Sunday, September 5, 2010

Emerging into Hipsters

I just read an interesting article in Christianity Today on Christian Hipsters. It seems as if the emerging church movement has not just faded away but has morphed into an even more anti-establishment version of itself. The author of the article, Brett McCracken, says it this way:

"The latest incarnation of a decades-long collision of "cool" and "Christianity," hipster Christianity is in large part a rebellion against the very subculture that birthed it. It's a rebellion against old-school evangelicalism and its fuddy-duddy legalism, apathy about the arts, and pitiful lack of concern for social justice. It's also a rebellion against George W. Bush—style Christianity: American flags in churches, the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and evangelical leaders who get too involved in conservative politics."

First the positives: Hipster Christianity is more committed to social action and real involvement in community than most churches. They challenge the shallowness of some of the mainstream Evangelicalism that is more committed to conservative values than in following Jesus. They long "for a simpler, back-to-basics faith that was more about serving the poor than serving Starbucks in the church vestibule." They are embracing ancient liturgies and incorporating hymns into their worship. They strive for authenticity and mobilize their members to live out their faith.

From the article:
"One of hipsterdom's positive values is its concern for justice—whether it be sweatshops or sex trafficking, water wells or finance reform. Hipsters almost always champion the cause of the underdog (immigrants, the poor, minorities) over those with power and privilege. Christians would be hard-pressed to find any Scripture passages that suggest Jesus didn't do the same. Many Christians, sadly, have moved away from social justice and fighting for the well-being of the downtrodden, but Christian hipsters are leading the way back."

But on the other hand hipsters living out their faith doesn't always include some of the more traditional commitments to holiness and righteousness that accompanied those who followed the ancient liturgies. As such "Some hipster Christianity is as indistinguishable from its secular hipster counterpart as yesterday's megachurch Christianity was indistinguishable from secular soccer-mom suburbia." Hipster culture is defined in some ways by its countercultural ethos: ie we are against anything currently embraced by mainstream culture. It constantly strives to follow and embrace that which is new and not yet discovered by the mainstream and once this new thing is embraced by too many people they move on to the next thing after that. You only discover these things virally - by being deeply connected to cultural influences by cultural social networking media. So if your mother begins wearing the style of jeans that were cool last week something else needs to become cool this week. The current stylistic trademarks are: skinny jeans, cotton spandex leggings, fixed-gear bikes, vintage flannel, fake eyeglasses, a keffiyeh, an American Apparel V-neck shirt, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Parliament cigarettes - but those things might already be out of style.

As one writer puts it:
Hipsterdom is the first "counterculture" to be born under the advertising industry’s microscope, leaving it open to constant manipulation but also forcing its participants to continually shift their interests and affiliations. Less a subculture, the hipster is a consumer group – using their capital to purchase empty authenticity and rebellion. But the moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any cultural loyalties or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance.

"In order to be a hipster, one must be a rebel. Despite the fact that (ironically) hipster culture usually operates within and is sustained by the very structures it opposes, hipsterdom's raison d'ĂȘtre is countercultural, boundary-pushing rebellion. As such, hipster existence is frequently rife with vices. If hipsters cannot completely overthrow the structures that bind them, they can at least destabilize them by engaging in hedonistic behavior: smoking, drinking, cursing, sexual experimentation, and so on. It's about freedom, partying, and transgression—not in the Jersey Shore, frat-party sense (unless ironically), but in the "bourbon cask ales taste good and I don't care if I get drunk" sense. Hipsters ridicule bourgeois concerns such as "cigarettes cause cancer" and "drinking should be done in moderation," opting instead to recklessly embrace such vices with "why not?" abandon. If you aren't willing to engage in at least some of this "subversive hedonism," you will have a hard time maintaining any hipster credibility."

Adbusters website is a key communication vehicle for hipster culture. A recent article by describes the hipster culture as one without a whole lot of redeeming values.

"An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the "hipster" – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society."

But what does this mean for Christian hipsters? When, in the name of rebellion and "freedom in Christ," Christian hipsters begin to look and act just like their secular hipster counterparts, drinking and smoking all the same things, shouldn't we raise a red flag?

Good Question.

Monday, April 5, 2010

Don't Mess With the Zohar

Someone asked me about the Old Testament high priest ministering in the temple and having a rope tied around his ankle to drag him out of the Holy of Holies in case he had dropped dead because of his sin. It turns out that the story is somewhat apocryphal (kind of like a Christian urban legend). There are a number of sources that have helped perpetuate this legend – particularly the NIV Study Bible note on Exodus 28:35.

34 The gold bells and the pomegranates are to alternate around the hem of the robe. 35 Aaron must wear it when he ministers. The sound of the bells will be heard when he enters the Holy Place before the LORD and when he comes out, so that he will not die.

The rope is not mentioned anywhere in Scripture or other ancient Jewish literature. The earliest reference to this tradition seems to be a 13th century A.D. Jewish work, the Zohar (don’t mess with the Zohar) where he states:
A knot of rope of gold hangs from his leg, from fear perhaps he would die in the holy of holies, and they would need to pull him out with this rope.

