« February 2006 | Main | April 2006 »
March 31, 2006
Creative evangelism and a cup of coffee...
Modern-Day Noah's Ark Will Serve as Petting Zoo
The ark will be part theme park, part floating Christian mission. The idea came to Huibers in a dream, a nightmare that Holland was flooded. A similar fear, we're told, drove Noah to build his ark that saved the creatures of the world from rising waters and God's wrath. Huibers' plans are slightly more modest: He plans to house 300 farmyard animals in a petting zoo.
It will cost adults $5 to visit Johan's Ark, and half that for kids. The price of admission gets you a cup of coffee from the onboard cafe when you enter and a free copy of the Gospel as you leave. Huibers will need 100,000 visitors to pay back the bank loans.
Posted by rhett at 03:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 30, 2006
American Bible Society says no to XXX Church....
I have been hearing a lot of discussion in the last two days about this story: Bringing Bibles to the Porn Industry.
Excerpt:
Long story short...they have refunded all of our money and have refused to print the Bibles. They have told us that this goes against everything the Bible stands for and they don't want anyone to think that Jesus is okay with porn. We think they are wrong. We think this goes with the central message of the gospel and Jesus loves you regardless of your profession.
Apparently this story will hit the Los Angeles Times this weekend....
XXX Church, American Bible Society
Posted by rhett at 06:13 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
March 29, 2006
Jack Bauer on your pastoral team...
Steve McCoy has posted some Jack Bauer facts.
I have tried really, really hard to not let 24 bypass LOST as my favorite TV show, but I have to admit....24 is amazing...every week...and Jack Bauer rules. Comparing LOST and 24 is like comparing apples and oranges, since they are both so different, and I appreciate their differences. I appreciate the excitement and intensity and pace of 24, and I appreciate the mystery and characters in LOST.
I have been thinking about Jack Bauer. Sometimes I think he would be great to have on staff as your advocate. Not because I want him torturing others, but because he seems like he might be able to cut through all the red tape and committee meetings, and just get to the point. I will have to take him to my next Presbytery meeting.....of course, he can not shoot anyone in the leg to get them to talk.
If you don't watch 24...then this post means nothing to you. So go watch it.
Posted by rhett at 12:47 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Random tidbit this afternoon....
On Monday I spent about nine hours painting a gazebo in our backyard, which took me about 5-6 hours longer than I thought it would. That's no fun, but it was a tedious project. What made it all okay though was that at about 5:45 as I was finishing, I was standing on a ladder as the sun was setting and it looked like it was about to rain, when all of a sudden I heard this loud...very loud noise. I looked up and it was two birds flying towards a tree near me. Eventually they landed and the noise they produced was unreal. What were they? Two huge parrots. Finally, I was personal witness to all the stories and myths surrounding the parrots, and the town I live in, Pasadena, CA. It is rumored that Pasadena, and especially the surrounding communities of Altadena and Arcadia are full of thousands of parrots. I had yet to see them, though I have heard them, and some of my friends have seen them when they were walking down the street and looked up, and saw a red parrot in a tree.
It was really a beautiful way to end that day painting, when I saw two beautiful parrots sitting in the tree in my neighbor's backyard. I love living in Pasadena. It is a great community. Beautiful city. Beautiful architecture. Very diverse population. The Rose Bowl Parade ends near our street. Fuller Theological Seminary, Cal-Tech communities. Old Town. The weather. Etc. And now, finally, I have seen the rumored parrots in person.
Here is some more info. on the parrots of Pasadena:
Parrots
Pasadena has a population of wild parrots. The city's website identifies them as yellowhead amazon parrots, but according to the Parrot Project of Los Angeles, the parrots fall into as many as five different groups. There is a cycle of regular public outcry about the noise and the sheer oddity of the birds' presence, but most Pasadena's seem to have come to accept the birds as part of the city's life. They can be seen year-round, but are especially noticeable in the winter. The birds are definitely gregarious, and the amount of disturbance their chatter creates is definitely related to the time of day they may choose to chatter.
Theories and myths abound on how these parrots came to claim Pasadena and surrounding towns as their home. A heavily accepted story by long-time residents of the area is that they were part of the stock at Simpson's Nursery on East Colorado Blvd. in the Lamanda Park area. The nursery was burned down in 1969 and the parrots were thereby released to forage in the lush Pasadena area. It is also possible that some parrots moved northward from their normal in range in central and North Mexico as human habitation in the Pasadena area created artifical habitat in which the parrots could survive. Among their favorite foods are the berry kernels of the cedar trees which grow in great abundance around Pasadena.
Source
For more info, check out The California Parrot Project
Posted by rhett at 10:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
March 28, 2006
Driscoll's apology....
This is just another reason why I like Mark Driscoll. I am posting the entire post of the public apology from Driscoll to Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt. Driscoll models to the rest of us what can often happen....we can get fired up and passionate about a topic, especially one that there is disagreement over, and we end up saying things, and using a tone that we normally would not like to. I've done it a lot recently. Driscoll reminds me that my actions, my words, thoughts, etc., need to be with grace and love towards others...those I both agree and disagree with. I too hope that I can do a better job of buildling up the body of Christ, rather than tearing it down. Driscoll has some good comments on what type of reputations we make for ourselves. Thanks to my friend Phil Cunningham for pointing this out to me.
Some years ago I was part of a team that traveled around the country speaking about issues pertaining to the truth of the gospel, the condition of the culture, and the mission of the church to incarnate the gospel in the culture. I eventually left that team for a variety of practical and theological reasons. Since that time, much of that team has remained together and has evolved into the Emergent stream of the emerging church. Perhaps the best-known leaders in that network are Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt.
Since leaving that team I have been increasingly concerned about some of the theological conversations that are taking place, which has led to frustration and anger on my part. The result was an email I fired off in angry haste to the "Out of Ur" blog in response to a piece by Brian Mclaren in Leadership journal on his pastoral response to the homosexual issue. In short, I took some cheap shots at Brian and Doug.
A godly friend once asked me an important question: "What do you want to be known for?" I responded that solid theology and effective church planting were the things that I cared most about and wanted to be known for. He kindly said that my reputation was growing as a guy with good theology, a bad temper, and a foul mouth. This is not what I want to be known for. And after listening to the concerns of the board members of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network that I lead, and of some of the elders and deacons at Mars Hill Church that I pastor, I have come to see that my comments were sinful and in poor taste. Therefore, I am publicly asking for forgiveness from both Brian and Doug because I was wrong for attacking them personally and I was wrong for the way in which I confronted positions with which I still disagree. I also ask forgiveness from those who were justifiably offended at the way I chose to address the disagreement. I pray that you will accept this posting as a genuine act of repentance for my sin.
