Rupert's Blog

New Posts at New Blog...

2007-05-02T01:01:00.000+01:00

My stats seem to be saying there are still a few people hanging around this blog. Good to have you here, but you can find all these posts, the comments, and some new posts on Missional Church, over at my new blog here.

Please do come and visit me there!

Happy Easter ...

2007-04-06T17:04:00.000+01:00

I have posted a new post, on my new blog, with an amusing story of Sommerfield supermarket getting their births and deaths mixed up ... and a couple of things to watch at Easter. Check it out ...

Happy Easter one and all ...

[and I have replied to some comments on The Most Hated Family in America]

New Blog Running

2007-04-06T14:58:00.000+01:00

My new blog site is up and running ... and all the content has been transferred over. Comments are now closed on this site. If you want to comment on any post, please go to the new site. You can no longer comment as "anonymous", but you can use a pseudonym, so that your identity is not known. I will keep email addresses (which you have to add) private. For more info, see information about my blog.

I will no longer be posting at this site, so please transfer over to other site, which give added functionality. You can find info about subscribing (either by email or RSS); you can also get an RSS feed for comments if you want to track the conversations going on, or sign up to comments from a particular post by email when you leave a comment on that post.

If you have a link your blog, could you please update ... and if you don't why not?!? Seriously, if you would consider linking that would be great ... and let me know, and I will return the favour if I haven't already (unless of course you are some dodgy Swedish massage parlour ...)

I will post here a reminder for a while, each time I post on the new site ... but go change your favorite / bookmark / RSS feed / email subscription now while you remember!

A Happy Easter to you all.

Paying Non-Christians to Come to Church

2007-04-02T21:34:00.000+01:00

I thought I would post a quickie today, following on from a great comment by Alastair on my previous post, The Most Hated Family in America, where he was saying we need to listen to the criticism of people who aren't Christians, and yet are the very people that church exists for ...

Jim Henderson, founder of Off the Map, pays people who aren't Christians to come to church! And it isn't some devious attempt at conversion (somewhat surprisingly!). No in fact is a brilliant attempt at doing the very thing that Alastair is suggesting ... not mystery shopping, but mystery churching! Paying someone to come to church, to get thier honest feedback on what they thought about the experience.

And now Jim (currently a Christian) and Casper (currently an athiest) have written a book about thier experience of visiting a number of different churches in the US, called Jim and Casper go to Church. You can read the introduction here, and the first chapter where they go to Rick Warren's Church, Saddleback. It is an illumitating and fasinating read.

HT - Dave Faulkner

The Most Hated Family in America

2007-04-02T00:07:00.000+01:00

Tonight on BBC 2, Louis Theroux produced a documentary on the Phelps Family, dubbed the most hated family in America (you can see some highlights here). The Phelps family, with patriarch Fred Phelps, essentially make up Westboro Baptist Church (with only one non-family member, Steve, that we saw on the program, who had been a journalist doing a program on the Phelps, and then joined them!). The family and church are fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-America, pretty much anti-everything.

The family picket funerals of soldiers who dies in Iraq (a sign of God's judgement), other churches (they hate gay people enough), and even a store that sell Swedish hoovers (don't ask ... oh OK, apparently the Swedish authorities arrested a pastor who preached against homosexuality). It is a hate-filled, rules based, grace-less religion that seems so far removed from all that I know of God, Jesus, and the Christian Faith. There is nothing in common that I have that with this group ...

Or have I?

Louis Theroux, in his disarming and yet penetrating way, gets beneath the surface. He makes a couple of penetrating observations of the Phelps family, that rings some bells for me in other segments of the Christian Church, and my own life ... albeit in a less extreme form:

1. "In their world, being hated is proof they are doing the right thing ... they preach a hatred, that is reflected back on them, confirming them in their beliefs."

We may not preach a hatred like the Phelps. We may not be so angry or judgemental. But don't we sometimes think too, that we are oppressed or marginalised? We are the ones being sidelined by the society we live in. By people at work or college. By our neighbours. Doesn't our society increasingly hate Christians? Or hate what we stand for? And we justify ourselves by saying that it is clearly a sign that we are saying God's word, that the world can't accept it.

And yet we don't often to stop to look at why they might not be liking our message. Just maybe it isn't the message, but it is the way we saying it ... just maybe we have a little anger and judgement in our voices ... and that is what the world is objecting to?

Of course there will be things that the church has to say which won't be popular. But isn't it easier to point the finger at others, rather than examining ourselves? And doesn't Jesus have something to say about that?

2. "If you preach that the world is full of condemned sinners, the world will begin to take that shape."

We may not use the same language, but Louis makes the point well: what you look for, is what you see. If we expect to see evil and lawlessness, then that is what we will notice. The acts of kindness, the love, goodness, humanity of others ... we tend not to notice those things, when we expect to see something else.

In fact, I think Louis is saying something more: the way we see the world, will actually shape the world in that way. If we see the world full of condemned sinners, then that is what we actually call up in people. If we see people as image bearers, even if we are broken image bearers, then something of humanity and goodness will emerge.

What do you think? Do you think it is just what we stand for that the our society seems to be rejecting or do you think we bear some responsibility for? And how do you see the world?

Blog Update

2007-04-01T23:57:00.000+01:00

Last week has been a busy week, and I haven't posted much, or responded to comments as quickly as I would like. Sorry about that folks.

Amongst other things I have been taking my blogging time in setting up a new blogging platform (Wordpress) which I will have up and running in a couple of weeks (you can check it out here, but please don't leave any comments there yet!). I will transfer over all the posts and comments from this site at some point, so all our conversations won't be lost. I hope it will be a better site for keeping track of all the different discussions going on. More info on that to follow, and I will let you know when I have fully set up and transferred to the new site.

The next two weeks I am not going to be online much, and at points I will not have internet access. So I might post another one or two posts during this time, but may not reply to comments as quick as I would normally like to. Full service will resume on 16th April!!!!

Thanks for making this an interesting place to learn together.

Guidance in Community - Part 4

2007-03-27T23:18:00.000+01:00

See previous posts:
Guidance in Community - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Models of Guidance.

As I have been reflecting on guidance, both individual and in community (which I would argue is not nearly as different as we often make it to be), there are three pictures in the first few chapters of the Bible that can help us think about different ways in which God leads or guides people.

Noah (Gen 6):
God directed Noah specifically, with very precise instructions on how to build the ark. It was to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet high, with 3 decks, a door in the side ... and the ark was to be make of cypress wood, with pitch on the sides and top. No detail left out. Clear, concrete direction. The world was very corrupt, a flood was coming, crisis looming, and so God was very specific with Noah in how he could escape the coming devastation.

Abraham (Gen 12):
Abraham was to set out on a journey, that would take him from Haran to Canaan (his father has already travelled from Ur). He was to leave his country, his people and his father to go on this journey. Abraham got to Canaan, and they carried on travelling, knowing the God was promising the land. But a famine came, so they moved to Egypt.

In this story, we see a direction that God was calling Abraham to travel in, a promise that the land would be theirs, but no real specifics about how that would happen, when, or where exactly Abraham would go. When circumstances change (no food, always a good motivating factor!), Abraham responds and travels to Egypt where there was presumably food, but was actually away from the land that God was giving him.

Adam and Eve (Gen 2):
In the story in Genesis 1 & 2, we don't read of some specific instructions of how to do something, or a clear direction for them to travel, but more general tasks that they were to do: care and tend the land; be fruitful and multiply. There were boundaries, the 4 rivers marked a very large area of the "garden", but within that area they were free to roam where they like. All they had to do was to fulfill the mandate God had given them, stay within the boundaries ... oh and not eat the fruit of a certain tree.

So here is the crunch:

I think in church, we often have a model of guidance that is based on the picture of Noah. We wait for a specific "word" from God, what it is God is wanting to build, expecting a very clear answer of what it will look like. If you are given the type of wood, the dimensions, the layout etc, we have a very clear idea of what it is we are building. God is an architect, and we do His bidding. When people talk about vision, I often think that this is what they are talking about. They want to know what it looks like. They want to see the artist mock up, or the computerised graphic, so they can see what it looks like when we are all done. Clearly God can and does guide like this, but is it really the norm? Or is more when in crisis or immaturity?

Some of us are moving towards a journey model of guidance, and I was suggesting this in post 3, reinforced by some brilliant comments in that post. There is a direction in which we are travelling; God is calling us towards something, a promise, a hope. But we don't really now what that will look like, and there are often things on the way that cause us to change direction for a while, or respond differently. God is an explorer and we are travelling with Him.

But is the picture in Genesis 1 & 2 an aspiration for redeemed humanity? Before sin entered the world (and aren't we being restored to the garden, and a bit more as well?), Adam and Eve walked with God. They knew what their task was, but they had real freedom to choose where, when and how they would accomplish that. There were boundaries, things that God has laid down, outside which they weren't to go, and a tree they weren't allowed to eat from. But within the garden, they could go and do pretty much what they liked. God would be with them. God is a Father, bringing us to maturity and setting us free.

Rather seeing the Noah type of guidance as the goal, perhaps we should aspire for the Garden of Eden model? Or is this unrealistic in this life? Is this just an excuse for doing what we want and asking God's blessing on us? Or are there different types of guidance needed in different situations, or perhaps at different stages of maturity in Christ? As less mature Christians does God give more specific guidance, and more mature we are free to choose? Or is that just a cop out for being less dependent on God as we get older?

What do you think?

Slavery - breaking not rattlling the chains - Update

2007-03-24T14:41:00.000Z

Amazing change website have amazingly changed! David McNeish, our guest blogger, had forwarded his article (that I have posted in the last two posts - part 1 and part 2) to them a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday he got an email from them saying they have ammended thier actions points to incorporate some of Dave's suggestions. Here is what David said in this email to me:

As you might already know, a couple of months ago I got a bit miffed by the website that accompanies the film Amazing Grace - the story of Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. The ten suggestions for action were, I felt, a bit limp. Thousands of folk will see the film and visit this website. What a missed opportunity! At the time I was preparing a sermon on consumerism and discovering for myself that slavery was, if anything, worse now than in Wilberforce's day.

So I wrote a little pamphlet. Not something I've done before, but I thought - I'm no expert in this, but I know we could be doing so much more. So rather than moan I thought I'd do something about it. And having written it Iain Archibald encouraged me in my tentative suggestion to send it to the production company behind the film.

So I did. Within an hour I had a response saying they were grateful for the feedback. Good public relations I thought, but I wasn't holding my breath for anything to change.

Today I found out that they have in fact changed the "10 things you can do" as a direct result of my feedback.

Specifically it now includes:

encouraging sacrificial, sustained financial giving to help end slavery
getting educated as a consumer, buying responsibly and communicating with corporations that you expect them to clean up their supply chain
pray with perseverance until slavery is ended
persevere - stay in this fight for the long haul

You can see the new list here.

I never imagined that one of my many rants at how things could be better would turn into tangible change! Slavery has not been abolished, but I am convinced that the changes help in a small way, to encourage people everywhere to do something more effective over the long term to eradicate this evil. One little person with limited understanding and a desire to be part of the solution…

Slavery - breaking not rattlling the chains - Part 2

2007-03-24T14:28:00.000Z

Following on from Part 1, which I posted yesterday, here are some suggestions that guest blogger, David McNeish, makes about how we can make for real, sustained change to the ongoing slavery that many find themselves due to poverty:

The following are some suggestions for change that are curiously absent from the website.
Pray - this was the silent powerhouse that fuelled abolition 200 years ago. Can we really say we don't need it now?
Give sacrificially- not just a few pounds in response to an emotional film, but sustained ongoing giving. It is only the starting point though- charity is not enough. We need justice.

Reduce consumption - we need to stop demanding cheap goods, and start demanding total abolition of slavery in all its guises. See here for more information.

Campaign - there are so many things needing done – here are just three practical examples, with links for further information on each of them:

Sustain pressure on the UK Govt to implement the Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings, which they recently signed. Whilst the signature is a success, it is meaningless with out action to prevent people trafficking. See Anti-Slavery Website.
Buy fair trade chocolate - the relationship between consumption and slavery is very complex, but with chocolate it is clearer. Only fair trade chocolate guarantees that slaves were not involved in your treats. You can also write to the major chocolate companies asking them to tackle the problem. See here or Not for Sale Website.
Call on Government to support a currency transaction tax – this would curb damaging international speculation on currencies as well as generate revenue to fund international development to tackle the root causes of poverty and slavery. See here. To find out your MP and contact them see They Work for You website.

