Skip navigation.

Posts tagged with "church"

Equipping the Saints: What We Must Expect…and When

Wednesday, 12. August 2009, 01:11:35

Dan Edelen sets some standards for disciple development.

Equipping the Saints: What We Must Expect…and When
August 10, 2009
Posted by Dan Edelen


When I follow trends in church programming, read other Christian blogs, engage Christian leaders, or read what Christians are saying in social media venues, I come to one inescapable conclusion: We Christians have little or no understanding of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Doctrine eludes us. Discipleship is something we do when we have time for it—and between shopping, working, and vacations, none of us supposedly has time. Far, far too many of us don’t know the foundational truths of the Faith we supposedly confess.

We don’t know what the Gospel is. We don’t know what the Bible says about important issues of life. We don’t know why Christ came, or how to know Him, or why He’s the only Way. We don’t know our eschatology or why it even matters. We don’t even know why our service matters. We simply don’t know what we’re talking about.

I’m an avid birder (birdwatcher being the antiquated term) with more than 30 years experience in that field. I can ID 85 percent of North American Birds on sight, but when it comes to my region of the country, that number approaches 100 percent. Any birder can be fooled, yes, but I know my region’s avians.

If I meet a guy who introduces himself as a fellow Ohio birder with similar multi-decade experience, a certain expectation exists. If this guy tells me he was just down at the lake the other day and saw an albatross, I’m going to think, Mr. Experienced Birder’s skills are about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. If he adds that he saw a Carolina Parakeet, too, then I know his credibility is bupkis. It doesn’t matter what he may say his credentials are, he’s doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

In truth, I can pretty much tell you how long people have been birding just by watching their ID methodology, their ability to talk out difficult IDs, and their willingness to admit they may not have gotten a good enough look at that last bird for a positive ID.

What’s scary to me is that it’s far harder to tell how long people gave been Christians by watching their behavior or asking them simple questions about the faith. It should be obvious, but it’s not. There should never be a reason—ever—for us to encounter a “seasoned” Christian and come away thinking that disciple is about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. And yet we have those people in abundance in our pews on Sunday.

What does that say about the way we American Christians disciple converts to maturity?

Honestly, what should be expected of a convert to Christianity at one, three, five, ten, and twenty years after that conversion?

I don’t know why Christian leaders are not asking this eternal-life-and-death question. It may be THE most important question to ask!

How would I answer that question? Well, below I give a “tip of the iceberg” list of five essentials per milestone year.

At one year, every convert to Christ should:

Have read through the entire New Testament once

Have completed a very basic theology class taught by pastoral staff that teaches core doctrines of Christianity

Know why Jesus is the sole source of salvation and be able to articulate that belief with supporting Scriptures

Be in a Bible study led by a mature Christian who knows the Scriptures and can communicate them effectively

Be participating in a church-sponsored service, teaching, or outreach program

At three years, every convert to Christ should:

Have read through the entire Bible at least once

Have completed an intermediate theology class taught by pastoral staff that covers a wider range of important doctrines, including any denominational distinctives

Be able to articulate what the Gospel is, with supporting Scriptures

Be participating in a church-sponsored class that gives an overview of the Bible and covers the major themes in each of the 66 books

Be serving as an understudy to a leader in a church-sponsored service, teaching, or outreach program

At five years, every convert to Christ should:

Be able to provide an overview of the major themes of each book of the Bible and exhibit a Christian worldview that understands the arc of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration

Have completed an advanced theology class that emphasizes apologetics and the finer nuances of Christian doctrine, including those that may be different from the church’s denominational distinctives

Understand the core teachings of at least one non-Christian religion or cult and how to rebut them

Be participating in a church-sponsored leadership class

Be serving as a co-leader in a church-sponsored service, teaching, or outreach program

At ten years, every convert to Christ should:

Be capable of teaching/leading one of the previously mentioned theology/Bible classes or a small group

Be commissioned as a church representative, capable of representing the church in ecumenical and interchurch events

Have helped to lead at least a half dozen people to Christ

Be discipling new converts

Be leading a church-sponsored service, teaching, or outreach program and be encouraged to start new ones to fill gaps in the church’s programs

At twenty years, every convert to Christ should:

Hold a church office or leadership position

Be able to identify spiritual gifts in others and mentor those people in those gifts

Be mentoring younger leaders

Be actively designing service, teaching, or outreach programs for the church

Be capable of planting a new church or serving on the mission field

I look at that list and wonder how any part of it can be deemed unreasonable. And if it’s not unreasonable, why are our churches not doing it?

It took me fifteen minutes to conceive the list above. One person, fifteen minutes.

If we want to know why the Church in America is making no inroads into reaching lost and broken people, we don’t have to go any further than the list above. If we want to know why our people are dull, listless, and incapable of articulating the Faith, look again at the list and see how our church educational programs compare.

What’s truly distressing is that anyone with a hobby he enjoys knows the path to becoming an expert in that hobby. She knows what is required to be the best she can be at her hobby. And he and she pursue that excellence too.

Knowing Jesus and serving Him is far, far above being a hobby. Yet we treat it like one. In fact, because so few people are experts at it, we may be treating Christianity as less than a hobby. A dabbling perhaps. Something we do between syndicated episodes of Scrubs or when it doesn’t interfere with shopping or a round on the links.

No reason exists why we can’t institute attainable educational standards for converts that assist them to maturity. None.

We have no excuses.

Article

1 comment

New Photos

Monday, 3. August 2009, 06:18:11

,

I've just uploaded some photos that Josh and I took at our recent seminar and procession.

Click here to view the album or check out my facebook page.



No comments

Rev. Paul Zahl- On Homosexual Practice in the Episcopal Church

Thursday, 23. July 2009, 07:56:36

,

I just came across this excellent talk given by Rev. Paul Zahl from the Episcopalian Church of the USA about the theological issues raised by ordination of actively homosexual people. It's not about homophobia, discrimination or anything else other than theology. As Zahl clearly argues in this article, there are some theological absolutes which, if ditched, reduce the church to unitarianism and away from the need for salvation.

