Ideas from the Edge

Expand your Mind

2007-10-18T20:35:00.001+13:00

Expand your mind

Have a look at this dancer

Which way is she turning?

According to this article, if you see her spinning clockwise you are predominantly "Right-Brained" (use more of the right side of your brain). If you see her spinning counter-clockwise you are are predominantly "Left-Brained".

Apparently, most people see the dancer turning anti-clockwise though you can try to focus and change the direction; see if you can do it. (Most of our family see it turning clockwise ... maybe we're a bit odd).

See how easily & quickly you can make her change direction.

LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based f
orms strategies
practical
safe

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function f
antasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

Worship as Evangelism (is not working)

2007-09-28T07:57:00.000+12:00

Worship as Evangelism (is not working) by Sally Morgenthaler

Here is a recent article by Sally Morgenthaler published on “Next Wave”

You may have seen it already - if not, it is worth reading. It is highly significant because of who is writing it - Sally is the author of “Worship Evangelism” and other related books, and was instrumental (pun intended) in the US and beyond in stimulating the huge wave of “worship music” and the “contemporary Sunday worship experience”, which support the myth 'if we build it, they will come'.

Now, almost 10 years since she wrote 'Worship Evangelism' in 1998, Sally concludes that worship-driven churches, despite their best efforts, are not attracting the unchurched. This is a complete turn-around from when she wrote her book. You will see that her article is filled with wonderful honesty as she acknowledges that the worship culture is often self-absorbed and the unreached are not attending these Christian “parties.”

This article on the problems with Worship Evangelism is an honest reflection which makes some astute and insightful comments, especially considering the author's background & the influence she has had historically.

Interestingly Sally's latest collaborative effort is a chapter in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, released in April 2007 by Baker Books. Her chapter, “Leadership in a Flattened World: Grassroots Culture and the Demise of the CEO Model,” has been hailed as a prophetic work—a clear alternative to the ego-driven ministry leadership paradigms of the 1980s and 1990s.

A few quotes from the article -

Worship Evangelism had helped to create a "worship-driven subculture." As he explained it, this subculture was a sizeable part of the contemporary church that had just been waiting for an excuse not to do the hard work of real outreach. An excuse not to get their hands dirty.

In 2001 a worship-driven congregation in my area finally did a survey as to who they were really reaching, and they were shocked. They'd thought their congregation was at least 50 percent unchurched. The real number was 3 percent.

By 2002 a few pastors of praise and worship churches began admitting to me that they weren't making much of a dent in the surrounding non-Christian population, even though their services were packed and they were known for the best worship production in town.

Preaching Act 3

2007-08-31T07:57:00.000+12:00

Here is the 3rd ‘Act’ in the discussion (debate) about preaching which has been appearing in the NZ Baptist magazine.
Act 1 was a shortened version of my article ‘The Problem With Preaching’ which was published in the July magazine.
Act 2 was 3 responses from Baptist lecturers, plus a few critical letters in the August magazine.
Act 3 is my response to their responses, published in the September magazine hot off the press…. here is the full response – the last 2 paragraphs don’t appear in the NZ Baptist version.

RESPONSE

I’m impressed by the way NZ Baptists welcome healthy discussion and debate, in order to become more effective in today’s world. My article ‘The Problem with Preaching’ prompted strong response and much discussion. Raising challenging questions about preaching is rather like waving a red rag to a sacred cow. The responses in last month’s Baptist from Ian Kemp, David Richmond & Paul Windsor were gracious and thoughtful, yet somewhat unconvincing.

In response, I need to clarify some aspects of my original article. In critiquing preaching, I focussed on the specific form of preaching commonly used in modern western churches - monologue preaching to a church congregation. Some people seem to raise this form of preaching onto a ‘pedestal’ above other forms of communication, seeing it as Biblical, essential and prescriptive for us today and presumably for all churches of all times. This perspective effectively raises this form of preaching to a level near baptism and prayer. It is regarded as a spiritual mystery beyond question.

This view seems evident in last month’s responses through phrases like “the sermon … is the voice of God to be obeyed”, “the high calling of the preacher”, “the divine encounter in the preaching” and “preaching is a spiritual gift and a God-given vocation”.

I find no convincing evidence of this form of monologue preaching to a church congregation visible in the NT – hence my statement that this form of preaching is extra-biblical (I didn’t say or imply that it is un-biblical or necessarily wrong). Even if examples of this form of preaching are perceived in the NT (eg 2 Tim 4), these examples don’t make preaching prescriptive or essential for all churches at all times.

