Missional Church
Wednesday, 7. October 2009, 22:18:27
Friday, 24. July 2009, 09:35:54
Thursday, 18. June 2009, 07:47:26
Monday, 6. April 2009, 23:21:02
Christian beliefs still strong, says survey
Barney Zwartz
April 7, 2009
MORE than four in 10 Australians who do not consider themselves "born again"' still believe Jesus rose from the dead, while one in 10 does not believe he existed.
These were two of the surprising results from an independent survey of 2500 people, said noted author and church historian John Dickson, the co-director of the Centre for Public Christianity in Sydney.
The survey, to be published today, found that out of the 85 per cent who did not identify as born again - including those of other religions - 45 per believed in the resurrection.
Dr Dickson said the number who believed in the resurrection included agnostics and secularists because the total percentage was far higher than the remaining Christians surveyed.
"We are staggered. We thought the survey would show the profound scepticism of Australians. Instead it shows there is a base-level assumption among the Australian public that accepts the Jesus story even if it has no relevance to their lives."
He said the survey wanted to explore the understanding of non-churchgoers, so the results were produced from those who were non-religious, or from another religion, or who loosely identified with Christianity.
Other odd findings included:
* 31 per cent believe Jesus lived BC ("before Christ");
* 57 per cent knew Easter was connected with the death of Jesus but 87 per cent knew it concerned the resurrection.
* 4 per cent confused Easter with Christmas (and Jesus's birth).
Ninety per cent of non-born-agains identified Jesus with Christianity and 60 per cent knew his life was recorded in the New Testament.
Asked if Jesus was a real figure, 11 per cent of non-born-agains said no, 39 per cent said yes but without divine powers, and 50 per cent said yes and with divine powers.
Monday, 6. April 2009, 23:18:42
Thursday, 2. April 2009, 07:14:45
Sunday, 8. March 2009, 22:26:16
Instilling missional habits..
David Fitch asks how we lead a church community to engage mission as a way of life? How do we train a congregation out of Christendom habits and instil post Christendom virtues? Curiously, I had a conversation a few mornings ago and was reminded of a comment Todd Hunter made some years ago. “Nurture the kind of life and practices you want; starve those you don't want.” Dave advocates the gentle rejection of certain assumptions and practices in favour of a missional imagination and missional practices. He lists nine items, and this is the shorthand..
1.) Kindly Reject doing Outreach Events. Instead direct imagination towards ways of connecting with people where they are.
2.) Kindly Reject evangelism as a one time hit on a target with a preconceived outcome. Kindle imagination toward seeing mission as part of regular daily, weekly and monthly life rhythms.
3.) Kindly reject building multiple use buildings as if by building a gymnasium on the church campus we can bring people into the orbit of the church. We should build less third spaces, and inhabit more the ones already there.
4.) Kindly reject one-on-one evangelism and the techniques associated with such apologetic persuasion. Instead direct imagination for inhabiting places in two’s or three’s or more. Hospitals, the school systems, the park districts … two or three Christians together become an undeniable force for the kingdom under the Lordship of Christ.
5.) Kindly reject the Sunday morning gathering as an evangelistic event for it cannot be that in the new post Christendom cultures. Instead fire up imagination for the formation that comes from a communal encounter with the living God in Jesus Christ.
6.) Kindly reject coercive persuasion and argument in our witness. Instead stoke the imagination of your people for seeking “one person of peace” (Luke 10) among the lost of their neighbourhoods.
7.) Kindly reject presumptuous postures of power as we live our lives among those who do not know Christ yet. Instead direct the imagination towards the way Christ always enters the human situation in humility. Come to your neighbours humbly and in need. Instead of offering them a meal, find ways to participate in a meal with them. If you’re in the suburbs ask them if you can borrow their lawnmower.
8.) Kindly Reject Surveying the neighbourhood - Direct the imagination toward exegeting the neighbourhood. Surveying looks at the neighbourhood as a place to market our church,- Exegeting a neighbourhood requires inhabiting the neighbourhood, discovering where the hurting are and the unjust structures are.
9.) Kindly Reject problem solving - instead direct the imagination towards “appreciative inquiry.” We often approach church through problem solving. What is wrong with our programs? What needs are we not meeting? What needs to be tweaked? What are we not doing right? This is negative, mechanical and lifeless.
