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 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
ooh, emma, i read your comment after posting that one. i’ll email you offline.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
No worries, thanks.
April 9th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“Again, wonderful people, but not biblical structure.”
Exactly what do people consider a biblical structure?
Cheers
MN
April 9th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Three thousand people in one day is not just a few Christians, that is an overwhelming number in a very short period of time. And add to that that more were being added everyday. They organized in small groups, in homes, and they were the church, they didn’t go there.
As to the temple, Jesus was the temple. The temple was the place where God intersected with man, and Jesus came and announced that He is the temple. And with his death and the infilling of the Spirit now we are the temple.
When Paul tells us that when we gather each one of us has a psalm, or a hymn, or a word of prophesy ect. it is obvious that this cannot happen in our large churches lead by professionals. So the individual believers are no longer required to bring their gifts to the church, but rather their money. The professional musicians will play the songs, the well educated preacher will give the message, and only the extremely outgoing and gifted will be able to speak and minister.
Now please again hear me, God can work in the traditional and contemporary church, He will never leave us or forsake us. But we must come to grips with the fact that our churches are like football games, with a few people on the field desperately needing a rest and a stadium full of people desperately needing a work out. This is not how it was meant to be. Ofcourse God loves us still, and works in our hearts, but the very structure is against us.
Nor do I say that house churches or missional churches are perfect, they can infact be anything but. The truth is that wherever imperfect people are involved we will have problems. However, when you take away the power base, the big dollars, and the prestige, much of the danger is avoided. I would also suggest that much of the problems in these smaller churches stem from one of two issues. The first is, we just relocate the church into a lounge room. Same system, one guy tells everyone else what God wants, come to church once a week, sing some songs and do some bible ect. This is not what I am advocating, but rather small communities that actually live their lives together, eating meals, praying for one another, doing mission together. Like we read about in Acts 2.
The second issue is that in smaller churches you cannot hide from personality conflicts, from sin issues, from real life. You are forced to deal with each others weaknesses and frailties. You don’t go to see the church counselor you are each others counselors. If one person isn’t taking their turn doing the dishes or helping with the kids, you notice. In our society we aren’t used to these sociological issues. It would be much easier to make programs that take care of people so we can just live our seperate lives, and not be forced to sharpen each other.
What I advocate is not easy, its hard work. It requires more of everyone involved. I give the churches I have helped to start right at the beginning this message:
When I was a pastor of a regular church I would read the bible every morning. I would search for a message from God to share with my friends. I would spend the week praying about it, trying to pick songs to sing that would reflect the message, thinking of stories in my life to illustrate it. I would pray for every person in the church and ask God for a word for them. I would organize child care, and make sure the building was clean. If this is truly going to be the church, this is now all of our responsibility, and not just for our meeting, but for everyday. We must all live like this, striving each week to bring something of God to minister to each other with. To share our weakeness, and care for each other throughout the week. Like Ephesians 4 says, everyone of us doing the work of the ministry, until we are all of us built up in love.
It is far from easy, it is very difficult. Infact I would say it would even be easier for me to just do the regular church thing. It is hard dealing with people. Sometimes they smell bad, sometimes they lie, sometimes they gossip, and complain. It is much easier to deal with these things when it is my job description, instead of my community. It is easier to not confess my sins to my friends, and not share my table, and my family with them. But easier is not better.
Jesus intentionally lived in community in a different way. So did the early Christian communities. And they experienced a full, and real faith that the world could not resist. How can we evangelize the world when our love for one another is often only a surface thing, and when it is real, and deep is too often hidden behind stained glass windows. Our place is the streets, the pubs, the cafe’s, the soccer fields and cricket pitches, just like Jesus we are to bring the presence of God to the everyday.
rev
April 9th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Oh and Emma you are correctly interpreting me
rev
April 9th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
“i think you would say that they show how the christian church should be shaped. i would say they are a description of how christians of that time faithfully shaped and formed their community.”