Commit to the long haul - Wilberforce was not popular, he was told tackling the problem would cause economic ruin. That argument hasn’t changed! But justice can and will prevail. God did not specify geography or give time limits when he said:
“The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners”
Isaiah 61 v1

Please note there is an update on the changes made to the Amazing Change website. See here for more details.

Slavery - breaking not rattlling the chains.

2007-03-23T11:05:00.000Z

Update: The Amazing Grace website has changed! See update for details.

Today the film Amazing Grace is released in the UK (we are thinking of going as my Mum is staying so we have a ready made babysitter!). This Sunday is Amazing Grace Sunday, where churches all around the UK remember the work of William Wilberforce. In light of this, a first for my blog, I have a guest blogger, David McNeish who writes:

Amazing Grace is a new film telling the powerful and compelling story of Wilberforce's determined campaign to abolish slavery. On the 200th anniversary of abolition there is much to reflect on and learn from in that story.

It is therefore a great shame that the accompanying website and 'campaign', Amazing Change, whilst providing compelling case studies, says so little of any substance to help address the issue today.

Its ten points for action lack efficacy. Watching a film, discussing it with friends, starting a blog - these are easy things but are only of any worth if they lead to action that secures lasting change. Otherwise we end up discussing how to tithe herbs and neglect justice.

In terms of securing change the website offers signing a petition, to be presented to unspecified governments at undetermined times. It also suggests writing to your congressman - of limited value to the thousands of people outside the US who will watch the film. Or you can attend a youth rally and shout 'freedom'. This is far more likely to result in losing your voice than in gaining justice for the millions in slavery.

Of greater concern is the misguided endorsement of partners helping to tackle slavery. This includes links to some English local authorities and the Royal Navy. Whatever work the Royal Navy may be doing in tackling slavery (atoning for past sins?), it is not clear from the weblink. Instead their site seeks to recruit young people in to the Armed Forces - a curious priority for an antislavery campaign.

It may be worth asking WWWT - What Would Wilberforce Think?

A further source of disappointment is the failure to connect our own actions in Western society with both slavery and slavery like conditions.

'Poverty is the new slavery' Jim Wallis

Poverty is the breeding ground of many evils, including slavery. The actions and inactions of Western nations in both causing and failing to alleviate extreme poverty were brought to prominence by the Make Poverty History campaign. Much remains to be done.

And on an individual level, we may not be a Cabinet Minister or a CEO of a multinational company, but our lifestyles compound the problem. Our demand for cheap products, for luxury and comfort necessitates others being enslaved to produce them - whether directly, as in the slavery which props up cocoa production in Côte d'Ivoire, or indirectly in the slavery like conditions resulting from, for example, the poverty caused by cash crops, deforestation or polluting factories. Here workers are effectively enslaved by low wages and terrible conditions to produce goods that no one needs, instead of building houses, schools and hospitals.

In the 19th century the people of Largo, a village near St Andrews, resolved to boycott sugar and rum. Why? They said they were "denying themselves the indulgence of delicacies that are prepared by cruel stripes". They made the link between their actions and the slavery of others.

We need to change our lifestyle, ask others to do the same and ask those in power to use that power for the good of all of God's children.

Part 2 tomorrow - Some suggestions for action.
[More on Guidance in Community next week]

David McNeish is part of Community Church Edinburgh, and works in the area of social policy. He has from childhood been passionate about justice and poverty, and when he preaches in church, these are topics that are never far from his lips!

Christian Spin

2007-03-21T23:26:00.000Z

Update: The House of Lord's this evening supported the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and they will now become law in the UK on 30th April. Read the BBC report here.

Various groups have been issuing their viewpoints in the last few days, for some in the hope of influencing the vote tonight:

Evangelical Alliance: urging people to protest, as does Anglican Mainstream. LCF had been urging thier mailing lists to lobby any members of the House of Lords known to any recipients.
Faithworks: press release in support of the SOR's and they have produced a very helpful guide to some of the frequently asked questions about the SORs. Really worth reading in my opinion, but then I guess I would!
Malcolm Duncan (Faithworks): good discussion on his blog

Faithworks do have some good advice: read the SORs themselves, before rushing off to a hard and fast opinion.

Original Post on Friday 9th March:

Yesterday the government published the "sexual orientation regulations" that will apply in England, Scotland and Wales from 30th April this year. They are laws that are designed to make discrimination, based on people's sexual orientation, illegal. So, for example, this law would enshrine the right of people with a homosexual orientation to be able to use "goods, facilities or services" in the same way that others can with a different sexual orientation. For example, access to public places, accommodation such as hotels or guest houses, services of a profession or trade etc. So no longer can a plumber turn down a job because the guy wanting the work done is gay.

There is much brouhaha about all this in the Christian world. So what are we to make of it?

1. In principle, I think this is a good thing. Jesus, it seems to me, is often on the side of the oppressed & marginalised in society. He stands up for women, lepers & non-Jews (all of whom were in different ways were outcasts), and gives them back their dignity and basic human rights. Whether it is people of a different religion, colour, race or sexual orientation, I think we as Christians should be standing against discrimination based on these things. I may not agree with all the beliefs or lifestyles choices of some of these groups, but they still deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. And please, in doing so, I am not endorsing their beliefs or actions ... to think that, is to ignore much of the life of Jesus recorded in the gospels! I would expect no less from others, even if they didn't agree with my Christian Faith.

2. Law is a necessary, but is a very blunt instrument for tackling such problems. Just because there is a law, won't stop some of the bad attitudes to gay people that exist in the UK, US and I am sure other places. The Law might have an affect on changing behaviour (if people are worried enough about the consequences of breaking that law), but it never changes hearts and attitudes. And that is where the Christian Church ought to be at forefront of this debate, calling not just for change in behaviour towards discriminated people, but calling for a change in attitude (and we happen to know SOMEONE who is rather practiced at bringing deep and profound change in human hearts!). This is our ground...

3. There are some challenges for the Religious Organisations with these regulations, but they are not half as bad as some are making them out to be. I do think it is very sad that a compromise was not found for Catholic adoption agencies to continue adopting children and be exempt from accepting same sex couples (although I don't think the Catholics helped themselves in the discussion - but that is the another subject all together!)

4. There is a real tension and debate to be had here where the rights of two different groups clash: here it the religious group and gay rights group. There is a danger that one could have more legitimacy in law for their rights, and I wonder if sometimes we Christians are seen as a bit of soft touch. However, listening to some Christian groups, it seems they are arguing their rights over the rights of gay people, and that just isn't right either! We need to be standing up for their rights, and the rights of Christians to say they disagree.

5. The loudest voices in the Christian world (it seems to me) are from the extremes, and they are marginalising the majority of us, who, in the main, don't think the a same sex relationship is God's intention, but don't want to be associated with the propaganda coming from such groups as the Lawyers Christian Fellowship (LCF) or to go down the route of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement.

6. I admit I am not a lawyer. But I can read. There is a bandwagon that is easy to get on, but sometimes seems based on very little fact. There are serious number of straw man arguments flying around, and it annoys me and it does the Christian Faith no credit. At worst it is lying. At best it is blatant misinformation. I call it Christian Spin, and it should stop. So here goes at burning a few of these straw men ...

The LCF state in a recent press release that the government have published the laws "without making any significant concessions to protect the rights of Christians and others with deeply held religious beliefs." Yet when I read the laws themselves, I see a whole section on religious organisations, that exempt them from the regulations, including hiring out a building (see 14(3)(d)) ... or am I reading these laws wrong?

It is often said the ministers or religion will be forced to bless same sex partnerships, but again this doesn't seem to be true from Reg 14(4)(a) where it the law explicitly states that it is not unlawful for a minister to restrict the services they offer.

In a further press release, the LCF quote a Joint Committee for Human Rights, that has been looking the regulations, where they state that a homosexual pupil should not be subjected to teaching that "that their sexual orientation is sinful or morally wrong". The LCF then comments:

"The Committee are explicit in their view that no Christian schools should have the right to promote marriage over homosexual relationships or hold to a Christian ethos that sex is only right in a heterosexual monogamous marriage."

Eh? Sorry? Did I miss something there? I don't believe that someone's sexual orientation is "morally wrong or sinful", and would have no problems in teaching that in church, school or whereever. Otherwise, in my opinion, it would be exactly the same as believing that someone born blind was morally wrong or sinful, and we all know what Jesus had to say about that (see John 9 - and please don't stretch that analogy too far: I am not saying that someone who has a homosexual orientation is the same as someone born blind). But teaching that a homosexual orientation is not wrong or sinful has NOTHING to do with kind of lifestyle that people live and what is God's way of living, does it?

In fact the Joint Committee go on to say that this "would not prevent pupils from being taught as part of their religious education the fact that certain religions view homosexuality as sinful". But, guess what, no mention of that in the LCF press release!

There are more moderate views being expressed. Faithworks (founded by Steve Chalke) come out in favour of the SOR's, probably in a similar position to mine. The Evangelical Alliance, are somewhere in the middle.

What do you think? What is a Christian response to these regulations? What would Jesus be saying?

Also see two previous posts: Gay Rights (sexual orientation regulations): Part 1 and 2.

[Note: please, this is not a debate here about the rights or wrongs of homosexuality. It is also not an opportunity to have a pop at other individuals. It is OK to disagree with me, or with others who make comments, but should anyone cross these lines, I will remove your comments].

Guidance in Community - Part 3

2007-03-21T20:03:00.000Z

Individual Guidance & Corporate Guidance

Last week, I have posted Part 1 & 2 on some lessons I have been learning about how we discern God's leading in community. So today is part 3:

I sense God is leading; I move forward with a sense of trepidation, hope and faith. Have I got it right? Small mid course adjustment here, closed door there. God seems to guide me as I am moving. I would rather that He gives the whole map before I set out on a journey, but that just isn't my experience of how He guides. The destination is unclear, but there does seem to be some direction that He is taking me, even if it does sometimes resemble a rather inebriated person walking home from the pub: there is a general direction of travel, it just isn't always in a straight line!

And isn't that most people's experience of God's guidance? There are some people who seem to have a "clear word from the Lord". That's great. But I also sometimes wonder if we don't seem a lot more certain at the end of a particular faith journey, than while we are in the midst of it.

That would certainly be true of how I came to marry my wife, Pippa. Now I look back and it just seems so obvious that God was bringing us together. There was a clear sense of Him making it happen, speaking to us, signs and clues. But at the time I do remember it was a lot more uncertain! It was with some fear and trepidation that I asked her to marry me. Would she say yes? It is the right thing? The right time? I wanted to be together, but was this the Lord's plan? It was faith operating in the midst of uncertainty and a little anxiety!

Abraham is also a good example here. In the New Testament, he is lauded as a man of faith, who obeyed God's word. When we actually read the story, he tried to make it happen in his own strength, work it out his own way, he lied and hardly portrays a man of certainty and faith.

But isn't that the point? When we are in the midst of our journey, faith is walking forward in the midst of our doubts, our uncertainties, our fears? We stumble and fall. We wander off. We try different paths. We try to work it out ourselves. But somehow in the midst of it, we are walking with God, and He gently keeps us going in the right direction. When we get to the destination of that part of our journey we can say that God was leading us & speaking to us. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see God's hand at work more clearly. But lets not confuse that with certainty at the time.

And lets not confuse uncertainty with unbelief. Using this image of journey and walking forward, faith is walking forward however certain or uncertain we are. God is drawing us forward, and we trust Him, even though we don't know what the journey will bring to us. Unbelief is when we refuse to move forward. We go back or stand still. That's unbelief and that's wrong.

That's my experience of God's guidance. And I think it is most people's experience of God's guidance. So here's my point:

Why should it be any different when it comes to God guiding a community? Is it that church should be one place of certainty, in the midst of a world of uncertainty? Do we want people to be sure, before we risk? Or can we risk together, to move forward sensing God is compelling us not to stand still? To be confident in Him, that He will lead us on the journey even though we aren't certain where we end up together?

So what are your experiences of God guiding you? And what are your expectations of how that works in community? If they are different, why is that?

Wealth and Poverty ... which would you choose?

2007-03-19T12:37:00.000Z

Yesterday, I was preaching in church again, and in light of discussions in a previous post and comments, here is a summary, to allow comments, thoughts or experiences from anyone, whether you were there or not. It is part of our money series we have been doing this year. An MP3 should be available here by Wednesday if you fancy having a listen.

