Comments on: in our own image

By: saint

saint — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:15:09 +0000

Yeah, there are a few good’uns around (those that don’t swing from the chandeliers that is). Yeah Hamo, if you’re listening, that means you too.

By: Veritas

Veritas — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 13:00:14 +0000

Saint - I have to agree with you there mate - Andrew does preach well and is also doing some good outreach amongst his community - even though he is a Bapo.

By: phil

phil — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:30:38 +0000

The aa model certainly has something to teach us. The book - the starfish and the spider talks about aa as one of the models we can learn from in developing networks.

By: saint

saint — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:43:42 +0000

Ooo Andrew Turner is one of the few good preachers I have heard in Adelaide over the years - and anyone who has been to Adelaide will know how absolutely woeful preachers are in the city of (mostly empty) churches so you kind of remember the good ones.

And I say that as a non-Baptist.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:14:14 +0000

Phil - My church is the GO Christian Network. You can read all about us at http://www.go.asn.au now that our website’s having a good year. Now you’re probably thinking “darn, that was one of the few I knew of already”.

By: abtruth

abtruth — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:00:58 +0000

i still think the aa model is worth discussing

not that i belong to aa

i betya greg does .. if you’ve seen his photo’s … man what a likely character

By: phil

phil — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:23:46 +0000

Eric, you sum up what I was talking about well. I would love to hear more about your church.
I am about to post something up to collect some information about churches doing this.. stay tuned.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 13:29:03 +0000

OSO - maybe I’m misreading you, but I think the “transitioning an established church” Phil is talking about is different from your case.

You describe more of a theological shift, from liberal to evangelical. The missional reformation people are talking about these days is a lot about making the mission of reaching the world is not just the church’s priority (as it has been) but its organising priciple. Hence a lot of the talk about the shape of churches.

Phil’s church went from being a few churches (fairly traditional evangelical ones, presumably) to a diverse group of congregations, some of them quite different-shaped from the usual. The premise is that the Gospel is for everyone, but the typical modern church is not.

I don’t explain it well at this hour, but you don’t have to look far these days to find blogs talking about this sort of thing. My church is trying to be a bit like Northern - a handful of congregations, some traditional and some not so.

By: smithus

smithus — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:45:10 +0000

“I would argue that the problems you see in modern Pentecostalism arise from one basic problem - ignoring what the Bible says.”

Pentecostals come in many shapes and varieties - Hillsong and its theology are actually in the minority . Its true that Pentecostal theology is not Calvinist or reformed but I grew up as a Pentecostal and we took the bible very seriously . We didn’t ignore what it said at all . Let’s not keep up the same old stereotypes .

By: One Salient Oversight

One Salient Oversight — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 12:01:44 +0000

I’m reasonably certain that the underground church in China did have preachers and the church did have access, albeit limited, to God’s word.

In other words, it WAS God’s word that transformed the church in China.

You have to understand that I’m Reformed and Calvinist in my theology. One of my major influences is Sydney Anglicanism where expository preaching is considered the norm. I also trained at Sydney Missionary and Bible College where we have Expository preaching drummed into us by the principal, David Cook.

Paul told Timothy to “preach the word, in season and out of season”. The Word is the logos - the written word. It is also the divine word, Christ. Expository Preaching thus preaches from the Bible and points towards Christ and his work on the cross.

Part of this argument is based upon the Reformation belief of “Sola Scriptura”, which says that the Bible is the only thing we need to know about God and how to live (2 Tim 3.16-17). It is the work of the Holy Spirit in inspiring the biblical writers so that, when the Bible is read and preached from, the Spirit works. The work of the Spirit cannot be divorced from the Word of God.

So, the argument basically is that if you want the Spirit to work in the church, then the Word much be preached. It is the sword of the Spirit.

Now I realise that many of you come from a Pentecostal background and may disagree with me on this issue. Nevertheless I would argue that the problems you see in modern Pentecostalism arise from one basic problem - ignoring what the Bible says.

Please come back to me on this. This issue is very close to my heart and I am more than willing to discuss it further.