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 13th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Maybe I misunderstand the concept of anarchy…. which in my dictionary is “1 disorder, especially political or social. 2 lack of government in a society”. Anarchism: “all government should be abolished”
I believe power should be empowering whenever possible and tough only when necessary… but that sometimes it’s necessary. (eg putting a rapist or murderer in prison to protect others).
What do you mean by anarchism?
April 13th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Anarchy is used often in a way that is incompatable with its proper definition. Like in the midst of a prison riot they would say, it was complete anarchy. Even your dictionary will state it in this way. The concept of anarchy as I understand it, and practice it is this:
Power corrupts, therefore we should reject systems and structures that create power bases. What an anarchist believes is that in the creation of a state, you create power structures, power structures by their very nature will have a corrupting influence. Power will by its very nature defend its power, and threaten those that would take it away. Now I would say that this as a worldwide system of government will not work. Simply because fallen humanity will always seek to have power. But I believe it can work, and does work in small communities of like minded people.
In a Christian anarchist perspective, this idea bring into it some very strong ideas about the gospels. Christ primary message was the kingdom of God. This idea, make perfect sense in an anarchis mindset, because any kingdom we set up, is by nature in rebellion against God’s kingdom. If there is no king, but God, then every kingdom is in rebellion against God’s dominion. And if we replace the king with a board, or a pope, or a CEO, or a democratically elected representational commitee we have still created a kingdom. The sermon on the mount, becomes the perfect understanding of what this looks like. The strong, the powerful, the influential, the victorious, ect. are not the holders of the kingdom, but rather the other way around. You meet threats with love, and good deeds. You do not resist, you practice nonviolence in the face of violence. The kingdom of God is the rejection of power. This is perfectly illustrated in Jesus life as well, the ultimate power of God, in flesh, yet he rejects the use of that power. Even in the miraculous, we see Jesus not using his own power, but rather does what the Father, by His Spirit is doing.
Please understand this is a complete world view, and to “sum up” is difficult. Some fairly basic understandings of this can be found in Dave Andrews book Christianarchy, and Jaques Ellul’s book Christianity and Anarchy.
rev
April 13th, 2007 at 8:33 am
^ ^ Then again, a lot of anarchists will say it’s not possible to be both a Christian and an anarchist, just like socialists will say it’s not possible to be both a socialist and a Christian.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Yes and a lot of people say its not possible to be a cage fighter and a pacifist either. I generally don’t listen to people.
rev
April 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
It isn;t possible to be bald and a hairdressers model either - but I don’t give a rats arse - that’s the job for me!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:02 am
How does this fit with Paul going on about submitting to the authority…that all authority is established by God (I’m crignning as I even write those words, as they have been so misued by institutionlised church). But still, would like to know how this fits with anarchy.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:21 am
*giggle* pacifist and cage fighter *giggle*
Greg, are you seriously a hair dresser’s model? What do they do?!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Well, this is a bit of a difficult study, so I will just give my objections as to the traditional reading of Romans 13
First we have to look at Paul, if you remember
he actually was killed by the government for his lack of submission to them. He was not submitted to the Jewish authorities either. Paul lived a life that suggests he did not regard any law that was in contradiction to Gods rulership.
Secondly, we have to see if what is said is true. Should Christians have submitted to Hitler in the rounding up of Jews? Were the Christians that hid Jews disobeying God? Was Pol Pot God’s instrument?
Thirdly, is this consistent with the life of Jesus, who refused to submit to either the Jewish leaders or the Roman leaders.
So, we are left with a passage of scripture that is very difficult to align with Pauls own life, Jesus life, or what we know as truth.
this is a quote from and essay from Jesusradicals.com written by Nekeisha Alexis-Manners
“Romans 13, is more of a continuation of Romans 12 than most Christians realize. Chapter 12 describes how we as Christians are called to interact with the rest of the world. We are called to “present [our] bodies as a living sacrifice to God” (v. 1), to avoid conformity (v. 2) and to be humble (v. 3). The body of Christ is also described and its members are encouraged to use the spiritual gifts they’ve been given for the benefit of the Church (v. 4-8) characteristics we should have including love and affection are outlined (v. 9-13). The key portion of Romans 12 that carries over into Romans 13 is how Christians are called to deal with persecution. As believers in Christ, Christ demands that we offer only blessings to those that wish us harm. We are not to seek revenge on those that harm us, but God asks us to pursue the difficult task of doing good to those who commit evil against us. The chapter ends with the words “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” Keep all of this in mind as you read on.
