Looking for Jesus: Refuges in Faith
An interesting article in the age today with some familiar names quoted and mentioned: Credo Cafe, Cheryl Lawrie, Mark Sayers, Ruth Powell, Alan Hirsch, Don Carson and others.
Search
Author
Signposts is the personal website of Phil and Dan McCredden. We are involved in leadership at Northern Community.
You can also get Signposts via RSS
Pages
Categories
- admin (17)
- blogosphere (115)
- book of the month (4)
- books and dvd's (31)
- bumping uglies (12)
- campaign 2004 (23)
- challenges for the church (436)
- chat (28)
- chicks in church (7)
- Christmas (12)
- election 2007 (2)
- environment (1)
- events (1)
- Forge (52)
- geek talk (51)
- General (5)
- Geoff Bullock (21)
- glurge (3)
- god as santa (3)
- God politics (25)
- guest posters (6)
- Hillsong (12)
- iraq (70)
- kaleo (3)
- leadership (6)
- Liquid (7)
- Mark for Lent 2006 (43)
- mDNA (51)
- notes from northern (59)
- NT for Lent (21)
- oz politics and society (140)
- poetry and writings (17)
- polls (1)
- quotes (34)
- random musings (125)
- reciprocal links (31)
- religious vilification laws (5)
- songs (3)
- spirituality and prayers (46)
- the good book (19)
- the kitchen garden (1)
- the money jar (14)
- theologically speaking (33)
- those wacky christians (5)
- Unfreezing Moves (14)
- us (154)
- wise words (44)
- World Affairs (84)
Recent entries
April 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
“if for no other reason than that they do not know God, and if they did (remember the demons) would refuse to acknowledge him anyway.”
Correction - many would refuse to acknowledge him anyway…
Night night
MN
April 17th, 2007 at 2:09 am
MN I think the bible makes no point about that at all. The assumptions of dispensationalism are just that assumptions. I for one do not put all my hopes in a system of eschatology that is only 150 years old. The fact is the rapture, pre mid and post stuff is a brand new doctrine, and the vast majority of Christianity did not believe that. I would suggest you read the Challenge of Jesus by N T Wright, though I would say he is a partial preterist, the preterist understanding of eschatology is very deep and makes sense of a lot of things.
Secondly, even if we could not ever “end” war, and hunger, is that any reason not to try as hard as we are able? Jesus said that the peacemakers will be blessed and called sons of God. And I suspect once again we find that true Christianity is not being tried and found wanting, but rather found too difficult and left untried.
And yes I am thankful for the multitude of voices as well
rev
April 17th, 2007 at 5:08 am
It appears, like the Lord himself, the Rev never sleeps!
April 17th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Nor it seems to you Janet!!!! Is Signposts addictive? Should there be a task force to investigate the illegal use of signposts? Am I simply rambling again? All these issues require a government response…or at least a legal opinion - Dan?
April 17th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I was trying to watch a bit of the cricket is all. Was able to stay away til Sri Lanka was bowled out. Now, I am sorry I did. Have to get up and get the kids off to school, and then off to the Cave all day.
Just so my voice won’t be missed: Jesus says love your enemies, and do not rule like the worlds rulers do, enforcing their power. Then demonstrates what that means, shouldn’t we follow his example?
rev
April 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Hi Rev
you mean you think we’re here until this place heats so its in uninhabitable (shouldn’t be too long now), a metorite hits us - could happen anytime or never? It seems to me there’s plenty of doctrine floating around with recent origins - been the root cause of some of posts in fact, but being facetious.
Seriously, I wasn’t saying don’t try - you will note in a previous post I said Christians have an obligation to prevent evil. Its more about the perspective from which we try. In fact I a was raised in a rabidly premill church, and came to the conclusion after a couple years that the Gospel that arose out of this was one of fear. Everyone was under the pump to “witness”, because Jesus might come tomorrow, not because of what He had done for us. I see the latter and His love for us as the primary and only source of doing good in God’s sight - most of the things you have been talking about. That was an old lesson for me but one that remains - the best “good” is done from the right perspective, and right reasons - although God uses whatever else He wants to as well.
Cheers
MN
April 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Sorry - should be ” has been the root cause of some of my posts in fact…
April 17th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
greg (184) Signposts is addictive and it mortifies me but if I’m ever asked what my hobbies are I think I’ve reached the point where I’d have to list blogging as one of them
April 17th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Yes - it does become a pastime!