In my original article, I attempted to differentiate the form of preaching we practice in churches today from what is seen in the NT. The key point is that there is no essential identifiable difference between the wide variety of communication forms seen in the NT, including preaching and teaching. As Paul Windsor points out with his reference to 34 different words and overlapping circles, the concepts overlap.

Unfortunately many people see the ‘preach’ words, which appear about 140 times in an English NT, and assume that this ‘preaching’ they read of is the same form as the preaching they hear in church today, and hence that the form of preaching that occurs in their church has a strong (essential) biblical basis and we have to keep doing it. They see preaching as a specific God-given form of communication, and its effectiveness shouldn’t be questioned.

As Christians, including those exercising leadership, we need to communicate the messages of Jesus and His kingdom to all people, including those outside or on the edge of the kingdom, and those within. A wide variety of forms of communication are available. Some of these forms are clearly visible in the NT, others might be implied, and others are definitely not seen in the Bible (eg emails, Denominational newspapers). These communication forms are not distinct, but rather they overlap. They include teaching (to large groups, small groups and individuals), dialogue, discussion, debate, evangelistic preaching, preaching to church congregations, and questions and answers. None of these forms is inherently on a pedestal above the others. None of these forms is ‘biblical & normative & inherently spiritual’ - ie ‘it is in the Bible and we have to do it and it is a communication form that is inherently more spiritual than other forms’. All of these communication forms can be either effective or ineffective, depending partly on how they are implemented and whether the form & content are relevant for the recipients. Sometimes these forms of communication impart some sort of spiritual life, renewal, revelation, insight, inspiration or encounter – but this is not automatically inherent in any of the forms. This spiritual impartation is more likely to occur when other factors are involved, including prayer, study, good presentation, accurate Biblical interpretation, and people having expectations. On occasions, the form chosen is inappropriate or the communication is poor, yet God chooses to ‘move’ anyway.

Communication is essential. I am not calling for preaching to be abandoned. Nor am I saying that any other form of communication is always better than a sermon. A monologue sermon to the congregation on Sundays is one form of communication. It should be more accurately described as ‘teaching’, ‘inspiration’, ‘thought-for-the-day’, ‘reflection’, or ‘motivational talk’, depending on its intention and characteristics. Monologue preaching might even be the best communication form in a particular situation – preaching has historically been very effective in many situations. However, we have a wide range of equally valid forms of communication available. If we understand their strengths and weaknesses, become proficient in their use, and evaluate their effectiveness, we will become better communicators.

Throughout much of church history, monologue sermons have been a predominant form of communication. There are many historical and sociological reasons for this reliance on sermons. There are also many spiritual, pragmatic and educational reasons for questioning the effectiveness of monologue preaching in our society. These include that it is often ineffective, expensive, can limit learning, discussion and debate, foster biblical illiteracy, and disempower people. Monologues silence the voice of the people. Educational studies repeatedly demonstrate that people learn more through interactive teaching and self-learning. Rather than just trying to pass on information, we should be creating life-long spiritual learners.

David Richmond suggests that if people can’t feed themselves, we need to keep feeding them. In contrast, I’m convinced that for normal healthy people, we should stop spoon feeding them, let them get hungry and then they will become motivated to learn to feed themselves. They might even learn to how to cook, plan their own menu, and begin teaching others to feed themselves.

Its no surprise to hear ministers defending preaching. Professional ministers usually love preaching and are paid to do it. Preaching is typically part of the ‘package’ of this form of church leadership. A minister questioning preaching and other aspects of professional ministry is like the proverbial person who saws off the branch they are sitting on. It is as rare as beef farmers promoting vegetarianism.

I told my children that I’ve invented a new school – it has only one class with hundreds of students aged from 5 to 18. They meet for one half-hour class each week, where a quality teacher gives an amazing non-interactive lecture to the class. Students never graduate from the class. The 18 year-olds, who have been hearing these lectures for 13 years, stay in this class with more new entrants for the rest of their lives. The only way to graduate is to become the lecturer or die. My children say this school is stupid and will never work. I agree … but it’s what we do in churches … let’s look for good alternatives.

How Does Jesus Say We Are Saved?

2007-08-10T09:44:00.000+12:00

Mike Clawson writes in his blog about an assignment given by a professor to freshman classes ..
He says, "There are four different things Jesus tells people about what they must do to be saved:

1. To Nicodemus he says "You must be born again". (John 3:3)
2. To the Rich Young Ruler he says "Sell everything you have and give it to the poor." (Luke 18:22)
3. To Zacchaeus he says "Sell half of everything you have, and pay back those you've cheated as well." (Luke 19:8-10)
4. To the paralyzed man he says "Because of the faith of your friends your sins are forgiven." (Mark 2:5)

The professor then tells his students: "Write a paper explaining why Jesus gave four very different answers to the question 'What must I do to be saved?' And why does only one of them (sort of - depending on what you think "born again" means) match up with the typical evangelical answer?"