The Zohar is not necessarily a reliable source. In fact, wearing such a rope would probably be a violation of Leviticus 16:3-4, which gives clear directions on what the high priest is to wear on Yom Kippur:

But in this way Aaron shall come into the Holy Place: with a bull from the herd for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. 4 He shall put on the holy linen coat and shall have the linen undergarment on his body, and he shall tie the linen sash around his waist, and wear the linen turban; these are the holy garments. He shall bathe his body in water and then put them on. (ESV)

It’s doubtful that many of the NIV scholars had been reading the Zohar, so I suspect that they get it from some Protestant commentary, such as John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible (An Exposition of the New Testament, 3 vols., 1746–8, and An Exposition of the Old Testament, 6 vols., 1748–63). John Gill lived from November 23, 1697 to October 14, 1771, and the anecdote appears in his remarks on Hebrews 9:7:

Hebrews 9:7

Ver. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone, once every year,.... Though this is not expressed in so many words in Le 16:2 only it is said that "Aaron came not at all times into the holy place within the vail"; yet it is the constant and generally received sense of the Jewish writers, in agreement with the apostle here, that the high priest went into the holy of holies but once a year {q}, on the day of atonement, which was on the tenth of the month Tisri, and answers to part of September; not but that he went in more than once on that day, for he went in no less than four times {r}; the first time he went in to offer incense; the second time with the blood of the bullock, to sprinkle it; the third time with the blood of the goat; and the fourth time to bring out the censer {s}; and if he entered a fifth time, they say he was worthy of death; wherefore Philo the Jew {t} seems to be mistaken when he affirms that, if he went in three or four times on the same day, he suffered death, nor was there any pardon for him; and as it was but one day in a year he might enter, so when he did, no other man, either Israelite or priest, might go in along with him; he went in alone without any attendance:

the Jews say {u}, that a cord or thong was bound to the feet of the high priest when he went into the holy of holies, that if he died there, the rest might be able to draw him out; for it was not lawful for another priest to go in, no, not an high priest, none besides him on the day of atonement. Pausanias {w} makes mention of a temple of Minerva into which the priests entered once every year; which very likely was observed in imitation of this custom of the Jewish high priest; who in it was a type of Christ, and of his entrance into heaven, and of his constant and continued intercession there:

not without blood; for he went in with the blood of the bullock and the blood of the goat; which was typical of the blood of Christ, by which he entered in once into the holy place, into heaven, when he had obtained eternal redemption by it, Heb 9:12 which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people; the bullock was offered by the high priest for himself and his family; and the goat for the sins of the people of Israel, even all their iniquities, transgressions, and sins, Le 16:11, but Christ the antitype having no sin, had no need to offer for himself, only for the sins of the people; See Gill on "Heb 7:27".

{q} T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 42. 4. & 43. 1. Bab. Pesachim, fol. 86. 1.
{r} Bemidbar Rabba, sect 7. fol. 188. 4. Maimon. Biath Hamikdash, c. 2. sect. 3. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. neg. 303.
{s} Maimon. & Bartenora in Misna Celim, c. 1. sect. 9.
{t} De Legatione ad Caium, p. 1035.
{u} Zohar in Lev. fol. 43. 3. & Imre Binah in ib. {w} Arcadica, sive l. 8. p. 531.

Thanks to The Gypsy Scholar, Christian Answers and Bible Places Blog for some help on this one.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

On the Third Day

I have rewritten an earlier Hillschurch post about some of the controversy over the Good Friday - Easter Sunday conundrum that some people have in regards to three days and three nights mentioned in Scripture. I got some help from Keith Schooley here. I actually lean towards a Thursday crucifixion because it seems to incoporate all the expressions used to describe the third day/three day issues.

The four expressions used in Scripture to refer to the time period between Jesus' death and his resurrection are "on the third day," "after three days," "in three days," and "three days and three nights." (There are a few more Greek constructions, but they boil down to these four meanings.) It seems clear that (at least on the surface) there is a conflict between these four expressions. If indeed Jesus rose from the dead "on the third day" after his crucifixion, it is impossible that he spent "three days and three nights" in the tomb; conversely, if he did spend "three days and three nights" in the tomb, it would seem necessary that he rose on the fourth day, not the third. While "in three days" could be reasonably accommodated to either scheme, "after three days" would seem to support the idea of three full days and nights in the tomb.


These slightly different wordings either all mean the same thing (which I think is true) or they all mean different things. If they each mean different things that would also make both Jesus and the Gospel writers somewhat unclear on their facts and possibly even liars - which is why people have difficulty with this concept.


Just to summarize the Scriptures, we have at least five readings with slightly different wordings (but unlikely to have different meanings):

- in three days (6 times) 
(Mt 26:61 ;27:40; Mk 14:58; 15:29; Jn 2:19,20)

- after three days (4 times) 
(Mt:27:63; Mk 8:31; 9:31; Lk 2:46;)

- three days later (1 time) 
(Mk 10:34)

- three days and three nights (1 time) 
(Mt 12:40)

- on the third day (9 times) 
(Mt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Lk 9:22; 18:33; 
24:7, 46; Ac 10:40; 1Cor 15:4)


And possibly a sixth from the road to Emmaus

- this is the third day since all this took place 
(Lk 24:21)



Another interesting passage is the one where the chief priests command that the tomb be guarded "until" the third day in Matthew 27:64 
So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.

As I mentioned above, for most of the passages in the Bible, this issue is not really a problem because Sunday is the third day after Friday (including Friday and Sunday). However the problem comes with passages like Matthew 12:40

 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.