In the end, I do not want my tone and style to get in the way of important discussions and kingdom work. So, my intention is to lean into God's empowering grace to become a holy man who demonstrates greater self-control. In the future, my prayer is that I could continue to speak with pithy edginess and candor that is also marked by grace and appropriate words. I obviously failed this time. Please forgive me and pray for me.
Mark Driscoll's blog – 03.27.06
Posted by rhett at 03:27 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
March 27, 2006
A couple of things for Monday....
Today is a vacation day for me as I have to get a bunch of stuff done before my third quarter of my grad program begins tomorrow. Agghhhh. Nothing like putting stuff off until the last minute.
First, I am super excited for my college students in our ministry as UCLA is in the Final Four (about 60%-70% of my students attend UCLA). It was awesome talking to some college students who were at the games over the weekend. I remember those days....ugh....oh right, I don't remember those days since I went to a small, Southern Baptist, liberal arts university of 1,500 students. I hope UCLA wins. I remember after USC lost the national football championship....the USC students were pretty depressed for quite a while when they returned to our group. In fact, they still might be depressed. I hope for better results this time around.
Second, don't forget to give in to your obsessive complusive disorders, and go straight to Library Thing and begin to start cataloging your library. Addicting.
Third, speaking of books and authors. I am addicted to the writings of the novelist Susan Howatch. Especially her Starbridge Series on the Church of England which involves the books: Glittering Images, Absolute Truths, Mystical Paths, Ultimate Prizes, Scandalous Risks and Glamorous Powers. They are phenomenal. I have read all of them at least three times, and I am on my fourth time around with Glittering Images and Absolute Truths. They have been some of the most spiritually transforming books that I have read. For those of you have not read these books, I highly recommend them. Not your typical reading for many Christians as they are pretty gritty and raw books, as they paint clergymen in the real struggle of serving God as they struggle with their own vices and sins. Real life. But some have struggled seeing clergymen portrayed in this way....as if they don't struggle in life as well.
Fourth, I am going to be spending a lot of time the next two months blogging about college students, but specifically the transition from college, to life afterwards. Many of my students are in that position and graduation is approaching quickly. So expect many posts on these issues, but I also would like some input from you all. If you have any advice; anecdotal stuff; Biblical/spiritual wisdom; things you wish you knew then, etc....anything that in hindsight you would tell a graduating college student about life after college/careers/following God, etc., then please send me an email. I would like to gather some thoughts, and post them along with a link to your blog, etc. I am hoping to pull Chris Gonzalez into this as well since he is a college pastor.
Have a great Monday.......
Posted by rhett at 07:32 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 25, 2006
book addiction...
Thanks for nothing Mike. I just spent about 5 hours logging on all my books at home after I saw this at your site. It is addicting. Logged about 300 at home. Which scares me, because the majority of my books are at work. Yikes. A piece at a time.
But this really is a great tool. Not only do I know what books I have, I can also go through and clean out my library.
Posted by rhett at 05:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 24, 2006
The Centennial Anniversary of the Pentecostal Movement....
I don't have any thoughts on this issue right now, but I know it is going to be a huge topic of conversation very shortly as the Centennial Anniversary of the Azusa Street Revival is approaching on April 25-29 in Los Angeles. It is not only going to be a huge topic of conversation, but our city is going to be very busy and crowded during those days.
I was in the Fuller bookstore today and all the books out on the new display were dealing with the Pentecostal/Charamastic Movement.
Here are some interesting facts and statistics in Christianity Today, Pentecostals: The Sequel
Posted by rhett at 07:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 23, 2006
Question regarding the post below....
After talking with a friend I am wondering this: Can Christian/Church communities who hold "complementarian" views, and Christian/Church communities who hold "egalatarian" views, come together and work, and minister, and evangelize, and glorify God?
I would hope so, but I'm wondering if this issue keeps many communities from working together as they struggle over how that looks.
Posted by rhett at 11:10 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 22, 2006
Gender Equality, Gender Roles and Women in Ministry: Should this really still be an issue in the Church? Miroslav Volf as an opposing view to those of Tim Challies, John MacArthur and others...
Chapter IV of Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace is outstanding. It is titled "Gender Identity" and deals with the issue of "Trinitarian Identities" and how that plays itself out in regards to "masculinity" and "femininity." Volf has covered every base of this issue, and has dealt with all the arguments and all the major scholars. It is a great piece of writing. I will get to this later in the post.
This chapter is of great interest to me, especially as I have seen the topic of gender identity, manhood and womanhood, Biblical roles, etc. disccussed a lot in various blogs recently.
I noticed that blogger Tim Challies spent a lot of time talking about the Shepherd's Conference where Ligon Duncan from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood spoke. Tim also posts a blog titled The Extraordinary Value of Women, though after reading it, it seems more of an argument for how women are only extraordinary as long as they are subservient to men. Challies says, "The message these women collectively give is not about "gender equality"; it is about true feminine excellence." Though you should read it yourself. Challies is a great blogger and many agree with him on these issues. Returning to the Shepherd's Conference, Challies says this: "MacArthur suggested, when introducing the speaker, that few Evangelicals are aware of the importance of this issue."
Is this really an issue? Maybe many are aware of the issue, but really see it as a non-issue?
It's an issue according to Challies because Our culture is now completely egalitarian and this poses a particular challenge to the church. Christians can no longer be assumed to be instinctively complementarian. On the other hand, we look out at the culture and see even the sons of this age wiser than the next. Another conflicting indicator we get is the infringement of egalitarianism into Evangelicalism. The lines are becoming increasingly blurred so that we now have people claiming to be complementarian egalitarians.
To read more of MacArthur's views on women in ministry, you can read this Q and A here. Here is an excerpt:
As a footnote to that, perhaps it ought to be said that from a biblical standpoint, there is no tolerance in Scripture for women leaders in the church, apart from women leading other women--older women teaching younger women and leading their children and so forth.
It is so patently obvious that God created Adam and that Eve was made as a helper to Adam. So, man and woman were designed in the way that man leads and a woman helps, and comes under his leadership. What literally sent the human race down the proverbial drain was when woman stepped out from under submission, acted independently and sinned, taking the male role by leading. Man then, went under woman. He wasn't even deceived! He just sinned because his wife sinned.
Obvioulsy the Biblical viewpoint that I take on this issue of gender is the egalitarian position. Probably one of the biggest reasons I chose Fuller Theological Seminary was because of its diversity. Not just diversity of race, but because of the extraordinary number of women on campus as well. It was not just a campus of young, white men, studying to be pastors (of which I was one of those), but it was a place where women came to study and be prepared for the pastorate as they followed God's calling in their lives.