In our protestant tradition, poverty is not something that we have really thought about much, except to say it is bad and should be avoided at all costs (and occasionally to say that it is obviously a sign of not following God, having faith, or being blessed in some way!). But in other traditions, a vow of poverty or making poverty a virtue, has been a strong emphasis (eg. in the ascetic movement, Monastic movement, and in the Catholic Church. Mother Theresa is a classic example of someone who took a vow of poverty, to give herself to serving the poor).

There is much in the Bible that would advocate this course of action: "sell your possessions and give to the poor" say Jesus (Lk 12:33. See also: Lk 14:33; Mt 6:19; Mt 19:21). It is easy to "reinterpret" those verses, to make them something that doesn't apply to us today, but before we do, lets consider some of the warning the Bible gives us about the dangers of lusting after or having riches and wealth:

We can fall into temptation, ruin and destruction (1 Tim 6:9)
We can wander from faith (1 Tim 6:10)
We can become arrogant and not trust God (1 Tim 6:17)
It is hard to enter in to the Kingdom (the fullness of live now, rather than heaven) (Mt 19:23)
We can become unfruitful (Mt 13:22)

These are serious warnings, and as I was writing the sermon and speaking I was feeling challenged and uncomfortable about my riches and comfortable lifestyle. This was no finger wagging time, but was sobering about what the Bible seems to be saying about poverty.

But there is also stuff in the Bible about wealth and prosperity. It is harder to find in the NT, but there are some seriously rich people in the Bible (Abraham, David, Solomon, Zacchaeus) for example. There is also verses about prosperity as a blessing for those who walk with God and are obedient (eg. Dt 30).

So how do we reconcile these two streams of teaching and understanding? Well, perhaps neither poverty nor riches is right or wrong, but it is more about our attitude to money that is most important. God might call some to poverty, some to riches (which is perhaps the harder journey!), or there may be different seasons in our lives where we experience both. So what would Jesus say is the most important attribute to have concerning money?

I suggested that there was a ladder to climb. At the bottom of the ladder, when we are first grappling with our attitude to money in a society that is continually lusting for more, is contentment. This word is mentioned 7 times in the NT, and 6 of them are about money / possessions (eg. Phil 4:11-12, where Paul says he has learned the secret of being content in any situation, whether has loads, or nothing!).

The second rung of the ladder is generosity. I suggested that generosity is not the same as giving. Giving is good, but it becomes generosity when it costs. For example the Macedonian churches in 2 Corinthians gave generously out of there extreme poverty (2 Cor 8:2).

But the thing that Jesus seems to value more than anything else is being faithful or trustworthy (eg. Mt 25:21 & Lk 16:10-12), which we learn through contentment and generosity. This is when He trust us with Kingdom resources, knowing that we will use them wisely. This is when God can trust us with more money (tricky issue as we can't give to get, otherwise we haven't really learned the lesson of contentment!), and trust us with "true riches" ... riches of the Kingdom: influence, power, fruitfulness etc.

Mother Theresa followed the path of poverty to come to this place of being truthworthy, and she was then trusted with Kingdom riches of influence and power. God could trust her, knowing that she wouldn't abuse those riches, but use them for the Kingdom, as she had proved trustworthy with money.

What do you think? What are you experiences of poverty or wealth, and what did you learn? Does it surprise you to learn that Jesus talks more about faithful or trustworthy with money than anything else? Or perhaps you don't agree?

Guidance in Community - Part 2

2007-03-15T12:06:00.000Z

The Mind of Christ

Yesterday I posted Part 1 ... how I think we often have a Old Testament model for guidance and leadership. Now for Part 2:

In 1 Cor 2:16, Paul says that "we have the mind of Christ". The context here is understanding God and His ways and Paul sets up a contrast between the Christian (with the Spirit) and the not-a-Christian (without the Spirit). Paul is saying here, that all Christians (who therefore have the Holy Spirit) are able to know the thoughts of Christ.

I love the way that is translated in the Living Bible:

But, strange as it seems, we Christians actually do have within us a portion of the very thoughts and mind of Christ.

And this translation forces us to recognise something: it is plural. We Christians. I don't have some of the thoughts of Christ, but together we do! So when is comes to guidance in a Christian community, the leaders don't have the mind of Christ, nor the prophets, nor the intercessors, nor the sceptics, nor the finance team or any other group! But together we do, and we need to listen to everyone to discern the leading of the Spirit.

What then is the leaders role? Here are some thoughts:

1. Leaders creates a safe context for people to express what they are seeing and hearing, in conversation and prayer.

2. Leaders help people to recognise they don't see it all, but they see part that makes up the whole.

3. Leaders help create healthy dialogue between people that see things differently so we can learn from each other, and see more of the whole.

4. Leaders draw together the different strands that emerge from the conversation, prayer and prophetic.

5. Leaders communicate to the community what is emerging from the talking and prayer.

This is not a model of leadership that we find often in churches, but one that I think is more consistent with the New Testament. It takes guts & courage, a whole different set of skills, and a HUGE faith in God, that He is leading us all together, not just a few individuals or one person (the Pastor!).

It engages people, and begins to create ownership and maturity. It breeds humility and generosity in a community, and we begin to see the church working as a body, with everyone having their contribution. It allows for thinking and understanding to develop and grow. So as we move forward, I believe, we have more of the thoughts of Christ towards us.

What do you think? Have you experienced this kind of guidance working at all?

Guidance in Community - Part 1

2007-03-14T00:13:00.000Z

Last Sunday, after 2 years of consultation, dialogue, prayer and dreaming, we announced that we were moving forward to the next stage (fundraising) for a building renovation on our church building. Some folk in the church thought we should have done it ages ago - others still remain unconvinced.

We have a building in a great location, in town, good roads and buses, near students, parking OK (at weekends and evenings anyway!), on a main street. We are noticeable and central. But if we owned the plot of land with no building, the current building isn't what we would build now. It is an old church building, about 160 years old, that was built primarily at a preaching centre (although there was a school built at the back too): big auditorium, gallery, and all rather centred around a large central gathering of the church.

Now we are looking for other rooms, a space that reflect the kind of church we are becoming. A building that helps us engage with the wider community. A building that enables some of the missional projects that we are planning.

This process has got me thinking about how we discern the will of God as a community? There is more to say in some subsequent posts, but here is one thought to start off:

Often in church (it seems to me) that we model guidance from an Old Testament model of God's leading Israel. There God called specific individuals (eg. Moses) who lead the nation. They were the ones who went to God, got the vision and direction for the nation, told the people what God was saying, and off they all went (all be it, with some grumbling!).

In many churches, it seems this model of guidance predominates. We want the leaders to be connected to God, get the vision and direction and tell the church what to do. Now while there is a little truth in this, there are a couple (at least) significant differences between this Old Testament model of guidance (and leadership) and how it should operate in church.

1. After Exod 19, God doesn't speak to the nation of Israel any more. He calls specific individuals (leaders and prophets) and speaks to them on behalf of the nation. They become the mouthpiece for God, and the people had no direct access to God themselves. This has obviously changed in the New Testament, where all can hear the voice of God.

2. The nature of leadership in church is significantly different to the leadership of a nation. One of main passages that speak of leadership in the NT is Eph 4, where the role of leaders is not to do the stuff, but to train / equip others to do the stuff. No longer is ministry the domain of a few individuals, but for all (or at least should be). So a leaders role is to help discern the gifts in individuals and help them into functioning in those gifts. I think this concept has been talked about, but very rarely put into practice.

So now, we have a church community where every individual can hear God for themselves, and have a contribution. That I think changed the way we discern the will of God in the church, from the way the nation of Israel found guidance in the OT.

I think this OT model of guidance in community is much easier ... easier for leaders who don't have to engage the community together in discerning the will of God, and easier for the "congregation" as they can leave it up to the leaders. Trouble I don't think the results are that good (it doesn't engage and empower people for starters), and I don't think it is a NT practice.

What do you think?

The Great Global Warming Swindle

2007-03-08T16:27:00.000Z

I like to think that I am the kind of person that believes others, that thinks the best of them. Very noble you might say. Or you could say gullible. I hate it when it happens (and it does!): when I have believed someone hook, line and sinker, and then find that I have been led up the garden path (do you like my mixed metaphors?).

So when it comes to global warming, or "human induced climate change" as I am told it is now called, I am believer! I was convinced last year, watching a program by David Attenborough, hugely respected and well known naturalist and TV presenter. If David is convinced, so am I. I believe. We all believe. Er, excuse me, I don't!

So, says Eric, in the comments of a previous post, New Earth and Carbon Emissions: he is not a believer. He cites books and points us in the direction of an article about a leading French scientist, who has changed his mind on climate change, or to be more accurate, if humans are causing climate change. And apparently Erik and this Frenchman are not alone.

Tonight, on Channel 4 at 9pm (in the UK) there is program called the Great Global Warming Swindle, questioning the consensus on global warming being induced by the CO2 and human activity. The logic goes (apparently) it is not the increase in CO2 that is producing Global Warming, but Global Warming that increases the levels of CO2. Apparently there are some leading scientists who are promoting this view on the program.

In the US there seems much more debate about the environmental issue than in the UK. James Dobson and others, has joined Jerry Falwell, in denying the human cause of climate change in a recent open letter to the National Association of Evangelicals. Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren join in the riposte against the religious right. In the UK, there really doesn't seem to be any loud dissenting voices in the Christian World. All are believers, so it seems.

I too am a believer. But who knows what I will believe after the program tonight! What about you? Do you believe? And if you watch the program, what did you make of it?

Different Types of Loneliness

2007-03-05T14:04:00.000Z

Yesterday, I had 20 minutes in our Sunday church gathering to communicate something meaningful and helpful about loneliness! An impossible task, especially as I was so aware there were bound to be folks for whom this wasn't an interesting topic, but a painful and present reality. In the end I thought I did well, but did feel a bit rushed; I didn't want to give trite answers, but wondered if I had left us with enough hope at the end?

So, as promised at the end of my sermon, and prompted by some great comments in a previous post, Preaching as Community?, here are some brief notes of what I said. Please feel free to comment, agree or disagree (in the spirit of generosity and love!), and post your reflections ... and if you weren't there, you would most most welcome to join this online learning community!

There are some previous reflections on Loneliness here, that contributed to what I said. I won't repeat those things here.

Loneliness is more that wanting to be around people, but is a feeling of feeling disconnected or alienated from other people. It is vastly different from solitude, which is chosen and helpful. As Paul Tilich (a theologian) says:

Our language has wisely sensed the two sides of being alone. It has created the word loneliness to express the pain of being alone. And it has created the word solitude to express the glory of being alone.

One of the most helpful things is to realise there are different types of loneliness. If you read different books or articles, people will categorise differently, but here are three different types that I see:

1. Situational. This is type of loneliness that is caused by the situation you find yourself in. A spouse dies, a relationship breaks up, you move house or location, friends move away, you change church etc etc. Although a painful reality for many people, this can be alleviated by finding new friends, starting a new relationship, joining a club or finding another group to belong to. This is probably the kind of loneliness that many old people find themselves in, as well as others at other stages of life eg. going to university.

2. Internal. This type of loneliness is not dependent on our situation, and would still be present even if the circumstances of our lives changes. It springs from a longing to know others fully, and be known. To be authentic, and transparent. It is longing to return to kind of relating to others in the story of Genesis 2 in the garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve are naked and unashamed. We can be seen for who we really are, and know that another accepts us and loves us unconditionally. We see that sin or selfishness (in the story in Genesis 3 of "the fall") alienated us from God and each other. As Jesus begins to heal our woundedness and brokenness, and we move towards God, we can learn to move towards others. We can find profound and real change in this type of loneliness, but we will, in this life, always still be hiding to some extent, and therefore living with a disconnect between our revealed self, and authentic self.

3. Restlessness. I have taken this type of loneliness comes from Ronald Rolheiser's book, The Restless Heart. We are travellers in this world. Deep inside each human being these is a "memory of having once been touched and caressed by hands far gentler than our own" or "before being born, each soul is kissed by God and the goes through life always, in some dark way, remembering the kiss and measuring everything it experiences in relation to that original sweetness" (Rolheiser p. 55). We long for eternity, which we glimpse now, but the full realisation is to come. Mostly we keep so busy or distracted to connect with this deep core of our personhood, but when we do we connect with a cosmic aloneness, that this life is not we were meant for. We are destined for so much more. This kind of loneliness or aloneness is constantly present, but probably many people are never still enough to truly experience it.