The simplest explanation is that all these terms essentially mean the same thing and cover the same period of time.
In Matthew 27:62-64, the chief priests and Pharisees ask for "the tomb to be made secure until the third day," because they remember his claim that "after three days I will rise again." The formulation "after three days," occurs immediately in context with the formulation "until the third day"; i.e., we seem to have here an explicit equating of the two expressions, "after three days" and "until the third day," which would reconfirm the idea that according to Jewish inclusive reckoning, "after three days" would mean "until the third day," and not "until the fourth day," as it would naturally mean in modern English.

I don't think the context, the culture of the time nor the text "requires" or specifies an exact 72-hour period. Neither does it absolutely rule it out. However, the phrases "on the third day" and “this is the third day since all this took place” would seem to indicate that it was somewhat less than 72 hours.



Because the text(s) doesn't make it absolutely clear one way or the other, the reasons to affirm one position or another rely mostly on people’s personal theological preferences (i.e. what do they want to try and prove) rather than historical grounds. It also doesn’t really make a whole lot of difference to our faith or the accuracy of Scripture to adopt one theory or another.

This is the simple answer and pretty much settles the matter. However ...

If you want to continue reading and continuing studying …

John’s gospel mentions a High Sabbath, which might mean the actual day of Passover (which would have been a special Sabbath and gives us a number of interpretation options). John 19:31 says



Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 



It also says in Mark 15 that Jesus died on the Preparation Day.

 42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. 44Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead.



and in 16:1

 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.



and Matthew 28:1

 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.



So the information that we have is that Jesus died on the Preparation day and rose again after the Sabbath on the first day of the week (or at least the women discovered the empty tomb on Sunday morning). It also talks about being raised on the third day like in Luke 24

 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.'"




However we might also be able to explain three days and three nights with a more unusual explanation. This is where this concept of the “double Sabbath” comes in. The Passover meal (seder) is usually celebrated on “Erev Pesach” or the evening before the Passover. Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples. But given that he was arrested later that night it is possible (even probable) that he did not eat it on Erev Pesach, but that he actually ate it with them two nights before Passover because the trial never would have happened on a Sabbath and it says he died on the "Preparation Day." Every Sabbath has a preparation day – but it may be significant that there were special preparation days for the feast Sabbath days (like Passover where they needed to sweep clean the house to remove all leaven). So Jesus had supper with his disciples on the eve (which was Wednesday evening - keep reading) of the Preparation Day before Passover.

That same evening he was arrested, tried and the next morning brought before Pilate, beaten, made to carry the cross and then crucified. He was placed in the tomb later that afternoon or evening perhaps after Passover began (at Thursday sundown - the start of the special Sabbath) and then was in the tomb on Passover (a High Sabbath - Friday) then also on the Saturday Sabbath and then on the third day (Sunday) he rose from the dead. That gives you three days (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and three nights (Thursday night, Friday night and Saturday night). It also allows Sunday to be “the third day” (Friday, Saturday and Sunday – even though he was crucified on a Thursday). Although Scripture does not specifically mention two back to back Sabbaths in that week, I know of no Scriptures that would explicitly eliminate that possibility.



The Jewish community would never move the celebration of Passover to the Saturday so as to only have one Sabbath. Also the women would not have come with the spices on a Sabbath (ie they would not have been allowed to do the work of carrying them and preparing the body - also touching a body and defiling themselves on a Sabbath). So Jesus must have risen on the Sunday morning - and the Scriptures also say it was the first day of the week (the Sabbath is the seventh - the day God rested) that he rose.

Monday, March 22, 2010

MissionGTA

I'm involved in a number of city-reaching activities in the Toronto area. Most of these activities are coordinated under the umbrella of MissionGTA (GTA stands for Greater Toronto Area). This week is filled with consulting and brainstorming activities that hopefully will refine our vision and move it forward. It is tiring work but we are making some good progress. Below are some parts of the documents that we are putting together. Definitely a work in progress!

After a number of months of battling to get our website back up we have finally launched a new MissionGTA website - albeit seriously lacking in content.

Our Purpose is ...

To see the kingdom of God impact every sphere of society by facilitating unity in the Body of Christ across the Greater Toronto Area.

Strategies

• Identify the key indicators of a transformed city and establish and monitor benchmarks for each of these indicators.
• Facilitate unity in the Body of Christ by…
a. Connecting various groups who are already causing a transformational impact in the different spheres of society as identified by the key indicators, and where such groups do not exist encourage their formation.
b. Providing representative leaders of the different geographical communities of the GTA with opportunities for interaction, prayer and strategy formation.
c. Providing representative leaders of the different ethnic communities of the GTA with opportunities for interaction, prayer and strategy formation.
d. Mobilizing unified intercession through the efforts of PrayGTA.
e. Providing the Body of Christ with opportunities for regional prayer gatherings (including City Hall Prayer, Prayer Summits and Global Day Of Prayer).
f. Encouraging the creation of a communication hub for all Christian activity in the GTA.

Activities

• City Hall Prayer Meetings
Having spiritual leaders pray in the seat of political power is an important step in transformation. Since 2000 MissionGTA has hosted a bimonthly pastors and leaders prayer meeting at Toronto City Hall’s Council Chambers. Every second month (usually on the 2nd Wednesday, but check our website for the latest info) we gather from 10am till noon to pray for our city and region. We also encourage other local networks to pray in their civic centres.

• GTA Prayer Summits
MissionGTA hosts an annual two-day Prayer Summit, bringing together pastors and leaders to listen to what God is saying to the GTA

• Global Day of Prayer
MissionGTA provides the visionary and administrative foundation for the annual Global Day of Prayer. Visit www.gdoptoronto.com for more info.