Great question! How would you answer?

I've included a couple of the responses to Mike's blog below, followed by my brief response (interestingly, coincidentally, I was reflecting & talking with my daughter about this very topic yesterday)

From Miko
I would say he actually gives at least nine different answers (or ten, if you want to split John 3:3-18 in two). Off the top of my head, Mark 2:5; Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 18:1-3; Luke 10:25-28; Luke 14:26-33; Luke 18:18-22; Luke 19:8-10; John 3:3-18; John 6:45-59.

From M James
[Before I respond to this question I need to clear two things up:

First, I believe that to properly understand the Bible, you need to first understand the history and culture that was prevalent when it was written. Also, I would say you need to understand a little bit about how Greek, Hebrew and Aramic was written and spoken. (For instance: I do not believe the "hell" mentioned in the Bible was written or meant to be a "literal hell". In most cases it is refering to an absence of God.)

Secondly, I believe that there are parts of the Bible, specifically the New Testament, that are a later interpolation.]

I would respectfully disagree with the first poster and say that Jesus is not giving one way to salvation, being born again, and then elucidating on that ideal.
There is an underlying theme in the works and stories of Jesus, that he was sent to Earth to show people the correct way to live their life. I do no think that being "born again" literallly means getting down on your knees and saying the phrase "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal saviour", as the evangelicals will have you believe.
I think in every instance you mentioned, Jesus is asking the questioner to look at their own life, and the decisions they make and change theirselves for the betterment of the people around them. Live your life in a way that glorifies God and his works. What were his works? Creating man, and creating this world.
By caring for his creation, instead of uttering some mystical catchphrase that gives you a magical passport to the pearly gates, that is truly the way to find favor with God.

As an aside, I think the end of Jesus' story - the empty tomb - was also the most powerful of it. After showing the people how they could find favor with God, I believe he was also telling them not to idolize himself. That's why the tomb was empty. So the people would focus on the lessons he taught, not hold his dead body up as some sort of empty husk to be worshipped. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

I can understand why the church doesn't agree with what I said above. It's hard to pack pews and get donations when all you have to do to gain God's favor is just be a good person and take care of his creation.

From myself
Good question. I was reflecting on this yesterday ... particularly the contrast between the suggestion to Nicodemus re being born again, in contrast to the Rich Young Ruler.
Interestingly, the location of John ch3 indicates that Jesus is suposed to have told Nicodemus about being born again very early on in Jesus' ministry. Yet, this concept of being born again isn't mentioned in the synoptic gospels, in the sermons (or anywhere else) in Acts, and nowehere in Paul's writings or the rest of the NT ... John 3 is the only reference to it. Yet evangelicals make a HUGE deal of it. This is STRANGE.
Maybe a little light is shed on it by realising that the gospel called John was written very late cf other NT books ... probably written around AD90 or later.
My conclusion ... we have narrowed down on a formula which has little biblical basis, and is too narrow / simple / prescriptive about how individuals should respond to God.
David Allis. (down under in new Zealand)

11 Reasons Why I Don't Like The Term "Christian" by John Smulo

2007-07-31T07:26:00.001+12:00

My article on preaching was published in the Baptist mag a month ago, & brought some strong response … 3 intelligent & gracious articles from Bible college lecturers (2 of whom I’ve studied under previously) …. I’m not convinced by their responses, & have the opportunity to respond in 800 words next month. There was also a few ‘why do we print this rubbish’ type letters (critiquing preaching in Baptist circles is like a red rag to a sacred cow), plus a ‘this anti-preaching article must have the devil rubbing his hands in glee’ letter … this imagery brings a smile to my face.

Here are some thoughts from John Smulo on why he doesn’t like the tem ‘christian’, and why he prefers ‘Jesus-Follower’
It might just seem like semantics (playing with words), but I’m convinced that as christians oops jesus-followers, we need to be accurate with our words where possible (although being vague or ambiguous can help in some situations).

11 Reasons Why I Don't Like The Term "Christian"
http://www.johnsmulo.com/
Words have meaning because we give them meaning. Sometimes particular words lose meaning. Other times they take on new meanings that are loaded.

"Christian" is a word that has several meanings depending on the context in which it is used, and who is using it.