To really take a hard look at this issue of gender, I recommend Volf's book. Here is an excerpt:
So far my argument about gender identity has consisted of two basic claims and one suggestion. I have claimed that (1) the content of the gender identity is rooted in the sexed body and negotiated in the social exchange between men and women within a given cultural context, and that (2) the portrayals of God in no way provide models of what it means to be male or female. I suggested, instead, that the relations between the Trinitarian persons serve as a model for how the content of "masculinity" and "femininity" ought to be negotiated in the social process. Before I explore in what sense the relations between the divine persons can serve as a model, I need to attend to a possible objection.
It could be objected that my proposal is inadmissibly formal. I have formally rooted gender identity in the sexed body and in the interaction between men and women, and am about to suggest how this interaction should take place. The content of gendery identity is left unspecified; anything seems to go. Granted that this content cannot stem from who God is, the objection could continue, should Christians not seek to determine it by listening to what the Bible says? Should we not analyze the biblical statements about men and women, try to reconstruct biblical "manhood" and "womanhood," and apply it in contemporary contexts? Without denying that we can learn much from men and women in the Bible, I propose that such an approach would be mistaken. Biblical "womanhood" and "manhood"--if there are such things at all, given the diversity of male and female characters and roles that we encounter in the Bible--are not divinely sanctioned models but culturally situated examples; they are accounts of the successes and failures of men and women to live out the demands of God on their lives within specific settings. This is not to say that the biblical construals of what men and women (of what men and women as men and women) should or should not do and be are wrong, but that they are of limited normative value in a different cultural context, since they are of necessity laden with specific cultural beliefs about gender identity and roles.
(Volf, pp. 181-182)
Also, no one is not acknowledging the fact that there are differences between male and female. That we are created differently. But this in no way undermines or threatens their equality and interdependence to one another. In fact, Miroslav Volf summarizes Judith Gundry-Volf's (yes, her name is hyphenated as I'm sure that is alarming to some of you) position, stating:
Paul has two readings of creation in I Corinthians 11 (Gundry-Volf 1997): the one from the perspective of the patriarchal culture, which finds hierarchy in creation (vv. 8-9), and the other from the perspective of the new life in Christ, which finds equality in creation (v. 12). Paul's second way erases the difference between genders, as Boyarin suggests. Since woman is "from" man and man is "through" woman, Paul agrues, they are "not without" each other (v. 12). The prepositions "from" and "through" both draw attention back to Genesis 2 and in addition suggest the ideas of begetting ("from") and birthing ("through"). "In the Lord, " difference of the sexed bodies is not erased; to the contrary, this difference grounds the interdependence of men and women.
I want to thank the many women that I have had the opportunity to serve with in ministry and whom I continue to serve with today.
For further reading on this issue:
Read Judith Gundry-Volf's article in Sojourner's Magazine, titled, "Neither Biblical Nor Just: Southern Baptists and the Subordination of Women."
Read the site for The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and for an opposing view, read the site for Christians for Biblical Equality.
And for a viewpoint that I disagree with, read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism by Wayne Grudem and John Piper.
On a completey side-note, I do find it interesting that many that oppose women in ministry use the "loaded" word feminism or feminists to class everything and anything under that is at all related to women in ministry.
Biblical equality, gender equality, egalitarian, Miroslav Volf, women in ministry, church
Posted by rhett at 09:53 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
March 21, 2006
seminary students and the pastorate....
Studies Show Increase of Seminarians, Decrease of Pastoral Graduates
HT: Smart Christian
Interesting.
1. I didn't go to seminary to go into the ministry. I went to pursue a master's degree, so that I could pursue a doctorate, so that I could be a seminary professor. Plans changed though.
2. I know more and more seminary students myself who are coming for personal benefit or for more knowledge, rather than taking it into vocational ministry.
3. The age of seminarians has seemed to drop a lot recently. This is not based on any research. I and my friends have just noticed how the students around Fuller have been more and more people who are coming right out of college. Apparently, back in the day, the young single guy or girl, straight out of college in seminary was more of a minority. Is that true? I don't know.
If you went to seminary, what were your reasons? Pastoral ministry? Professorship? Gain knowledge? Etc.
Posted by rhett at 10:42 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
Discipline vs. ADHD in blogging....
The title makes it sound like this is going to be a fascinating post, but really it's just an observation.
Mark Roberts is a very disciplined blogger. He has got a great series on "The Antiquity and Reliability of the NT Gospels" which is in connection with his postings on the Da Vinci Code.
I'm just so ADHD in my blogging that I have a hard time staying on task, or on one topic.
That's all I have to say.
Posted by rhett at 10:36 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 20, 2006
Being shaped by Volf....
I am being profoundly shaped by Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. And Miroslav Volf, who studied under Jurgen Moltmann is becoming one of my favorite theologians to read. The sheer amount of material and diversity of scholars that he interacts with is unbelievable.
As I read through Exclusion and Embrace they are so many amazing parts, but there is one section of the book titled "The Open Arms of the Father" where Volf writes on the "prodigal son" in Luke 15:11-32. The story of the "prodigal son" is written about by many people, and one of my favorite reflections on the passage is by Henri Nouwen in the book Return of the Prodigal Son.
But in Volf's book I am really being impacted by his understanding of "excluding" and "embracing." And not just impacted, but challenged in ways that I have not previously been challenged in my Christianity.
I can not give you all the background of the book because there is just too much, so the following quote is a long one, and you are just going to have to eventually read the book yourself, since no quote that I post can do the book justice. But here is Volf on the "prodigal son."
What is so profoundly different about the "new order" of the father is that it is not built around the alternatives as defined by the older brother: either strict adherence to the rules or disorder and disintegration; either you are "in" or you are "out," depending on whether you have or have not broken a rule. He rejected this alternative because his behavior was governed by the one fundamental "rule": relationship has priority over all rules. Before any rule can apply, he is a father to his sons and his sons are brothers to one another. The reason for celebration is that "this son of mine" (v.24) and "this brother of yours" (v.32) has been found and has come alive again. Notice the categorical difference between how the father and how the older brother interpret the prodigal's life in the "distant country." The older brother employs moral categories and constructs his brother's departure along the axis of "bad/good" behavior: the brother has "devoured your property with prostitutes" (v.30). The father, though keenly aware of the moral import of his younger son's behavior, employs relational categories and constructs his son's departure along the axis of "lost/found" and "alive (to him)/dead (to him)." Relationship is prior to moral rules; moral performances may do something to the relationship, but relationship is not grounded in moral performance. Hence the will to embrace is independent of the quality of behavior, though at the same time "repentance," "confession," and the "consequences of one's actions" all have their own proper place. The profound wisdom about the priority of the relationship, and not some sentimental insanity, explains the father's kind of "prodigality" to both of his sons.