• Prayer Assemblies
We email prayer newsletters to hundreds of intercessors a couple of times a month and gather intercessors for strategic prayer several times a year.

• Promoting Christian Activities
Through our regular email updates we attempt to keep leaders informed of significant events in the GTA.

Our Core Values

Relational Unity
• Encouraging the expression of the one church in each geographic locality in the Greater Toronto Area
• Honouring our fellow Christians and celebrating diversity within the context of historic Christian orthodoxy

Servant Leadership
• Respecting and valuing every part of the Body of Christ through a consultative style of leadership
• Serving the local networks, helping them function as a corporate church in their locality
• Maintaining integrity before God and all people by personal and corporate accountability in all humility

Listening Prayer
• Calling the church in the GTA to corporate prayer
• Listening to hear clearly what the Holy Spirit is saying to and through the church in the region.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

A Bold and Brave Move


Meeting in rented facilities is not a big deal for most church plants. But I think it's a pretty big deal for a church in the southern USA to sell their building and meet in rented facilities so that they can invest their money to help people. Thanks for showing the church building world that it can be done.

Check out the story of Rolling Hills Baptist Church in Fayetteville, North Carolina who sold their building and now meet in a movie theatre.

Imagine if shrinking congregations would be willing to sell their buildings and help people in need or invest in hiring a number of community outreach workers to develop community run programs. Or imagine if the RC church sold off some of their highly visible assets and did the same thing.

It reminds me of a brainstorming session we had at Yonge Street Mission a few years (15) ago where I suggested that we sell all our property (probably worth about $20 million at the time), invest in more program staff and run our programs in rented facilities. Nobody else thought it was a good idea. Turns out that they moved in the opposite direction and now own twice as much real estate as they did back then. But they have also invested in hiring about twice as many program staff and are running a lot of good programs in downtown Toronto.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Do You Believe?


This is too funny not to post.

This mock ad was originally posted on Michael Liccione's blog Sacramentum Vitae It is a response to an interview in 2006 found in the New York Times with the very liberal and tolerant Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, where she explains why her church is small and shrinking compared with certain others. The bottom line of the ad offers free birth control products to Catholics and Mormons.

NYT: How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

"About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better-educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than some other denominations. Roman Catholics and Mormons both have theological reasons for producing lots of children."

NYT: Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

"No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth and not use more than their portion."


NYT: You’re actually Catholic by birth; your parents joined the Episcopal Church when you were 9. What led them to convert?

"It was before Vatican II had any influence in local parishes, and I think my parents were looking for a place where wrestling with questions was encouraged rather than discouraged. So, you see, it's a sign of their ignorance and heedlessness that Catholics and Mormons wax as Episcopalians wane. It's only to be expected that people who really know and care what life is about will refuse to replace themselves, and that people who neither know nor care will more than replace themselves. It's only natural that, in the end, the barbarians will have the field. And those who will have abandoned it should be proud of why they did."

Hmmm ... Barbarian evangelism through reproduction. These comments by Bishop Schori remind me of what a previous Episcopal Bishop, John Shelby Spong, has said about the church that I happened to quote in my thesis.

“The only churches that grow today [Evangelical, Catholic, etc] are those that do not, in fact, understand the issues and can therefore traffic in certainty … The churches that do attempt to interact with the emerging world [like the Episcopalian, United Church, etc] are … almost by definition, fuzzy, imprecise and relatively unappealing. They might claim to be honest but for the most part they have no real message.”

The certainty that I traffic in is the reality of the living Christ. I guess I do not really understand the issues [which is true enough], and am poorly educated [I continue to realize how little I know] and because I have children who still go to church now even though they are out of high school, I must a barbarian.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Writing - On the Side

Three years ago I was in the process of beginning to write my thesis and kept bumping into obstacles. I came across Scot McKnight's thought provoking ideas about writing found on his blog here. I deeply identiified with them because of my tendency to write when I'm inspired - which too often is at 1:30 in the morning - and those moments are too few and far between. I can't remember who said it but it has stuck with me. "You learn to write by writing. You overcome writer's block by writing. If you don't know where to go next in your thoghts just start writing." It helps with essays. It helps with blogging. It helps with journalling. It helps to write your prayers. I actually love the tactile feel of a fountain pen on paper - the scratching roughness of it and the deep inkiness. Unless out of ink they don't skip. Too bad there is nothing really to compare when typing on a keyboard (especially now as mine is acting up and doubling letters all the time.) Anyways, enjoy the post - I repeated it in its entirety below.