Our hope as Christians, is that Christian Community, despite its imperfections and failures, is a place where we can find hope and friendship No 1; Jesus does come to heal our woudedness to move us forward in No 2, and although No 3 will be always (and maybe we become increasing aware of this) in this life, our HOPE for the future is for a life where we don't "see in glass darkly" and we find rest, peace and a home with God and other people.

Anyone find this helpful? Or got things to add? Or to disagree?

New Earth and Carbon Emissions

2007-03-01T21:11:00.000Z

I wasn't there. I was having a great time with some of the students from our church, away for a weekend praying, learning, walking and talking (and there might have been a bit of wine tasting and poker playing thrown in for good measure). So I wasn't there when church got a little controversial.

A mate of mine was speaking, part of a series on money, on how we spend our money in an environmental way, that honours the fact that we are stewards of creation, with a mandate to tend and care for the world that we live in. All fine and dandy, until he asked if there were any questions at the end of his talk, and a debate ensued about (amongst other things) whether it is OK to fly all around the world to preach the gospel ... would the souls saved justify the carbon emitted? I may well be trivialising the debate (I WASN'T there!), but it did get me thinking ...

Meanwhile, across the pond, Jerry Falwell was preaching in his church (rather larger than ours ... and I WASN'T there either) that global warming is a myth, designed to distract the church from our real task:

"Further, there’s no need for the Church of Jesus Christ to be wasting its time gullibly falling for all of this global warming hocus pocus. We need to give our total focus to the business of reaching this world with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and stop running down meaningless rabbit trails that get our focus off of our heavenly purpose."

As I touched on the a previous post, how we understand the end times does influence what we see being important now. I think we have spiritualised the gospel, making the goal "heaven" and the only thing that really matters is: our ticket there. So, as Falwell states, the most important thing we can do now is evangelism. Even if we do see a mandate to care for creation, it is still second best to seeing souls saved. In the end, God will destroy the earth, and create a new heaven and a new earth, or so many have believed.

There is another stream of theological understanding: God is not going to create a new heaven and new earth, but to restore the one we have now. Restore to be perfect, without the ravages and consequences of sin. The Old gives way to the New as God restores the whole cosmos.

There are many reasons to favour this understanding. For example, the Greek word for New in 2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1 is not the word 'neos' [meaning new in time or origin] but 'kainos' [meaning new in nature or in quality], implying that the current world won't be destroyed and a new one created in its place, but the one we have now will be renewed. NT Wright holds this view, and there is great paper available here to download, written by Michael Goheen, Professor at Trinity Western University, British Columbia, Canada, and author of The Drama of Scripture.

Goheen sees this understanding really does matter. If we believe in in a Brand New Heaven & Earth then our main mssion is getting people that ticket to heaven. However, if we see God restoring our whole cosmos, and our new life will be to live on this restored earth, then our mission "is to be, speak, and do the good news. If redemption is the restoration of the whole of our creational life, then our mission is to embody the good news that every part of creational life, including the public life of our culture, is being restored. It will mean being good news in our care for the environment, international relations, economic justice, business, media, scholarship, family, and law."

I wasn't there on Sunday. So why don't we discuss here: does souls saved justify carbon emissions?

Climate Challenge: Can you do better?

2007-02-28T13:47:00.000Z

If you have a spare few minutes, try this Climate Challenge by the BBC. You become leader of a United Europe (are they making a political point here?) and have to balance differing demands for money, popularity, food, water, power, and your carbon emissions. As the environment is top of my thinking at the moment, and as it is much clearer how well you doing in this area, rather than the economy, I think I neglected making the figures work. So I saved the world, but plunged a whole continent into recession and poverty. Mmmm! Can you do any better?

HT: Sanctus 1

Loneliness: our constant companion and friend?

2007-02-26T23:22:00.000Z

Next Sunday, I am speaking at church on Loneliness, and in light of a previous post, Preaching as Community?, I am hoping for some help! Here are a few thoughts, I hope will generate a bit of discussion or some comments (so go on, stop lurking and add your thoughts!):

Loneliness is one of the greatest human problems, especially so in our modern society with the fragmenting of community & family and the migration of people from the country to the city. It is not to be confused with being alone, but is more a feeling of being cut off or separate from others. The old cliché that you can feel most alone in a crowd definitely has some truth in it.

I think it is something that most people grapple with at some point in our lives, and for some it is something they live with pretty much constantly. There are probably lots of reasons why people feel lonely, but I want to suggest here that there is something inevitable about feeling lonely.

There is a longing deep inside us to be fully known and to know others fully; for other human beings to look at us, as we really are, and to accept us, to love us, to move towards us. We are longing for a deep connection with others, and anything less, leaves us feeling very alone in this world.

But as we learn from the Genesis story of Adam and Eve, our selfishness has led us to live in ways that are self-protecting; we metaphorically put fig leaves over our sin and our shame, which leads to separation from others. While we move towards God and find his love and grace for our brokenness and shame, and therefore move towards others in vulnerability and honesty, we will never be free of our selfishness. At least not this side of death, and a full realisation of the Kingdom.

So loneliness becomes our constant companion, reminding us that we are meant for so much more. It tells us that we are works in progress, being restored and healed. We experience longing for real and authentic relating to others, that we occasionally get glimpses of and which only awakens a hope for more.

What do you think? Is loneliness inevitable? Is it our friend? Or is it something that Jesus does come to set us free from? Is it our enemy? Does it really show up our lack of authentic community? What have you experienced or learnt about loneliness?

To finish, a quote from Mother Teresa:

When Christ said: "I was hungry and you fed me," he didn't mean only the hunger for bread and for food; he also meant the hunger to be loved. Jesus himself experienced this loneliness. He came amongst his own and his own received him not, and it hurt him then and it has kept on hurting him. The same hunger, the same loneliness, the same having no one to be accepted by and to be loved and wanted by. Every human being in that case resembles Christ in his loneliness; and that is the hardest part, that's real hunger.

William Wilberforce

2007-02-22T12:31:00.000Z

This morning I happened to listen to a fantastic program on Radio 4 on William Wilberforce (my wife had changed the radio from Radio 5 that I usually listen to!). Melvyn Bragg presents "In Our Time" which you can listen again to here (or if you read this a week after posting, you will be able to find it in the archives here). Bragg looks at the life of Wilberforce, and is very explicit about Wilberforce's faith, that motivated his life mission to see the slave trade abolished. Really worth listening too if you have a spare 45 minutes.

It was great to hear a program that did not dilute the role that Christian Faith played in the life of Wilberforce. If you look at The Amazing Change website, connected to the Amazing Grace film that is coming out in a few weeks time in the UK, you can hardly find any reference to Wilberforce's faith. Even the name of the Clapham Sect has been changed to Clapham Circle, and no reference to them all being Christians! [HT toggietales]

It is an amazing story, which is in the media as this year celebrates the 200 year anniversary of the Houses of Parliament passing a law to abolish the slave trade. Wilberforce had found faith due to the influence of Isaac Milner, in his 20's, and then considered giving up politics (he was MP for Hull) and going into the priesthood [there is an interesting article on his conversion at the Church Society website]. But a conversation with John Newton (author of the hymn Amazing Grace and a former slave trader) persuaded him otherwise, and to devote his life to the abolition of the slave trade. Many years later, in 1807, he had persuaded parliament to pass a law abolishing trading of human beings, but it was not until 1833, a few days before Wilberforce died, that slavery itself was abolished.

Wilberforce is an inspiration to those of us now who believe that Christians should be at the forefront of any move to bring about social change in our society [see previous posts, Visit to Cambridge or Dancing in the Aisles]. And maybe too, a reminder that there are still people who are being bought and sold in slavery today?

Preaching as Community?

2007-02-21T15:11:00.000Z

There has been a fascinating conversation that has been happening in the comments section on a previous post, Dancing in the Aisles. After a number of comments going back and forth about how the church should critique society for its attitude to sex, Paul Ede left the following comment:

"This really could make a fascinating sermon. Is this a post-modern way to write a sermon? Have an actual talk shaped by discussion on-line. Certainly there is a host of good things that Rupert could use here for a very engaging talk on the subject. Seriously, this is good stuff. Maybe monologue preaching can be "saved" by being created in dialogue like this...an alternative to introducing a dialogue format in a church where this might be less practicable because of the size of the congregation. Also, encodes idea of us all having the voice of the Lord. Preaching becomes a sort of oracle of what the community thinks the Lord is saying, mediated through the appointed leadership - bottom up rather than top-down sermons. Finally, its a lot less work for the preacher."

Well said Paul. Not sure I agree about it being a lot less work (just look at the debate in the comments!), but I agree with the rest. It was one of my hopes from blogging ... to engage in conversation, dialogue, to get other perspectives. And in the process, learn together.

I have a bit of a love / hate relationship with preaching. I love teaching. I love it when others get that "aha" moment, see something new, or find that the truth really does set them free. But so often I am frustrated about the context in which that happens. The real goal of preaching isn't that we go away knowing more, but go away changed, Christ is a bit more formed inside us, we are shaped a little bit more like God. Knowledge isn't bad, it is just the start of the learning process which brings about change.

Some people clearly have a gift for preaching or teaching. It is not only that they have good things to say, but they also have an ability to say them in a way that really communicates. So there is definitely a place for that in a church. But so often the work starts and finishes with them. I read, get ideas, study, try to get a sense of what it is God is wanting to do or say, and then take my finished piece to deliver on a Sunday morning. And that, generally, is where it stops. Often there isn't much ongoing dialogue or feedback. I've done my bit, and now its for others to individually respond to God (or perhaps we might have a discussion in a small group in the middle of the week!).

Well I just don't think that is good enough. Its not good for me and its not good for others. Its what Doug Pagitt calls it "speeching", and it is pale reflection of Biblical Preaching. Learning is best done together. It isn't an event, it is process. Its ongoing. And it happens in life. It happens in relationship with people.

So I guess my question is: how can we really help people learn and be changed?

This could be quite expensive!

2007-02-19T23:18:00.000Z

Lent is almost upon us, starting on Wednesday 21st February. For many years I haven't been that engaged with the historical Christian festivals, but recently I have began to appreciate the rhythm of the year, times of feasting and fasting and prayer ... or that is the intention anyway!

So in approaching this Lent I have been pondering what I might do. The problem (for me at any rate) is that I am not very good at following through on my resolutions. Every advent I intend to take time to reflect each day on the meaning of Christmas, but fail miserably. By New Year, I have realised that those resolutions only lead to a greater sense of guilt when yet again they don't last that long. So the thought of being more focused in prayer for 40 days seems a massive mountain to climb.

There are a couple of good posts worth recommending: Maggi Dawn has a short useful reminder of what Lent is all about. Bruce Stanley has some interesting thoughts on "Friends, God and Enemies" at embody. But that all seems a bit like setting myself up for a fall. I need something that will remind me of the Lent, but something that I can commit to, and catch up with, if a day or two (or three or four) turn out busier than expected.

So then I came across this from Christian Aid, called "Counting your Blessings". The idea is that you give money each day, to remind ourselves that we have so much in the West, and many in this world of ours have so little [Molly has taken this idea rather further than I am suggesting on her 30 days of nothing]. So for example, on Wednesday I am told: "Every year 1.6 million of the world’s poorest people die from respiratory infections, aggravated by smoke from open fires in their homes. Give 5p for every radiator in your home, and 10p for every fireplace."

On Monday 12th March: "Nearly one-third of the world’s population is ‘off-grid’ – living without an electricity supply. Give 5p for every plug socket in your home."

And on Thursday 22nd March: "In some countries, the media is strictly monitored and shows very limited and biased news. Give 20p if you bought a newspaper today and 10p for every time you caught the radio or TV news."

You total up each day, and then at the end of Lent you have an amount to give (to Christian Aid of course). Given how many power sockets we have and what a news junkie I am, this could be an expensive Lent. I think I might have to give up chocolate after all to pay for it all ...

Let me know what you are intending on doing?

Church Planting in Glasgow

2007-02-15T21:12:00.000Z

Just a quick post to draw attention to a document that Paul Ede has posted on his blog, about his strategy, values and ethos of a proposed church plant that he will be leading in Glasgow. The document is long, but inspiring, well thought out & researched, and worth taking some time to read. Paul was member of Community Church for a number of years, and is a friend (so I am maybe a wee bit biased), but I think he and Esther (with some help from above) will make it work.