I got a fair bit of abuse from one person who was more inspired by the chip on her shoulder than by what was written in a previous article I posted about homosexuality in the church. I'm not harping on a particular group of people here, but the fact is that the church world-wide has to come to terms with the fact that we can't just line up with what the world says is right when that contradicts scripture.

This is from internetmonk.com:

So I shall begin this brief keynote address summing up the actual reasons why traditional Episcopalians are opposed to the consecration of Gene Robinson and are also opposed to the blessing in the church of same-sex unions. I won’t harp on this, but feel the reasons need to be acknowledged, publicly, and theologically. It is not fair to call people on the traditional side “homophobic”. Of course homophobia is possible, but it is also a terrible slur in the contemporary context. It is like the word “anti-semitic”. It halts all discourse. Full stop. And it destroys people and careers. Homophobia and anti-semitism are real things. But as words, they are used overmuch today to tar and dismiss voices that may in fact be sincere and liberal.

So what is the big deal? Why do people like me stand against the Gene Robinson consecration and the blessing of same-sex unions? Why do we feel these two things are destructive of life in the Christian church? I note in passing that our struggle against them so far has been unsuccessful, failed, and demoralizing for the zeal and good conscience of our ministries.

Why is the issue so important?

First, we believe the gay position as we hear it undermines the anthropology of the Gospel. It undermines the teaching concerning the inherent sinfulness of the creature before the Creator. It wants to exempt a particular category of persons, gay men and women, from Original Sin on the basis that they are “created” a certain way, therefore how can it be wrong? For reasons beyond our human understanding we are all created sinners: distorted, inverted, libidinal and narcissistic. Our baggage is psycho-genetic, not the sum of our deeds. The gay argument confuses creation with redemption – as in the old 1970’s poster “God don’t make no junk”. That was a half truth then, and it is a half truth now. The core, universal, and seemingly impenetrable claim of the gay lobby is this: If I came into the world this way, then how can it be wrong? That claim is in opposition to the classic Christian doctrine, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, of the human being as being intrinsically and inherently fallen in all cases. The claim is Arminian explicity and Pelagian implicitly.

If the anthropology is flawed, then inevitably the soteriology is flawed. If “God don’ t make no junk”, then what need is there for a Savior? Why did Christ have to die on the Cross, if the need of the human race were not rooted in our paralysis and inability to help ourselves? The result of an overly high anthropology is an overly low soteriology.

The result of an overly low soteriology is a weak Christology. If Christ is not a Savior in the full and plain sense of the word, then He did not have to be God. The whole encounter of Jesus with the Pharisees in Mark, Chapter Two, when he made a connection between his divine authority and the forgiveness of sins, ceases to mean anything. High anthropology means low soteriology means inadequate Christology.

Finally, the Trinitarian implications of the weak Christology implicit in the gay lobby’ s argument – become now the Episcopal Church’s argument – are devastating. The Son who is no Saviour becomes automatically subordinate to the Father. We are quickly into Arianism and what we today call unitarianism. Now most theological liberals I know in ECUSA insist that they are Trinitarian Christians. And I believe them. But I wonder whether they have realized the implications for the whole of theology of the overly high anthropology of the arguments we have been hearing from the gay lobby and their friends. Please, think through the implications of a weakened profile of Original Sin.

The second “theological” argument traditionalists want to use is the hermeneutical one. I myself think this is second in importance to the theological “domino effect” I have just tried to spell out. The hermeneutical objection to the Robinson consecration is very important, but it is not decisive in quite the same way the argument from anthropology is. Nevertheless, we believe the plain and unexceptioned meaning of the Bible is against the practice of homosexuality in all cases. We cannot get around this. And I am grateful when folk on the other side acknowledge and do not try to weasel out of the “fact on the ground” of the Biblical voice against their idea. Yes, I realize there are wholly inclusive implications to Jesus’ and Paul’ s Gospel, but they stop at the Rubicon of homosexual practice.

The third “theological” argument – and I put the word “theological” in quotes to make the point that these arguments, unlike my first one, are more ecclesiological than theological in the pure sense – relates to tradition. We believe, and especially the many Anglo-Catholics among us, that such a break with catholic and universal Christian tradition that the Robinson consecration constituted is a mighty and awesome thing. To do any thing so completely in discontinuity with what everyone has said everywhere and in every time is simply so ambitious. It feels Promethean to me.

And finally, related to the argument from tradition, there is the ecumenical argument. It is alarming to have split ourselves off from the Roman Catholic Church and almost all the Orthodox Patriarchates, not to mention the large numerical majority of our Anglican co-religionists overseas, especially in the Global South.

Conceptually, neither the ecumenical argument nor the argument from tradition is binding for most theologians, and certainly not for most Protestant ones. That is why I emphasized the first piece of this – the move from low anthropology to final unitarianism. But the ecumenical argument does involve people’s lives, and respect for (millions of) others’. It surely has got to be weighed in and not just portrayed as a sort of primitive reaction to American unilateralism. I think of Janet Jackson’ s Tuesday apology this week to 99 million Super Bowl viewers: “if I have offended anyone…” Both her action and her apology smack of opportunism, and make me sick. Is our church guilty of Janet-Jackson thinking?

Now I began by saying that we need to look at the arguments concerning the issue, at least the losing ones – the ones from “my” side – so we don’t just skip over them in our rush to ecclesiological or structural arguments. I would like to conclude this part of our debate concerning “Anglican comprehensiveness” with a plea, from the position of weakness, to you, and by extension to the Episcopal Church as a whole, and to its bishops in particular.

My plea has a formal side and it has a material side.