Writing — On the Side
If I’ve been asked this once, I’ve been asked it 500 times:
“How do you do it?” And by that my questioners want to know how I have time to teach, write books, take care of this blog, and speak on occasions. I’ve given all kinds of answers — our kids and grown and gone; I’ve been at it for 30 years; it’s fun. Now that I’ve read James Vanoosting’s essay in And the Flesh Became Words, “And Be a Writer — On the Side,” I’ve got another answer:
I don’t write “on the side.” Many take up careers, most often as professors or sometimes editors or pastors, with the plan to write “on the side.” Most editors I know struggle, once they become editors, to write on the side. Not enough time, and the best hours of the day already consumed. And most pastors don’t have time, nor the practice, to write on the side. What might surprise many of you is that the vast majority of professors also don’t write “on the side.” Why?
My explanation is simple: writing can’t be done on the side because, as James Vanoosting says it, “Writing is not pedagogy but an epistemology” (160).
In other words, writing is a lifestyle, a way of life, a way of being, a modus operandi, a way of breathing and eating and drinking. Better yet, writing is a way of learning, a way of coming to know what someone wants to know, a way of discovering.
Writing is not something to do when everything else is cleared off the desk; no, it is something that makes order of the desk. I don’t get up wondering what I will write about, but I write about what I’m wondering. (That’s almost Chestertonian.) In other words, as Augustine spoke of “faith seeking understanding,” so writing is a pen seeking understanding.
Some write about what they already know; those books show up as textbooks. Others write about what they don’t know; those books show up as suggestions, innovations, explorations, experiments, and — here’s the joy — possibly really interesting. FF Bruce wrote about what he knew; Jimmy Dunn writes about what he doesn’t know. That is why the former’s books are standard and solid, and the latter’s suggestive and provocative.
Now back to the “on the side” bit. If a person wants to write, nearly always it has to be a way of life. Some do manage to write on the side, but the vast majority write every day, all the time, and they begin the day in the mind wondering how best to express a thought.
The biggest mistake I see in young professors is the (almost always) mistaken notion that they will write during the summer break full-time or they’ll wait until the Chrstmas break or over the Spring Break. No analogies work completely, but to me that is about like saying, “I’ll not train all year long, and try running competitively over break.” Like running, writing is something that takes constant practice.
And here’s the second mistake I often see: some think they can begin a writing career by writing a book. Instead, it is easier to begin by writing book reviews, magazine articles, and journal articles. It might be easier even yet to begin with a blog — but only if you can add to it daily, or at least five times a week. (Otherwise, no one will read you.) In other words, begin small — writing small pieces so that a daily habit, or a weekly habit, is built. Over time, it can become a genuine habit.
When you look at writers, it is wise to remember that most of us/them began small, and over time the daily routine of writing became a habit. That habit is what you now see; it didn’t spring up one summer break into a full-blown habit.
In other words, writing isn’t done on the side. It’s in the soul, it’s a way of being, and it’s not for everyone. It’s a scribbler’s itch to get it down.

Writing Again

If I could write about anything what would it be? I have this clear mandate to write but I can’t help thinking that what I write is just ... well pedantic. I struggle to see how what I write relates to people where they are as opposed to the wild and rambling imaginations of my own mind.

I was talking about happiness with a friend of mine. He was saying that he wanted to write about the Happy Church just because it was fun to write about it. So much of what we do relates to our being happy. So is everything we do self-centred? Are all our activities an attempt to stroke our own egos and satisfy our own longings? Is there any altruism in the world? I wonder ...

As he speaks about the Happy Church all kinds of images come to mind. I try to imagine what a happy church really is. I actually have this 1950’s image come to mind of everyone dressed up and smiling as they come out of church. Dad in a suit, Mom in this summer dress with a crinoline and the girls in pretty dresses and the boys in white shirts and ties. Maybe it’s just the strange way images connect in my mind. The phrase “happy church” begs the question “What is church?” That has been bugging me for such a long time and has made me question my role as a pastor and a leader. I’m too much of a questioner to accept the status quo and to keep doing the same thing week after week. Yet I keep doing the same thing week after week and feeling a bit dissatisfied about it all.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! Romans 7:24-25

Friday, March 5, 2010

Four Streams


I was in Birmingham Alabama this past week to participate in a conference jointly hosted by the National City Impact Roundtable and the Mission America Coalition. Here's the brochure.

The City Impact Roundtables (CIR) have developed out of Mission America Coalition meetings. Christian transformational leaders from cities across the world have gathered twice a year for the purpose of building relationships, sharing kingdom-sized vision for holistic evangelism and revival, and praying together for united ministry throughout the Body of Christ. They have met in the roundtable format so that participants might also be contributors to the "city-reaching" process in their area. The CIR is a peer-to-peer meeting of Christian leaders who are prayerfully seeking the unity of the Church for holistic evangelism, the revival and renewal of the Church, leading to a cultural awakening and transformation.


The National City Impact Roundtable (CIR) examined four streams of cityreaching:
► Presence-Based (creating the environment in the city through unity and persevering prayer which welcomes in the presence of the Holy Spirit bringing in revival and transformation) with George Otis, Jr.
► Christian Community Development with John Perkins and the three "R's" (Relocation - moving into the area that needs redevelopment. Reconciliation - bringing harmony and peacemaking to those who are at odds with the system and with one another [particularly along racial lines] and redistribution - returning the power and influence back to those who live in the neighbourhood so that they can say that they have done it themselves),
► Evangelism with Paul Cedar (which focuses on evangelistic activities involving a Prayer/Care/Share approach involving the whole church sharing the whole Gospel with the whole city), and
► Marketplace Ministry (encouraging those who work outside of full time ministry positions to be ministers in their workplace environment and creating ministry through the "church of your workplace") featuring a panel that included Brad Fieldhouse, Steve Capper, Kent Humphrey and Bob Varney.

David Kinnaman wrapped up the event with a presentation of the research he did connected with his book "UnChristian".

The description of the four streams is actually very helpful in understanding different ways of approaching ministry in the city (even though there are more than four - these are just the best developed). Sometimes working in a city as large as Toronto is very overwhelming. All kinds of people have ideas of how to reach the city or transform the city or win the city for Christ. Their ideas are sincere but they often work at cross purposes because they have different approaches. These approaches are not wrong - they just focus on different faces of the mission.