No, I actually think it is both. Just like Jesus life was not only meant to be admired but followed. His words are best illustrated by His life, and we are meant to follow Him.
rev
April 9th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
i’m not sure how those two connect, Rev. i’m not sure i’d equate the example of the early church with the life of Jesus.
i’ve been wondering why i have this urge to go in to bat for the institutional church [which i would understood as a separate category to the traditional or contemporary church]. i think it’s because they can make things happen on a global level that are logistically virtually impossible for house churches. Institutional churches have the clout to lobby government on justice and social issues. it was the institutional churches who spearheaded the christian campaign to end apartheid in south africa, and the oppression of the east timorese. it’s the institutional churches who fund asylum seeker support services and community service agencies. it’s the institutional churches who can put chaplains into prisons and detention centres [that’s one which is very dear to my heart]. the church is more than a local community or house church. it’s also a global force. we either have to get very clever as collectives of house churches, or we will lose that capacity for systemic and global change.
April 9th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Rev
I think that is an honest and straightforward answer sans theological frills which bears thinking about.
I am not prepared to write off traditional churches - by which I mean individual congregations based at a particular place, but not the denomination - as they remain no matter the variety, the sum total of how they as an individual congregation interact with each other and God.
But still worth thinking about as a way of re-establishing Christian community which is greatly suffering our busy and pre-packaged world.
Cheers
MN
April 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
I posted before I saw Cheryl’s response.
Again I would say integration is the key, although I realise to do so effectively would necessitate giving up some stuff. I don’t see them as mutually exclusive.
Cheers
MN
April 9th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Cheryl, if we are called to follow the example of Jesus, and the disciples continued in that vein they are very much connected. But my point was actually that it is not just what was said, but also what was lived that is important. Not just intelectual teachings about theories, but also the example of living that out.
As far as your other ideas, Gandhi lead the only non violent revolution in history with my idea. The Roman empire was forced to adopt a join them and try to subvert them plan as the underground grass roots movement was fast on its way to toppling Rome. There is no reason why things have to be heirarchical, and power structured to effect change. There is no reason why these grass roots communties cannot work together to effect change on a massive scale. Infact I would suggest that this can actually be much more effective as we don’t wind up with these incredible buerocracies eating up half the funds.
When I was working with my first church plant called the belonging we had two house churches. The average age of attender was 22. There was not one full time employed person at the church. This group of 25 young people, from mostly working class backgrounds, and no significant income provided Christmas meals, and presents for the children to 7 poor families. There is also no reason why we can’t use wonderful services like World Vision, and habitat for humanity to accomplish things on a greater scale. And most of all, Jesus changed the world for all time by spending three years with a small group of men and women from the wrong side of the tracks. He alienated the leaders of the people, the government, the church and the rich and powerful. I simply do not believe in the pragmatic approach, because it was not Jesus plan. Gods kingdom is not bought about by clever human power and apptitude, but rather by normal people who completely lay down their lives unto Him.
rev
April 10th, 2007 at 7:31 am
rev, i think you misunderstood me in 36. i wasn’t saying we should stand on looking in admiration. i was saying that we need to understand why this was the most effective form of christian community in that context and to interpret what we discover into ours. just like with Jesus’ life i can’t spend three years wandering the countryside. i have to interpret what it means to be faithful, and to honour a vision of the kingdom into my context.
i can make points against the other comments you make [and in fact i did, but i deleted it], but i think there’s some validity in what you say, and i don’t want to argue with that to simply prove my point. which i also believe holds some truth. what i’m saying is that i’m still not convinced that what we’re talking about needs to be mutually incompatible.
i’d love to introduce you to some of the communities i know that form part of the institutional church. they are made of people from the wrong side of the tracks. together they do alienate the people, the government, the church and the rich and powerful. many of them worship and function in ways that are very similar to the house churches you describe. they also give money and time to a central organisation to help change the things over which they have no control.
you get the last word on this, Rev, i’m off on holidays and away from the computer…
April 10th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
the last word is that if they function like that they are not the traditional church. i don’t care who your sponsoring corporate body is. Dorothy Day was a catholic!
rev
April 10th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Actually just a note on the whole using organisations like World Vision, I have long thought this was a problem with the institutionalised church and their missions programs. At my last church there was a real attitude of like, it’s it’s not “ordained” by the AOG then we won’t support it…and half the money was wasted in staff and forms and crap like that. I’m not saying that the church shouldn’t run it’s own programs but World Vision (and I’m just talking about them because I know it well) has not got its running costs down to 7 per cent and is an amazing lobby group. I think there is something to be said for churches directing their people to give funs to wonderful organisations that are already doing a great job…but this is unlikely as then churches would lose control over the money.
