Theologi-Blogging 2

Continuing on the subject I started yesterday, here is my first "problem":

Blogging requires energy! Speaking for myself, I can testify that being provoked by someone else's post, and taking the time to respond by way of a comment or a post on my own blog is draining. Not to mention the task of writing what I would call and "original" post! I enjoy it, but it demands thought, energy and substance (all of which I need to work on cultivating).

But thought, energy and substance are all things I need in my everyday life too. And I am persuaded that (even with the grace of God lavished on me) I only have a limited capacity for such things. My worry is that after engaging with the blogosphere I am far less inclined to personal evangelism, or to engaging with a real-life friends on the same or similar subject. I don't believe my activity online in any way makes up for such apathy in the real world. And it certainly should never become a substitute for good works. If blogging ever reduces my passion for the work of God, or to see it outworked in my everyday life I should be under no illusions as to what my response should be... whether blogging is the "future" or not.

Again: Outraged...

As I predicted, "good song by original artist" has been overlooked once again by the tween, single-buying population in favour of "unoriginal, manufactured trash" bringing Westlife their 13th number one single. You Raise Me Up has debuted at number one.

How Helpful? Theologi-Blogging

There are always a multitude of highly stimulating debates taking place in the blogosphere. Perhaps some of the most prominent debates taking place today in the world of blog are those which centre around theology, and issues surrounding church life.

As much as I enjoy these online dialogues, I have recently been trying to answer a few questions which have made me think twice about theologi-blogging.

Firstly, we must acknowledge both the current benefits and the future potential of blogging. Personally I am reluctant to do so because nowhere is blogging more highly regarded than in the blogosphere itself: we hardly need any more voices heralding the era of the blog. There is a need to qualify however, the thoughts which I will be venturing later on. So consider blogging to be bigged-up enough by way of this paragraph that I won't have comments afterwards saying "If you hate bloggin so much why don't you stop?!":

Blogging (we are told) is the future. It marks a change in the way we use the internet from gathering to publishing. It has brought believers together. Groups of christians who would otherwise have rarely and reluctantly crossed paths, now do so often, and many are learning to communicate and speak the language of the other. The number of christian bloggers online means that there is often a blogging representative for any theological perspective you may want to engage with. Some would say that this has brought glory to God.

The negatives which I have been allowing myself to explore in recent days should be taken seriously, and I will be posting a serious of thoughts and questions in the coming weeks which will build on these, and will hopefully involve others engaging. The first of these will be published soon!

Is It All Over?

Is this party's time-honoured task of clearing up after a government that's spent too much, borrowed too much and interfered far too much over? Not yet...

The Telegraph: "There's Plenty Of Life Left In The Churches"

"...The old institutional denominations - the traditional C of E, the Catholics and Presbyterians - are in decline. So are the heretical Churches on the wacky fringes of the faith, the Jehovah's Witnesses and their strange brethren.

There is a scriptural echo here: "We played the flute for you, but you did not dance." Christ parodied those who could not understand their failure to win souls: "We sang a dirge but you did not mourn." Both the weird and the dull, the outlandish and the hidebound, fail. There is a third way.

According to Brierley, the Churches that are growing are the ones which are orthodox but experimental: the Pentecostals and evangelicals, relaxed in style but strict in substance, liberal in all but doctrine and appealing not to liturgy but to grace.

They are terrifically embarrassing, of course, with their shouting and clapping; then again, "I will be even more undignified than this," said King David as he danced before the Lord. Decorum is bunk.

"Whenever two or three are gathered together in My name," said Christ, "there I am in the midst of them." God is no doubt just as delighted with seven old ladies muttering their responses in an echoing church as he is with 700 twenty-somethings bellowing God-rock.

Yet surely there is something in the attendance figures which shows that, as St Paul put it, "having the form of godliness but denying its power" is a recipe for a moribund Church.

The precursors of the Pentecostals were the Methodist field-preachers, speaking to the masses who could not, or would not, enter formal churches. John Wesley vowed to "live and die an Anglican", but in time Methodism left the C of E, and has declined sharply in modern times (indeed, its profile is the grimmest of all the denominations). Churches, like all institutions, must renew themselves...