Like the scriptural context of Chapter 12, the historical context is also very important. Paul is writing to the church at a time when Christ’s people are being persecuted at the hands of the law. One can imagine the climate of fear and anger, and the sense of retaliation that must have been in people’s minds. In Romans 12, Paul’s words are a caution against the use of revolutionary violence towards the state. They are not to commit the same evil and inflict the same punishment that the government uses against them. Rather Christians are to bless them and do good in return. It is in this vein that Romans 13 begins.”
Now this is not as clear as I would like it to be, but often things are not. We know however that in practice this is how it was lived out, the church did not submit to Rome, even unto death. If we begin to see that Paul is laying out an understanding of our interaction with government being nonviolent, it makes more sense to me than any other way to look at it. If I accept that God has not overthrown that government, then I must not try to overthrow it myself, however, I am to continue to live in the Kingdom of God. And I am called to give the government what I owe them. If I use the roads, and participate in their finances then I owe them taxes. If they are worthy of respect then I owe them that, but if they are not then I do not.
hope that gives you an idea of how I think. Jesusradicals.com is a great website that has a lot of christian anarchist essays
rev
April 13th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Bec - you make me laugh - HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Chortle Chortle tee hee tee hee -no I am not a hairdresseres model - but I’d love to be one anyway!
You’re funny Bec
April 13th, 2007 at 9:33 am
did you look at the photot I linked to above? That’s explain why I’m not a hairdresseres model!
April 13th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Yes I did, ya nutter.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:56 am
That does make sence actually, and makes me feel a whole lot better about a psaage of scripture I always had major problems with…the Hitler example being the first that springs to mind, of course. And how it is so misued especially by AOG.
April 13th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Hi Janet,
Thanks for your sympathies. I understand that the people involved at the C of C go through enormous pains with regards to conflict situations. I also don’t doubt that their intentions are generally good. The disappointment that I have is that the CEO and I were good friends (before he became the CEO), but then suddenly all contact was cut, I can only assume because of what was seen as a “conflict of interest”. Still to this day I have had no contact and no explanation why contact was suddenly cut! Even the church was told that the team as a whole was not willing or ready to reconcile with me! But I was willing to do anything (except change my conviction) to reconcile.
Lance, to explain a couple of things without going into too much detail, the conflict was over theology differences and the way I handled several pastoral situations which were out of the box and which I had a strong conviction about (a homosexual pastoral situation was one of them).
I am not disappointed that there was disagreement. I actually understand this. And truth be known, I think ultimately I would have had to leave the church because I was moving down a differently line of thinking. Actually very similar to alot of Rev’s comments about anarchy above. Increasingly I didn’t want to take on the mantle of appointed leader, but rather just quietly serve and empower. But people want a leader in an organisation, and I could tell that eventually there was going to be too much butting of heads and I was going to need to leave the organisation.
So perhaps the theology and pastoral issues were actually part of a bigger picture that served as a catalyst for me leaving - and I am glad to be out of the organised church. I feel much healthier for being out. But I am still disappointed about the suddenness and drastic nature of how the relationships were broken and my voice completely shut down and the whole church were kept in the dark about the whole thing until I was gone. And this the church which I started 5 years earlier and had grown to a significant size.
Anyway, God is still God and I know He is transforming me through this whole process, and teaching me to let go of so many things….. power and the organised church system is just one of them…..
April 13th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
It’s funny you should say that Wayne… I met up with a friend yesterday who has been teaching with a Christian school for around 20 years (someone who LOVES teaching and is one of those people with a natural gift for it) who is no longer wanted there…
It was upsetting of course… but she was expressing how in a funny kind of way in God’s economy it was a gift… releasing her to teach in other settings which she may not have explored otherwise.
God can turn the crappiest and most painful things for good… that doesn’t excuse anyone for treating others badly… but Romans 8:28 and on weren’t written in the context of all goodness and niceness either.
Love that passage.
Happy to do some advocacy if you’d like to seek some resolution… if you’re happy to put it down and leave it be for now, so shall I.
April 13th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Thanks Janet. I would be more than happy to catch up with the parties involved, but I would rather that it come from their initiative because they want to, not because I asked for it…..