April 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Rev, I’ve been to institutional churches where everyone DOES have a word of prophecy…etc. They exist in many places, and are the reason why church services in some parts of the world can go on for hours and hours and hours and…you get the picture.
In your posts, there seems to be a blurring of “institutional” and “house” (or similar), and “big” and “small”. An institutional church can be small, and small institutional churches are very different to big institutional churches. I have far more problems with churches being big than I do with them being institutional - and my problems are exactly those the Rev points out - in small churches, we have to live together, like it or not. The only options are to stay or leave.
Perhaps similarly, Rev, in your post above at #34, it seems to me that the problem isn’t the institution, but the problem. Again speaking from my own experience, ‘cos this is all I have to go by, I have been a part of house churches/emerging churches etc that have been terribly, terribly cliquey. So has my husband. On the other hand, I’ve also been a part of institutional churches where there is a real sense of community, a real sense of family. I know many, many institutional churches that are far more generous - emotionally and materially - than most of the emerging church communities I have been familiar with. NOTE, I am not trying to say that institutional church = good, emerging church = bad…what I’m trying to say is that I think that maybe some of the stuff you talk about in post 34 has more to do with culture than form. Maybe this isn’t about the institutional or house church models - maybe it’s about the culture of communities. Cheryl’s post at #41 really resonates with me here…
I haven’t fully read all the posts here - I need to come back at another time and do so. These are just a few of my initial thoughts based on my skim-reading, so forgive me if I’m misinterpreting anyone!!
April 10th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
No bec, I said what I mean, the form matters. From the start I have used the words traditional, and contemporary rather than institutional. the traditional and contemporary churches are created with heirarchies, and power structures. I have also been very careful to criticise the poor house churches and emerging churches as well. The fact is, the structure of what I do most closely resembles the structures of the church we read about in the bible.
In an age of consumerism, individualism, and selfishness we cannot allow our structures to hold up the idolatrous cultural norms, but must stand in the face of them. We need to be churches that require responsibility, not payment, community and extended family not non personal entertainment, and sacrifice rather than coddling.
rev
April 10th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Do I have to send you two to your rooms?
April 10th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Rev - I think there’s real issues with language here. I’m not even sure what you mean by “institutional”, “traditional” and “contemporary” - and I’m not sure whether and/or why they’re bad or good things.
…BTW, noticing that some of my sentences in my previous post don’t make sense! Just call me Homer.
I’m also yet to see why the legal/organisational structure of a church NECESSARILY means it “holds up the idolatrous cultural norms”. I think that some legal/organisational structures might TEND TOWARDS compliance with or resistance against the dominant culture, but I’m not convinced that Acts church = against consumerism, individualism and selfishness, and big, old, sandstone church with paid ministers = complicit with consumerism, individualism and selfishness.
Put another way…Urban Seed and UNOH both have boards, right? So do most traditional evangelical churches. While I think the legal models adopted are really, really important (ie I think there’s a big difference between an NGO that has a wide membership that votes for the Board, versus and NGO where the Board IS the membership!!), I don’t think it determines *everything.*
I don’t disagree with any of your criticisms - I just question your explanation for their root causes. I too have a problem with the dominant Christian culture I see today - the apathy, the consumerism, the individualism, etc etc. However I’m not convinced that there’s “good” and “bad” models of church…to me these are issues of culture, not structure or governance.
Put another way, I agree 150% when you say “We need to be churches that require responsibility, not payment, community and extended family not non personal entertainment, and sacrifice rather than coddling.” What I’m questioning is your assumption (and correct me if I’m misreading you!) that some forms of church can achieve this and others can’t.
I’m rambling, and I’m not even sure that I’m making sense…
April 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
BTW…personally, I’m really attracted to the model of church I see in Acts. Also, I’ve never studied Acts in depth (meaning I’ve never gone to a theological college and borrowed books so I could read up a bit more)…however I’m not sure whether the church there is descriptive or prescriptive…are our churches supposed to follow the structure of the church we read about there? And if so, what about all those gaps?
…now I’m in danger of sounding like George “Jesus never said anything about the greenhouse effect” Pell!!
April 10th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
I have a question too Rev…from the letters you get the sense Paul was kind of in charge, but how did this work with the no hierachy thing? How do your home churches work in this way? And do you know of any in the Blue Moutains?