Paul is wanting to see a contextualised and indigenous church in Urban Deprived Areas, in this case in Glasgow. These areas are "under-churched", often inner city, areas of poverty with multiple deprivation. This is a totally different ballgame from 'gathered' (or what Paul calls suburban) churches, or even emerging churches (both of which, it seems, are mostly fairly middle class). In fact my only worry is that too many people might find it so inspiring that they all leave churches like ours, and go and join him...

Is Carbon the new Sex?

2007-02-13T15:22:00.000Z

Last night was the airing on Channel 4, in the UK, of God is Green, as mentioned in a previous post. Mark Dowd presented the program, looking at why religious leaders have been so silent on environmental issues. But that does seem to be changing somewhat, with the Bishop of London pledging not to fly for personal reasons for a year, having previously declared that driving large cars, or flying on holiday was sinful.

So Mark Dowd asks "Is Carbon the new Sex?". [Maybe I am in danger of fueling an interesting debate that has been happening in the comments on another post, "Dancing in the Aisles"?] Will we be confessing our carbon sin to each other, as we have been confessing other sin?

Well, perhaps not. But finally the church is waking up to its responsibility to be prophetic to our society. So often we have limited being prophetic to some words that are shared (and often forgotten pretty quickly afterwards) on a Sunday morning when we Christians gather together. But we have often lost our role of being a prophetic voice to the society we live in, calling people to live less selfishly for the sake of others, our children and their children.

It seems to me that we have not bothered about our responsibility to care and stewardship of creation, as our theology has often got in the way. There are still some wacky Christian groups who see the changing patterns of the world's weather as a sign of the "end times", the immanence of the return of Christ. And why bother with taking care of the world if Jesus is coming back soon, and we will have a "new heaven and new earth" ... all will be restored?

Fortunately, that view is increasingly less common in the Christian world (although it has to be admitted there is still a lot of it about, for example see this article). The early church thought Jesus would return before they died. They have been people throughout history that think the end of the world is nigh. What happens if it isn't? What if there is another 2000 years, or 10,000 years?

Added to this is the interpretation of the passage in Genesis 1 ... where God tells the first man and woman to "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" [verse 28]. Unfortunately this has been taken in isolation of the mandate in Genesis 2:15 to "work it [creation] and take care of it". [See a post by Paul for more on the Hebrew words used in Gen 2:15 and for his take on the program last night.]

We are seeing that God has given us responsibility to care for creation. We are to be stewards, not consumers of the world we live in, ruled by profit and GDP. Surely we have a responsibility to pass on the world we live in the best possible condition to our children, and to call the rest of the world to be similarly minded? And surely, as Mark Dowd pointed out in his film, we have a responsibility to the poor, who have done very little to contribute to climate change, but would be ones most affected?

Wouldn't it be great for the church to be known as the group of people who are at the forefront of the movement calling people to live less for themselves, and more for the benefit of the whole?

The God Delusion?

2007-02-12T20:59:00.000Z

Last year Richard Dawkins, a scientist and renowned atheist, wrote a book called "The God Delusion" which hit the best sellers lists at the end of the year. Well another Oxford Professor, well known Christian author and apologist, Alister McGrath has written a piece in the Daily Mail in response to Dawkins. Definitely worth a read.

Dawkins is pretty religious in his evangelistic fervour. He wants to convert all "faith-heads" to non-faith. He is dogmatic, certain, and pretty much like many of the religious believers (fundamentalists) he criticises. McGrath paints Dawkins as dogmatic, "immune to argument", full of misunderstanding and unfair.

Scott McKnight has blogged his way through the book is you are really keen to find out what Dawkins is saying, but, like me, don't want to put a single penny into his pocket by buying the book! There are 8 parts: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Related: A previous post: The Trouble with Atheism

HT: tallskinnykiwi, who has also blogged on The New Atheism.

God is Green

2007-02-12T13:48:00.000Z

Tonight at 8pm on Channel 4 (for UK readers), Mark Dowd has written and presents a documentary entitled "God is Green", which should be interesting viewing.

Dowd is a thinking Catholic, and once trained as a Dominican Friar, before going into journalism. I first came across him over a year ago, when he produced another documentary: "Tsunami: Where was God?". It was fantastic, the best piece I have ever come across on how a loving God can allow natural disasters to occur like the Tsunami. He asks all the difficult questions, interviews and listens to people from all religions, and doesn't come out with trite answers, but does come back to faith at the end. Brilliant. For a more comprehensive review, check out Jason Clark's comments.

So this promises to be good too. You can read what Channel 4 have to say about it here, and this is blurb from the Radio Times:

Why are the world's religions so quiet on the subject of climate change? Inquisitive Catholic Mark Dowd takes a look at green issues through a religious prism and bemoans the lack of spiritual leadership on the issue. The highlight is his interview with a senior cardinal who, in the best traditions of Vatican encounters with the press, comes across as shifty, complacent and faintly sinister. The man the Holy See puts forward as its top dog on climate change chuckles at the thought of how many air miles he must clock up every month. No, really. Not that Islam or Hinduism do much better out of Dowd's green audit. And sadly, it's hard to see his film, engaging and powerfully written as it is, bringing any of them to their ethical senses any time soon.

See here for my thoughts and review of the program.

Friends

2007-02-09T10:17:00.000Z

Last night we had Lynn Swart round for a meal, as she is up in Scotland on holiday for a few days. Lynn, originally from South Africa and now living in Southampton became a friend, a few years ago, particularly when we whisked her away on holiday for week in Spain.

She now does the holiday thing without us (sob!), but it was lovely to see her & catch up on all our news. Check out her website for more info on Lynn, who is an inspiring lady. She is great worship leader, teacher, she travels quite a bit around different churches ... but mostly what I love about Lynn is her love for Jesus. Go girl!

The missing piece?

2007-02-07T18:32:00.000Z

This is so ridiculous that it made me laugh! I did think about taking a photo of me, making it look like a jigsaw, adding Pippa and seeing what it looked like ... but then I wondered what would happen if SHE ever saw it. Not a pretty thought.

HT: Bob Blog

Hyles bases this phrase on a translation of the word "helper" in Gen 2:18. But it really does seem a mistranslation (as well as being utterly demeaning, ridiculous and lots of other words). The Hebrew word is 'ezer, and is a word that is used of God in various places in the Bible, including Exod 18:4 and Psalm 115:9.

Lets just think about this for a minute (or maybe a few years!). I'm still trying to get head round it (it seems as though a women's role to a man is being compared to God's role to the nation of Israel!), but I am absolutely sure it does NOT mean that women are there just to make man complete. Or as Jack Hyles says:

God made woman to sit on the sidelines and cheer when a man succeeds.

Arrrrhhhh!!!

Time, boundaries and health

2007-02-06T20:15:00.000Z

It was quiet on Rupert's blog last week: mainly due to illness in the Ward household ... all of us at one point last week. Shakes and shivers. Not much fun, and I am still feeling a bit washed out. So all this has got me reflecting on: how much of this continual illness (pretty much from beginning of December for one or other of us!) is due to having small children (with small immune systems) around the place ... and how much of it is due to running life too fast.

This Sunday, we were looking at "rest and recreation" ... and boy was I glad that I wasn't sharing my thoughts! We were thinking about a Sabbath ... a day of rest. Rob Bell has described this as a day when you do as few of the routine chores as you possible can (there is no getting round it, you do HAVE to change nappies!).

But my thoughts have been going further than that. We have always tried to have a day off ... a quiet day, when we take things more slowly, drink coffee, have a nice meal and a bottle of wine. But it really is NO GOOD, when you rush around like some mad hatter for the other six days, cramming in as much as you can, only to crash on the seventh. It's not healthy. It's not a life!

I know each job, faces its own unique challenges: it is so easy to get into the mindset that 'I have it much worse'. Having said all that, now I am going to say how much harder it is to be working for a church! Well that isn't true, but here are some of the challenges:

The lack of good role models. Many who I have observed, seem to have worked too hard, sacrificed family, hobbies / interests and a life, for the Kingdom. While I admire the commitment, I think the cost they have paid is not one that Jesus ever asked them to pay. It is not unusual for church leaders / ministers / priests to working 60+ hour weeks. I know others work that hard, but it doesn't make it right!
People, people, people. Don't go into Christian "ministry" if you don't like people (I once met an "evangelist" who didn't like people... !). I love people. I love seeing and hearing what God is doing. I love helping and being alongside, teaching, and drawing people to Jesus. But at the end of a people week, I JUST NEED SOME SPACE...
Working from home is great: there are many advantages. But I find it hard to have good boundaries sometimes. You can't just shut the office door, catch the bus or get in the car, and go home to forget about work until another week.
The people who I am working with, are also my friends, my community. When is it work? When is it friendship?
This is the Kingdom for goodness sake. And isn't sacrifice part of the deal? Aren't we supposed to give ourselves for the sake of the Kingdom? There is always things that could be done; good, holy, Godly things to be done. More people to see. More praying. More reading. More planning. More need to meet.
And it has to be admitted that being successful is a pretty powerful drug that church leaders aren't immune too ... in fact I sometimes wonder if we aren't some of the most addicted people around. To have the biggest, the best church ... the next big thing in the Church world (or the blogging world for that matter!) ... so if we can just make it, get recognised, noticed, invited to preach, be part of this initiative or that team ... So we just work a bit harder, a bit more ...

So these are some my challenges. Add to that being a Father (another full time job!) and husband and friend and blogger and ... is it any wonder that "rest and recreation" is hard to come by.

I have started reading "Finding Sanctuary" by Abbot Christopher Jamison (who is the Abbot at Worth Abbey, where the Monastery was filmed). His first Chapter is all about how we got this busy that we rarely find sanctuary in our lives. Looks a good book, and I am looking forward to reading his view on how we can 'retreat' & find space ... once I find some time to read the book that is!

Big Mouths on Big Brother

2007-01-28T21:39:00.000Z

Shilpa Shetty, an Indian actress, has won Celebrity Big Brother. Somehow, after all the controversy last week about alleged racist comments by Jade Goody and her cohorts, where people were asking if this was a mirror onto racism in Britain, now we have the answer.

I have to confess I didn't watch it. I wanted to, but was appalled by what I read. At best it was bullying: aggressive and vindictive. Many were saying it was racially motivated. I wanted to watch, and see for myself (and maybe there was a little to voyeurism there too!), but it just seemed to endorse the awful way Channel 4 handled the whole episode.

I think it wasn't so much as racism, but just plain ignorance. The three young girls in the house really couldn't understand Shilpa or the culture she comes from. They didn't understand how she could have servants, what kind of houses they live in, or how or what they eat in India etc. But isn't that the root of all kinds of intolerance: Ignorance? We don't do it that way, and we don't understand why others wouldn't do it the way we do. It's not so much about colour of skin, or the accent we have, but the difference in our cultures. And when others don't understand that, often they tease, poke fun, ridicule, bully or worse. And that really IS racism.

But now the good old British Public have voted, and have shown what they thought of Jade, Jo and Danielle ... and Shilpa, who responded with dignity, poise and grace.

Perhaps this episode does show what Britain is like: there are undercurrents of racism in our society, but most people are appalled by that and will stand up for the marginalised & oppressed ... as long it is at the safety of the end of a telephone! Some good news after all.

The Younger Evangelicals - Introduction

2007-01-22T23:24:00.000Z

In this book, by Robert Webber, he is attempting to "interpret the changing face of evangelicalism since about 1950 and projects where evangelicalism is going in the next decades" admittedly from a North American perspective.

In the introduction, Webber sets the scene for the book, by defining what he means by "Younger Evangelicals", not limiting young to only young in age, but also young in spirit. In fact, he says that Brian McLaren (who I don't think by any definition you could say was young - sorry Brian!), is the archetypal leader of a younger evangelical.

He sees the younger evangelicals as:

"anyone, older or younger, who deals thoughtfully with the shift from twentieth to twenty-first century culture. He or she is committed to construct a biblically rooted, historically informed, and culturally aware new evangelical witness in the twenty first century." p.15

The younger evangelical he sees in contrast to what he calls the "traditional evangelicals" (or fundamentalists) from the 1950's onwards and the "pragmatic evangelicals" from 1975 onward (typified by Bill Hybels). He sees though, both these older forms of evangelicals primarily shaped and operating in a modern worldview. The younger evangelicals are the first to be shaped and operate in a postmodern worldview.