I suggest # 10 ..
10. Kindly reject strategic planning in favour of thoughtful preparation. We really don’t know the future… but we know that the Spirit is birthing his kingdom among us as we respond faithfully day by day. We keep our eyes on Jesus. Newbigin warned us that, “the significant advances of the church have not been the result of our own decision about the mobilizing and allocating of “resources” [rather] the significant advances have come through happenings of which the story of Peter and Cornelius is a paradigm, in ways of which we have no advance knowledge.” (The Open Secret)
Wednesday, 25. February 2009, 09:16:25
Lives Moulded by the Gospel“ The doctrines of the gospel are meant to mould us so that our lives begin to ’set’ in the likeness of Christ. We have made little or no impression upon the world, for the very reason that the gospel doctrine has made a correspondingly slight impression upon us. It cannot be overemphasized that men and women who have accomplished anything in God’s strength have always done so on the basis of their grasp of truth.” - Sincalir Ferguson, The Christian Life (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1981), 8-9.Lives Moulded by the Gospel « Of First Importance
Sunday, 8. February 2009, 06:55:46
Greens leader Bob Brown says bushfires like the ones raging across Victoria and New South Wales this weekend will be more frequent if climate change continues…
“Global warming is predicted to make this sort of event happen 25 per cent, 50 per cent more,” he told Sky News.
“It’s a sobering reminder of the need for this nation and the whole world to act and put at a priority our need to tackle climate change.”
Sunday, 8. February 2009, 06:51:02
Tuesday, 3. February 2009, 06:35:18
1. A Desire to Be Obedient to God's Commands
Jesus commanded his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. That is exactly what the early disciples did. Paul spoke of a compulsion to share the gospel. To evangelize is to obey.
In Acts 8:4, we see that those who had been scattered preached the gospel wherever they went. One of the clearest examples of evangelism being commanded is in 1 Peter 3, where Peter commands believers to "always be…prepared to make a defence to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you."
Our silence is not a matter of neutrality. You need to tell yourself that. Our silence is a matter of guilt and sin. Obedience is definitely a biblical reason to evangelize.
2. A Love for the Lost
Preachers, we have got to stop avoiding the topic of lostness— hell. Jesus spoke of God's wrath remaining on those who don't believe on him. God will cause terror in us if we appear before him apart from Christ.
Apart from God's grace, the sinner will never stop sinning. God's judgement will never end. Their rejection of God never ends. God will inflict extreme and unnatural pain on them forever.
As preachers of the gospel, we have no business making God seem more humane to sinners who are in rebellion against him. Think about if hell were unleashed on you forever and tell unbelievers how horrible it is.
Christians are motivated by a love to others. Hudson Taylor said he would have never thought of going to China if he didn't know that they were lost. It's people who are this lost, who have this fate awaiting them, that we are aiming to convert.
We can confidently tell people the basic message of the gospel and trust that God's Spirit will faithfully pick up our message and use it to save people.
3. A Love for God.
We want to see God glorified. We want to see the truth about him told in creation. The desire to see God glorified was the motivation for all Jesus' actions.
Everything exists for God's glory (Romans 11:36). Our salvation is "to the praise of his glorious grace" (Ephesians 1:6). God does everything he does for his own glory, and we should do all we do for the glory of God.
To tell the truth about some people is not to honour them, but to tell the truth about God is to honour him. God is glorified in the gospel.
Thursday, 1. January 2009, 22:43:58
Saturday, 20. December 2008, 07:17:22
Wednesday, 17. December 2008, 22:57:04
Monday, 27. October 2008, 06:17:51
The bus to Planet Hedonism
Sunday, 26th October 2008Stories mocking the absurd evangelical atheism bus, the stunt dreamed up by the fundamentalist missionaries at the British Humanist Association and the Guardian, prompt another vignette from the Richard Dawkins/John Lennox debate last week reported here.