April 10th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Nice to hear some of the old timers having a good thrash out of issues… Bec, the Rev, Greg back on deck…
And the Rev is even doing a Homer tribute. Almost makes me nostalgic.
The “church forms” issue is an interesting one…
I was doing a bit of a dig around on the net and stumbled across an argument about how churches should never use musical instruments because they were never used in the New Testament church… and quite earnest and serious arguments were used about this. (A church tradition that believed unity of the body of Christ could come about through everyone using the New Testament as their only model for the church).
It did make me wary of legalism… it can lead you to very strange places.
April 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Yeah, well, see some of the other threads around here and you’ll see why I feel like I’m wasting my time and accumulating negative energy around here.
April 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“I have a question too Rev…from the letters you get the sense Paul was kind of in charge, but how did this work with the no hierachy thing? How do your home churches work in this way? And do you know of any in the Blue Moutains?”
I understand what you are saying, but I actually think it is a bit different. Paul had relationships with these people, he started those churches, or was involved with the key players (romans) So the authority he had was based on his giftings and his relationship with the people. I have no problem with relational authority, but rather positional authority, and ruling over others. Paul confronts sin, he give opinions, he explains theology, he gives instruction. But there is no mechanism for him to force obedience. There is no power structure, but rather the idea that “this man has proven his gifting and credibility, and therefore we trust him to speak into our lives”
What we have now is: you listen to me because I have been given a position (usually based on education, or bums in seats success) over you, and if you don’t listen you will pay the consequences (usually having responsibilities taken away, loss of job, or in extreme cases excommunication)
As to the legalism comment, I believe it is important to understand the biblical principles that surround the structures, not so much the structure itself. As people have pointed out house churches can be just as bad in many of these areas. But the things Jesus teaches us about our finances, about power, about violence, about true community and true discipleship are not issues of legalism, but they do address structure. Like Bec points out in some places, it isn’t who you are aligned with. It is are you living by kingdom of God principles, or kingdom of man principles. So within my context I actually shouldn’t call it house churches, because they may gather in other places. But it is the idea of living together in community, deep community, and interacting with our direct neighborhoods in ways that affirm their humaness, and brings the kingdom of God into our neighborhood.
And I don’t get the tribute to Homer thing, am I being like Homer? If so I apologize.
rev
April 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
thanks that makes sense…and do you know of any of these churches in or around the blue mountains?
April 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Not off the top of my head, but if you are interested I can ask around. Again, many house churches don’t function like mine.
rev
April 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
thanks I appreciate it.
April 11th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Oops… I mean Bec was doing a Homer tribute (post 47). Sorry Rev.
“wasting my time”… well, if you think you’ll change the Rev’s way of thinking you’re probably right! But it does take the Signposts community on a learning journey.
April 11th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Well Janet, do you think I have always believed what I do now? Infact at one time I was a fire breathing fundementalist. When I am proved wrong I adjust, and I have adjusted more than anyone I have ever met in my twenty years of faith. So perhaps my way of thinking is not so unchangeable after all.
rev
April 11th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
God bless you Rev! I like you.
Well… I’ll summarise what I think was one of Bec’s points today…
She was attempting to say that organisations… and even institutions… and even church institutions… are not inherently bad… and in fact, because of the legal / political constraints we operate under in countries like Australia, that kind of institutional expertise and legal structure can be very useful.
To give some grounded examples… if you were applying for a work permit in Australia as an American citizen, you would be unwise to write: “anarchist” on your application. It would be smart to go through some official channels and write “Churches of Christ minister” or “Staff member of Forge” instead.
If you wanted to access personal liability insurance as a minister, or insurance as a church, this would be WAY cheaper if you did so through affiliation with a denomination and hook into the “bulk” insurance on offer. You may have experience on the margins of life of people who will “have a go” if they think they can get money through the courts… sad fact of life.
If you wanted to marry a couple who wanted an officially “Christian” wedding, you can only legally do this if you have a denominational marriage licence.
If there was a serious conflict in your church (God forbid), is there an outside voice that has some right to be involved? Groups with denominational connection have parties that can be drawn upon in a serious crisis… isolated leaders can find themselves in deep water.
I’m trying to pick examples that are relevant to you even in a house church context… I do believe that some structures are helpful because of the complex world we live in. They may not all be good examples, but they reflect my belief that we have what we have… we are not starting from scratch… and it makes sense to draw upon the strengths of existing institutions, even as we seek to increasingly redeem them!