I find this a hugely helpful introduction and helps explain some of the conflict seen in the church world at the moment. There is a huge shift happening in culture, and in church, and the transition needs to happen for the gospel to be contextualised in the culture of today. There are of course dangers (certainly of imbibing too much of the culture, that we are no longer distinct and prophetic), but the transition is essential. However, in many churches (and I think ours is no exception) we are a mix of pragmatic evangelicals and younger evangelicals and there can often be great misunderstanding.

However, we would all do well to remember that we come from the same stream, belong the same "side", and have far more in common than we do differences.

Emerging Church Information

2007-01-21T23:42:00.000Z

It has been posted elsewhere, but probably still worth posting a link to an excellent article written by Scot McKnight on "Five Streams of Emerging Church" for Christianity Today.

The emerging church has been very controversial in some quarters, but often, in my view, because it is misunderstood. There is a huge amount of the good, the bad and the ugly in emerging church, but I think lots is a very helpful and genuine attempt to redefine church for 21st century postmodernism.

Scott McKnight, himself a member of Willow Creek Church, but also a theologian and friend of the emerging church gives a very helpful summary of the main movements within the emerging church, and a pretty fair critique, in my humble opinion.

Dancing in the Aisles

2007-01-19T00:02:00.000Z

At risk on being a serious Malcolm Duncan (Faithworks) groupie, I feel compelled to link to another post he has written on his blog. In this post he is looking at the Millennium Development Project from the UN, which has 8 key objectives that as Christians we would have no problem, nay should, be committing to.

His reason for bringing this to our attention: well of course they are really a core expression of the gospel, but also because people no longer seem interested in the Christian faith. And why does he think this is the case?

"Perhaps it is because the church has very often lost its own way. Particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, we have too often allowed ourselves to become obsessed with those things that we think are so morally important, at the expense of the things that actually matter. Is it possible that in losing our prophetic voice and in becoming obsessed with what goes on in the bedroom, we have lost the attention of the world? Is it possible that our failure to engage in issues of justice, serving the poor and reaching out to the marginalised, we have forfeited the right to be heard on any other issue?"

Amen and Amen. Cheering from the rafters, and dancing in the aisles. Yes. Yes. Yes.

And this is the journey we are on as a church (and have been for a few years), transitioning from a fairly mainstream charismatic, evangelical church (if we must use labels) to a missional community (to use some more labels!). A community of people that take seriously the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12: We are blessed, so that ALL peoples on earth will be blessed through us. We should be good news to our neighbours, our communities, our friends etc ... but mostly we have just been hidden and when we do come out, it is so often to wag our finger. (See an excellent post by Scot McKnight, using the image of the Truman show to show how we have often lived as Christians ... although he is talking more about how we see our particular version of the Christian faith as the only way, the analogy still holds for the purpose of this post).

It is massive change in thinking required; this seems a huge transition for our church. There are many questions: What are our communities? What difference can we make? How can we co-operate with "Missio Dei"? How can we change our thinking? Where are the new models of other churches we can point to? What does that look like for a reasonably large, city centre, gathered church? Who can help us? Can we make it?

I don't know, but there is something in me that wants to move from dancing in the aisles to engaging with our communities. Or perhaps we need both?

Millennium Development Project Goals:

Goal 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Goal 2 Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3 Promote gender equality and empower women
Goal 4 Reduce child mortality
Goal 5 Improve maternal health
Goal 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
Goal 7 Ensure environmental sustainability
Goal 8 Develop a global partnership for development

Money, Money, Money

2007-01-17T23:33:00.000Z

This Sunday we are starting a series about money in church. So often when we preach about money in church (at least when we church leaders do it) we talk about giving. Clearly there if we are going to speak about money, giving is part of the story, but Jesus seems to have SOOOO much more to say.

So we are looking at wealth, poverty, debt, saving, consumerism, environmental use of money, giving, faith & finances. But this week, I am kicking off the series, starting by talking about our attitude to money: Who is in charge? Does money work for us or do we work for money? It seems to me to be a fundamental question that Jesus poses:

No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
[Matt 6:24 - NLT]

Who is it going to be? God or money? And Jesus gets to the point once again. He is pretty much saying: if you want to know how much you love Jesus, then look at our bank statements. How much of our spending is influenced by Jesus and His Kingdom, and how much by other influences? It is a tangible record of our commitment to Him.

So if you were going to be speaking on this subject, what would you want to say?

I've been tagged

2007-01-16T23:55:00.000Z

1) What’s the most fun work you’ve ever done, and why?

Mostly, I love what I am doing now (church leadership)! But I also loved teaching in a school in Pakistan for a couple of years in a mission school (I wasn't a Christian at the time!). It was my first proper job and I so enjoyed living in Pakistan, teaching and being away from home!

2) A. Name one thing you did in the past that you no longer do but wish you did?

I used to play loads of sports, but particularly cricket. Loved it. But getting older, having two kids and a busy life means not much time for any of that now days. Cycling round Edinburgh is the main way I have of keeping fit.

B. Name one thing you’ve always wanted to do but keep putting it off?

I am interested in politics, and would love to be part of the Questiontime audience someday (and to ask a question), but it has never been in Edinburgh at a time when i have been free.

3) A. What two things would you most like to learn or be better at, and why?

1. Work / Life balance: while i have improved at this over the years, and i don't feel i rob my family of time with them, i would like to have a better life balance: more time for other interests, fitness, friends etc. Maybe this is just the stage of life that i am in, but i keep dreaming ...

2. Music: I would love to be able to play the piano, or saxophone by ear and improvise. I learned the piano a bit when i was younger, but i think real musical genes probably passed me by, unlike my wife and children!

B. If you could take a class/workshop/apprentice from anyone in the world living or dead, who would it be and what would you hope to learn?

Richard Rohr would be pretty cool. His writing have inspired and challenged me over the last few years. There is something a personal journey that he has gone on that I want to emulate.

4) A. What three words might your best friends or family use to describe you?

passionate, compassionate, communicator

B. Now list two more words you wish described you…

I would love to be more organised, and well travelled (i have done quite a bit of travelling, but not for the last few years - since kids came along anyway).

5) What are your top three passions? (can be current or past, work, hobbies, or causes)

Helping people develop & grow
Communicating
Learning

6) Write–and answer–one more question that YOU would ask someone

"Tell me your story ..."

It is one of things that I constantly find a privilege when someone tells me their story, and lets me into a bit of their world, especially when they trust me enough to walk with them a while on their journey. And my answer ... well is probably for another post, another time ...!

Who's next....

Anna (hardasiron), Alastiar (obscenebeauty), Brian (curious in Ibiza), and Dan

Gay Rights (or the sexual orientation regulations) - part 2

2007-01-14T00:05:00.000Z

If you haven't read my previous post, I suggest reading that first. But following on a couple of great comments from Malcolm Duncan and Paul Mayers, I wanted to highlight those comments and to add a bit more information.

If you want to hear Malcolm Duncan on radio 4 on the subject, you can listen here.

Also, there is some good dialogue on Malcolm Chamberlain's blog.

Finally, if you are like me, and want to get to the source of what is being said, rather than rely on other's take on it, here is some questions and answers I have come across in the house of Lords (Hansard) on 13th December 06 ... thanks Malcolm for the tip:

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require all schools actively to promote homosexual civil partnerships to children from primary school age to the same degree that they teach the importance of marriage. [HL447]

Lord Rooker: No. The regulations are not concerned with what is taught in schools. That is rightly a matter for the Department of Education, Northern Ireland.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a printing shop run by a Christian to print fliers promoting gay sex.[HL448]

Lord Rooker: No. It would be entirely within the spirit of the regulations for a printing shop run by a Christian to refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex, so long as that printer also refused to print fliers promoting heterosexual sex outside the realm of marriage.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would require a family-run bed and breakfast to let out a double room to a transsexual couple, even if the family consider it to be in the best interests of their children to refuse to allow such a situation in their own home.[HL449]

Lord Rooker: No.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 would make it illegal for a heterosexual police officer, fire fighter or member of the Armed Forces to refuse to join a Gay Pride event promoting the homosexual way of life.[HL450]

Lord Rooker: No.

Gay Rights (or the sexual orientation regulations)

2007-01-11T23:24:00.000Z

Time for something a little bit more serious, after the lighthearted quiz I posted on a couple of days ago.

I was listening to the radio the other day, to a discussion on the debate that was happening in the House of Lords on Tuesday on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. The SORs have come into force in Northern Ireland and are due to be implemented in the rest of the UK in April. They are designed to ensure that "goods, facilities and services" are delivered inclusively and in a non-discriminatory way. Some Christians are concerned that this in turn will be an infringement on their freedom and liberty (for example, see here).

So, while listening to the discussion, I couldn't shake the feeling that the Christians were overstating their concerns. Were they really telling me the truth? Are these regulations going to force ministers, pastors, or church leaders to bless same sex relationships? Or will youth groups or faith schools have to promote same sex relationships as having equal validity as heterosexual relationships? That is what I was being told, but sorry for being sceptical, but I just wasn't sure there wasn't a wee bit of hyperbole or perhaps even obfuscation (a great word, which basically means a deliberate concealing of meaning, which you could argue I have just done by using that word ...)

At the time, I hadn't heard any other Christian response, but then thanks to Maggi Dawn, I have found that Malcolm Duncan (leader of Faithworks, that Steve Chalke founded) has written a response to the Christian reaction to the proposed implementation to SOR's.

Malcolm says there already exemptions for religious organisations: we won't be forced to bless same sex relationships etc:

It is also important to remember that the measures contained in the SORs will not replace existing legislation on discrimination. Thus the protection from discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief that Christians currently enjoy will continue.

So what is the truth of all this? Well I am still not sure, but somehow the tone and words of the outspoken critics don't ring true to me. I suspect there are some difficult scenario's that Christians would face, but maybe not the extent that is being portrayed. A lot of the debate has focused on guesthouses: if these regulations are passed, Christians will be forced to allow a same sex couple to rent a room, but there doesn't seem much desire to stop an unmarried heterosexual couple renting rooms. The prospect, say proponents of the bill, of guesthouses having signs outside saying "no gays allowed" brings us back to the racial intolerance a few decades ago, when "no blacks allowed" sign were posted. More obfuscation? Maybe.

But I can't shake the feeling that guesthouse owners wouldn't be so fussed about a bloke and a woman sharing a bed if they weren't married, and that smacks of homophobia in my book.

What's your theological worldview?

2007-01-08T22:20:00.000Z

For a bit of lighthearted fun, I came across this quiz at Paul's blog, to test your theological worldview. So here are my results:

You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this.

Emergent/Postmodern

93%

Neo orthodox

79%

Classical Liberal

64%

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

61%

Roman Catholic

54%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

50%

Modern Liberal

29%

Fundamentalist

11%

Reformed Evangelical

The description for my second place is:
You are neo-orthodox. You reject the human-centredness and scepticism of liberal theology, but neither do you go to the other extreme and make the Bible the central issue for faith. You believe that Christ is God’s most important revelation to humanity, and the Trinity is hugely important in your theology. The Bible is also important because it points us to the revelation of Christ. You are influenced by Karl Barth and P T Forsyth.

Both descriptions are interesting - McLaren (yes that is him in the picture) is one of the authors I am reading and hugely enjoying at the moment, and Karl Barth has also been very influential from my theological study. Not sure the results totally accurate, but actually not a bad stab from a short quiz (and we all know what quizzes can be like ...). All the categories are characterisations (I do have emerging sympathies, but don't feel alienated from older forms of church), and the questions can be pretty ambiguous (I don't think that "speaking in tongues is one of the most important parts of being saved", but that doesn't mean I am abandoning my charismatic roots).

I am surprised that classic liberal is so high as I don't identify with the description at all (I guess there are some questions that I agree with that mark me high on this, but are ambiguous - "Jesus is a great moral teacher, whose example we should follow" - but that doesn't mean he isn't other things too ...):

You are a classical liberal. You are sceptical about much of the historicity of the Bible, and the most important thing Jesus has done is to set us a good moral example that we are to follow. Doctrines like the trinity and the incarnation are speculative and not really important, and in the face of science and philosophy the surest way we can be certain about God is by our inner awareness of him. Discipleship is expressed by good moral behaviour, but inward religious feeling is most important.