Time to get orthodox, and get modern..."

Things To Consider

During Jesus' life did He worry about what others thought of Him? Or even take it into consideration? I would suggest that He didn't. What I observe in the life of Jesus is a man who listened closely to the voice of God, and obeyed. Listened and obeyed. For Him winning people was not a matter of diplomacy or artificial "bridge-building", but a matter of the Spirit working. And His part in that was... that's right... to listen and obey.

Was there concern for the eternal welfare of a soul? Yes. But concern over their opinion of him? No. This total indifference to what others thought of Him is a trait I would like to pick up. That does not mean I will go out of my way to offend. It does mean that the most important things for me will be:

1) Hearing from God and developing a wonderful relationship with Him.
2) Doing what He says, both in His Word and prophetically. This does not mean giving prophetic insights equal importance to the Bible, but holding them lightly whilst hearing what else God is saying by other means, whether confirming or correcting.
3) In the process cultivating a passionate indifference to the judgements and opinions others hold over me (but not an unawareness or unteachability). Living for Him only.

Perhaps there were some who said "Jesus is a great guy, and the thrust of what He's doing is so great. But I sometimes feel uncomfortable when He says that He's the ONLY way to heaven... I mean, isn't that just arrogant? His general direction is great, and even though He says some awkward stuff like "I am the way, the truth and the life", He's actually a really humble man, so I guess that's why He gets away with it and God blesses Him."

But those people, whilst entitled to their opinion, would not have moulded or altered Jesus' course through their comments. And why? Because He knew His identity and calling. One can just imagine the observer I have described being more of a religious connoissuer than they are a teachable disciple.

The flip side is, Jesus would have been so unaffected by the non-threat of such comments that there would most likely have been no explosive reaction. He would have just continued to listen and obey.

Graciousness...

...I think I need to work on it (perhaps to be correct I should say receive more of it). I was reading through my comments and realised that those I have received on this blog to date (particularly ones from other Christians) are marked by humility, kindness and graciousness. Mine, by contrast seem to be a more harsh and unaccepting of criticism.

And In Your Victory I Now Stand Today!

That complete, wonderful victory won for us through the mystery of His death and ressurection. That victory which means when faced with trials on every side we know the outcome is secure!

Adrian Warnock Interviews CJ Mahaney

Over on his blog, Adrian has published an interview he conducted with CJ Mahaney. How does he do it? I have yet to find out; in the meantime go and read the interview.

A Question Of Authority

Adrian Warnock's advice to me on starting a blog was this (see comments):

"Steer clear of subjects where you dont want to potentially take the heat. I know that there are certain subjects that I avoid like the plague on this blog as I really do not want to get into a big discussion on them or do not feel competent to handle them."

This has been sound advice which I have tried to adhere to. But from very early on I have been wanting to post on the issue of manhood and womanhood, and although so far I have thought of it as an issue I should avoid, today I am breaking my own rule. I still have posts in my drafts tray on the subject, waiting to make an appearance, but for now I will make a comment and see where it takes me.

Baxter's Boy is reading a book with contributions from Gordon Fee, which apparently is a partial-rebuttal of the view held by Wayne Grudem on biblical manhood and womanhood. I was interested to read his comments as Baxter's Boy has recently joined the Newfrontiers family of churches: many would say that our stance on gender issues is a strong distinctive. It is also a strong distinctive of Sovereign Grace Ministries, which he has come from.

Wayne Grudem gave an excellent talk in a main session at the Newfrontiers Leadership Conference in June 2002 explaining his view from the Bible. It stands out in the memory of everyone I know who was there as being so powerful, and Wayne himself speaking with such humility. Get hold of the video/tape if you can, it is well worth a listen.

I am convinced from scripture that the views held by Grudem are biblical. But I am always looking to inform myself more on the subject, ensuring that I hear alternative viewpoints to my own. This is important as I think gender issues are some of the key areas our generation will have to come to terms with and be clear on.

However, while I investigate more for myself, I am more than willing to place myself under the leadership of Godly men I trust who line up with the what the Bible teaches on this issue. Terry Virgo, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, Josh Harris and Wayne Grudem are all on (or allied to) the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. And all are men I look to for leadership, whether in the practical church-building stuff or teaching, books etc.