For the father, the priority of the relationship means not only a refusal to let moral rules be the final authority regulating "exclusion" and "embrace" but also a refusal to construct his own identity in isolation from his sons. He readjusts his identity along with the changing identities of his sons and thereby reconstructs their broken identities and relationships. He suffers being "un-fathered" by both, so that through this suffering he may regain both as his sons (if the older brother was persuaded) and help them rediscover each other as brothers. Refusing the alternatives of "self-constructed" vs. "imposed" identities, difference vs. domestication, he allows himself to be taken on the journey of their shifting identities so that he can continue to be their father and they, each other's brothers. Why does he not lose himself on the journey? Because he is guided by indestructible love and supported by a flexible order.
Flexible order? Changing identities? The world of fixed rules and stable identities is the world of the older brother. The father destabilizes this world--and draws his older son's anger upon himself. The father's most basic commitment is not to rules and given identities but to his sons whose lives are too complex to be regulated by fixed rules and whose identitites are too dynamic to be defined once for all. Yet he does not give up the rules and the order. Guided by the indestructible love which makes space in the self for others in their alterity, which invites the others who have trangressed to return, which creates hospitable conditions for their confession, and rejoices over their presence, the father keeps re-configuring the order without destroying it so as to maintain it as an order of embrace rather than exclusion. (pp.164-165)
Posted by rhett at 06:38 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
my blogging friend....
Here is just one reason why I like reading Brent Thomas's blog. Though he and I disagree on a lot of theological stuff (we email about this on occassion), he has a blog that moves outside of just straight theology which I sometimes fail to do. Brent thinks critically about a lot of issues, and I especially enjoy reading his reviews of musical artists because I know he has done his homework. And though our musical styles may differ as well, he gives good reason for his opinions. By the way Brent. The U2 show in Los Angeles (both in 2001 and 2005) were amazing. Some of the best shows I have seen. But I see what you are saying in regards to pushing creativity and the genre.
Posted by rhett at 02:26 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
the intersection of faith, theology and entertainment...
Come out to Bel Air on Wednesday night and check out this stellar panel discussion on The Ten Commandments: Law and Love?
Posted by rhett at 02:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 19, 2006
Ads offer to swap rent for sex
Posted by rhett at 11:41 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
so you are looking for a job, huh?
You know what I was saying on my last post....well, look what I found over at Drudge this morning.
What a tangled Web we weave: Being Googled can jeopardize your job search
Posted by rhett at 11:35 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 17, 2006
my space and online communities as a way to screen someone before hiring...
My friend Phil who works for YWAM and who has a great blog, posted this comment below regarding myspace.
Funny Rhett, this is kinda the way I picture you when I read all your posts. You are much more stylish. Good post on the myspace. It is a good way for us to do research on our incoming staff.
Phil
Why do I mention it? Because of the last sentence: "It is a good way for us to do research on our incoming staff."
This is what I think many people don't get. That what they write and publish is accessible to every one. Now maybe they don't care. But I think more than naught, they just aren't thinking long term.
For example: Whatever I publish may affect what churches or organizations will want to hire me down the road because of my theological views.
And what people put on their blogs, MySpace's, etc. could keep them from certain opportunities, and may open up others as well.
But I know that before I hire any interns, etc., I get online to see if I can find a blog, or My Space from them . That is how I pre-screen often.
I also had very recently, a very successful business person and public figure tell me, that pretty soon, most businesses will be pulling up people's profiles online, and will use that as determining factor in whether or not to interview or hire someone.
I know when you are 16 or 18, you might not be thinking too far down the road. But you should.
Posted by rhett at 01:22 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
St. Patrick's Day....
I know few people may think of St. Patrick's Day as anything more than drinking green beer and wearing green clothes so as to avoid getting pinched at work.....or is that a different holiday? Anyways, there really is someone amazing behind this holiday.
To read up on the amazing life of the man for whom we celebrate this holiday, read here about St. Patrick. It is quite a story. I remember studying him in Church History and it reads like some movie Mel Gibson should be directing.
To read the beautiful prayer of St. Patrick, known as the "St. Patrick Breast Plate", read here.
Posted by rhett at 12:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 16, 2006
Hah........
This would be even more funny if it wasn't so true. i find myself talking about how much TV some people watch. But, then I forget, oh right, I'm in front of the computer screen all the time. Yikes!
Posted by rhett at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
My Space?
I am with Dustin on this issue regarding My Space.
I think My Space is a great idea. And I think every great idea can be used in a beneficial way, as well as a destructive way.
As someone who works with youth, all be it, college students, who are technically adults, I am still concerned about what I see going on in My Space. I am concerned about the "stalker" element that is lurking out there, especially in regards to pedophilia. We have seen this issue hit the news a lot recently as some young girls have been lured into meeting these people in person. I have seen a lot of young people become uknowingly exploited and it concerns me.
I am also concerned with what I see in regards to people living two very different, and often not very congruent lives. One that is in person. And one that is online. Many act as if they are anonymous because they are online, though nothing could be farther from the truth. The online personality often participates in behavior that they would not normally do in person. Very interesting.
On the other hand I applaud the many Christians and ministries who have My Space accounts as I think their voice needs to be in all corners and places of this world.
But I still feel like My Space can start off innocent for many people and then without the proper discernment and maturity, one can easily be led astray.
I could talk about this issue all day. But I guess in the end, my concern is how we will handle this situation in the future. Never before have we seen this explosion of online community, and it presents issues and problems that one may have not forseen. So without policing people, how do we put measures in our online communities that can protect the innocent, and those who may not have the proper maturity to make wise decisions.
In the meantime this is something we will all wrestle with, and it doesn't just concern My Space, though that is getting all the attention. This issue extends into all corners and markets of online communities.
Posted by rhett at 01:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 15, 2006
a lot of post-emergent talk on the blogs these days...
Aaron Flores on Post-Emerging Church: The Integral Church
I think Aaron has a really great post on this topic, as you will see at the end of my post. I am wondering just how comfortable anyone ever is being "lableled" within certain church movements, denominations, theological strands, etc., when you know there are always people that are a part of it that you don't agree with, whether it's a strong or mild disagreement. Some come to the place where they are no longer content with where the movement has come to, and want to push forward, while others stay in it. When a term becomes a catch-all for everything it no longer defines or holds the truths or ideas that it at one point had set out to do. Hence, Andy Jackson coining the term emergentising.
The reality is that some who hold Reformed views don't like everything coming out of the Reformed camp. Some who are Southern Baptist don't like everything coming out the Southern Baptist camp. Some who are PCUSA don't like everything coming out of the PCUSA camp. Aaron is not saying this as you will see in the post below, but I think we all wrestle with how we are identified by others. And being a Christian means we are going to be identified in many ways...some that we find acceptable and some that we do not.