So what is clear: I am not a fundamentalist, or in the way that this quiz is using the term, a reformed evangelical. Well it got that right!

Anyone else want to give this a go, and let us in on your results?

Happy New Year!

2007-01-08T21:50:00.000Z

A Happy New Year to you all. After a much needed break and time with family, I am back working and blogging. So for the many thousands of you, who have missed my online presence, here I am again ... (well I am hoping that there is a couple of you, and huge thanks to Colin, for stopping to say how much he is enjoying my blog - and for that I will post a link to his blog ...)

So what does 2007 have in store. Well who knows. I am looking forward to doing a bit more blogging. When I read tallskinnykiwi's top 15 tips on blogging, I realise once again that I am in kindergarten, compared to the university league of the top bloggers (I am not sure I even understand much of what he suggests), but the only way is up when you are as low as I am. So on with my blogging learning curve.

A couple of thoughts I have for the next wee while ...

I will write a post on the Christian Union wrangle with Edinburgh University Student Association as I promised to do before Christmas, but didn't. In fact I have a meeting next week with some of the CU leaders, so maybe I will even have something concrete to tell ...
I have been reading a few books recently, including one called "The Younger Evangelical" by Robert Webber. I am really enjoying the book, and thought that I would blog my way through the book, for those who are interested (and it means you don't have to read it!)
I have been thinking about desert ... seasons that God takes us through, and one that I have (bizarrely enough) found to very fruitful. So I intend to do a series of blogs on "lessons from the desert".

That should keep me going for a while, with other random thoughts popping in along the way. Thanks to all who have commented and are part of the journey.

The Trouble with Atheism ... part 2

2006-12-18T23:42:00.000Z

At 8.35pm tonight I suddenly realised that I had forgotten to record the program on Ch 4, The Trouble with Atheism. Fortunately, it is on Telewest Teleport for the next 7 days ... the wonders of modern technology! It is repeated at 2.30am on Friday morning (22nd) if you missed it.

In the program, Rod Little looks at the growing rise of Atheism, some of whom are "terribly dogmatic ... and are becoming as intransigent as the people [religious] they despise." Liddle constantly draws comparisons between atheism and religion, seeing that Atheism has its own sacred texts and temples, and its adherents also have faith.

Liddle interviewed a number of atheists, Richard Dawkins, author of the "The God Delusion", the most prominent of them. As a renown scientist, he sees Science as the answer to all questions - its all we need to make sense of the world. Liddle also examines "proof" of the existence of God, science and faith, and origins of the world we live in.

Atheism is not the answer, says Liddle. Take God out of the equation, and you still have the problem of human nature ... the capacity for great good, and incredible evil. How can you have morality without some reference to God & the sacred texts?

There is much that I think the atheists don't understand about "believers" or perhaps they tar us all with the same brush: weird, unthinking, uncaring etc. Perhaps this could be the subject of some future posts: I really don't see a conflict between faith and science. However, the thing that struck me the most from the program was the certainty with which the atheists spoke: they ARE right! Believers are either a bit simple and conform in some way. The fervour and passion with which they speak sounds like the religious people they criticise! Another faith is emerging!

History has shown us that it is not religion that is the problem, but any system of thought… one group of people that in the right and the others are in the wrong and must be punished.

Maybe dogmatism and certainty are the real evils! The language of "journey", while in danger of becoming a cliche, is perhaps a new kind of language for Christians to use, in a world suspicious of certainty.

The Ashes ... part 2

2006-12-18T23:22:00.000Z

Well we held the Ashes for 1 year, 3 months and 3 days. The illusion of English Cricket renaissance was shattered in 11 days (or nights for us the UK) in Aus. Some shocking batting, poor bowling, lacklustre preparation, safe team selection, unfortunate injuries and late withdrawals have made it look more one-sided than it probably is, but the truth is (as much as I hate to admit it) Australia are the best side in the world and miles ahead of everyone.

There have been some moments when England have competed, and moments when the cricket was a contest, but those moments have not been often enough. It has failed to reach the heights of the 2005 series for tension, competition and drama (but it was never really going to). All a bit disappointing really.

Unless England pull their fingers out, my prediction of an Australia win of 3-1, is looking rather optimistic. Come on England, lets not go down 5-0.

Sleepy Suffolk

2006-12-13T14:51:00.000Z

I was born and brought up in sleepy Suffolk, so called because routinely, pretty much nothing of note happens there. It's not really on the way to anywhere, you don't really pass through Suffolk, unless you happen to be unfortunate enough to live in Norfolk (some prejudices never die), or you are a lorry driver, taking containers to Felixstowe.

I was born and educated in Ipswich, although we lived a little village called Raydon until I was about 12, when we moved a to an even smaller one a few miles down the road.

If anyone had heard of Ipswich generally it was because of the football team. Less so now, but they were a top team in the late 70's and early 80's, and I have many memories of going to Portman Road to watch them as a young lad.
I haven't lived in Suffolk now for nearly 20 years, so it is pretty weird for me to suddenly see Ipswich as the lead story on the news. No longer a quiet provincial market town, but the centre of an unprecedented murder hunt and media frenzy. All these places, that I remember growing up, suddenly invaded by news crews scavenging for the latest scoop. Hintlesham, the location of the first woman to be found murdered, was only a short few miles down the road, from my childhood home, and we passed by Copdock (location of the second victims body) every time I went to school.

I have no desire to return to Suffolk to live, but there is something that draws me to the genteel part of the UK. It's not just that my parents live there ... but something of my past life there. My memories. My innocence. My childhood. My roots.

I have heard a number of people over the years, say they want to move back home, having been away from home a number of years. I sometimes wonder if that is us responding to something deep in us yearning for our lost innocence, to recapture our childhood, to go back to place where we felt secure, certain, loved, safe (I appreciate many people don't feel that way about their childhood!). But I wonder if that desire should take us forward to the future, rather than back to the past. Ultimately, in a chaotic & uncertain world, that kind of certainty and innocence can't be re-created. But is does demonstrate a longing deep in our hearts for that kind of love & security. Maybe that is what the Bible means when it says that God has "set eternity in the hearts of men". We long for a different home.

While I wait in the "in-between" stage, maybe that is why I find it so unsettling that Ipswich and Sleepy Suffolk is now headline news with "unprecedented" evil.

The Trouble with Atheism

2006-12-10T15:31:00.000Z

While brousing the TV listings for Christmas, I noticed an interesting program on Channel 4 "The trouble with Atheism", on the 18th December, at 8pm.

Here is the blurb:

Far from being an antidote to religious fundamentalism, Rod Liddle sees 21st century atheism as sharing many characteristics with the very belief systems it opposes. As he argues in this authored film, those that turn to atheism for a rational, logical and moderate approach to modern problems are in for a shock; atheism too has its high priests, dogmas and beliefs as much as any fundamentalist religion.

Looks like one of the more interesting programs to watch over the Christmas period.

I could say more, but maybe I will wait until I have watched the program.

Creating Community

2006-12-08T18:12:00.000Z

I came across a couple of very good posts the other day on community, on bob.blog.

Good stuff.

Community lessons from the megachurch...

The other side of the community thing...

Key quote:

You either throw your life in with others in community, or you don't. Anonymity or engagement... No one can do these things for you. All the rest of us can do is create an environment conducive to building community. It's up to you to actually make community happen in your own life. It's up to you to engage.

Who is God?

2006-12-06T14:03:00.000Z

While driving along in the car today to a hill, where we were going to go for a walk and play football, Toby, our nearly 3 year old, said:

"God built the hill". You see we are doing a good job ... however He chose to do it, clearly the hill was something that God built. So yes Toby, you are right, God built the hill, and the moon, the stars, and he painted the sky.

All going swimmingly. You are doing a great with your son, Rupert. He knows that God built the hill. Hey, I'm the man! Next question from Toby:

"Who is God, daddy?".

Stuck. Stumped. No words. Not a thought. Nearly crashed the car. I do this for a living: try and help people understand God, to know God, to explain him to others, to help people see Him for themselves. What do I say? A crucial moment in my son's development :-), and I haven't got a clue how to explain to Toby who God is? So, thinking about impressed Toby was the other day at my painting our dining room ceiling or sky (as Toby calls it), I said God is a kind of Big Daddy. I know, not very good; not the best description that you could come up with (and all I could think of was the wrestler from a few years ago, always winning against Giant Haystacks), but it is all I could think of in the moment (what would you have said???). A kind of Big, Huge, Ginormous Daddy to all the people in the world.

Toby sat and thought for a moment and said:

"I like God".

The Rise of Fundamentalism

2006-12-03T09:47:00.001Z

I have been pretty busy last week, so not much blogging. Lots of thoughts going round my head, but not sure where to start! So perhaps, I will start something that I have been wondering about for the last few weeks ... the rise of fundamentalism in our society.

The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by evangelical Christians, in response to growing liberal wing of the church to assert the "fundamentals" of the faith. However, throughout the mid 20th Century, the movement became increasingly separatist and dogmatic. Recently we have also seen the rise of Islamic Fundamentalist (which many moderate Muslim's would be as embarrassed about, as many Christians are, of our version of Fundamentalism).

Recently, however, we are beginning to see another group of fundamentalist entering the arena ... the secular fundamentalists. Rather than just being atheists, not believing in God, or seeing the need to believe in God ... a new breed of atheists are emerging who believe that all religion is evil, wrong, and to be stopped at all costs.

I have noticed in the last few weeks, the rise of this , with the controversy of Christian Unions in Exeter, Birmingham and Edinburgh (I'll blog something about this later in the week); the refusal of BA to allow an employee to wear a small cross, and just recently the proposed introduction of "sexual orientation regulations" being fast tracked in Northern Ireland. Peter Hain, on last weeks Question Time (30th Nov), was extolling the virtues of this law, that would allow a same sex couple the right to a bed in a guesthouse; he argued that it would be wrong for guesthouses to have a sign outside saying "no gays allowed" in the same way that it would be wrong for a sign to be outside saying "no blacks allowed". What he didn't talk about was the concerns of Christian groups that people could be prosecuted for promoting heterosexual relationships, or refusing to "bless" a same-sex partnership.

My point here is not to argue about gay rights, but to appeal for a level playing field of dialogue. Increasingly the secular fundamentalists seem as bigoted at the religious versions they so despise, and seem determined to silence all religious voices. Perhaps it is time for us to put an end to all fundamentalism ... but there again, maybe I am just being prejudice against fundamentalism?

Imaginative Contemplation

2006-11-27T23:31:00.000Z

On Sunday, we tried a bit of imaginative contemplation using the parable of the tenants (Lk 20). Following on from the 5 Act theory on NT Wright, or the 6 act adaptation I suggested in another blog, I wanted to help us become part of the parable, to be part of the story, that would help us as we live out the 5th Act now. So often as I have meditated on the Bible, it has been like watching a movie ... I have observed the action from a distance. Here I wanted us to take it further, and be one of the characters in the story. To feel, hear, taste, see, touch ... to experience it. And see what emerges: of who God is to us, or who we are. It worked really well, and the feedback was fantastic (at least I think so!). So encouraging to see how people saw themselves as part of the story, and what was revealed in that process.

I love what Margaret Silf says, in her book, Taste and See ...

Imagination is a God given gateway to prayer, a place where I meet God in ways my busy conscious mind cannot interfere.

She goes on to give some ways in which we can use our imagination with the gospel stories or (if we adapt slightly) with the parables:

Using our imagination.

What can you see, hear, smell, taste, feel?
What is the weather like? Warm, cold, windy, peaceful, wet, dry?
What seems to be happening in the scene? Who is there? Anyone you recognise?
What kind of ‘atmosphere’ does the scene suggest? Inviting, threatening, vibrant, solemn?
Does any particular part of the scene attract your attention more than the remainder?

Entering the action

Where do you find yourself? Perhaps you one of the crowd, or one of the disciples? Perhaps you feel like an outsider looking in, or perhaps you identity with the person being healed or challenged, or invited into a new relationship with Jesus? Don’t make any judgements, or try to force yourself to be where you think you ought to be. The power of this kind of prayer is in being you really find yourself, and letting the Gospel light shine on that place.

How are you feeling about what is happening in your scene? Disturbed? Attracted? Curious? Afraid? Eager?

Do you feel drawn to speak with anyone there? What do you feel you want to say? What do you feel is being said to you? Can you enter into a conversation with Jesus?