April 17th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I had a ten year old addition to the bed about 4.00 am and had trouble getting back to sleep… thought I may as well bide the time blogging a little.
But I think it is an addiction all the same. One I’m going to have to control in the next couple of weeks to get assignments finished!
April 17th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
oh no…i thought they would be over it by ten years of age…
April 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I can quit anytime I want.
rev
April 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
They mostly are, Emma. It does get better. Much, much better.
We’d miss you Rev.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
If I am reading this correctly,
rev thinks he can quit climbing into Janet’s bed any time he likes.
Janet however (and partner?) say that if he did they would miss him.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
ADHD
perhaps you had better either stop taking the pills or start taking them again.
how many paces is it to the Alice??
Anyway you can always get your local football club to pay for rehab - WA joke.
Cheers
MN
April 17th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Thanks Janet, that is encouraging for me to hear!
April 18th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Not for the last time I cannot improve on Saint’s contribution.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:07 am
from: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/209660/150_graduates_of_pat_robertsons_college.html
Some have accused the Bush Administration of being far too cozy with the religious right and the agenda of dominion that they ascribe to. Others have reacted that the accusations are unfounded. The fact that the Bush Administration has 150 graduates of Pat Robertson’s low rated and just recently accredited law school might suggest the former. This revelation isn’t news to the faithful, it is even on the Regent University website. It is news to those of us concerned that the Bush Administration is in bed with the far right of the religious base. You know, the same 30% that for some unexplainable reason still think Mr. Bush is doing a good job. You know, the group who likely believes that the occupation of Iraq is just going great. I suppose if you think that the earth was created in six days or that it’s only 6,000 years old, or that two of all the animals on earth once rode on a wooden boat, the Bush Presidency being a success isn’t such a stretch.
The school was founded in 1986 as the CBN University Law School. The American Bar Association (ABA) denied accreditation in 1987. It gave the school provisional accreditation in 1989. Full accreditation by the ABA didn’t occur until 1996.
The fact that 150 grads of the illustrious Regent law school being in the Bush Administration came to widespread light because of Monica Goodling. The Regent grad 1999 quit the Justice Department last week. Just a few days after she had refused to testify before Congress by pleading the Fifth Amendment. She had virtually no prosecutor experience before landing a job at the top levels of the Justice Department. She served as Justice liaison for the White House and was deeply involved with evaluating the nation’s federal prosecutors. It is the handling of the firings of several prosecutors which has led to the controversy that will most likely cost Attorney General Alberto Gonzales his job.
The law school at Regent University was once ranked in the lowest tier by U.S. News and World Reports college survey. On its own website’s admissions page, Regent states that it seeks to admit “students who are serious about the critical roles they will assume as future counselors, conciliators, defenders of the faith, effective client advocates and followers of Christ.” Later it adds “Regent Law seeks men and women who are dedicated to becoming Christian leaders who will change the world for Christ.” I would think that a law school might say that it hopes its students become good interpreters of the law, or defenders of the Constitution, or something along those lines. But the Princeton Review did at one time rank the school second in the nation in the likelihood that graduates would receive a fellowship at a conservative think tank!
The website of Regent Law tells of an upcoming symposium to “Celebrate 400th anniversary of Jamestown settlement.” A keynote speaker is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia. Another is Deputy U.S. Attorney General Paul McNulty. Topics include “Liberty, the Rule of Rule of Law, and religion today.” I doubt they will be discussing the need for a separation of church and state.
Regent is a televangelist founded school, started by the infamous Pat Robertson. The idea is for graduates to be the agents of change in America. They think of the big issues are abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage. Driving an agenda instead of focusing on the law. They are training people to make arguments based on the bible to push the far right agenda of hate, exclusion and corporate war for god and country.
One of the faculty support pages on website quotes Ephesians 6, 6-7 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of god from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the lord, not men. Good advice for a preacher, not so much for government lawyers. So, is the Bush Administration hiring the best legal minds the country can offer, or attorneys that can help with the Christo-Fascist agenda?
April 25th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
rev, not sure if this is right post but wanted your opinion re: church structures etc. Since leaving former aog church I have struggled to find a denomination…going back to the anglicans seemed to much of a jump away, couldn’t bring myself to darken the door of an aog church again so have ended up with the baptists. One of the things that drew ne to them was that the senior pastors are not demi-gods in the churches, the diaconate and the congregation seem to have a lot of say…it all seemed much more democratic.
anyway, church being full of politics etc the senior pastor (whom I really liked and respected and was happy to have in leadership over me) has been forced to eresign by a very strong faction in the diaconate/church but no one really seems to know what’s happening and when I tried to bring it up with my cell leader she was very “well there’s only so much you need to know.”