The formal side, and I intentionally use philosophical language here in order to be as clear as possible, is a plea for Alternative Episcopal Oversight. Traditional people in the Episcopal Church, in order to feel able to stand and be secure, require a concrete gesture of generosity on behalf of the bishops. This would be to let us sign up with ECUSA bishops, and some overseas Anglican bishops, with whom we feel safe. Most of us, because of the titanic nature of the issues involved in the Gene Robinson consecration, no longer feel we can serve with zeal and in good conscience within the structures of ECUSA. We need the freedom to sign up with bishops and structures – and I do not mean the AMiA, although many of us feel we are being pushed out in that direction – we need the freedom or space to sign up with ECUSA and other overseas Anglican bishops with whose commitments we feel safe. We no longer feel safe in ECUSA.

I should add that my own bishop, Henry Parsley, voted against Robinson’s consecration and has been respectful of the traditional position.

What the ECUSA bishops need to allow us to do is have Alternative Episcopal Oversight on our terms, not on their terms. They need to cede control, for a season and a space, to us, the losers. The concession has got to come from the victors, the ECUSA bishops who have won this most impressive victory at Minneapolis, and not from the losers: us, in other words. I use the language of power here because our Christian faith teaches us that the stronger has always got to give up power to the weaker. That is Grace. God did it. Philippians, Chapter Two enshrines this principle theologically. “…Though he was in the form of God, (he) did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant…” (vss. 6-7).
The stronger, I repeat, the stronger, the victor, has to give up control and power to the weaker, the loser, in order for reconciliation, in the Christian sense of the word, to take place. So the formal side of my plea is for ECUSA to allow Alternative Episcopal Oversight without control or condition. My plea is for the bishops to lay aside their fears and trust us to God. I predict that if the bishops were to see their way to conceding this to us, the defensiveness and anger of people on my side would go down by half if not by three-quarters. In fact, if I understand people right, the day we are allowed to “call our own shots” in the area of AEO will be the day we come back to our original loyalty. I predict that. I predict it because it happens that way in love. Which brings me to the material side of my plea.

We are talking about Grace, or love, here. In relationships with people you love, you often do what they want to do simply because they want to do it. If my wife has an interest that I regard as dumb – let’ s just imagine! – I still need to make it, at least somehow, my interest. Not because of the interest itself – not at all – but because of my love for her. The ECUSA bishops need to give us what we so obviously, urgently, and desperately need, out of love. Not because of anything else. It has been astonishing to me, after almost 30 years ordained service in the Episcopal Church, that almost none of my old friends who are now Episcopal bishops or leaders on the ascendant side have reached out, personally. Ian Douglas is a significant exception.

The material principle behind the formal concept of Alternative Episcopal Oversight is, simply put, love.

There are so many illustrations in life of the principle of love from the stronger to the weaker. Lincoln’ s choice of “Dixie” as the song to be played by the White House band on the night that word arrived of Lee’ s surrender at Appomattox; the amazing overture of the Catholic President of the Republic of Ireland, John Bruton, to the Protestant Orangemen at Drumcree in the historic stand-off at Portadown in 1999; the simple miracles of reconciliation that happen every day in marriages and families and friendships throughout the world of our common life. Do you remember that line in John Ford’s 1939 legendary masterpiece, Stagecoach, when the whisky drummer beseeches the bickering passengers on the coach, just before the Indian attack as it turns out, to “have a little Christian charity”? The point is extremely important.

With the formal side of my plea granted, rooted and rooted only in the material principle of Christian love from the stronger to the weaker, the whole situation we are in would turn around. With its not being granted, I think I might safely predict that almost every traditionalist Episcopal minister and priest in the United States will no longer feel able to serve in ECUSA. There is a dire reality we are looking at. It is also a promising new future out there if the church can heed this plea.

Thank you very much.

No comments

Great Morning In Church

Sunday, 19. July 2009, 06:37:14

,

One of the joys of being a pastor in a small church is that you can never be sure how many people will come on any particular Sunday.

If you're in a biggish church, say over about 70 people, statistical laws come into play so that while there is some variation the variations are not that large, or else are predictable.

With a small church it can only take one or two families to be away and that's a big hole in the people actually attending. While numbers aren't important as such, there are practicalities that you have to think about like how many communion cups are needed, how high to fiill the urn, whether you get the 2 litre offering bucket out or the 50 litre one :smile:

So today with Margaret & Tim away, along with the Misons and the Nashes, Gary & Tania it was starting to look like a big hole in our usual high 20's congregation was going to look decimated. The Coopers were supposed to be away, and Margaret Baxter came along with another bunch of likely absentees and it was starting to look like a bad night at cell group!

By the time we had finished the praise time we had 20 people. We had nearly all of our "likely absentees" present and the Coopers had decided that they were too crook to go to Newcastle so they came and shared their germs with the family- nice gesture guys! We also had a bunch of people there whom we weren't expecting, so it was all a pleasant surprise.

I'm sure that my sermon was hard to listen to because my voice is very scratchy right now and by the end of the sermon I thought my voice had given out completely.

We had a great time of fellowship afterwards also with people hanging around for quite some time.

On the surface it was a pretty ordinary morning. But it's often in the ordinary that God starts moving the extraordinary.

I wonder what night church holds tonight?

No comments

Another Step Back For the Uniting Church

Thursday, 16. July 2009, 05:09:25

, ,

The Uniting Church is holding its National Assembly this week.

I've been hearing rumbles about a new preamble to the Constitution of the UCA recognising the sovereignty of Aboriginal people for some time. Below is a section quoted by Andrew Bolt in his blog. I went to the UCA web site looking for an official version but I couldn't find it- I only spent a few minutes so it may be there.

According to the version below it seems that the church wants to say that Aboriginal culture was good, that most christians were bad and that Aborigines were saved before the intervention of the church.

Actually life is more complicated than that. Every culture has aspects that point to the gospel because all people are created in God's image. At the same time all cultures contain great evil because we have all sinned.

To use the sort of language that this preamble proposes is just theologising the myth that everything bad that has happened to Aboriginal people is the fault of whites in a kind of self-accusatory racism.

While I am distressed at the poor living conditions of some aboriginal people in remote communities, the fact is that most aboriginal people are way better off than they were 200 years ago. Many have embraced the salvation of Jesus.