April 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
this is what is worrying about the ‘emerging’church.
We find in the first sentence this. “JESUS asked his mates to stay with him, but they got pissed and fell asleep, the bloody bastards.”
very much inaccurate. Are theses people just ignorant, attempting very poorly to put the scene in a modern context or deliberately changing the context?
As the Don says. The bible is about truth. If you change the truth you miss the message.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
which bit’s inaccurate, Homer? the bit about being pissed?
I have a suspicion there might be some embellishments in that newspaper article, but I’ll know after I’ve been back to Melbourne next week.
April 13th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
“TPFKA”TP”
The People Formerly Known As “The Pastor”
The following post is a polemic. It is meant to provoke conversation in line with Bill Kinnon’s, “Grace’s” and Jamie Arpin-Ricci’s posts mentioned in the last entry. These comments are a composite of my own experiences and those of disillusioned church leaders.
—-
There are thousands of us. You probably know many of us now as insurance sales agents, real estate agents, or doing anything besides “church.” We started with idealism about being voices for the kingdom of God and soon realized we became mutated forms of USAmerican business leaders. Even Jesus became a CEO. We traded immersion in the Bible for hyped-up seminars and books about good management, strong leadership and slick public relations. We learned that the size of our church parking lot mattered more than the size of your hearts for God. Be Thou My Vision got altered to “What is your vision statement?”
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor discovered somewhere in “doing church” that they were being paid as surrogates for the congregation’s spirituality. You know, the old saw, “Pastors are paid to be good; the people are good for nothing.” People seem to tell others more about their pastor(s) than about Jesus, their Savior. Of course, this made pastors feel good and loved and valued. Then it dawned on us, we were feeling good for all the wrong reasons. We were dynamic communicators, we awed people with exegetical biblical wonders, we spoke notebooks full of outlines with cute stories and precise principles and timely applications. We “rightly handled the word of truth” as a magician handles his tricks. What a one-man show. Little did we realize that all our song-and-dance additions overshadowed the eternal Word itself. For all our proclamation about the “sufficiency of Scripture,” we communicated as if that Word needed our 2 cents worth. And our razzle-dazzle knowledge of Hebrew and Greek helped us create messages that made you feel totally inadequate to do serious Bible study on your own. So, you either read a fluffy devotional snippet each day or ran off to Bible Study Fellowship to really learn the Word.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor wrestled with conflicting ego issues. Some felt the rush of power over people. Some even said that in order to get to God, you had to go through us. We were your covering (a term never used in pastoral ministry until the 1970s). We were “the Lord’s anointed.” Don’t touch us. Being charged with the eternal well-being of souls is heady stuff. And, sadly, it went to our heads. We became commanders rather than servants. We liked the feeling of bossing people around…in the name of the Lord, of course. When you confronted us with our spiritual abuse of you, we were quick and smooth, savvy and cunning, and we made you feel like it was all your fault. On the other hand, others of us were scared to death of you. You gave us our paycheck. You gave us benefits. Unknown to us, you called us to your church in order to get your way. We thought we were authentically praying to God, “Your will be done…,” but it became apparent that the will of God was the will of those who had the money. We became people-pleasers at the cost of our own dreams. Eventually the commanders among us got kicked out of the church and the fearful among us got scared out. Selling shoes looked mighty appealing.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor ran up school bills, too, going to college and seminary. It’s costly learning Hebrew and Greek these days. Our peers in the “market place” were making twice, sometimes 3 and 4 times the salary we were offered. We were told to live by faith. We saw the rampant materialism permeate the church and we baptized it with “being relevant with the culture.” We officiated at very high-priced weddings and worried how we would get our own kids married. Spring Break meant Disney-World for you and your kids and a trip to see relatives for us. We tried to remember the thing about “treasures laid up in heaven” while realizing that tithing was the rich person’s easy way out. Yes, we made you give to our grandiose building projects, our need for bigger this and newer that “for the Lord.” We made you pledge to this idea and that effort. All the while we told you, “You can’t serve both God and money.” When some of us ventured to speak about simplicity, you thought we were anti-capitalists, unAmerican.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor loved the idea of spiritual gifts and gift inventory tools. Now we could recruit you with this slick saying, “You will find your deepest joy when you become a Sunday School teacher, a financial council member, an evangelistic campaign organizer.” We loved the idea of “recruiting.” We could build our religious empire footnoted with Bible verses. More people serving possibly meant a bigger church. We could go to Pastors Conferences armed and ready to shoot off our mouths about “the hand of God’s blessing on my church.” Note that many pastors really do say,”My church.” Our worries at night about problems and struggles in “my church” were the signal that we truly had taken ownership of what is God’s. When we overlooked 20 compliments and ruminated angrily over one negative comment, we knew it was “all about us.” Some of us needed counseling.