Below you will find a list of reasons why I struggle with the term "Christian" to represent faith in Jesus.

1. Because it has a lot of historical baggage.
2. Because it raises a lot of hurt for many people.
3. Because people think they have “Christians” all figured out.
4. Because it’s become a stereotype, even if often a painfully accurate one.
5. Because the kind of Christianity I’ve read about (see below) has different connotations than “Christian” implies.
6. Because it provokes anger in many people.
7. Because it often has little to do with Jesus.
8. Because it’s associated more closely with judgment than grace.
9. Because I’d rather use a term that causes people to ask questions, rather than giving them a box to put me in.
10. Because in popular culture it’s more associated with what “Christians” are against, than what they’re for.
11. Because it’s often inaccurately tied to other words such as “nation”.

12 Reasons Why I Prefer The Term "Jesus-Follower"
Here are some of the reasons why I normally refer to myself as a 'Jesus-follower'.

1. It centers on Jesus.
2. It implies action.
3. It raises questions rather than answers.
4. It encourages further understanding and exploration.
5. It points others to Someone beyond myself to look to.
6. It suggests a journey rather than a destination.
7. It requires a dynamic, rather than static, context.
8. It agrees that there is room, if not a need, for A New Kind of Christian Follower.
9. It doesn’t have historical baggage, and unlike a more popular term, is less likely to cause angst and heart burn.
10. It fulfills what Jesus himself asked of people time and time and time and time and—well you get the point—again.
11. It is a conversation starter rather than stopper.
12. It exhorts relationship, interaction, and partnership.

The kind of Christianity I’ve read about
What happened to a Christianity that was for the poor, instead of the middle-class?
God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.

What happened to a Christianity that was for those without happy-smiley-faces?
God blesses those who mourn, for they will be comforted.

What happened to a Christianity that didn’t demand it’s rights in the public square?
God blesses those who are humble, for they will inherit the whole earth.

What happened to a Christianity that sought justice for the least of these?
God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied.

What happened to a Christianity full of mercy, grace, compassion, and love?
God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy.

What happened to a Christianity without mixed motives and deep simplicity?
God blesses those whose hearts are pure, for they will see God.

What happened to a Christianity that wasn’t tied to wars of words and tanks?
God blesses those who work for peace, for they will be called the children of God.

What happened to a Christianity that was persecuted for having a dream of a better world for others?
God blesses those who are persecuted for doing right, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs.
Matthew 5:3-10

What are the essential biblical ingredients of a church?

2007-07-31T07:23:00.000+12:00

I’ve been involved in the NZ Baptist “Sharpening the Edge” Conference the last couple of days (Being part of a panel reflecting on the stories being told).
One of the questions I raised (which was nicely sidestepped) related to what the Biblical essentials for a church are. This conference is a group of jesus-followers who are leaders (mostly pastors), who are interested in alternative forms of church for the sake of mission here in NZ. As they explore alternative models such as weeding gardens on a Sunday morning, or a 7-day-a-week childrens program with no formal church service … the question arises “what is church?” As part of figuring that out, I think we should be able to clarify what the biblical essentials are ….. consider 3 levels
1. Biblical essentials (you must have these to have a ‘church’, & they all have sound biblical basis)
2. Very important things (but not essential)
3. Other helpful things
It is interesting & challenging to try to put the various aspects of normal church into these 3 categories (ie ordained ministers, weekly meetings, Sunday meetings, corporate sung worship, sermons, leadership structure, buildings, communion etc etc) Why don’t you try to do it??? Or if you know a ‘minister’ .. ask them. & let me know via a comment here.

My challenge to the Baptists was “we’re all ministers / theologically trained’ & trying to create churches … we should be able to do this quickly … 30 seconds & we should have the items in level #1 – but I bet we can’t, & there would be no common agreement on it (scary)
They side-stepped the question graciously & said something like it was something they needed to be working on over the next year (their ecclesiology)

My experience of asking a group of 8 ministers the same question was that there was no common agreement on the biblical essentials for a church ….. what does that tell us about our ecclesiology (theology of the church)???
Maybe you can set me straight on this ….

Why Gather

2007-07-24T07:12:00.000+12:00

For a few weeks, I've been musing over a line in Mark Strom's book "Reframing Paul". It relates to our purpose in gathering as 'the church' being to "gather in community for conversation".

Our Sunday gatherings these days are really a teenage bible study / feast / fun time - where we try to interact with each other, parts of the bible, & god. So this phrase "gathering in community for conversation" seems like a good description for us (even thought the conversation gets noisy as lots of people speak at once) .... & probably a good description for why church communities in general should gather ....