The bus (pictured above on the BHA website) trumpets on its side the message:There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life
which has provoked a measure of ridicule that supposed atheists don’t even have the courage of their negative convictions. (I’ll wager that Pascal might have agreed). The bus is also being financially backed by Richard Dawkins. But when Lennox asked him about its message, he became visibly uncomfortable. He had wanted it to sayThere’s almost certainly no God, so live your life to the full
but he had been overruled by ‘the woman on the Guardian’. Apart from the ‘probably’, it was also the ‘Now stop worrying’ bit that he hadn’t liked. Although he did not share with us why he didn’t like it, it seems to me that the bus message is effectively saying: ‘do whatever you fancy and to hell with the effect on anyone else because Biblical morality is a fairy story’. Which is not terribly good PR for even wobbly atheists.
In the debate, Dawkins got shirty at the suggestion that, without the Bible there could be no justice and no morality. But when it was put to him that atheism leads directly to the brutal anti-humanity of Professor Peter Singer, who has written thatthe life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee
Dawkins declared:Peter Singer is the most moral person I know, and that is an entirely rational point of view.
All aboard!
Tuesday, 17. June 2008, 10:22:33
Monday, 2. June 2008, 23:54:34
There can hardly be a more graphic illustration of Britain’s helter-skelter slide into dhimmitude that this story:
Two Christian preachers were stopped from handing out Bible extracts by police because they were in a Muslim area, it was claimed yesterday. They say they were told by a Muslim police community support officer that they could not preach there and that attempting to convert Muslims to Christianity was a hate crime.
The community officer is also said to have told the two men: 'You have been warned. If you come back here and get beat up, well, you have been warned.' A police constable who was present during the incident in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham is also alleged to have told the preachers not to return to the district.
The noteworthy point about this incident is that it was a Muslim police ancillary officer who was involved. He did not uphold the law of the land, which gives people the freedom to say in public whatever they want within the law. Instead he upheld the Islamist principle that this particular area of an English city was a Muslim area, within which it was not permissible to do anything contrary to Muslim principles such as preach Christianity.
When the Bishop of Rochester recently warned that Britain was developing Muslim no-go areas, he was denounced the length and breadth of the establishment, with government ministers and bishops falling over each other to declare that they did not recognise the country he was describing. ‘There are no no-go areas in Britain’ they all declared. Well, here it is, in glowing technicolour and flashing lights, in Alum Rock Birmingham. What are they all saying now, those government ministers and bishops of the Church of England, to a situation where in the heart of England a British police support officer, employed by the British state to enforce the law of England, aggressively prevents Christians from preaching the established faith of England on the grounds that this is now a ‘hate crime’?
This is not a one-off. Alert readers will note that it was the West Midlands police force which tried to prosecute the Dispatches TV programme for revealing the true ‘hate crime’ in Britain’s so-called moderate mosques which preach hatred of the west and sedition. This in turn is only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Up and down the country, police forces led by politically correct imbeciles are recruiting large numbers of Muslims, mainly as police community support officers like the officer in Alum Rock, in order to ‘build bridges’ with the Muslim community, and with minimal or non-existent security vetting in case they upset or offend the said Muslim community. The result is, among other things, the development of Muslim no-go areas enforced by British police officers.
Welcome once again to Londonistan
Wednesday, 7. May 2008, 06:00:36
Thursday, 27. March 2008, 07:07:17
Friday, 7. March 2008, 00:03:25
The Bridge Illustration: An Idea Whose Time Has Come and Gone? 2
A few posts ago, I proposed that the way we evangelicals speak about and practice salvation forms us for moral duplicity, for moral schizophrenia, for believing one thing and doing another. Among other things, I said:
1.) Our way of salvation has no account of what happens with desire. Therefore our desires are left untouched by our salvation.
2.) We have separated justification from sanctification, something I called the Lutheranizing of our soteriology (this got some comments over at the much beloved blog: the Boar's Nest - my response to that is that I was not blaming Luther himself, who was living at a different place and time. Rather I was referring to the ways we evangelicals took later developments in Lutheran theology and crassly made salvation all about justification by faith in separation from sanctification. To me, this is so patently obvious that I still believe I need take no additional space to defend myself on this).
3.) This development opened us up to make salvation a transaction between two individual entities (God and humanity) as opposed to the participation of me, a human creature, in the work of God to restore the whole of creation to Himself out of which I as individual am also justified, renewed and reconciled to God.
4.) As a result, we are left passive, to receive God's great salvation is Christ almost as consumers. All of this works to separate our newfound salvific status in Christ from the outworking of a life lived as doxology to God in Missio Dei.