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor were angry people. Not that you would know it. Our spouses and children knew it. We lived in glass houses. Our kids had to be angels while yours were smoking pot and having sex. And, God forbid, that anyone in the church say anything negative about your kid(s). When you “dedicated” them to God on that Sunday morning, the church committed to helping you raise your child. But, watch out if someone corrected your child while at church. You lost it. You left. You were living under some crazy belief that being born a sinner didn’t apply to your children. You wanted to drop them off in a very safe environment with very safe people and then you could forget all about them and do your church thing. You would listen to “Focus on the Family” and then pay church staff to focus on your kids. It was really a crazy environment.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor began to smell something rotting in the whole “church” thing. Only once in the New Testament is the term for the service of pastor used as a noun (Ephesians 4:11-12). All the rest of the times “pastoring/shepherding” is used as a verbal form, except when used of Jesus. Having accepted a corrupted image and Christendom model of “the pastor,” we finally began to see that corruption infiltrating the church. Apostles and prophets and deacons and elders/overseers are mentioned far more than “the pastor.” Why did this one term and office (!) gain supremacy? In its current expression, “the pastor” certainly isn’t biblical. And don’t get some of us started on the injustice of limiting the equal status of women in ministry.
The People Formerly Known As The Pastor are still serving in the places once populated by The People Formerly Known As The Congregation. At least some of us are. We are not seeking to command and control. We are not jittery about what people think. We are not afraid of the seismic shift caused by TPFKATC. We sense that something magnificent is afoot. We are intrigued by the chaos. We, TPFKATP, are willing to risk significant change with TPFKATC in order to recover or even create local expressions of the kingdom of God that first of all are burning with missional passion and practice. We want to explore with you the meaning of the chaos, the vision of a preferred future, the challenge of being “church.” We dream of kingdom outposts that are guided by the biblical text in its storied form, shaped by the community of the Trinitarian God, and devoted to the equality of all who are in the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth. What does this mean for “the pastor”? Who knows? That’s the adventure we all are in!”
From http://jesustheradicalpastor.blogspot.com/2007/04/people-formerly-known-as-pastor.html
April 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Thanks Lance…I should read that blog more often.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
I poisted a piece along a simlar vein yesterday by Bill Mckinon - entitled The People Formerly Known as The Congregation
April 13th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Thanks Lance. A very interesting read….
April 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
On the anarchy thing… not entirely sold, but interested… I certainly accept that the Kingdom of God is an alternative kingdom where the mark of leadership is servanthood.
I actually believe people are powerful… created in the image of God, given authority to rule over creation! This is what we are… before we create any organizations (which may, of course, concentrate power when used improperly). There are power dynamics at work as soon as there is more than one person in a room… although the proper place of redeemed power is servanthood and blessing others. I for one am thankful for “public servants”… those who collect rubbish and maintain water supplies and treat sewerage and run public transport and maintain roads and tend the sick in hospitals… etc. etc.
I also have considered that the achievements of human civilization really matter even into eternity… I’ve thought for a while about the significance of the fact that the first Paradise was a garden, the New Jerusalem is a city… we don’t go back to scratch. Culture, architecture, art, music, engineering, ingenuity… these are reflected in the climax of creation, the new heaven and earth, the New Jerusalem.
Romans 13 isn’t the only statement in the bible about civil authorities. What about Jesus statement to Pilate: (John 19:11) “The only power you have over me is the power given to you by God”? This reflects the teaching that appears in various places in the OT; that God raises up powers and leaders in positions of power. One example:
Daniel 5: 18 “O king, the Most High God gave your father Nebuchadnezzar sovereignty and greatness and glory and splendor. 19 Because of the high position he gave him, all the peoples and nations and men of every language dreaded and feared him. Those the king wanted to put to death, he put to death; those he wanted to spare, he spared; those he wanted to promote, he promoted; and those he wanted to humble, he humbled. 20 But when his heart became arrogant and hardened with pride, he was deposed from his royal throne and stripped of his glory. 21 He was driven away from people and given the mind of an animal; he lived with the wild donkeys and ate grass like cattle; and his body was drenched with the dew of heaven, until he acknowledged that the Most High God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and sets over them anyone he wishes.”
mmmm… I invite your reflections.