If you noticed, earlier, that on part of the scene drew you more powerfully than any other, let yourself follow that drawing now. In your imagination, go that part of the scene. Without forcing anything against your inclination, just see what it is in that part of the scene is attracting you.

The Ashes

2006-11-22T22:07:00.000Z

I am not sure I can contain my excitement: the current Ashes series start in less than two hours. Sad I know. For the uninitiated amongst you, the Ashes is a cricket contest between England and Australia, so called when a mock obituary was written when England were first defeated by Australia on home turf, and a little urn with some ashes (thought to be a burnt bail) was presented.

In 2005, there was perhaps the greatest series played between the two sides. I was on tenterhooks the whole summer, gripped by the drama and tension. I also have vivid memories of the 1981 series when I was 12 years old, the so called "Botham Ashes", which probably rivals the 2005 series. Both of these series were played in England, and both on terrestrial television, with commentary on the radio with Test Match Special. Both summers I spent a fair amount of time glued to the television or listening to the radio.

Following the ashes in Australia is much harder. There is no terrestrial TV coverage (and we don't have Sky) and the games start at anything between 11.30pm GMT and 2.30am GMT (lasting for 7 hours or so) depending on which city in Australia they are playing. I have vivid memories of listening to radio when I was a young boy at some ridiculously early hour of the morning, have set my alarm to wake up to listen to the commentary.

However, in the wonders of the modern world, there are various ways to be kept abreast of the score, catch up with what has happened, and see the highlights ...

Podcast by BBC.
Highlights on BBC Interactive at 10pm every night and on BBC2 sometime after 11pm.
Blogs - I am subscribed to 2: The Test Match Special one, and one from the Daily Telegraph.
You can even get a text sent to you mobile as an alarm call, with the latest score.
And if you are up in the middle of the night, you can also listen to commentary from TMS on radio 4, 5 live sports extra or online (if you are living in the UK).

So bring it on ...

BTW, obviously I would love to see England win, but I predict Aussies to run out winners 3-1.

Caspar 1 today ...

2006-11-22T14:05:00.000Z

Where has the last year gone? This time last year, there were phone calls to "Grandma" to come for a few days to look after Toby, while we went to hospital to give birth to our second, Caspar. Eventually after Grandma had arrived, we pitched up at hospital at 8ish, and Caspar was born just after 10pm (although not named for another week!). All nicely done: so Toby was in bed and was none the wiser, and I got a good night's sleep too! That's the way to do it...

And now one year later, he is a cheeky monkey, getting into all kinds of mischief, just like his brother!

So later today, he will have his first taste of chocolate (apart from a illicitly stolen chocolate cookie a couple of months ago). This is what Toby was like on his first birthday, as he got his first taste ...

Is it inevitable that they are always mucky pups on their birthdays?!

Women in Ministry and the Bible ...

2006-11-21T22:44:00.000Z

I came across a great story the other day, on the blog of Scot McKnight's blog, Jesus Creed. He recounts the transition of Stan Gundry (who has written a number of books) in how he understands women in ministry.

There are two basic positions on the role of women in the family and church: complementarian and egalitarian. The complementarian position basically affirms that women are equal in status to men, but have different or complementary roles. At the opposite side of the debate, those holding to an egalitarian position would hold that women are equal in status and function. That is a pretty blunt summary of much debate (and disagreement) in the Christian world, and there are clearly many nuances.

So why did the story grab me? Well Stan was brought up as a strict complementarian, but over the years has moved to an egalitarian position. Interesting as that is, it was his use of the Bible in that change that really interested me. His change began as he changed the way he interpreted the Bible: he began to see the Bible as a whole, a big picture, in the light of which, passages about women's roles need to be understood.

He then began to read about how the Bible was used in the 19th Century to defend slavery (Scripture never condemns slavery). Looking back in the light of the last two hundred years, we see how ludicrous that is. Then it dawned on him:

Someday Christians will be as embarrassed by the church’s biblical defense of patriarchal hierarchicalism as it is now of the nineteenth century biblical defenses of slavery.

How we interpret the Bible really does matter.

The Bible - Act 6

2006-11-17T21:48:00.000Z

Paul Fromont (a Kiwi friend of Alan Jamieson, who has written a couple of great book - A Churchless Faith, and Journeying in Faith) has an interesting addition to NT Wright's 5 Act theory on the Bible. He suggests that we should add a 6th Act, to the original 5 suggested by NT Wright (Creation, Fall, Israel, Jesus, and the 5th Act we are now living). The 6th Act is Christ's return and a new heaven and a new earth.

So we live out the 5th act, consistent with the first 4 acts, and in light of what we know about the 6th Act. I like it. It allows us to be creative, innovative and contextualised in our current culture, but in light what has gone before, and what is coming ahead. What has been done in history wasn't wrong or to be replicated, but was that generation's attempt to live the story in their way and that time. We now have to play our part in the ongoing story.

So I guess the question I have: in 10 - 20 years time, what kind of church will best live the 5th act in our time?

Toby and Chocolate

2006-11-16T12:00:00.000Z

Toby (our eldest, nearly 3 years old ... I can't believe it!) seems to have a love affair going on with chocolate. So yesterday, on our Daddy Day after he had eaten his lunch of soup and bread, we had a conversation that went like this:

Daddy: Would you like anything else to eat Toby?

Toby: Chocolate.

Daddy: Well you can't have chocolate now. You could have fruit or yogurt.

Toby: Can I have Chocolate sometime?

Daddy: Yes, you can have chocolate sometime.

Toby: Is it sometime NOW?

It probably deserved a piece of chocolate just for being innovative, but I was laughing too much; so he ended up with a yogurt.

Daddy Days

2006-11-15T00:01:00.001Z

Wednesdays are Daddy Days. Daddy and his boys. Tuesdays are nursery days, and one of the joys for Toby and Caspar (I am sure it would be for Caspar if he was able to talk) is that the next day is a Daddy Day.

Pippa works on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, and so that is how I get to hang out with the boys on Wednesdays. We sometimes go shopping, sometimes to the play park, sometimes for walk; but whatever we do we seem to have lots of fun, and make lots of mess.

Too many church leaders I have spoken to with grown up children, have said they regretted the time that church and ministry took from being with thier families. So we have Daddy Days. There is always something else to do, emails to send, something to plan or organise, people to see ... but Toby and Caspar will not always be so excited about hanging out with their Daddy.

Daddy Days are the best part of my week ... apart from Daddy, Mummy, Toby and Caspar days that is.

The Bible ... part 2

2006-11-14T12:09:00.000Z

Following on from Sunday's thoughts on the Bible, someone sent me some articles on story. Below is one from Melvyn Matthews (formally Canon Chancellor of Wells Cathedral in Somerset), from his book, "The Hidden Word".

"Survival in the wilderness depends upon reaching the next oasis. Oases are watering places in the desert. Here springs of water flood out of the dry ground and date palms reach up to the sky. Here the travellers stop, pitch their tents and take on water and food for the journey. They rest awhile and in the evenings gather around the camp-fires to eat and tell stories. Some tell stories about themselves, about where they have come from and where they might be going. Others tell stories about those who have gone before, about their ancestors, those who have been travellers long ago. Some sing songs, ballads of loss and conflict, poems of fear and longing and desire. Some of the stories are true to history, others are true in different ways - true to the inner life of the teller and his friends. Some travellers are voluble, seeking to impress. Others sit and listen, checking what they hear against the stories which course through their heart but which cannot be found on their lips or in any books. And the story-telling goes on a long time, well into the night. Some fall asleep where they sit and the fire grows dim. They love to tell and they love to listen, for the stories themselves are a kind of food on the way. What one tells is encouragement for another, but also each one's story is encouragement for the one who tells it, since it enables the teller to see, perhaps in a new way, where he or she has come from and how it was that God spoke to them on the way. The stories are bread on the journey, revealing to tellers and hearers the,' pattern of God' action in the past and giving a promise of sustenance in the days to come. The next morning the travellers set out again in different directions, grateful for the refreshment of body and soul. The body is refreshed by the food but the soul has been refreshed by the stories that were told. This refreshment is not just derived from the fact that these stories were entertaining - that they certainly were - but more deeply from the fact that they spoke about the human condition. Both the tellers and the listeners have heard about themselves in a different way. They saw themselves in the characters they heard about. They saw their present reflected in the past."

He goes on to say that the Bible is not so much a book of instruction, but a book of memories, a set of stories about our past, that as we listen to these stories we see ourselves as we truly are and are restored to our rightful place in our history. It is a book of remembering, in the sense of bringing the past to mind, and re-membering, putting ourselves back together with the past with which we belong and from which we have come - a putting ourselves back together when we have been dis-membered by the dislocations given to us by the spirit of the age in which we live.

When I listen to stories something inside me is stirred, moved. Today I listened on the radio to the story of a Christian woman whose husband had killed their two children 11 years ago, and how she was still grieving today, struggling to forgive, to move on. It was deeply moving and somehow I entered in some small way her world, and was moved with compassion. I didn't want to tell her that she really should forgive ... didn't she know what Jesus said ... that it would make life so much more bearable if she did ...

Stories have the power to transcend what is right and wrong, and inspire love, hope, courage and faith ...

The Bible ...

2006-11-12T15:26:00.000Z

Having come across a number of people over the last few years struggling with the Bible, and having my own grapples too, this morning at our church gathering, I decided to look at the complex issue of how we understand the Bible in our faith: Is the Bible authoritative? If so, in what way?

It did seem rather daunting, as the issue of how we understand the Bible creates so much debate and conflict in the Christian World. Seemed to go alright (haven't had any stones yet anyway). I draw much inspiration and thought from NT Wright, the Bishop of Durham, author and theologian. He has written a paper (actually a transcript of a talk) on "How can the Bible be Authoritative".

NT Wright suggests that the Bible is really four acts of God's Story, and we are working out Act 5 as God's people now, in a way that consistent and innovative to the first 4 acts. This moves the debate away from words such as inerrant, infallible, sola scriptura, prima scriptura, to a narrative approach to the Scripture.

I notice that he has written a book too, "The Last Word: Scripture and the Authority of God - getting beyond the Bible Wars" which looks a good read.

Visit to Cambridge

2006-11-09T23:08:00.000Z

At the beginning of the week, I was in Cambridge with a bunch of other church leaders. We are talking together about forming a network, that recognises our friendships over the years, and formalises a partnership and learning together for the future.

Billy Kennedy and Roger Ellis have invited a few people to meet over the last couple of years, and this is set to continue 3 times a year, to develop friendships, learn together, and pray.

It was an inspiring time; especially a tour of Cambridge led by Ranald Macauley from Christian Heritage, who took us around some of the colleges of Cambridge, where we learnt of how Christians had been motivated by their faith to get involved in politics, science, and arts to bring about massive change in the country at the time. The most well known for most of us would be William Wilberforce who was involved in the movement to abolish slavery.

Inspiring stuff; rather daunting too. Left me with some questions: the church seems so often way behind in the major issues of our day. For example we only now seem to be taking seriously the environmental issue. How can we be at the forefront of bringing change to our society? How can we value those, in our churches, who are already working to bring change in their 9 to 5 jobs, but so often aren't recognised as those on "front line mission"?

Good to be with friends too ... had a great catch up with Lynn Swart.

First Blogger's Block

2006-11-08T23:07:00.000Z

Well, I have been contemplating blogging for a while, have set it up, added some books, profile etc, but have been looking at a blank section for "post" for a few weeks now! I have read about blogger's block, but no-one told me you might be afflicted before you begin!

So here's why I am thinking about blogging ...

I have enjoyed reading a few blogs recently, and live in the hope that someone (or some people!) might enjoy reading this blog.
I have loads of random thoughts that I never write down, so this is a way of keeping me reading / learning / writing etc. So it is probably mostly for me!
I love conversation. One of my enduring frustrations with preaching is the lack of dialogue. I live in hope of finding ways of learning & growing through interaction with others ... so if you do find yourself reading this please add a comment!!
And while we are on preaching ... I have been thinking about theology being done in community ... perhaps some further conversations here will mean the monologue by me on a Sunday, is actually a number of different voices, opinions, perspectives and thoughts being voiced through me? That at least feels like some movement.
I am an "information gatherer", picking up things here and there (but very rarely finishing book for example). So here is a way of sharing some of the information I pick up with others who maybe don't have the time to search.

So there we go, the first blog done. Wasn't that bad ...