Yes, terrible things have been done in the past by white people. Some of those were christians. But let's get beyond this cycle of making ourselves feel good by repeatedly laying guilt on ourselves for the cins of our forefathers.

Here's the proposed preamble as quoted by Andrew Bolt.

As the Church believes God guided it into union so it believes that God is calling it to
continually seek a renewal of its life as a community of First and Second Peoples, and as
part of that to

RECOGNISE THAT

1. When the churches that formed the Uniting Church arrived in Australia as part of the
process of colonisation they entered a land that had been created and sustained by
the Triune God they knew in Jesus Christ.

2. Through this land God had nurtured and sustained the First Peoples of this country,
the Aboriginal and Islander peoples, who continue to understand themselves to be
the traditional owners and custodians (meaning ‘sovereign’ in the languages of the
First Peoples) of these lands and waters since time immemorial.

3 The First Peoples had already encountered the Creator God before the arrival of the
colonisers; the Spirit was already in the land revealing God to the people through law,
custom and ceremony. The same love and grace that was finally revealed in Jesus
Christ sustained the First Peoples and gave them particular insights into God’s ways.

4. A small number of members of the uniting churches approached the First Peoples
with good intentions; considering their well being, culture and language as the
churches proclaimed the reconciling purpose of the Triune God found in the good
news about Jesus Christ.

5. Many in the uniting churches, however, shared the values and relationships of the
emerging colonial society including paternalism and racism towards the First Peoples.
They were complicit in the injustice that resulted in many of the First Peoples being
dispossessed from their land, their language, their culture and spirituality, becoming
strangers in their own land.

6. The uniting churches were largely silent as the dominant culture of Australia
constructed and propagated a distorted version of history that denied this land was
occupied, utilised, cultivated and harvested by these First Peoples who also had
complex systems of trade and inter-relationships. As a result of this denial,
relationships were broken and the very integrity of the Gospel proclaimed by the
churches was diminished....

First Peoples are the Aboriginal and Islander peoples of Australia who are the
indigenous peoples of this land. These peoples are a diverse group with many
languages and communal identities.

Second Peoples are all those peoples who have come after the First Peoples and
who are beneficiaries in some way of the invasion and dispossession of the lands of
the First Peoples. Among Second Peoples within the Church are many whose racial,
cultural and linguistic backgrounds, experiences and expression of Christian faith are
not those originating in Western forms of thought and theological expression.;



No comments

The Anglican train wreck

Wednesday, 15. July 2009, 23:27:52

,

The latest scene of denominational disintegration over the ordination of homosexuals is happening in the Anglican Church. The U.S. brand of Anglicanism, The Episcopal Church, recently voted to remove homosexual practice as a barrier to ordination of bishops in direct contradiction of a request from the Anglican Communion for a moratorium on this while the rest of the Communion tries to work out the right way ahead.

Some evangelical clergy in the Anglican Church are rapidly moving to establish a parallel organisation, basically heading towards leaving the church. Other evangelicals are staying within the Communion hoping to bring some change. This is similar to the dilemma faced by many evangelicals and charismatics in the Uniting Church in Australia.

Bishop Tom Wright has written a very good article on the whole issue, which was printed in The Times. He succinctly covers areas such as sexuality, scripture and identity as its traditionally understood in society and why recent pressures for change are bad.

Bishop Tom Wright writes:


'In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

'Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

'Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

'Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

'That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

'Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

'The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

'Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

'We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

'The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.

'Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.'



The full article plus commentary on Times religion correspondent Ruth Gledhill is here

No comments

Consumer Church

Tuesday, 14. July 2009, 07:51:53

A little bit long, but this makes the point about consumer-driven church.

No comments

Matt Sorger- Dangerous Trend in Church

Friday, 10. July 2009, 09:05:46

, ,

Matt Sorger writes:


"Just Show Me the Stuff!"

I am witnessing an alarming trend in some of our charismatic circles and services. I travel full time on the road all across the United States and other parts of the world. Each week I am ministering in another state to a new group of hungry Believers wanting to live in the fullness of God's Spirit. Several times in the last few months I have encountered a disturbing and grievous observation. Before I share it with you, let me give you some of my personal background.

A FIRM FOUNDATION

I was saved at the age of 14. I am thankful to have been raised in a solid Bible preaching, Spirit-filled Church. The Word was always given a priority. An understanding of living a holy, sanctified life was always preached with conviction. I took my first steps of walking, living and ministering in the Spirit there. As a young pastor I was given some room to begin to spread my wings as the anointing and power of God began to move through my life. I took full flight when I launched out from pastoring six years ago to travel full-time in a "prophetic revival" ministry.

My years before pastoring were spent seeking God as a young person, spending time in personal devotion and study of the Word, as well as nearly four years in a great Bible school in Rhode Island where I served as class president during my time there. Upon graduation I stepped into the pastoral ministry. I learned many valuable things during those years that I carry with me to this day. Life experiences have a way of shaping you into the person God has called you to be.

I want to define to you what I consider "prophetic revival" ministry. For me "prophetic" means hearing and then declaring a true word from God, either through preaching and teaching God's heart as revealed in His Word, or declaring and speaking forth an unctioned word from His heart. But even that kind of prophetic word will be solidly rooted and grounded in Scripture. "Revival" holds a dual meaning for me. I see it as stirring up the Church for a deeper passion for God and learning to live and walk in the power of the Holy Spirit and then seeing that passion overflow through the lives of Believers into the world around us. The power of God in the life of the Believer cannot be contained by oneself. It must overflow and impact the world around us.

AN ALARMING TREND

Now I must share with you an alarming trend I have witnessed taking place. I have even experienced it in my own meetings! Because this is hitting so close to home I can no longer be silent. I am a man of deep convictions. And it is time for me to share them with you. Recently, after a meeting I was standing near my resource table greeting people. A woman approached me to share of the wonderful overflow of the Holy Spirit she had experienced from the meeting the day before. She could sense a whole new level of God's presence with her. It was clear she had been deeply touched. But she proceeded to share something with me that caused me to raise a "red flag."

