TheGeoffRe(y)port

This day, I offer thee a challenge. Below is a quote which I could almost guarantee a great number of you will disagree with. But anyone can disagree. I’m interested in why you disagree, which is a much more difficult question. Don’t leave your thoughts here (unless you really want to), read the whole post and comment over at The Crowded Handbasket.

Loving God is something different than loving a person and so, it is not a personal love. Loving God is acting in response to the Resurrection by loving others and that is how we in turn love God. When God comes to me, shakes my hand, and cares to sit down and get to know me and I God, on a personal level, my idea of the love of God will become more than an idea, but a personal engagement with a being. Until then, love of God is a once removed response to God by loving my neighbor, who I can physically and actually love. And perhaps God can love me through that

The Crowded Handbasket » God Can’t Be That Personal

“The celebrity church must die. And doing anything—like video venues—that prolongs its life, even in the name of the lost, runs counter to the best interests of the Church in all its expressions, big and small, and its mandate to see more people not only reached, but gifted, trained, and sent.”

Multi-site the Low-tech Way | Leadership Blog: Out of Ur

Have a read of the whole post - it’s a great explanation of why it’s not such a great thing to have churches going the “multi-site, teaching via satellite link” type of direction. But I especially love the start of this quote: “The celebrity church must die”. Because I think that the “celebrity church” is such a dangerous mindset - this concept that the work of the kingdom gets performed by paid staff that we support financially.

And at the moment, that’s the challenge (it seems to me) for YVV. My church has grown to the point where we can’t all fit into one service, and while that’s fundamentally a practical issue, the move to two (theoretically identical) services has the potential to change how the church community sees itself, as well as how the church sees it’s leadership. The size of the church necessitates that the leadership doesn’t know everyone in the church. So how we deal with that necessary aloofness without having that communcate value and status, is a very difficult thing.

Of course, we might just plant a bunch of churches, give away all our best people and the problem goes away

Funny how the church has conspired to encourage Christians to ignore and explain away all the stuff that might mean we have to change our lives beyond the internal religious self-advancement project. I’m not sure we are even reading the same pages. We might talk as if the liberal’s doubts of the miraculous undermines faith, but I’ve rarely heard anyone address the wholesale avoidance of direct instructions by the so-called bible believing folk undermining faith.

And maybe that is the essence of my unorthodoxy. I’m not prepared to play at being a Christian any more - either I am prepared to take on all it means to lead a sacrificial life or I should stop pretending I have anything to do with the man from Galilee.

The Crowded Handbasket » the elephant in the room.

Have a read of the full post - great stuff! And thanks to Makeesha for the discovery!

It’s been an interesting thing to see how the Catholic Church’s “World Youth Day” (perhaps something of a misnomer given that it’s pretty much about Catholics, and runs for about 5 days) has brought out the angry atheists (as distinct from the calm atheists) into the opinion sections of the newspapers and blogs. The temptation is to dismiss the rants without consideration, as the product of a hater, but if we instead actually engage with our accusers, we can find some real gems. Take the following:

It’s been a revelation to me a year since my “epiphany”. I feel as if I’m walking through life with the blinkers off. Suddenly all the religious mumbo-jumbo jumps out as so bonkers. Wearing certain things, eating certain things, mumbling certain things at certain times so some imaginary friend will let you into a club in the sky when you die. I want to do my living now, thanks. I’m not afraid of dying. I’m afraid of never having lived.

Red hot enlightenment led me to believe in one fewer god | theage.com.au

Now, that quote comes from Catherine Deveney, The Age’s resident angry atheist columnist, and it comes from an article which, while calm and logical, is fairly damning and aggressive towards religion and more specifically Christianity. But have a read of that again, and imagine that instead of being in a newspaper, this popped up on the blog of an emerging churcher.It fits, and it works, and I fervently believe that there’s a really big truth for us there.

Because if our Christianity is primarily about being let into “a club in the sky when you die”, then we find ourselves at odds with the man who was about bringing “life to the full”. Then (from the same article), there’s the following quote - which in a round-about way, pretty much makes my point:

I don’t care what people believe in, but I do care that religion impacts on political discourse, public policy and that it stunts the ability of people to think for themselves and question. And that it kills people and causes suffering. But most of all I care that the invisible electric fences that are wired in the minds of children brainwashed by religion are difficult to remove. And impossible if you don’t even know they’re there.