I still buy into what Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions says about paradigm shifts:
"The pre-paradigm period in particular, is regularly marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods, problems, and standards of solution, though they serve rather to define schools than to produce agreement.......Novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
I think that many in the "emergent" camp find themselves in this predicament as debates over methods, problems, solutions, etc. are being worked through. I think some embrace what is happening, while others do not find it sufficient, or that it speaks to what they originally had resonated with. I think that "emergent" is a step along the way towards a more fuller expression of what we may see in the Church in the future. What that will look like, I am not sure though. But I think "emergent" is only part of the growing pains of the Church as it wrestles with what it means to be the Church.A
Anyways...here's the real reason I posted. Below is Aaron's post:
I have to admit that I've been feeling a bit, more and more, post-emergent. Others have their reasons, but mine happen to be purely for the fact that "emerging/emergent church" means so many things to so many different people that I no longer feel comfortable identifying myself as easily part of it. On the same note, I see a tremendous amount of worth in the conversation/movement and pray the emerging church is an impetus to something more.
When asked if my church is an emerging church, I generally say "No or Maybe." It just depends on what someone means by emerging church and then even if I agree with their definition, "Maybe" is the best answer they'll get. I responded the other day to someone that we are a balance between the contemporary and emerging. Not all that true either. We are really not at all contemporary. It is just, I do not know how to explain and at the same time seeking to be more holistic to past and present expressions of Christianity.
Perhaps, I have a vision for being an Integral Church and maybe, this is what some of us mean by being post-emerging. Integral means comprehensive, inclusive, nonmarginalizing, embracing. An integral approach to Christian spirituality is inclusive of as many perspectives, styles, methodologies, orthodoxies, traditions, etc. as possible within a "coherent view." I wrestle with the possibility that there are only two paradigms for being the Church - the old vs. the new. In this way, integral approaches or expressions of Church can be "meta-paradigms', or ways to draw together an already existing number of separate paradigms into an interrelated network of approaches that are mutually enriching." (Thought As Passion)
post-emergent, ministry, church, theology, paradigm shifts
Posted by rhett at 11:47 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Donald Miller and Derek Webb...
Joe Thorn has a great summary of the Donald Miller and Derek Webb online chat.
HT: Steve McCoy
Joe says:
The men did not come off as whiny liberals who are only trying to fight against authority. They came off as men who are trying to think their way through Scripture as they follow Jesus into the world. Their basic theology is evangelical with some Reformed hat-tipping. Even if you disagree with them, they just aren't what they are painted to be by some of the critics.
As someone who has been a big fan of Donald Miller for a long time I totally agree with this assessment. When we had Don speak at our college group last October I found much of the same discussion. Don was concerned with how lopsided discussion in the United States has often become especially when it comes to issues of war, peace, poverty, etc. And though some of his comments were hard to swallow for my students, overall they appreciated a different perspective. And then there were the students who resonate with Miller and his ideas quite a bit, but often are afraid to speak up in a college group that is primarily conservative.
Posted by rhett at 11:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 14, 2006
Internet means end for media barons, says Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch last night sounded the death knell for the era of the media baron, comparing today's internet pioneers with explorers such as Christopher Columbus and John Cabot and hailing the arrival of a "second great age of discovery".
Posted by rhett at 06:53 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 13, 2006
Derek Webb and Donald Miller are having an online chat Tuesday night.
Posted by rhett at 11:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
This is a great post by Musings of a Postmodern Negro
It has me thinking about:
1. The lack of diversity on my own site, from the things I write about, to the bloggers I list, etc.
2. Makes me wonder just how limited my cultural experience is here in the United States.
3. Makes me wonder about how lopsided and skewed the lens through which I view the Bible and theology might and can be.
Posted by rhett at 11:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Easter at the Hollywood Bowl
it's official.....my church, Bel Air Presbyterian Church is having our Easter Service at The Hollywood Bowl in Los Angeles.
Posted by rhett at 05:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
1. Dennis Quaid Says He's Battling 'Manorexia'
As a college pastor it is inevitable that you will come into contact with eating disorders in your ministry, but that is usally in regards to the females in the ministry, i.e. anorexia nervosa, bulimia. I thought this article was interesting as I have recently seen an increase of eating disorders in the male population in college. It can range from things such as what Dennis Quaid describes, or often takes on a more "socially acceptable" form such as guys participating in extreme dieting, etc., in order to achieve the perfect body, i.e. abs.
This might need to be something I will need to blog about here in the future as eating disorders are often overlooked and ignored in college ministry as there is often a lot of shame and embarrassment attached to them.
2. And Mark Driscoll on The Megachurch Report
Posted by rhett at 01:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 12, 2006
Is it possible for a major Hollywood studio to make a $50 million movie in which the hero is a terrorist? A terrorist who appears wearing the dynamite waistcoat of a suicide bomber, and who utters the line-- from beneath a full-face wooden mask that he never takes off --"Blowing up a building can change the world"? A movie written and produced by the Wachowski brothers, the cyberauteurs who created The Matrix? Starring Natalie Portman, shaved as bald as Demi Moore in G.I. Jane?
These are not rhetorical questions. V for Vendetta, set for mid-March release in most markets, is that movie, and it is the most bizarre Hollywood production you will see (or refuse to see) this year. It's the kind of film that makes you ask questions like, Who thought this was a good idea?
Posted by rhett at 07:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 11, 2006
Volf on exclusion....
In all wars, whether large or small, whether carried out on battlefields, city streets, living rooms, or faculty lounges, we come across the same basic exclusionary polarity: "us against them," "their gain--our loss, " "either us or them." The stronger the conflict, the more the rich texture of the social world disappears and the stark exclusionary polarity emerges around which all thought and practice aligns itself. No other choice seems available, no neutrality possible, and therefore no innocence sustainable. If one does not exit that whole social world, one gets sucked into its horrid polarity. Tragically enough, over time the polarity has a macabre way of mutating into its very opposite--into "both us and them" that unites the divided parties in a perverse communion of mutual hate and mourning over the dead.
..........There may indeed be situations in which "there is no choice," though we should not forget that to destroy the other rather than to be destroyed oneself is itself a choice. In most cases, however, the choice is not constrained by an inescapable "either us or them." If there is will, courage and imagination the stark polarity can be overcome. Those caught in the vortex of mutual exclusion can resist its pull, rediscover their common belonging, even fall into each other's arms. People with conflicting interests, clashing perspectives, and differing cultures can avoid sliding into the cycle of escalating violence and instead maintain bonds, even make their life together flourish.
Miroslav Volf, Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, (pp.99-100)
Posted by rhett at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 09, 2006
saw this today
HT: Mike DeVries and HT: Radical Congruency
Posted by rhett at 06:55 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
March 07, 2006
Phil Johnson's critique of the "emergent church"....and how those who hold different opinions seem to be labeled as lacking clarity or Truth.
Emergent No has recently posted a full-length presentation by Phil Johnson on the "emerging church", which he gave at the Shepherds' Conference at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, CA. His presentation was titled, "Absolutely Not! A critical look at the emerging church movement".