April 13th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
That was a fairly incoherent ramble, looking back on it. Time for bed.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:30 am
God told Israel they were wrong to look for a king, and that in doing so the curses of other nations would be on them. Jesus acknowledgement of God being able to strip people of power at any time He chose does not mean it is a legitmate power for Christians to bow to.
That power exists always I do not doubt, sin exists always, infact the two are inseperable.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Umm God told Israel they were wrong to look for a king by the then contemporary worldly standards. But already in Deuteronomy he had laid out the stipulations for a “godly king”…even before they had entered Canaan.
Deut 17:
And what do we find. They ask for a king “like all the nations around them”. Were they sure to annoint a king whom God had chosen?
1 Sam 8:
I’ve never heard any report of God being taken by surprise. Have you?
April 14th, 2007 at 7:17 am
P.S. I would go further and say a king was part of the covenant promises, definitely implied in the Abrahamic promise and some interpreters would argue right from the protoevangelium itself.
April 14th, 2007 at 7:19 am
That wasn’t incoherent Janet.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:15 am
“That power exists always I do not doubt, sin exists always, infact the two are inseperable. ”
They are not the same, however, and were separate before the fall. God gave manking authority over the earth (Gen 1:28) before the events of Genesis 3… so power cannot be wrong in itself… it is the corruption of power that is wrong… which (in my opinion) means it should be redeemed… it cannot be eliminated.
By analogy… there’s always the dynamics of sin involved in human relationships… but we do not seek to eliminate relationships, we seek to redeem them.
I am on the same page with you Rev that the Kingdom looks to One King and the proper place of the authority we have in Christ is servanthood.
April 14th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Janet, power became sin at the fall. Until then is was resposibility, but all was under Gods power, when man rebels, then all power is rebellion unless surrendered to God. Also Janet, I believe in authority, and even submission to authority, but I believe in relational authority, not positional authority.
A story: There was a time in my life when I was being sought frequently for denominational conferences and other large gathering speaking engagements. I was a relatively good speaker, with a purple or platinum pompadour (depending on my whim) with Christ saves tattooed across my stomach. And I was becoming an expert in Gen X ministries, with experience particularly with young people outside of the church. And a passion that was very intense. The president of the mission agency I worked for took me out for lunch and told me, “john, you are a very talented young man, and with all of the right bells and whistles. You are being set up to be the flavour of the month, and if you go down this path, I believe you may be out of ministry in five years” He didn’t threaten my job, or tell me what to do, but he sincerely talked to me about my future. I followed his advice because I trusted him as a wise man, who loved me. This is relational authority, and it is what I give to others whom I trust, rather than what they assert over me by virtue of their position.
Saint, I disagree with your interpretation ofcourse. God’s preparation is not the same as His approval. God said that Israel rejected Him in picking a king. And even if you do not agree, the fact is that Jesus brings something that trumps any old testement principle by bringing it into an incarnational understanding of life. Before Christ an eye for an eye was good enough, after it was not. Before Christ God dwelt with us, now God dwells within us. Before Christ the nation of Israel was meant to be the incarnation of God, (which they failed as badly as I often do) now we are the incarnation of God. Christ brings us to a place where the kingdom of God, means absolutely, that there is no king but God.
Ofcourse, I don’t expect many people to agree with me, the system is embedded in our church dna now.
rev
April 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
The man who took you out for lunch was wise… how many people have been seduced, have come to believe the propaganda about them, have become overblown with their own self-importance? And then they are lost indeed. You cannot serve two masters… you can be a servant of Christ, or follow your ego… you cannot do both.
Where there is grey for me is the use of power under God in society as we know it… Esther used her influential position to save her people… Nelson Mandela and Bishop Tutu exercised positional power to help bring reconciliation… Wilberforce and the Earl of Shaftesbury and others used positional power to bring about the abolition of the slave trade… it may be thus because we’re in a fallen world, but I suspect some people are called by God to positional power to serve and do good.