When we shut ourselves off from people we disagree with - we become exactly that: brainwashers. But instead, if we truly have faith that we have something true in our chasing after God, and are able to listen and even converse (rather than ignore and argue), then we will find that sometimes, there is God even in the argument of the atheist.

Listen, consider, weigh up and you just might grow.

Armybarmy REMIX: 2 essentials for God’s Kingdom Come….

Great little post by Danielle Strickland - we heard her at Forge “Grassroots” this year and she’s an amazing person. But I loved her reflections here on hearing Jackie Pullinger:

“on this last note she mentioned that the natural impatience of working with the poor (for God’s kingdom to come) can lead us two ways: one is to the Kingdom (to be willing to look foolish and hold out for transforming power) or the other is to create another theology that allows us to accept things as they are (I couldn’t help but think about harm reduction here…).”

This matched up pretty directly with some thinking that Bec discussed in her (seriously good) post: “Mission is not for pansies“, where she’s relating back on spending a morning with Bev Kumasi:

“She is entirely legitimate. She talks about the Kingdom of God as if it runs through her blood. She seeks out people to love and to share Jesus with and her home. She expresses her frustration at churches who sit singing and never go and ‘do the work of the gospel’.

This is courage and makes the rest of us looks like pansies.

Mission is not for pansies. Yet sometimes that’s all we’ve got to work with - ourselves. Let us at least be willing.”

Beverley Kumasi - Definitely not a "pansy"

One of the most impacting things I’ve heard in a long time was hearing Bev talk about working with prostitutes around the Solomon Islands. As a result of her work with these girls, UNICEF had approached her with an offer to work for them, with the expectation that she would give these girls condoms. But the no-compromise approach, the refusal to take on a theology that accepts things as they are, had Bev telling these people to take their condoms to hell. It’s a tough call, but hearing her say that had me understand that Bev was determined never to be a part of the things that is tearing these girls apart.

…comes from Paul at “One for the road“:

It is clear from some comments left on the internet that some Christians feels that you can clearly not reconcile the claim that Jesus is the only way to God with the fundamental tenant of Islam that there is no God but Allah – therefore it is impossible to be both. …

If you can be Jewish and a Christian can you not also be Muslim and a Christian? Indeed the attraction of say the 5 pillars of Islam, the disciplined life of prayer etc is something that can be intrinsically attractive as a way of practicing faith – and can be related to the rules of faith by Christian religious communities/orders (e.g. rule of St Benedict).

A question closer to home for me to ask myself would be can I both be a follower of Jesus and a worshipper of consumerist individualism? (Full post here - “Can I be a Christian and a Muslim”)

Well, I feel busted.

OK, I’m angry. And what’s more, I’m likely to make you angry. Possibly for the same reason as me. Possibly because you vigorously disagree with what I say. Either way. But here’s the back story:

After Scott and Christina kindly posted a link through to the video of the Australian Christian Lobby’s big politician thing “Make It Count”, where there were a whole bunch of church leaders at the National Press Club in Canberra, as well as being simulcast all over the country via online streaming. It was a pretty big deal and we had both Howard and Rudd addressing the issues they saw as affecting and being particularly relevant to christians. Thousands of people across Australia were watching, and I certainly saw a lot of value in hearing what the two leaders had to say.

And both leaders said a number of things that were of value. However, for some reason, there was only one thing that the crowd felt was deserving of spontaneous applause. It wasn’t a humanitarian measure that prompted spontaneous applause, nor was it mentions of conscience votes on stem cells, RU486, or comments on refugees. Instead, this room full of christian leaders believed that the only moment most worthy of spontaneous applause was the moment when John Howard mentioned his involvement in the amendments to the marriage act to enshrine in law the standard of marriage being between “one man and one woman”.

I was already fairly worked up after hearing that, but I was pushed just a little further while I was listening to the Kevin Rudd, question answer part and heard the National President of the Australian Family Association ask Kevin Rudd for an assurance that he would not support an extension of “de-facto” relationship status to include homosexual relationships.

I was pretty ticked off. For starters, here’s how I’d see the issue of marriage in relation to homosexual relationships. For my thinking, there are two parts to what happens in a marriage: there’s a change in legal status (complete with a bunch of legal rights, particularly in the event of death of a spouse), and there is a spiritual dimension to marriage: the spiritual unification of two people. Now I strongly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and I also strongly believe that churches should not be holding weddings between homosexual couples. But I fail to understand why a country who has on the whole accepted that people are in homosexual relationships, is not willing to grant the legal dimension of marriage to couples wanting to commit to one another for life.