At MissionGTA we tend to focus more on the "presence-based" style of city reaching. As such we invest in prayer for the city and gathering Christian leaders to act together in unity. The main activities are the Toronto City Hall Pastors and Leaders Prayer gatherings, The Global Day of Prayer and occasional prayer summits and targeted prayer events.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Movements


I’m reading Steve Addison’s Movements that Change the World. There’s lots of good stuff in here and I’m being reminded of some of the teaching I received as I was ministering on campus in my university days. I remember talking about a movement that would capture the hearts of students to follow Jesus and disciple others. I didn’t fully get it in those days and I’m not sure I fully get it now. It’s just that there are moments in the history of humanity that change everything that follows and creates a way of thinking that seemed impossible before that moment happened. Those moments are when movements are started. The following is a brief quote from his chapter on “Why Movements Matter.”

“Mission has a threefold reality. First there is a message: mission assumes a distinct view of truth concerning the nature of God and the nature of salvation. Second mission involves the communication of both truth and a new way of life. Third the purpose of mission is conversion. People accept the message, are integrated into the community of faith and begin to practice a new way of life – a new life committed to following Jesus and sharing the truth about him with others.

“As a missionary movement our message centers on Jesus Christ the son of God who was crucified for our sins and is the only source of salvation for a lost world. Second as a missionary movement we have an agenda for change. Jesus calls all who would follow him to a new life of obedience to his will. Third mission involves the conversion of individuals and their inclusion into the body of Christ, which is the church, the people of God. There is no mission without the church and there is no discipleship without the community of faith.

“If this is what it means to be the missionary people of God what do "missionaries" do? Eckhard Schnabel explains: “Missionaries establish contact with non-Christians, they proclaim good news of Jesus the Messiah and Savior (proclamation, preaching teaching, instruction), they lead people to faith in Jesus Christ (conversion, baptism), and integrate the new believers into the local community of the followers of Jesus (Lord's supper, transformation of social and moral behavior, charity).” We have the message of the cross. We have new life in Christ. We have a mandate to make disciples and multiply churches everywhere. We are a missionary people.”

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Theology 101

I looking through some old posts on my hillschurch blog and came across this one and decided to repost it because it's actually pretty good. There are some good core Christian theological foundations to mull over here.

We have in the Old Testament revelation from God about ... His nature (who He is), man’s nature (who we are), how He wants us to live as a community (the nation Israel) and where we came from (creation). In the New Testament we have the revelation of Jesus Christ (the Word and I Am), salvation (our new nature), how to live individually (personal holiness) and the future (Revelation and the new heaven and earth).

Key principles from Genesis
1. God is
2. God created the material world by His Word
3. Man is made in God’s image
4. Sin is a reality (everything is fallen)

Values arising from those principles
1. Life is sacred (we are His image bearers)
2. The material world is good (He made it as our dwelling place - our holy of holies so to speak)
3. Words have value (because God created by speaking)
4. Anything that moves us away from God destroys us (idolatry is destructive)
5. Everything is redeemable (God is making all things new)

Each of these points can be elaborated on and I may actually do so sometime over the next while. But just to set up where I'm going with this I put down the following points.

The Purpose
We want to see Jesus lifted high. We want to see God’s Kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in heaven. We want to see our communities transformed. We want to see our nations be righteous, pass righteous laws and act with justice, compassion and righteousness.

The Problem
We see people get saved but they still act like the devil – or at least still acting like the culture we live in. The Church still acts like the world and still has the attitudes and characteristics of the world. That is mostly because we allow our media to disciple us. We have adopted the prevalent values of the culture instead of the counter-cultural values of the Kingdom. Although we preach salvation, we often still act selfishly, we still consume our resources on ourselves, our divorce rate is still as high as the world’s and we still live with bitterness and unforgiveness resulting in church fights and church splits. Brothers (and sisters) this ought not to be.

The Result
The world see the church with all its mistakes and problems and think they know what Jesus (and Christianity) is all about. They have not been taught about the transforming power of the Gospel throughout history. They have actually been misled because Christianity is being blamed for all the problems of the world (wars, environmental crisis, racism, hatred, intolerance, etc.). So the Church is being judged as irrelevant before it even has a chance to speak. Some people are even saying, “Christianity has had its chance but has failed. It is time to reject it and try something else.”

Our Response
The Church has become intimidated into silence and ineffectiveness by the strong media bias and the culture of humanism and political correctness. However we cannot simply respond to the immorality around us and to the accusations against us by merely getting politicians saved, by passing Christian laws or by saying “the Bible says it’s wrong.” We must be discipling individuals and discipling nations. We must be speaking truth in ways that communicate to our culture. We do that by understanding and communicating principles like the ones mentioned above. We also do that by living according to what the Spirit of God says, by the power of the Spirit and by being Jesus’ hands extended.