She said, "You know, when you started preaching, I thought, I have heard this before. I really came looking to hear something I had never heard before. But the presence of God in the meeting did have a profound impact on me, and I am not the same." I rejoiced over what the Lord had done for her, but at the same time I was grieved.


Read more:

No comments

Vicar of Dibley Elected Head of Methodist Church

Wednesday, 8. July 2009, 11:56:47

,

It's just wonderful that a ground-breaking sitcom has been so influential! Yay to Dawn French! "Shall I minute that, sir?"

From "Ekklesia"

Methodist Church elects 'Vicar of Dibley' campaigner as President

A campaigner who has supported actions against the arms trade, rights for destitute asylum seekers and marched on Downing Street in a 'Vicar of Dibley' style action to highlight issues in the developing world has been elected as the new Methodist President.

The Revd Alison Tomlin has been elected President Designate of the Methodist Conference for 2010-2011, and Deacon Eunice Attwood has been elected Vice President Designate.

The election results were announced at the annual Methodist Conference in Wolverhampton.

Alison Tomlin is currently Chair of the Northampton Methodist District, having previously chaired the Oxford and Leicester District. In September she will become co-Superintendent of the Thames Valley Methodist Circuit with her husband Dave. She has served the Church as a minister for 25 years, having originally been ordained in Wolverhampton in 1984.

Alison was part of a group of female clergy and ministers, led by Dawn French, which marched from Trafalgar Square as 'real-life Vicars of Dibley' to Downing Street as part of the year-long the Make Poverty History campaign, pressing for structural change to aid, debt relief and trade policies.

Full article

Here's a clip for those who aren't familiar with the Good Vicar!




And this is the main bit of the first episode:




No comments

How To Be A Cult.

Sunday, 5. July 2009, 07:45:41

, ,

Sometimes I worry about the tendency of some christians to be so rigid about the perceived failings of other churches that they feel afraid or dismissive of any other group than the one they belong to.

This takes a variety of forms. For example, one pastor I know refuses to have any fellowship with pastors from other denominations because they don't "pray right". Another pastor worries about who would choose a speaker for a combined outreach because he might not like someone that somebody else invites (implication being I'm the only one I can trust to know who is suitable). At theological college some of my fellow students used to decry a group called "Sydney Anglicans" while all the time imitating the behaviours they scorned.

At the extreme end of this we find those pastors who discourage any contact with other churches because they "have a spirit over them." Personal tragedies have been ascribed to people attending playgroups run by other churches- what a great way to impose guilt and dependency on vulnerable people!

And of course at the other extreme are the cult-watchers who claim that they are trying to prevent people from falling under the sway of such controlling, manipulative people, but who in fact use their own forms of control to keep people in fear of being led astray. One cult watching web-site has an online questionnaire to help people determine if their church is in fact a cult. I was quite amused to find that I was in danger of leading myself astray and needed to be very careful!

We need to remember that there is just one church, one Body of Christ. Any one congregation or denomination does not have the monopoly on God's truth. We all need each other.

I can see tendencies in other churches which I might think are not helpful in bringing people to maturity in their faith. I can also see limitations in my own ministry and congregation.  On the other hand those churches have great strengths that I admire.

You can take a single sermon from any preacher and interpret it in such a way as to appear heretical.

But these are people and groups of people for whom Jesus died. They, like me, are less than perfect, but that does not mean I should protect myself from their influence.

Yes, I can ensure that I know the Bible well enough to measure a particular doctrine or practice against it. But I don't need to cut myself off from all fellowship with all believers who fall outside a narrow belief paradigm.

To do that would turn me into a cult!

Let's live together in harmony and fellowship with one another, accepting that there is a great diversity of belief and practice that can be called biblical.

Let's learn to bless one another not to curse and judge.

Let's learn to approach others with the same graciousness that Christ has shown to us.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

No comments

Getting beyond a foolish argument - Brian McLaren

Thursday, 25. June 2009, 01:23:01

, ,

Brian McLaren makes some great points in this article about getting away from the "bigger is better" mentality and towards generating real community at all levels of our existence.

Getting beyond a foolish argument ...

One of the distracting polarizations under which we've been laboring over recent decades is typically framed like this: big government versus big business. There are a thousand ironies in this. Those against big government are generally for big military, which is government working with taxes and weapons instead of taxes and laws. Those against big business generally depend on it for campaign donations.

But there's a deeper irony: what if big usually means unaccountable, and what if big and unaccountable are inherent to our problems? enterprisegroup-1.jpg

I think it was Rick Warren who said, "Bigger isn't better and smaller isn't better. Better is better."


Read more here
Blogged with the Flock Browser

1 comment

Matt Chandler- The "De-churched"

Thursday, 18. June 2009, 07:47:26

,

Matt Chandler gives some insight into why some people lose their faith

No comments

COLGATE CHRISTIANS « backyardbelievers.com

Sunday, 14. June 2009, 23:32:00

,

Phil Walters writes:
toothbrushCOLGATE CHRISTIANS 14 06 2009 ” …though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you … all over again. ” (Hebrews 5:12)

I have often wondered what period of time the write to the Hebrews was referring to when he said ‘by this time’ you ought to be teachers.

Was it 5 months, 5 years, 15 years or (for somechurch goers) 50 years?

And was he seriously referring to all those he was addressing (as it seems he is) or just those ‘called’ to be teachers.

At the same time I have wondered whether there is a connect here with the Willow Creek discovery that the longer a person was attending the church the more disgruntled or dissatisfied many became with the church.

Could it be that there is a ‘use by’ date on what we absorb through our teachers and, if we don’t get out and teach it ourselves, we have to go through the same stuff “… all over again.” (Hebrews 5:12), a process which puts many teachers and preachers (especially those that get a buzz out of the weekly delivery of “a good word this week, Pastor”) into the position of being what I call ‘Colgate preachers’. Let me explain.