If any of this is not making sense, please read the prior post where I might have done a better job explaining all this. I closed that last post by saying that the classic Bridge illustration "illustrates" (no pun intended) some of these problems. Here's why.
The Bridge Illustration I think illustrates some of these problems with our ways of initiation.
First, the Bridge constructs a "contractual" transaction. We recognize our "need." We receive Christ as the "solution." Then the "benefit" of this salvation is described. Then there is an individual decision to "believe." At the conclusion, we pray this prayer which guarantees me of eternal life. Recent versions construct the need in terms of our broken relationship with God and the solution as a birth into a new relationship with God. This version of the Bridge has significantly improved prior versions like this. Nonetheless, it still has its patented "If you've prayed this prayer and are trusting Christ, then the Bible says that you can be sure you have eternal life."
What's wrong with the Bridge's "transaction" approach? It has the effect of initiating the unbeliever into a salvation "for me" in the worst sense of those words. For in a consumerist society, the words "for me" can longer mean what they meant when Paul spoke them or Luther spoke them. Consumerist society has trained all of us to think, feel and breathe all things as products to be consumed "for me." Jesus, Son of God, very God, has been reduced to an object to be used for some benefit. At this point this simply is no longer a salvation recognizable by Paul, Luther or the Christian church.
Granted, what the Bridge says is true. Yet it has abstracted this truth from the story, which makes it into a consumable. This is what Guder refers to as the constant temptation towards reductionism in the missiological efforts of the church. The church as a result must be continually converted. To me, it is safe to say, that time has already long since arrived.
Second, the Bridge separates justification from sanctification. Although improvements have been made in the recent versions of the Bridge, salvation is still considered static! The plus in recent versions of the Bridge has been that salvation is articulated in terms of one's relationship with God as opposed to the singular penal transaction so common before. Nonetheless, it remains individualized and static. The problem is separation from God. The solution is "bridging the gap" to God through accepting the cross's payment. This makes the relationship with God static, you either have it or you don't.
The effect of this static account of salvation is to separate life with God from the moment of conversion. After praying the prayer, we now have the relationship as if it is already accomplished. The relationship we have with God is like this Thing. And the directions we are asked to follow on how to live the Christian life appear to be hollow individual exercises that hopefully keep you on the right path. They are not written as invitations into an endless expansive life with God and His Mission.
Last, the Bridge Illustration takes no account for what happens to desire. To me this is the most condemning problem of all with the Bridge. It is like once we accept Christ's provision for sin and the separation from God, desire takes care of itself. We are now told to read the Bible as intake, talk to God in prayer, tell others about our new found faith and go to church and serve. These all appear to be individual exercises, which can easily turn into legalistic works to secure a life after conversion. But unless the re-formation of desire is addressed, these directions for life after conversion inevitably produce failed Christian life and moral duplicity.
At our church, the pastors and leadership have started a conversation on this issue. WE NEED NEW WAYS OF INITIATING STRANGERS INTO THE GOSPEL THAT TRAIN THEM INTO BEING PARTICIPANTS IN GOD'S MISSON AS OPPOSED TO CONSUMERS OF THE GOSPEL. WE NEED A WAY OF INVITING PEOPLE INTO THE COSMIC RECONCILIATION THAT GOD IS WORKING THROUGH JESUS CHRIST (not just a transaction), WE NEED WAYS OF IMAGINING THE ONGOING LIFE WITH GOD THAT IS MORE THAN ONE'S PERSONAL PIETY (although it must include that as well). WE NEED COMMUNITIES OF THE SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES for new converts to be invited into THE RE-ORDERING OF ONE'S BODY (soul and spirit) INTO THE GLORY OF GOD THE CREATOR AND REDEEMER.
On the next post, I hope to discuss my initial thoughts on this as well as what other people are coming up with as well. In the meantime, Do you think I'm overly critical of the Bridge? Which criticism has the most merit in your experience? I could tell you endless stories of people converted through the Bridge at large church, mega church or evangelistic events who simply cannot cross the line towards life in God (and His Mission). Or who struggle endlessly with the issues of re-formation of desire. Does that resonate with your experiences?
Peace
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 52.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
| 29 | 30 | |||||