For example, we cannot simply say “sex before marriage is wrong.” We need to be showing that it is wrong because of how God set up the world. How would we do that? Explain that life is sacred. That means that we want to protect and sustain life. The sexual revolution has caused millions of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, rape, incest, sexually transmitted diseases (AIDS), divorce, single parents and the death or marginalization of millions of children. A recent study reported in the National Post reveals that children raised without fathers creates a remarkably higher percentage of sociopathic children than families with a father present. If we continue on this path we reveal that we do not honour life or consider it sacred. However, merely by keeping the seventh commandment (do not commit adultery) all those problems would be eliminated.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Not Living by the Law of Sin and Death

I was reading Romans 5-8 this past week and began to see some things a bit differently. Paul says that we have died to sin. The sin nature is what what all of us have. We are born with it. We were all formerly living as slaves to sin. It is the “natural” or unredeemed way of living. This way of living is called the Law of sin and death. Because we have this sin nature (this way of living) we are always trying to obey the Law or obey the rules. We are measuring ourselves against the set of rules we consider important to obey (which seem to change over time). Their foundations are in the Law – the Torah and more specifically the Ten Commandments. But this set of rules that we try to obey has a broader outward expression which is based on what is currently important in our society. It used to be in Christian circles a number of years ago that you weren’t allowed to drink or smoke or dance or go to movies. All of these things now seem to be ok – even in many Christian circles. Today’s taboos seem to focus more on tolerance and the environment.

But whatever they are, even if these rules are based on Scripture, they are still rules. They are still based on following a list and checking it twice. It leads to comparisons (i.e. I did more right than wrong, I’m trying to live a good life, I’m better than the guy down the street). This Law does not lead to life – the commandments bring condemnation. This way of comparison and counting leads to death. Those caught up in this way of living, instead of changing themselves, they try to change the law – calling evil good, and good evil. They try to escape condemnation by denying that the Law is good (which Paul also condemns). Living together used to be called “living in sin” but now the legal name is “common law.” The result is that lawlessness abounds in our society and no one is allowed to call wrongdoing a sin.

But that is the world’s way – denying the authority of the Law to get away from having to obey the Law. Yet the Law still shows us that we are sinful. Unfortunately Christians also try to get around the Law of sin and death by being good and obeying the Law – just as the Pharisees did. If we’re good at it we become self-righteous or holier than thou. If we’re bad at it we begin to think we are failures and rejects. It makes us think that God can’t forgive me again for that. It makes us think we can’t be saved if we do that. And so if we can’t be saved we become like the world denying that there is sin and dive into the deep end (like the Prodigal).

This whole way of living is the accounting method, the comparing method. It counts how well we did or how poorly we have failed. This way of living is called the Law of sin and death.

We however live by the Spirit. The Spirit sets us free from the law of sin and death – He made us righteous. The Spirit sets us free from the accounting method. He sets us free from comparisons. He sets us free from the fairness trap (i.e. that’s not fair!). He sets us free from having to judge others.

The Law is actually the world’s system given to draw boundaries, and define the nature of sin so that people know that wrong is actually wrong. It measures everything by fairness and blame. It must find a scapegoat when one has already been provided. It becomes the judge determining guilt and innocence. It rarely finds guilt in oneself (except when alone at night) because to find guilt in oneself means we are guilty and worth of death and punishment and condemnation.

But there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. Living by the Spirit means that we don’t count, and compare, and judge anymore. The only measurement is: “Are we in Christ Jesus?” So when sin happens we don’t deny the sin, or justify the sin, or shift blame for the sin, or even bemoan the sin. We turn to Jesus – not to ask forgiveness (because Jesus has already died for that sin and granted forgiveness for it) but to make sure that the relationship is right – to make things right – to be in right relationship with Him.

Not living this way (by the law of sin and death, by constantly accounting for our sin) is dangerous. Because who then will be the law keepers? Who will be the judges to say this is wrong and that is right? Who will be the moral arbitrators? God will.

And how about us? How do we then live?
“What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!”
We live as sons and daughters – we live as heirs “because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.” We get all the benefits of being children of the most high. We also live by the family reputation. What Jesus suffered, we suffer – Jesus died and we died to (were released from) sin/Law. Jesus rose – we are risen with him.

The reputation Jesus has, we also have.
But it is glorious.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Having Tea

Sometimes very difficult things are done in a long series of simple steps. Alex Dyer said it this way:

“One important lesson I continue to learn in mission is that I am not in charge. It is God who extends the invitation and God who is in charge of the mission. Being open to God's mission means discerning where God is leading us, without our own expectations getting in the way. With this re-orientation, our mission is not a to-do list to remedy all the world's problems but rather begins with discernment on what God is calling us to do. We realize we are part of something beyond ourselves and we leave behind the delusion that this is dependent upon our performance. Our call to mission does not come from a sense of duty, rather from a sense of wondrous anticipation about what God has in store for us.

"We realize we are NOT called to solve all the world's problems. We are called to participate in God's mission. DAILY! After a few months in Cairo, I told my supervisor that I did not feel much like a missionary. I spent a lot of time talking to Sudanese refugees and drinking tea with them. My supervisor told me that is where mission work happens. It is the engaging with one another, in being present and sharing each other's stories. A large part of mission work is having tea.”

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Lent

Lent began yesterday with Ash Wednesday. Growing up as a Bapticostal I never really heard about Lent and never did anything about it until more recently - now being more Ecumenically connected through our local ministerial association. From Ash Wednesday to Easter, many solemnly mark their foreheads with ash, “fasting” (or abstaining from certain foods or physical pleasures) for 40 days. This is done to supposedly imitate Jesus Christ’s 40-day fast in the wilderness (Matt. 4:1-2). Some give up smoking. Others give up chewing gum. Still others give up over-eating or cursing. People vow to give up anything, as a preparation for Easter.

I sometimes use this season as an opportunity for personal change - to challenge a habit I want to break - sometimes just to recognize that I occasionally stoop to medicating myself with overindulgence in food or TV or games or even the news. This time becomes a good excuse to improve my life.