The basics of the Gospel, like a toothbrush, is really very simple. However in order to keep people buying toothbrushes Colgate have to cleverly reinventing the thing. Again, and again, and again. A new bump here or flexible twist there, new colours and bristle arrangements and new marketing techniques, all designed to keep customers coming and keep them happy.

And unfortunately many pastors are caught up in a similar pattern. A new twist here and a fresh revelation there, hang the message on Abraham this week then next month use Paul, all brought to a consumer driven congregation with a clever use of PowerPoint and the latest gadgetry. The same basic message but redesigned to keep them engaged and keep them coming. Even the Pastor can be fooled into thinking he has something new.

The writer to the Hebrews seems to suggest, however, that the teacher’s objective should be less about keeping them coming and more about getting them going! In fact he gives us a warning of what will happen if they do not become fruitful. In chapter 6 verse 7 he writes: ‘Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned.’ (Hebrews 6:7-8)

What are the thorns and thistles other than the whinges and dissatisfactions that are often rife in our churches, usually coming from folk who have sat under a steady diet of ‘colgate’ teaching for years. And the blessing of God? Perhaps the greater revelation of Christ that the writer longs to bring?

Unfortunately those of us in ‘ministry’ often only have ourselves to blame.

1. We have fostered a preaching style and a meeting style that only makes room for a few rather gifted members to teach anyway. As opposed to the New Testament pattern of a proliferation of home based opportunities for every believer to receive ‘a word of instruction, a revelation… all … for the strengthening of the church’. Offering the microphone to anyone who has something to say will never produce that kind of participation.

2. We have assumed and subliminally taught people that unless they sit under a weekly dose of ‘the word’ they will not grow. But, as I have suggested, there are many that would be better staying away on a Sunday morning and instead taking what they already have and sharing it with a friend over coffee or a fishing line. Rather than fall apart, every sermon they’ve ever heard would come to life as the Holy Spirit opened up opportunties for them to become teachers of the word themselves.

3. We have failed to take note of the purpose of the the ‘five fold’ gifts of Christ to the church, which is to prepare God’s people for ministry. The church is meant to be a people movement with each believer equipped to give an account of the hope they have within them and experience the joy of walking with someone on their journey into faith.

4. Perhaps a bit of a reality check might be in order as well. I don’t mind admitting that I get a buzz out of preaching and teaching. It was often the highlight of my week, especially if it received a bit of praise (see my previous post on preaching).

This can however blind us to the danger of

(1) making people reliant on us and

(2) believing that we (and our gifting) are indispensable.

As Willow Creek discovered, sitting under a weekly dose of the word may be healthy for new believers but maintaining that healthy smile comes about by learning to brush daily with Jesus rather than waiting for the weekly Colgate sermon.

Walking in daily obedience to the promptings of His spirit will brighten anyone’s smile.

COLGATE CHRISTIANS « backyardbelievers.com

Blogged with the Flock Browser

No comments

Worshipping Worship

Saturday, 13. June 2009, 12:17:09

,

The internet monk writes:



One of my major premises in the writing I’m doing these days is that evangelicals have become a movement actually destroying itself.

At no point does that seem more obvious than in the recent evolution of worship within evangelicalism.

Does anyone- I mean, really, seriously- have any idea what is actually happening within the worship culture of evangelicals?
We have, within a matter of 50 years, completely changed the entire concept of what is a worship service. We’ve adopted an approach that demands ridiculous levels of musical, technical and financial commitment and resources.

We have tied ourselves to the Christian music industry and its endless appetite for change and profit. We have accepted that all of our worship leaders are going to be very, very young people. Traditional worship - a la Tenth Presbyterian in Philly- is on the verge of becoming a museum piece.

The reformed- of all people- have led the way in this revolution. I attended a seminar last week where a room full of reformed were instructed in why the optimum worship leadership option was “the band.” Not the choir, the worship team, etc. But “the band.” Does anyone realize what that means for public worship?

Diversity, generational compatibility, even simplicity are all being blown up. Worship is now a major audience event, led by skilled entertainers, aimed at a demographic and judged by the audience reaction.
God? God has been moved around to be things like a reluctant Spirit we sing down with our songs or a divine innovator always blessing as much radical change as possible.

Why do I call this a goof? Because there is no way for this to end well. This is like a NASCAR car with the throttle stuck open. We’re stuck on a roller coaster and we can’t get off.

Worship has now become a musical term. Praise and worship means music. Let’s worship means the band will play. We need to give more time to worship doesn’t mean silent prayer or public scripture reading or any kind of participatory liturgy. It means music.
Even singing is getting lost in this. As the volume and the performance level goes up, who knows who is singing?
And who can stand for 20, 30 or 40 minutes?

We have a lot of happy people right now. They have no idea what Biblical worship is outside of the context of their favorite songs played by a kickin’ band. They have little idea of worship in vocation, in family, in ordinary work or in silence. They credit their favorite songs as major spiritual events.

We have goofed up. Simple, plain liturgy. Diversity and inclusion. Appreciation and full Biblical understanding. Cross generational intentionality and suspicion of the profit motive. Renouncing the spirit of competition. Hearing the prophetic warnings about God’s disgust with much of Israel’s “big show” worship culture. We need all of this.

We need Jesus shaped worship, and we need worship that promotes a simple, direct, uncompromising Jesus shaped spirituality.




Article

2 comments

Finding the "One"

Tuesday, 2. June 2009, 10:36:12

, ,

It's been said that the only prayer of Jesus that has been unanswered is that in John 17, that his followers would be "one" in the same way that Jesus and the Father are "one".

It's clear from the splintering of the church around the world that unity is still a distant dream. At times we come close in some places, but somehow it always remains elusive.

The sort of unity that Jesus prays for is not an institutional unity (the so-called "One World Church" that keeps on being prophesied about) where everyone is herded into the one pen.