OK, so that’s my position. But I understand that for some people (including probably the majority of christians), the notion of compromising the institution of marriage, even if only in a “legal” sense is an unacceptable position. I’d like to hear why, but I want to make another point first.

De-facto relationships. To use the old-fashioned term: “living in sin”. At the moment in Australian law, couples in a de-facto relationship are given more “rights” (in the same sense as we talk about legal rights in marriage) than any form of homosexual relationships. So the part I cannot understand is why we’re so determined to ostracise homosexual couples to the point that we’re not even willing to give them the same status as couples whose only real commitment to one another is that they are living together. It defies belief. Both situations are against the teachings of Christianity. So why is the Australian Family Association so frightened of “compromising the family” in this way?

Just thought (particularly if you’re an RSS Subscriber who tends not to visit the actual site) that it might be worth drawing attention to the very valuable, insightful (and at times quite personal) comments on the “Theology of Contraception” post. It’s been impressive to see the quality of responses there: I didn’t realise this would hit quite on such a rich vein of opinion. So if you haven’t read them (or read them back when there was only a few comments there instead of 21) I advise a perusal. You can also check out Bec’s contribution over on her blog.

And it’s worth highlighting that Kate (wife of Rohan, all round nice person) has written a paper on the subject which they’ve kindly posted up on their blog. Set some time aside and read through properly, because she’s got some pretty solid thought there and it’s worth reading through.

“Roman Catholicism believes in sexual intercourse not only for procreative but also unitive intents. Wife and husband surrender themselves to one another and come to a fuller knowledge of one another.Contraception, it follows, is wrong because it divides the procreative from the pleasure principles.”

The above quote comes from a thought-provoking post from Scot McKnight on Jesus Creed - “Augustine on the Protestant Sex Ethic”. So as someone who has never had to worry about potential theological implications of contraception in the past, but is drawing ever closer to a time when such questions become relevant; I wanted to hear what some of my very learned and wise readers believe on the issue. As McKnight pertinently asks: “In your community of faith is there any discussion about contraception — or is it either simply ignored or assumed as legitimate for the Christian? How realistic is the procreation theory of sexuality? the “unitive” or “communion” theory?”

In my experience we’re doing a pretty OK job of talking about a theology of sex outside of marriage, and we’re even starting to get closer to pre-marital sex is not God’s idea of a good thing, but I wouldn’t need to worry about a second hand to count the number of times I’ve heard any discussion of theology around contraception amongst protestants. I’m sure part of that has to do with the stage of life I’ve been at, but I’m also wondering if that’s a reflection of a wider trend.

So I’m after practical theology from the married peoples out there and completely theoretical thoughts from those of us who are single. Thoughts on contraception and what that says about your view on sex itself? Thoughts on “the pill”? I’d love to hear any of it; if only to spark some discussion in an area that I think tends to be a little bit neglected.

Wanted to point out a few things of interest on the interweb. The first is to (belatedly) let anyone who didn’t already realise know that Hamo (the National Director of Forge now that Alan Hirsch has taken off for the US) has picked his blogging back up again, and has got already been putting out some amazingly good content. He can be found over at Backyard Missionary (www.backyardmissionary.com) and quite frankly, if you’re here for intelligent theological and practical missional discussion, go there first - he does it much better. Of course, if you’re here to find out what’s going on in the life of Geoff, he’ll have significantly less of that.

The second thing to draw your attention to is that Dan Wilt has got a wonderful piece on his blog called “The Scandal Of Particularity: Facing Jesus In A Postmodern Age” which strikes exactly the line that I think I’d draw in dealing with the tension between the battle-stations, hard-line fundamentalist, militant view of Jesus’ claim to exclusivity and the opposite side where Jesus becomes “one path to the same God”, which preaches a gospel that is more culturally acceptable but which loses a huge chunk of the meaning and mission of who Jesus is. But don’t take my word for it: have a read - it’s a long one but utterly worth the time.

The third thing is much less theological and a lot more silly. “Say No To Crack” got me onto the “Internet Anagram Server” - which is where the post title comes from: it’s an anagram of “TheGeoffReyport”. You put in the words you want anagrams for and away it goes. Other highlights for “TheGeoffRe(y)port” include:

• Thy Groper of Feet
• Top Ferret, eh Fogy
• Heft Reef Orgy Pot
• They Free Frog Pot

OK - enough silliness. You’ll have noticed a lack of posts on here: life’s getting busier with moving house and wedding stuff and youth all combining to rob me of blog posting time.