Phil begins his talk with the statement:
I don't suppose anyone who knows me expects me to be very positive about the emerging church movement. I'd love to stand up here and spend the first half hour or so listing features of the emerging church that I think are admirable. I do think there are actually a few valid and important points being made by people in the movement, and I'll get to them, but I'd rather not start there, if you don't mind.
My goal in this hour is not to persuade people who are already sold on the emergent idea that it's a bad idea. My aim is to help conservative pastors of established churches who are committed to biblical principles by making you aware of some of the things that are going on in the so-called emerging church movement. And I hope to explain why I believe it is worth the struggle to resist these trends. Because you will invariably be confronted with pressure to embrace some of the philosophy and style of the emergent movement in your own ministries. And judging from what I know of church history--especially recent church history--it will be a difficult struggle for some pastors to resist.
(By the way, I realize it would be very stylish if I took the other approach. If I gave you an ambiguous review and a totally dispassionate analysis, so that when I finished you couldn't actually be sure whether I think the emerging movement is a good thing or not, that would fit perfectly with the postmodern paradigm favored by emergent types. And I'm sure a lot of them would congratulate me for it. But that would not reflect my own honest perspective, and I'd prefer just to be totally frank with you. So that's what I'm going to do.)
Phil Johnson said this about me on his blog on July 29:
Rhett Smith is the very model of a postmodern college minister. It's interesting to watch him wrestle with evangelical faddism from the paradigm of a young emerging church leader.
So since he has labeled me postmodern it really isn't going to matter much what I have to say. Obviously that wasn't a compliment on his part, but I took it as one. If Phil liked my theological views I would've probably have been as concerned about falling into the fundamentalism camp with him, as he would have been about appearing to be postmodern.
With that being said, I want to say upfront that Phil is very, very smart and I am a consistent reader of his blog. I also think that he has done a lot of research on the "emering church" and I think that is evidenced by his knowledge and resources in his presentation. But with that being said, I would like to look at a few of his thoughts and critiques. (Notice the lack of ambiguity in my statement, and my passionate analysis? So does that make me postmodern, or post-post modern, or modern? )
Full-disclosure. My own experience with the "emerging church" is this. I have been to two of the conferences in San Diego. I have had Donald Miller come and speak to our college group this last year, though he isn't really "emergent" (but more on that later). I have read the literature, though funny enough, I have read very little McClaren, but rely more heavily on the research, writing and work being done by people like Fuller professors Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs, and retired Fuller professor Ray Anderson, whose new book, "Emerging Theology for the Emerging Church will be released this summer.
Background. I was raised in a non-denominational Bible church, went to a Souther Baptist college, did my M.Div. at Fuller and am working on my M.F.T. there, and I work at Bel Air Pres and am "under care" to be ordained in the P.C.U.S.A.
College ministry. I happen to work with college students from UCLA, USC, LMU and other surrounding schools. And even in my four and half years as the head college director at The Quest, I have seen a shift away from a very classical apologetical approach to theology, to a more postmodern, incarnational type apologetic in theology. We experiment with aesthetics and music and styles of preaching and teaching. If that's what one calls "emergent" than I suppose that's what I do on occasion. But I rather see it as the beginning of a paradigm shift in the church, which is the beginning point in the process of reform. And I also see it as an attempt to be open to grow and learn and be challenged, rather than opening ourselves up to relativism, "narcissism" and "man-centered worship" as Johnson puts it.
So upfront, let me say that I hardly fit or work in what Phil would describe as an "emergent church." But I do think that the "emergent conversation/movement" is an important one and that there are some good things that are coming out of it and that can be learned. Like any church denomination, or non-denomination, or movement, things can be pushed to either extreme which isn't usually helpful.
Phil begins by saying this about the word "emerging" and its relation to the movement:
Emerging. In the first place, I object to the implications of the word emerging. This movement is not some beautiful new butterfly coming out of a cocoon. Although people in this movement sometimes claim to represent the next great step forward after the failure of modernism, my assessment would be that what we are really seeing here is the collective dying gasp of every major modernist idea evangelicals and fundamentalists have stood against for the past century and a half.
Virtually all the literature, style, and philosophy associated with the emerging subculture are shot through with conspicuous elements of worldliness, man-centered worship, the narcissism of youth, liberal and neo-orthodox theology, and the silly, ages-old campaign to be "contemporary" at all costs.
I agree with Phil in that this is not some "beautiful new butterfly coming out of the cocoon", but I do think it is something new in the way of a paradigm shift. And paradigm shifts are never usually beautfiful and seamless, but rather are messy and confusing and difficult. Thomas Kuhn in his seminal work on paradigm shifts, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions observes the following:
"The pre-paradigm period in particular, is regularly marked by frequent and deep debates over legitimate methods, problems, and standards of solution, though they serve rather to define schools than to produce agreement.......Novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."
I think that the "emerging church" represents part of this paradigm shift, and whether it's pre-paradigm or not, I'm not sure. There are always forerunners in the process of reforming. Martin Luther, had forerunners who had attempted reform such as John Wyclif and John Hus. But it was Martin Luther whose attempts at reform were ripened and came to fruition with invention of Johann Gutenberg's printing press. And please note, I'm not comparing the "emerging church'' to those involved in the Reformation, but am simply making a point about the progression and stages along the way in paradigm shifting and reforming. Phil and his blogging allegiance would become squeamish at the thought of the "emerging church" being a catalyst for reform in the church, and I'm sure that would also work vice-versa.
Phil continues:
Church. Second, questions have also been raised from within the movement itself about whether it's really appropriate to speak of "the emerging church." Brian McLaren is without question the leading American figure and most prolific writer in the movement. He said last summer that he now prefers to speak of the emerging "conversation."
I see what Phil is getting at here and so I'm not going to argue on this point. But rather, from my own standpoint, I do see this as more of a "conversation", and not in an attempt to avoid clarity (as Phil might think), but rather as an attempt to debate, discuss and move towards some clarity on certain issues. Clarity on issues cannot be reached unless conversation and dialogue is part of that process. And as Kuhn points out, the pre-paradigm shift is where the struggle over problems, methods and solutions exist. Conversation is about addressing these problems, methods and solutions. In my own experience in attending conferences and reading the literature and visting "emerging" churches, etc., I believe that "emergent" is less of a "church movement" and more about the conversation that is helping churches bring clarity to the qualities that they believe the church should possess. What's also funny is that just because I have "emergent voices" on my blog, or talk about "emergent" things, I am often quickly labeled as an "emergent." Can one not have a conversation and dialogue with people who hold other views? Can one not respect and admire and think that other people's views are worthy, without necessarily buying into all of it?
Phil continues:
Movement. That's not all. In some important ways the emerging subculture is not really even a movement in the classic sense. There are no clear leaders or universally-recognized spokespersons who would be affirmed by everyone associated with the emerging church. The closest to a dominant figure would be Brian McLaren, and he is so controversial and so prone to making disturbing statements that many who have adopted the emerging style or otherwise identified with the emergent movement say they don't want their ministries or opinions to be evaluated by what he says. And I don't blame them.