But this form of trust in leadership is also called into questions by the Life on Wings blogger. He mentions the various forms of authority which we (particularly as Christians) will tend to submit to. Briefly:

Religious Authority - External
1. A Sacred Book
2. An Authoratative Person
3. A Community of Persons
Religious Authority - Internal
1. Reason
2. Experience

Wheras this seems to be a general observation of all religions, I would suggest that for Christianity at least, the picture is not so neat. We submit to a sacred book because of the authoritative One who spoke it out. This One is a community of Three and from them proceeds the Word of God. But for us the "sacred book" is the thing which has informed us of those facts, so our final authority would have to be the Bible.

But he goes on to say,

"I submit that the "authoratative person" still holds sway in many churches today. Why is this? Is it because much of the congregation does not have the time or patience to get into the Word of God and find out what God has to say?"

as if trusting in one's leaders is a weakness. I agree that it is the responsibility of each believer before God to get into His Word and find stuff out for themselves. But realistically, it is always going to be the case that church leaders have more day-to-day experience in dealing with scripture. This does not make their opinions any better before God than ours, BUT we must remember that they should be leading us because God has given them His authority. They are God-appointed under-shepherds. The way Fee seems to have set up this balance of authority seems to me to be unhelpful. It is precisely because we give scripture the ultimate authority in our lives that we submit to our God-given leaders!

Happy Birthday Nigel!

Various sources tell me that today is Nigel Ring's birthday! Happy Birthday Nigel! Have a good one!

The Power Of The Cross

I tend to find that my opinions on these albums are almost never objective. Rightly or wrongly, I tend to judge them on how fairly they represent the conferences at which they were recorded. And in this respect, the Newfrontiers albums have yet to dissappoint. Having said that, I know a few people who feel let down by the "quality" of the albums year on year. Without being super-spiritual, when I buy an album like "The Power of the Cross" it is different to buying a regular album. It's an investment in my personal worship.

Over the last year "The Passion of God's Son" (2004) has constantly been an excellent resource to help me worship God in private. When I've been at a loss as to how to approach God, this CD has been an effective tool. And yet the same criticisms were made of the 2004 album as are being made about this year's. I think that is the reason why these CDs are produced: not to be a satisfying technical performance but to be a tool for the church, to help us worship.

The songs this year are better than ever. The rich truths expressed in "O Church Arise", "Indescribable" and "The Power of the Cross" are amazing in their depth. And the contrast with songs from other continents (there are two: "Bambelela" and "Ecstatic Praise") is so encouraging. I love that the conference becomes more and more international every year.

Many Christian CDs do focus on the performance, and that is to their credit. We are to pursue excellence to the extent that the world should want to mimic us. But Leadership 05 and Mobilise are about so much more than putting on a good show. And the same goes for the album.

Luke Wood: Outraged...

...at the trashing of a perfectly good song by Westlife. "You Raise Me Up" as sung and released by proper pioneering singers such as Josh Groban and Aled Jones is going to be released by the group on 24th October 2005. Not that their version sounds awful, but it just gives an original song the standard pop-ballad treatment, sloppy strings et al...

The plain truth is that I am a music-snob. Through a lot of searching for vaguely original music I have found a few songs which I love and which, although not unheard of, have not been hijacked by a generation of crooning tweens. To me, that makes them better music. The logic is, I know I like them because they are good songs and not just because the pop-trash culture has invaded my consciousness, as though by osmosis. Although I should be pleased to share my favourites with a wider audience, I am not. I'm happy being selfish.

In a matter of just a few weeks one of my favourite songs will be nothing more than an "as performed by Westlife" track to most of the population. How unfair that it is the less-talented but more-branded musicians that inevitably get the credit for original work.

You're Setting Me Up On A Mission Of Life

I can see I'm a little unstable
Can you tell I'm a little bit hungry?
Can't you see I'm a little bit weary?
In a three-piece suit and choes that don't fit me
How can I live when I want to be free?
This is my time and these are my needs

Just a few of the lines from a new song called Switch It On which I'm loving.