore bring people into the kingdom and that is what’s happening here - what is a more effective and biblical way to spred the god news about the kingdom of God?
February 1st, 2007 at 8:11 am
Sanders
That’s what I believe the church is about too.
The thing is, the EC - at least in Australia - has grown out of a recognition that a lot of ICs weren’t doing that very well. The point is that the traditional forms of worship and meeting haven’t really been about community for anybody but those that are already comfortable with those forms of worship and meeting. For lots of people, walking into church has meant walking into a completely alien culture. If we’re serious about community, then the culture needs to at least have more ‘entry points’.
February 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
I think the best “entry point” is a personal friendship. Why do we have to then invite them to “church”. Perhaps their friendship with you is “church”? Or aren’t we good enough and in order for our friend to have a valid spiritual encounter we have to take them somewhere else. It’s a sad indictment on ourselves really…..
February 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Wayne,
I think that’s what the EC discourse is on about - moving away from definitions of church that define it as meeting in a particular time, space and form, and back towards community. I think we can have a “valid spiritual encounter” with on other person, but as in every other area of life, I think we need to share our spiritual journeys with more than just one other person. I don’t care whether that occurs over the dinner table in a home or whether it occurs in pews…
February 1st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Sanders you said: (Post #169)
“…I’ve been reading about IC and EC, but as an outsider it looks like a non-issue”.
(Personally I’m not all that enamoured by either … I’m becoming convinced that the solution is a whole lot simpler than I first realised; as Jake Colsen says: “No church model will produce God’s life in you. It works the other way around. Our life in God, shared together, expresses itself as the church. It is the overflow of his life in us. You can tinker with church principles forever and still miss out on what it means to live deeply in Father’s love and share it with others.” … Now we’re talking!)
“I’ve always thought that Church was all about a community of Christians working in the world trying to spread the good news about the Kingdom of God to outsiders, people on the margins, the poor and anyone else who will listen. Everyone ‘knows’ that”.
(Really, not according to your logic; “…I always thought …” …past tense - implying a change has occurred. Perhaps you only ‘thought’ you/they knew it! Your own confusion about the nature and purpose of the Church is shared however, by increasing numbers of Christians around the world – including many leaders. Many have begun to question their perceptions / teachings etc regarding the ‘Church’. However, this should not be misconstrued as to imply a ‘questioning their belief in God per se’. That is an entirely separate issue.)
“Why the big discussion around the church scene about traditional versus non-traditional ways of doing the same thing”?
(Perhaps it’s because we DO want the message to BE about GOOD news; whereas many have come to see that the message has been distorted to SERVE the institution known as the ‘church’ [small ‘c’] rather than God’s purposes for the Church [big ‘C’] or as Jake says: “I want to expose the system of religious obligation in whatever ways it holds people captive, but that’s not the same as being against the institution. Don’t let the system threaten you. As long as you react to it, it still controls you.”)
“I don’t get it”. (Stick around)
“Like Nike say, just do it”. (Hmmm … the gospel according to Nike! Do what … act out of ignorance … or worse …knowing how corrupt some organisations (churches) are, ignore it … or should we be like the Bereans and search out the truth? After all it’s the truth that sets people free - not our mistaken version of it! But then you already know that don’t you?)
(I’ll let ‘Jake Colsen’ have the last say: “Jesus is always gathering his flock to himself. People from all over the world are finding their hunger for him eclipsing their hunger for anything else and that every substitute they try only adds to their restlessness. As they keep their eye on him, not only do they grow closer to him with each passing day, but they will find themselves alongside others who are headed that way, too… That’s why you only hurt yourself when you look for people who want to meet a certain way or think like you do. Every person who crosses your path, be they believer or unbeliever, in an institution like this or outside of it, is a potential partner in this journey. By loving all of them to the degree that they allow, you’ll participate in his great gathering.”)
Jack
February 2nd, 2007 at 8:21 am
Greg: although I am somewhat familiar with the language and concepts of Christianity, I claim “outsider” status because I have not had any involvement for over 25 years.
Jack: It would seem that the relational aspect of Christianity is more important than the structure or the particular rituals involved in its practice. Therefore, the surprise about the huge amount of debate amongst various Christian groups as to the correct or appropriate manner to go about their practice. I would have thought that recognition of diversity is a given, especially in countries like Australia. Possibly the world of Christianity is somewhat insulated from the reality of Australian life.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
More about Sydney the Selfish City
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/02/01/1169919474189.html
Hillsong fits in beautifully in Sydney, as does CCC, they are the epitome of of their surroundings. Middle class aspirationals desperate with status anxiety.
February 2nd, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Really interesting article Reve (I don’t think you need to live in Sydney to be heavily influenced by the “affluenza virus”, may I add!)
I was pleased to read the following bit… I feel like I’m battling the tide sometimes with my own kids (I had the “making money” discussion with my son in the car this morning… I’ve brainwashed him for now that contentment is great gain… but I still feel like kids are indoctrinated to be very materialistic these days.)
Of surprise to James on his “mind tour” was that “the people I met who had wellbeing had some kind of spiritual practice”. For James, spiritual practice is yoga. Whatever your practice, having a sense of spirituality is better than having none, he says.
“Quite apart from the question of whether there’s a God, if you pursue ethical practices - for example with Christianity - you’re much less likely to sleep around or use drugs and come unstuck.”
James says values instilled by parents in children also have a major effect on immunity to the affluenza virus.
But what of the bleak warning in W.B. Yeats’s poem The Second Coming - “Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer;/ Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” - where a kind of atomisation is irreversible?
If we are now generations away from values of close kin and community, and religion, can such values be retrieved if they are not in our lived memory? Have parents instead passed the values of “selfish capitalism” on to the next generation?
Anyway… he goes on to suggest materialism is so empty the tide will eventually turn.
We can hope.
(I’ve been interested in my Signposts catch up… haven’t had time to look for a few days!!!)