I agree with Phil on this point that there are not really any clear leaders or universally-recognized spokepersons, though he points to McClaren as being the most dominant figure. And as he will mention later on, I do think this is intentional and that "emergent" has resisted the attempts to define itself. But this resistance for definition is also what I have liked about "emergent" because I feel that the "conversation" is very important right now, and any attempts to define in order to please the critics can be premature. Many people are uncomfortable with undefined boundaries and no clear definitions. One, because I think it makes them unable to pin-point someone down, and therefore, give them the ability to exclude. Two, it doesn't give them the "ammunition" that critics need to criticize and tear down. "Emergent" is not about being undefined forever, but I believe it is about being undefined until more clarity and agreement of solutions can be reached.
There are no clear-cut leaders in this movement, and what I find most interesting, is that those who are often labeled as "emergent" have never said a word about "emergent" or have ever been really involved in the movement/conversation. (i.e. Donald Miller and Rob Bell to name a couple of them). They may be linked with "emergent" because their views, approach and theology resonate with "emergent", "postmodern" types, but they don't fly the flag of "emergent." Miller is a writer and Bell is the pastor of one of the largest and fastest growing churches in America.
Phil goes on to define "emergent" in parts, but I want to close by looking at his three concerns with "emergent." Phil writes:
1. It fosters contempt for authority. The New Testament idea of church government is not anarchy. It's not even democracy or mobocracy. The church is certainly not supposed to be the sort of populist organization where everyone has an equal voice in everything that happens.
I think Phil is both right and wrong about this statement. Right, because I do think the "emerging church" has attracted a certain populace that is attracted to anarchy and the overthrowing of authority. I only need to talk to some of my friends in "emerging churches" to know that this problem exists. I don't think it's unique to the "emerging church" though, but rather the "emerging church" doesn't have the structure to quell anti-authoritarian behavior that the more established churches have. Here I am mainly speaking of the congregation, but I know Phil is probably thinking of the leaders. I know there is some contempt for authority in the "emerging church" that exists in leadership positions in various churches, but again, how is that unique to the "emerging church" movement? But I also would not confuse someone disagreeing with Phil's theological stance as contempt for authority.
Andrew Jones on February 10th said this:
The third wave, says MacArthur is the emergent church movement that he characterizes as believing the Bible is "hopelessly ambiguous"and avoiding debate with anyone except people like himself -who apparently-are the only people true to the Scriptures. [I feel a third book coming on] MacArthur believes the main threat comes from a lack of clarity regarding the Scriptures--that the Bible has never been clear (his take on MacLaren) or is only NOW clear (his take on N.T. Wright) rather than a MacArthurite Absolute Clarity, as expressed when he states in his presentation . . .
"We have the mind of Christ, We know EXACTLY how he thinks!"
I find that statements such as these made by MacArthur reflect the idea that anyone who disagrees, or whose line of thinking is different, is out of line, or is in contempt of the Biblical authority that he possesses. Earlier in Jones' post he says this of MacArthur:
John MacArthur Jnr has been describing the emergent church as the 3rd wave of movements that threaten our clarity of the Scriptures. The first two waves, according to MacArthur were the charasmatic momement (which he tackled in "Charasmatic Chaos" [see also Vineyard Response to Charasmatic Chaos .pdf, and this letter] and the Seeker Movement (which he confronted in "Ashamed of the Gospel").
So am I right in assumming that John Macarthur for example, believes that anyone who disagrees with him is in contempt of authority since he states that we have the mind of Christ and knows what He thinks? If that is true, then why is MacArthur's opinion more valid than any other Christian or pastor's opinion?
I think there is also fear in the more established churches over the "emergent church" because they are afraid of their own authority and position coming into question. I think "emergent" has less to do with "contempt for authority" than fear that the powerbrokers of evangelicalism and American theology could one day be possibly usurped. What is a seminary student or pastor to think, if Barna's thoughts in Revolution were to materialize, or the findings in Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures were to come to fruition? There would be a lot of shifting in the structure of the church. There would be a lot of pastors without jobs as they take up "tent ministries" alongside of their church work. There would be loss of power by those in power. When it comes to contempt for authority there is the flipside of those who fear losing authority.
Phil continues:
2. It breeds doubt about the perspicuity of Scripture. You understand the principle of perspicuity? It speaks of the clarity--the "understandability"--of the Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith says it like this: "All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, [so] that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them." Perspicuity. The Bible is not too hard for us to understand......
......This is a huge issue--in some ways the pivotal issue. The overwhelming message coming from the "emerging church movement" often sounds like a flat denial of the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. That is a denial of one of the basic tenets of biblical Christianity, Protestant history, and evangelical conviction.
Hey, there are some things coming out of some of the "emergent" camps that I disagree with, and I have heard some differing doctrine than mine and I have seen some differing practices as well. But there are also some things coming out of some of the other areas of the church that I disagree with. One issue I will name, but will not go into detail here, but will save for a later post. The exclusion of women in ministry, from the pastorate down. I see that as a denial of the clarity and perspicuity of Scripture. But I suppose you all saw that coming from a Fuller graduate and member of the P.C.U.S.A. Here is a topic of theology where different people have a different perspicuity of Scripture. Are we both wrong? Are we both right? Is it either/or? If I disagree with your view, than do I have contempt for authority? Does my view mean that I am postmodern and lack clarity of truth?
Phil continues:
3. It sows confusion about the mission of the church. I'lll just sum up my final point with this one observation: The "missional" emphasis in the "emerging church movement" seems to be entirely focused on an effort to adapt the church to the culture, with very little stress on the church's duty to proclaim a message of repentance and faith in Christ that calls men and women to forsake the world.....
.....The true mission of the church is embodied in the gospel message and the Great Commission. It is truth that demands to be proclaimed with clarity, and authority and conviction, and if you refuse to do that, even if you insist you are being "missional," you are not fulfilling the mission of the church at all.
I agree with Phil in the importance of the gospel message and the work of the Great Commission. But I also think that much of the disagreement between the "emerging church" and other parts of the church such as Phil's, is that Phil would prefer a clear-cut line. Such as, this is the mission of the church, and this is not. This is what a Christian looks like, and this is not. This is the way to interpret this passage, and this is not. This is clarity, and this is not. It's an either/or mentality that I think many fundamentalists or "modernists" or whatever, adhere to, and when things are not clear cut, it creates fear and confusion.
On the other hand, things cannot not always be without some semblence of structure or mission and some "emerging churches" lack this element, which I think drives other parts of the church crazy. But I also think the "emerging church" is in the beginning stages of formulating its mission as well.