I don’t want to be involved in gossip, but isn’t there a case for the congrgation knowing what’s going on? I felt - powerless I guess, and i hate that feeling, especially beacause I felt like that for so long in aog. It seems my hope of the democratic diaconate is gone - still a small group of people holding power over others. I guess I’m answering my own questions/dounts about church structure here…and I knw you’re already emnraced me in the anarchist club
but I’d be interested in other opinions about feeling powerless in a church structure etc.
April 26th, 2007 at 7:11 am
Emma
Trust you don’t mind my reflections on this matter.
I have been a part of a number of church denominations as a result of seeking to find a church I can comfortably be a part of wherever I lived - not staying with a particular denomination.
I grew up in an Open Brethren (Gospel Chapel/Gospel Hall is the usual name on the buildings). It was unstructured without any form of hierarchy. They had elders who took responsibility for church decisions, and there was generally no paid leader/pastor. In fact, you could never officially point to any one person as a leader in most churches. Each church had only no official connection with others, except by mutual recognition. Consequently I saw a wide variety of how this sort of churches work.
In some ways, you could say it was the sort of thing that Rev promotes. Now human nature being what it is, let me assure you that even though there was no organised power structure, it was very much present. In many churches, the elders had total say on what went on in the church, and the rules were strong and unwritten.
For a church structure that seems to be the most egalitarian possible, I have found it to be the most dominating and restrictive I have experienced.
I have also been a part of the Baptist/Church of Christ structure. I have seen the democratic diaconate type of structure both work, and where it can be abused (as it would seem you have experienced).
My “conclusion” (thus far - it is always open to modification) is that the type of church structure is less relevant than the hearts of the leaders, and their willingness to be humble and and open to the voice of God for their particular situation. Pride and the desire to control and manipulate others is often the sins, and the sinful nature that those who are naturally leaders have to contend with. This sinful nature will be evident in any power structure - whether it is formal or informal.
Part of maturity in Christ means that we all need to acknowledge that we continue to struggle with our sinful nature, and that it needs to be broken - crucified if you wish to use that term. Being a leader means being willing to let go of our personal agendas and desires, and seek to work for the best of the group you lead. It means being open and real before others about our own failings, and the humility to listen, repent and change when we are wrong.
I believe that leaders with this attitudes and lifestyle will be effective in ANY church leadership style. Therefore, when I am seeking to find a church in a new place of residence, I am more concerned about the attitudes and heart of those who lead, than the actual structure they work under.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:08 am
Janet is correct in one respect, but you still have a situation where you have created a power structure, with specific elements that people try to take control over. In this case the elders, in her case it was the building and traditions ect. This is possible in a house church, cafe church type thing as well, however, when you take away most of the platform for control, ie, “money, buildings, congregation size, influence” it does much to encourage more responsibility and less control.
Janets comment about the heart of the leaders is correct, but the structures still tend towards power and control issues. In your story you wind up with a pastor that must be afraid of the board, who holds his salary. If he dares to not follow their directives, he is sacked, losing his job, and most likely his community. This is not right in my opinion. But the aog pastor is annointed leader and never wrong doesn’t work either. When it is all up to congregation vote, it is just as bad, you have people campaigning for their own agendas. If the groups stay small enough, things actually can work relationally. And you actually are forced to work things out in love, because you are too close to people to just write them off, and use power to go around their concerns.
I have a few ideas about your situation that I would prefer not to discuss on a public board, can you email me at johnj at forge.org.au
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Oh, and by the way, I am just as concerned about the heart of leaders, but also the structure that they serve in. With current church structure as it is, you take power monger types, send them to the pub and ask them not to drink. Tough stuff, and if they are really good leaders with good hearts they may spend most of their time trying not to drink, while the elders will come in and get plastered. It is not either or, but both and.
rev
April 26th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Elders who go and get plastered is directly contradicting 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1.
no-one serving or leading can do so. A leader who hits his wife for example should immediately be stood down as this too contradicts scripture.
god not only tells us what the requirements are he also tell us what outcomes to look for as well.
A pity most denominations ignore them.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:11 am
thanks both. rev will email tonight