I do resonate with much of the EC rationale, but do agree with Bec on this… legal and financial issues matter, and if the EC and the IC can work together cooperatively and utilize their respective strengths it’s a way better outcome than sniping and arguing.
April 11th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
These are administration issues, and though I think there are too many of these issues, I don’t have a problem with them. I don’t have a problem with a number of us joining together to be able to purchase organic groceries at an affordable price, ect. I am talking solely about the actual heirarchical structures of the church, and the current organizing of matters around a service, performed by a select few “qualified” people.
I don’t have a problem with their being authority either, but I believe in relational authority. So if something blows up at my church there are people that I trust that I will go to for advice, and help. These people don’t have positions and titles, but have proven their love for me and the people in my church. I also believe that the structured approach leads to easy solutions that are not in everyones best interest. So rather than work out our issues, someone who is foreign to the community comes in and makes a political decision that may or may not be in the best interest of the church. Again, a structural impediment to relationship, and co-operation. Why work it out if you can get a majority and call in the denominational rep to enforce your will? Why agree to lovingly disagree and supportively go in slightly different direction, when there is a building and a history to fight over.
When we had issues at our house church regarding different approaches to the poor and the marginalized, we sorted things out, we read books, we talked to experts, in the end we agreed that as we were growing anyways it made great sense for us to form two groups one more comfortable with a more programic approach and one with a more relational approach. We lovingly agreed to pursue God’s direction in different ways. Rather than force one group to surrender to the other or else lose the “resources”.
As to legal issues, give me a break, you have all of the structures in the world in place and children are still molested and their abusers covered for. You have all kinds of embezzlement, improper use of government grants, oppulent ministers salaries and perks, and ridiculously anti Christian doctrines. The structure do not insure quality, or integrity. But living in real relationships, in real community at least makes you face up to this stuff. I can put on my smiley face and say everything is wonderful, but my community knows if I am lying, because we are actually living together enough to call each other on our bullshit.
I like you too Janet
rev
April 12th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Hi Rev.
Red Network is affiliated with Churches of Christ, and the leadership in a legal / structural sense actually IS flat. “Someone who is foreign to the community comes in and makes a political decision that may or may not be in the best interest of the church.” Actually, this could not happen… the power to make decisions rests with the eldership of the individual church in this system… but there are advantages sometimes in a more objective “outside voice” who understands something of the ethos and history of the church or group and has a network of resources and contacts that might help. And there are cases where the minister / leader IS the problem… these issues are very difficult for an isolated group to solve… the group just tends to self destruct because there’s no outside circuit breaker.
As for legal issues / insurance… you’re right, they don’t guarantee anything, and operate more on a “after the horse has bolted” basis sadly. However… if someone tried to sue you mischievously for something you had done in the course of your ministry, could you afford your own legal defence? You might need very deep pockets.
One example of how mischievous people can be… one person SUCCESSFULLY sued my sister’s church who had helped her out by organising free crisis accomodation in a member’s home… she then sued because the home did not meet hostel cleaning standards (eg daily wet dusting). You don’t need to have had an under-age affair to be a legal target.
Preventing misconduct and conflict is more difficult… I think C of C’s are working on accreditation / marriage licences based on attending some particular inservices on healthy ministry and duty of care, but of course, there’s no guarantees. There’s a fairly rigorous process before people are endorsed for ministry… but again, there’s no guarantees.
“These are administration issues… I don’t have a problem with them.”
Indeed. Denominations offer expertise in administration issues… if you’re dealing with the department of immigration, or births, deaths and marriages, or the taxation department etc. in terms of what award you are employed under if you are doing any paid ministry, it makes sense to work with a denomination which has legal recognition by the government. It’s really hard to negotiate a legal minefield as a solo player, and it takes up time far better spent on doing ministry.
So I guess this is my main point… some established structures are very useful if you want to do certain things. Not all denominations have the top down hierachy you object to, even though they are “church institutions”.
Actually… I think a good outcome for many EC’s would be to affiliate with denominations that actually understand them and give them wings… but can help with mentoring of leaders, theological education through ACOM / Forge etc., legal advice, insurance, marriage licences etc… and be there if difficult issues arise. And it would be great if denominations could “get this” and partner the EC movements without unnecessary constraints.
Just my two bob’s worth!