He prays in John 17 that His followers will be one just as the Father and Son are one. In other words a relational, organic unity rather than an institutional unity. I see this as being basically a strong sense that in anyone place there is just one body, even though the church may meet at several different locations in the locality and have a variety of worship styles and governance structures.

Over the years I have observed several levels of unity and it's made me hunger for more. Here are the levels I have observed:

0. This is total disconnect. Each fellowship is concerned with its own business and hardly notices that other churches exist. Each fellowship is only interested in what it can do. there is competition among the different groups and tends to be hostility amongst the leaders.

1. Distant recognition. The churches recognise one another's right to exist and that they are in some way "on the same side". They might  advertise special events in other churches and while they don't actively preach against one another there is still some suspicion. There is strong loyalty to denominational lines rather than recognising that there is a Body of Christ locally.

2. Pragmatic connection. This is a stage of recognising that there may be advantages in actually working together for particular projects, particularly outreach or community service projects.There is a limited respect of one another and perhaps even a lukewarm regard.

3. Friendly connection. At this stage leaders and parishioners actually enjoy fellowship with one another. They look for social, worship and prayer connections, seeking opportunities to be together. They recognise that there is "one church in this town worshipping in several locations." Pastors put in place procedures to make sure that people don't switch congregations without leaving their first congregation on good terms. Connection between congregations may be stronger in practice than denominational ties.

4. Apostolic unity. The church begins to live in organic unity. Ministry leadership is shared amongst congregations. Resources are offered to be shared. There may even be a common "eldership" which recognises a shared measure of authority. Although there are different fellowships with different styles and emphases, they recognise that they all share more in common than they have that keeps them apart. True love and fellowship amongst all the members and the leaders. Denominations are seen as external resources that can help the whole body.

When I came to Narrabri we were probably at about 0 or 1 on this scale. Over the years we have moved through levels 2 and 3. For several years we had monthly combined services, and weekly pastors prayer meetings. We had an agreement that church switchers could only join a congregation after they had sought the previous congregation's blessing.

At one stage we touched into level 4. One church was seeking a pastor and we were planning a combined picnic after church on the day the candidates were coming, and they were going to bring them along to the picnic. It was almost as if the whole church was going to be able to have input into the call of the pastor of one congregation. It didn't happen that way, but we were that close!

Today, most of the pastors are too busy building their own empire to be bothered with each other. The pastors' prayer meeting is a shadow of what it was. And at the Ministers' Fraternal meeting today, a couple of the guys were thinking aloud that it might be good if we could work together in outreach.

I feel so sad and frustrated. We tasted the real thing, and now we're back to the old ways.

Lord pour your Spirit into your church. Let the unity of love dwell richly among us.

1 comment

What A Day!

Sunday, 31. May 2009, 13:40:47

,

We had a great day in church today! I'm blown away. Nothing manufactured or hyped, just good Holy Spirit ministry.

Like most churches around the world we celebrated the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost today. I think what hit me the most was a couple of unscripted incidents.

For some weeks we have been collecting coins for the "Turn On the Tap" appeal being run by Samaritan's Purse. The idea is that you fill an ordinary drinking bottle with coins and then send them the proceeds. Last Sunday we closed it off and this morning I announced that we had collected $181, which I thought was a good effort. But someone said "Why don't we have another go around and finish off the $250 which would supply a village with a bore and hand-pump?" So we sent the bottle around and, when it was counted later, we had surpassed the total and were on the way to the second pump. So Tim said "We might as well get the second one as well", so he went and got his wallet and started putting in serious notes and then David joined him as well and by the time they had finished we had enough for the second pump!

Then people hung around through morning tea and well into the afternoon, which was really good. Community is really growing in our church.

This evening we had what amounted to a soaking service, with an extended worship time and a short message. We just put on the CD and let it run without words on the screen, and let God minister whatever He wanted to do in us. Powerful stuff.

Again we had people stay for ages afterwards, just sharing together about what God is doing.

Awesome Pentecost Sunday!

4 comments

Reflection on Acts 2:1-21

Tuesday, 26. May 2009, 01:22:24

, , ,

Scripture
When the last days come, I will give my Spirit to everyone. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will have visions and your old men will have dreams.

Observation
The Day of Pentecost is a powerful day- it is the day when the Holy Spirit transforms a bunch of uncertain followers into bold ministers of the gospel. He is still doing that work today.

There are three signs of the presence of the Spirit on Pentecost:

1. Wind- the power (dunamis) of God. The power to heal, to raise people from the dead, preach and in all ways to act as Jesus did. Wind represents the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).

2. Fire- cleansing, purifying, burning up of the stuff in our life that has little value. This allows us to take on the character of Jesus, represented by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).

3. Tongues- the beautiful personal prayer language which speaks of intimacy with God. The Spirit is not an external force or power but the presence of God in our spirits,


Application
Many people try to live without the Holy Spirit active in their lives.

Maybe that sort of “power encounter” with God is too scary. Perhaps three is a need to be in control- but our lives work better when God is in control. Maybe it's a fear of being seen as “weird”- but to the world christians are weird anyway.

We need to surrender daily to the fiery, windy, “tonguesy” Holy Spirit. Let God take control of our lives and let Him direct the way we live, speak and act.

Prayer
Come Holy Spirit! Pour the full power of Pentecost into my spirit mow. Let me live every day in the transforming, empowering baptism of the Holy Spirit. Amen.


No comments

Unblelieving Bishops

Monday, 25. May 2009, 07:48:11

, ,

From Andrew Bolt:

The man wants to borrow the pulpit provided by the church, but without paying the church its most basic due:

Richard Holloway says the worldwide Anglican Church has made room for “happy clapping” evangelicals, bells-and-smells Catholics, women priests and, in the United States, openly gay clergy and even practitioners of other faiths. So surely, he argues, it can find room for people like him - Christians who don’t believe in God.

Holloway, contrary to popular belief, has not left the Episcopal Church, as Scottish Anglicanism is known. He may have taken early retirement as Bishop of Edinburgh but the writer remains an ordained priest and consecrated bishop, who still preaches from the pulpit, performs baptisms and weddings and even presides at communion.