I've been 'invited' to a court hearing on Thursday - an ex-minister vs denomination dispute re 'church' property. It reminds me that if you don't have a structured organisation, there is no one to battle with, and if there is no organisational property, then there is no property to fight over.

Making 'A' Decision & the 'Sinners Prayer'

2007-07-20T08:43:00.000+12:00

A friend wrote a good article on his blog about 'viral church' (see link above). I agreed with virtually all of it .... but one line seemed worthy of further discussion.

He said “the goal of a (there was a misisng word here) is to encourage every person on this planet to advance in some way in their search and discovery of Jesus.” (that bit was fine) then “Don’t get me wrong, bringing a person to a point of decision and praying the sinners prayer with them is an important part of the process” ….

So .... I stepped into dangerous ground for an evangelical (or someone with a baptist, evangelical & pentecostal background) ….

In the NT I don’t see Jesus bringing anyone to a ‘point of decision’ & praying/saying anything like a sinners prayer …. Although individuals did clearly respond to him in different ways at different times (eg Nicodemus, Zaccheus, rich young ruler) ….

Interestingly, there is only a record of the ‘born again’ thing being said … & it was only to one person on one occasion (to Nicodemus in John 3) … the same frequency as the ‘sell all your possession’ thing (to the rich young ruler) hmmm ... we build a doctrine around the 'be born again' passage, but ignore or minimise the 'sell your possessions' passage by saying "that was just him" or "he obviously had a problem with his possessions". I'm not convinced this is consistent.

I don’t see the (single) point of decision / sinners prayer thing anywhere in the NT (either JC or Paul) .... I say 'single point of decision' because there are indications of individuals like the disciples making a number of decisions which have practical & spiritual effects in their lives .... but I haven't been able to discover where any of the disciples made the BIG point-of-decision (? when exactly did they become 'christians'?). Also, the example of Paul (Saul)'s conversion isn't exactly the norm these days .... although you do find bright lights & loud voices in some big churches :-)

Historically “personal conversion” is a relatively new construct - it came with the great awakening & evangelical revivals from the 17th century onwards. The earliest notion of a sinners prayer is less than 500 years old. It wasn't formalized as a theology until around the time of Billy Graham – in the 1950s Bill Bright (working with Billy Graham) came up with the Four Spiritual Laws (which ends with the Sinners prayer). Some of this theological shoft was based on misuse of Rev 3:20 (which is written to lukewarm churches, not pre-christians) & the inaccurate Living Bible translation of Jn 1:11-13 (which adds “All they needed to do was to trust him to save them. All those who believe this are reborn!” …. which has no basis in the greek text)

So .. I think we all face a multitude of decision points in our lives … where we have choices relating to choosing for or against God, Jesus, & his kingdom. We do need to be spiritually renewed … probably many times. This spiritual renewal should reveal itself in our lives & actions, as is nicely pointed out in Matt 25:31ff

That’s my quick thoughts …

Where Is It??

2007-07-17T15:53:00.000+12:00

“Where is it? If a new thing is happening, why can’t we see it? If these new models or wineskins of church are so great, why aren’t they strong and visible now?” A friend involved in leadership of a ‘normal’ church regularly throws these questions at me. Other leaders raise the same issue in the form of a statement “when you have a church of a thousand people and are seeing hundreds saved every year, then you can critique current church structures.”

For myself, and other proponents of alternative ways of extending God’s kingdom, including house churches, organic churches, and truly missional churches, these questions are often raised by defenders of the status quo - by leaders within structured churches, as they look outside the domain of organised Christianity at the alternative forms of ‘church’ being discussed and attempted. “If what you’re proposing is so great, where is it? Why can’t we see it? Why isn’t it growing rapidly?”
These appear to be good questions, at least from the perspective of those who ask them.......

">Read More

First blog post

2007-07-17T14:11:00.000+12:00

For the last 20 months, I've been writing some articles, & stealing others, & emailing them out to interested people. The response has been great, and many people appreciate the articles.

At times, people respond to the articles with questions, or comments. I teply to them, & hence some email interaction occurs. Much of this is invisible - yet might be of interest to other people.
Hence .... a blog to contain some of those pearls of wisdom, heresy or questions.

Also - the comment has been made that I have a 'captive audience' with the 'ideas from the edge' emails ... so when people critique them, they can't pass those critiques on to this 'captive audience'. hence, a blog might enable some of those critiques (& other intereactions) to be visible.

So ... if it works ... this might be the start of a blog ...