Miroslav Volf in his remarkable book Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation looks at the work of Christian missiologist Paul Hiebert. Volf states:
"Christian" missiologist Paul Hiebert suggests that we make use of the mathematical categories of "bounded," "fuzzy," and "centered sets." Bounded sets function on the principle "either/or"; an apple is either an apple or it is not; it cannot be partly apple and partly a pear. Fuzzy sets, on the other hand, have no sharp boundaries; things are fluid with no stable point of reference and with various degrees of inclusion--as when a mountain merges into the plains. A centered set is defined by a center and the relationship of things to that center, by a movment toward or away from it. The category of "Christian," Hiebert suggests, should be understood as a centered set. A demarcation line exists, but the focus is not on "maintaining the boundary" but "on reaffirming the center." (Volf, pp. 71. n.3)
Conclusion: I think that the "emerging church" represents an element in the pre-paradigm shift of the church that is on its way. I think that because the "emerging church" is in this stage, conversation best suits the task and mission at hand, which is identifying the problems, developing methods and finding solutions. This shift has elements of ambiguousness that I believe makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but I also think it strikes fear in those who position for authority within the theological and ecclessial world. Others would prefer that the "emergent church" can be defined and controlled because it is easier then to either "exclude" or "embrace" to use the lingo of Volf. It makes it easier then for others to say, "those Christians, "the emerging" church, does not fit our categories of what it means to be Christian, and they are in contempt of authority and their orthodox is suspect." But like Hiebert's definition of a "centered set" which is a movement toward or away from the center and the relationship of things to it....I think the "emergent church" along with other denominations and churches hold Christ at the center, and don't do any less so because their methods, practices, worship and certain non-essentials of doctrine are different.
Christians usually cet up a circle in which they can decide who is in and who is out. That makes things easier and more clear cut for us. But to follow Christ is to draw people towards the center of the circle, towards Christ.
And last, as Phil indicated on a blog a while ago, he thinks I am the perfect example of a postmodern college pastor. Plus I think that such neo-orthodox theologians such as Barth and Bonhoeffer are brilliant, and I noticed he didn't seem to fond of neo-orthodoxy. So it would have been obvious from the outset that we hold different theological positions. And it would seem obvious that he would find my post all to ambiguous and lacking clarity to represent Truth. All that being said though, I do appreciate his intelligence and work ethic and his convictions by which he speaks. I think he made some good points that I could agree with, and some points that I disagree with.
May we all continue to move towards Christ, the center.
Technorati Tags: emergent, emerging church, Phil Johnson, Pyromaniac, Emergent No, Shepherd's Conference, Grace Community Church, John MacArthur, Andrew Jones, Miroslav Volf, Paul Hiebert, ministry, church, Thomas Kuhn,
Posted by rhett at 08:22 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
Prayer for India and its people...
India is a country that is close to my heart ever since I visted it following college graduation in 1997. It is one of the most amazing countries in the world and what I experienced over there was both breathtaking and tragic. I have more unbelievable stories from the things that I saw and experienced over there...things that I have never witnessed since, especially when it comes to spiritual warfare and the supernatural....the topics that we don't often discuss over here in the United States. One of my most memorable days was being in the city of Calcutta on the day that Mother Theresa's funeral procession was making its way through town. I remember being in her orphanage that day and seeing firsthand the unbelievable conditions that she ministered so faithfully in for so many years. I remember driving through town as her funeral procession made its way through the city with both rich and poor, famous and unknown, following closely behind it.
I am asking you to be in prayer for the country of India and its people. I just received some phone calls from my brother who was just there for a couple of weeks with Hopegivers Inernational with his church Frontline in the Washington D.C. Metro Area/VA. He has asked me if I could post something to remind us all to be in prayer for India, a country that is under considerable persecution, especially the Christians who are sufferring a great deal for being faithful to the Word of Jesus Christ. Recently, one of the orphanages that my brother was working with has come under considerable persecution and attack and many of the children have been kidnapped. Some of the information is highly sensitive and confidential as many people's lives are in danger, but please check out Persecution.org, which is the International Christian Human Rights Organization. Please visit this site, and go to the left side bar and click on "sign petition."
Please be in prayer for these people, and many others who suffer for what we most often take for granted on a daily basis.
Posted by rhett at 05:33 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 05, 2006
The dying of the big events in our culture.....do we see an effect on the church?
Oscars Foundering in Era of Niches is an interesting article in Sunday's Los Angeles Times. Here are some quotes:
But the problem with the Oscars is more deeply rooted than just public lack of interest in the nominees. Ratings are crumbling for the Oscars, and award shows in general, because the Era of the Mass Event is drawing to a close........
We are now a nation of niches. There are still blockbuster movies, hit TV shows and top-selling CDs, but fewer events that capture the communal pop culture spirit. The action is elsewhere, with the country watching cable shows or reading blogs that play to a specific audience......
There is another, even more radical shift in today's pop culture that is helping to undermine the Oscars and other tradition-bound award shows. For years, the Oscars have mattered because the awards served as a barometer of cultural heft. Just the name alone--the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences--has the air of high-minded authority.
Millions of moviegoers who would've been wary of seeing a challenging film like 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" or 1999's "American Beauty" caved in and plunked their money down, soothed by the academy's best picture badge of distinction.
But this elite, top-down culture is being supplanted by a raucous, participatory bottom-up culture in which amateur entertainment has more appeal than critically endorsed skill and expertise.......
This article has me thinking about its relevance to church. I was talking today with one of our pastors about how our church has seen a drop in involement in our "large events", whether it be our all church retreat or large worship events. The draw in the last couple of years has been for small, more intimate events. The church seems to be more niche oriented. I don't know if this is either good or bad. Maybe in the last 20 plus years we have really celebrated and pushed the large event, especially as we have made numbers a significant marker of the church's success.
I have also been noticing a swing in the church from a top-down culture, to a bottom-up culture. The role of the pastor does seem to be shifting.....Whereas he or she used to be the keeper or bearer of all information, teaching, preaching, truth, authority, etc....there now seems to be a growing shift where the pastor is not the controller of all these things, but rather there is a larger empowerment of the congregation and laity.
Just some quick hit thoughts after reading this article.......
Technorati Tags: Oscars, Los Angeles Times, church
Posted by rhett at 10:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
My one-time professor James White....
I have been thinking recently about who we often learn from, and that sometimes we don't often afford ourselves the opportunity to learn from those that we disagree with on certain issues. When it comes to the world of blogs we tend to stick in our own circles, and if we venture out of them, it is usually only to get our blood flowing by what others say, or to find something we can disagree with, so that we can go back to our own blogs, and our own circles and blog about it.
There is someone out there in the blog world that i don't agree with theologically on many issuse, but he is a very smart man, and he happened to be the person that first got me interested in the study of theology, which led me to seminary months later.
During the spring semester of my senior year in colle