Sir Humphrey had a bit to say about this.

No comments

A Beige Faith

Monday, 18. May 2009, 23:32:44

,

Andrew Bolt reports:

Here’s the opening verse of the hymn sung at the opening of the Anglican Communion’s meeting in Jamaica two weeks ago:

Lord of our diversity,

unite us all, we pray;

welcome us to fellowship

in your inclusive way.




Now there's a song to inspire martyrs and reformers. :smile:

No comments

The Last Fling of Modernity in the Church

Monday, 11. May 2009, 08:05:26

, , ,

The SMH reports today that Brian Houston will be expanding the Hillsong empire into Brisbane, and thence to other cities. Apparently an existing Australian Christian Churches (AOG) church will be rebranded as "Hillsong Brisbane" and Brian and wife Bobbie will be installed as Senior Pastors. A previous pastor was thrown out because the church wanted a CEO style of pastor rather than a pastoral pastor, and more to the point the church was not growing and the previous pastor had had a nervous breakdown.

There is so much that is wrong with this story, if the facts even vaguely line up with the reality.

Let me say that I have a great regard for Brian Houston and what he has achieved with Hillsong. The Hillsong church has done a lot to inspire churches and pastors to get out of the old paradigms and comfort zones- establishing new ones which need to be challenged again.

So there's a large church in Brisbane which is struggling because it's failing to grow numerically. In fine Pentecostal tradition they blame the pastor- as John Maxwell says "everything rises and falls with the leader." They chuck him out with little regard for their responsibility to him- not as an employer but as a christian body.

They lust for the "success" that the Houston name seems to bring so they install Brian and Bobbie as Senior Pastor.

Here are my issues:

1. Brisbane is not Sydney- so why do they think that the Hillsong model should be right for Brisbane?

2. What is meant by a CEO pastor? This is an oxymoron, a contradiction. The roles of CEO and pastor are very different. The imagining of the Body of Christ as a corporate business operation is a total distortion of everything that Jesus died for.

3. Is growth an end in itself? The mega-church phenomenon has always been about attracting a crowd through great entertainment and spectacular "inspiring" preaching. There is far less concern about disciple making and no concern about whether the growth is from genuine conversion or from merely sucking in christians from other churches.

4. It is simply not possible for someone in Sydney to pastor a church in Brisbane. You cannot pastor a community that you are not a part of.

5. The worship of the man, the cult of the leader, has been the biggest weakness in pentecostal churches. The strength has been the freedom of pastors to lead and preach with the authority of their gifting. But this has been twisted over the last couple of decades to become a cult of personality around the charismatic leaders. This is not unique to pentecostal churches- I read a report a few years ago about declining Uniting Church congregations in one region of Sydney where there was a common hope that if they could get the "right minister" everything would be O.K.

We need to understand that the ministry of the church is the responsibility of the whole body, and not just the Senior Pastor or other "staff" members. Getting The Man is not what we should be about.

Pastors are not super-stars- except in their own fantasies. Ephesians 5 clearly paints the 5-fold ministry gifts as being about encouraging the whole body to grow to maturity. If we see the ministry as about one man brining salvation and significance to the congregation (I'm not talking about Jesus!) then we are worshipping the wrong Messiah.

6. Preaching and teaching come from the shared life of a community of faith. Preaching, even in a large crowd, is an interaction, a shared event. What will happen in this arrangement is that eventually (if not immediately) when Brian is in Sydney, the message will be beamed in by internet or satellite so that the satellite congregation can get the best teaching/ performance every week. This already happens in the U.S. as the mega-churches franchise out their operations to other cities or other campuses in the same city.

Think about this: would you rather get a relevant word shaped by our context together or a well presented but generic message from somewhere else? An extreme example of this is that while much of Australia is undergoing an economic recession, Narrabri is undergoing good economic times because we had quite good rural production last year. Does Brian preach a word for the good times or a word for the tough times when we get his message beamed in?

7. This is the last extension of modernity in the church. Modernity, in the cultural use of the term, relates to the way our technological culture with its emphasis on efficiency, achievement and "success" has changed the way that we think of ourselves. Post-modernism is a reaction to that with an emphasis on relationship and expression rather than production. The baby boomers were the ultimate products of modernism where even the church became just another corporation selling a branded product. The post-baby boom generations are seeking authentic relationships and community (not corporate) values. The growth of cell church and house church movements, the resurgence of incarnational and missional movements (the church has to take Jesus to the heart of our cities and towns and not just expect people to turn up at an event), the growth of christian arts communities- all of these things are pointing to a new way of doing things.

The Willow Creek movement has discovered huge failings in the way they did church. Their problem was that church services were focussed on "seekers" (i.e. people) and not on the transcendent God. Hillsong and many pentecostal churches do something similar in that everything focusses on a sharp, efficient presentation with no room in the programme for the Holy Spirit.

8. I really believe that Brian Houston's ministry gift is apostle not pastor. He has tremendous influence way past the local congregation. But he is straying from the New Testament model by installing himself as a pastor in these various offshoot churches. He should abandon the title of pastor altogether and take on board his real calling. This would require him to cut his formal ties with the various Hillsong churches. They could still pay him a salary or a tithe or whatever, but not as a pastor. He could travel from church to church and speak to them as a visiting apostle and with greater authority. I believe that the local church must be led by a local pastor who is in a father-son relationship with an apostle. But the apostle must allow the pastor to lead his own flock and not seek to control the pastor or the congregation.

I find myself very disturbed, though strangely unsurprised by this development. I think that there will be severe problems in the long term, and it may sound the death knell of the Australian Christian Churches as a denomination- in the same way that ordaining homosexual ministers was the death knell of the Uniting Church.

In the place of these institutional juggernauts we will see, over the next 50 years or so the rise of genuine relational apostolic networks and the complete reformation of the church.

No comments

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 15 Next »

Showing posts 21 - 40 of 284.