However, like most Church developed Christian holidays (Christmas, Easter, Halloween/All Saints Day, etc.) Lent has its roots in paganism. This is not to say that the resurrection or the birth of Christ should not be remembered and celebrated - just that the dates and many of the practices associated with these holidays have pagan roots (like Easter eggs and Christmas trees).

Lent’s Ancient Roots
Coming from the Anglo-Saxon Lencten, meaning “spring,” Lent originated in the ancient Babylonian mystery religion. “The forty days’ abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess…Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz” (The Two Babylons). Tammuz was the messiah of the Babylonians. The Feast of Tammuz was usually celebrated in June (also called the “month of Tammuz”). The Babylonian Lent was held 40 days before the feast, “celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing.” This is why Lent means “spring”; it took place from spring to early summer. The Bible records ancient Judah worshipping this false Messiah: “Then He brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek. 8:14-15).

But why did the church at Rome institute such a pagan holiday and other such pagan celebrations?
“To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity in this as in so many other things, to shake hands”. The Roman church replaced Passover with Easter, moving the pagan Feast of Tammuz to early spring, “Christianizing” it. Lent moved with it.

Before giving up personal sins and vices during Lent, the pagans held a wild, “anything goes” celebration to make sure that they got in their share of debaucheries and perversities—what the world celebrates as Carnival (in Rio) Mardi Gras (in New Orleans) today. The origin of the name "carnival" is disputed. Variants in Italian dialects suggest that the name comes from the Italian carne levare or similar, meaning "to remove meat", since meat is prohibited during Lent. Another possible explanation comes from the term "Carrus Navalis" (ship cart), the name of the roman festival of Isis, where her image was carried to the sea-shore to bless the start of the sailing season. The festival consisted in a parade of masks following an adorned wooden boat, that would reflect the floats of modern carnivals.

Originally, people did not observe Lent for more than a week. Some kept it for one or two days. Others kept it for 40 consecutive hours, falsely believing that only 40 hours had elapsed between Christ’s death and resurrection.
Eventually, it became a 40-day period of fasting or abstaining from certain foods. “The emphasis was not so much on the fasting as on the spiritual renewal that the preparation for Easter demanded. It was simply a period marked by fasting, but not necessarily one in which the faithful fasted every day. However, as time went on, more and more emphasis was laid upon fasting…During the early centuries (from the fifth century on especially) the observance of the fast was very strict. Only one meal a day, toward evening was allowed: flesh meat and fish, and in most places even eggs and dairy products, were absolutely forbidden. Meat was not even allowed on Sundays” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

From the ninth century onward, Lent’s strict rules were relaxed. Greater emphasis was given to performing “penitential works” than to fasting and abstinence. According to the apostolic constitution Poenitemini of Pope Paul IV (Feb. 17, 1966), “abstinence is to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on all Fridays of the year that do not fall on holy days of obligation, and fasting as well as abstinence is to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

Today, Lent is used for “fasting from sin and from vice…forsaking sin and sinful ways.” It is a season “for penance, which means sorrow for sin and conversion to God.” This tradition teaches that fasting and employing self-discipline during Lent will give a worshipper the “control over himself that he needs to purify his heart and renew his life.”

Although fasting is a helpful spiritual discipline, I'm not sure that God designed fasting as a tool for penance, “beating yourself up” or developing will power: Isaiah gives us a better focus for fasting. “Is it such a fast that I have chosen? A day for a man to afflict his soul? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord? Is not this the fast that I have chosen? To loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that you break every yoke? Is it not to deal your bread to the hungry, and that you bring the poor that are cast out to your house? When you see the naked, that you cover him; and that you hide not yourself from your own flesh?” (Isa. 58:5-7).

God’s people should humble themselves through fasting in order to draw closer to Him—so that they can learn to think and act like Him—so that they can live His way of life in all things. Notice what the prophet Jeremiah wrote: “Thus says the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glories glory in this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, says the Lord” (9:23-24). So during this season let your fasting (and prayer) help you draw closer to God.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

First Post

Welcome to the new blog!

I have drifted along without blogging for most of 2009 and all of 2010. Hopefully this blog will help me be a bit more consistent in writing down my other thoughts. There are lots of reasons for not having blogged - starting with the distraction of finishing the writing of my thesis in the Spring of 2009 and finishing off with a very distracted Fall and Winter 2009-2010.

But maybe a better place to start is why I actually am blogging. Blogging is a lot like journalling - only more public. The public nature of blogging helps keep me accountable - accountable to myself mostly - to keep recording my thoughts and insights. Journalling is important to help most people, and especially someone with my personality, to keep track of their journeys, to record the things they are learning about themselves, about life and about God. For me it helps keep my focus on moving forward instead of drifting along. It helps keep track of what I'm reading and the interesting things I find online.

Being held accountable doesn't get enough credit. Knowing that even one other person might be reading this help keep me motivated and helps me focus on expressing myself as clearly as possible.

I do have another blog called Hillschurch where I have been blogging since 2006. However I am finding it a bit unwieldy and I feel like a fresh start. I will probably be including some of my older posts from my Hillschurch blog if I have nothing else to say on a particular day. You can also go there to check out other posts I've done.

Happy New Year!
Happy Valentine's Day!
Happy Family Day (in Canada at least)
Happy Chinese New Year!