Sunday, 22 February 2015
New blog
So I finally made that theology blog I mentioned in the last post on here. This blog is no longer used, so go check out some new articles of mine here: http://www.thatancientfaith.uk/
Monday, 30 September 2013
Intentions
I intend to write more soon, or move/start a new blog specifically for theological thoughts. I haven't decided yet nor had the time to do either!
Links will be posted if the latter is decided.
Links will be posted if the latter is decided.
Sunday, 24 March 2013
What is time?
 |
| Is this what "time" looks like? |
Is it, like some imply, a metaphysical reality - a "place" that we are "in" and God is "out" of? Or something else entirely?
Or is it merely just the measurement of events and moments in a way that makes sense to us so that we can plan and do things with some kind of order and structure?
If it's the latter, then time is only an illusion. We aren't "moving" through time, it only appears that way because of how we perceive the world, history and the future.
In reality, we are all just in a fixed point of moments that we comprehend and experience in our minds. Our bodies, our cells, deteriorate and fail and we get "old", yet we haven't really moved anywhere in time, we've just essentially, "broken down".
If time is viewed like this, then God being "in" or "out" of time can make more sense because God doesn't age or brake down, so the illusion continues due to our perspective.
But if it's the former idea, and "time" is a metaphysical place that we reside in, and it is also something that has points we move to and from, and is also, in theory, possible to travel within by jumping to a farther or previous point - then God being "in" or "out" of time makes sense in a literal way, but what does it really mean?
It's this idea that brings about the weird theologies that we can pray today for a past event and God can intervene because he is "out" of time and can go to that point and do something.
Now, does God 'jump' around in this place called "time"? Can he go to the future and see what will happen, or go to the past and intervene in order to affect the future?
Or does he just experience and have what we humans only have too: this moment. To act, to affect the course of our day, lives, futures? Only with more insight, wisdom and foresight than we could possibly know and have?
I propose that time is an illusion, it's not "real", or at the very least then, time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".
The past is just memories, the future only possibilities. All we really have is right now.
Update (27th March): After having this as a discussion on Facebook, I'm adding some further thoughts and/or clarification below to follow on from above.
In the case that Time exists as a fundamental aspect of all matter, then surely the "time" that is real, and the "time" that we often describe and think of, especially in theological matters, are two different things? At least, that's how it appears in conversation with people sometimes.
At the very least then, Time is completely relative and not what we imagine it is as a fixed line of points from A to B where God can jump in and out of and affect the past or future before we "get there".
Whenever I speak to people about this or people mention God is "in time" or "out" of time, their understanding almost seems like time looks like the blue tunnel from Doctor Who that we're all just zipping through and God just pops in at the right point and then pops back out to eternity, as though they are two separate places or worlds. This is more the illusion if time that I speak of; the idea of time like a road we travel along, which from the little I do understand about time in a physics sense, this isn't the right way of thinking about it.
This type of time is just an illusion as it is a man-made structure. Things and events happen to us and around us, and we measure how long it takes and call it "time" - but is this real time? Is this the 4th dimension? Is this the time that God is either in or out of - a sort of giant cosmological calendar and clock that ticks forward from Gen 1:1 to the end of days (and also something that God can skip around within to any point he wishes)?
I would say no, but also "yes" to an extent in the sense that he appears so because of our perception of time in this way.
I think the verse that says "a day is like a thousand years" is probably as close as we can get to understanding God's timelessness because it basically tells us that time is completely relative. We can experience this to a degree ourselves when time "drags" when we're bored and it can feel like a hour has passed within only 5 minutes of a clock, or vice versa when we're having fun. Time in the dimensional sense I view as more fluid than a fixed line or speed.
But when I hear people talk or preach on God and time, the dimensional time doesn't seem to be the type they are envisioning, at least, that's not the way it's ever come across to me. It's always felt more like they see time as a big clock or calendar of events that God can sit back from and look at it all in real-time and pick and choose which moment to appear in, either past, present or future (especially when I've heard such teaching like I mentioned before about praying for intervention in past events).
From the discussion I was involved with, someone stated this:
Concerning the teachings and views I've heard about God and time, which I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anyone has ever cited Scripture, except maybe that a "day is like a thousand years" to "prove" that God is outside of time with no other explanation. I know I've not cited anything really for what I'm saying here, but I'm not interested in making a doctrine, just rather pointing out the fallacies of this idea about God jumping around time, and how it isn't consistent with logic or anything we know about metaphysical time as a dimension, as the ideas seem to be based on a linear view that "time" is a big clock/calendar.
But when I hear people talk or preach on God and time, the dimensional time doesn't seem to be the type they are envisioning, at least, that's not the way it's ever come across to me. It's always felt more like they see time as a big clock or calendar of events that God can sit back from and look at it all in real-time and pick and choose which moment to appear in, either past, present or future (especially when I've heard such teaching like I mentioned before about praying for intervention in past events).
From the discussion I was involved with, someone stated this:
"And I'll go so far as to say, that the Bible implicitly teaches that we are synchronized with the durative experience of God."I can agree with this. I don't believe that God is, or can be, at any other point in time than which we are currently at right now. He may well be able to know all the events of the general past, plus our personal past experiences with a perfection we could only dream of. I'd say the same for the future possibilities of the world and our lives on a personal level, to the extent that God can orchestrate certain things to happen due to his foreknowledge of possible outcomes etc. by intervening at the right moment - not by "time-travelling" to a future or past point to change something.
Concerning the teachings and views I've heard about God and time, which I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure anyone has ever cited Scripture, except maybe that a "day is like a thousand years" to "prove" that God is outside of time with no other explanation. I know I've not cited anything really for what I'm saying here, but I'm not interested in making a doctrine, just rather pointing out the fallacies of this idea about God jumping around time, and how it isn't consistent with logic or anything we know about metaphysical time as a dimension, as the ideas seem to be based on a linear view that "time" is a big clock/calendar.
It's not always been in sermons per se either, but rather that this seems to be the general thoughts and beliefs about God that I've noticed when people speak or explain certain things that relate to time and God. Somewhere along the way in general church-peoples theology, this idea of a "time-travelling God" has crept in somehow (along with other strange ideas that I disagree with - but that's another topic for another post!) which I think is dangerous to the extent that it creates and leads to other false and flawed doctrines on prayer and intercession.
Prayer is for now, not later. There's no praying in the present for yesterdays events (unless it's repentance of course), the urgency of our prayers should be because we believe God will hear and make a difference by our petitioning. These time-travelling sci-fi doctrines will make the people of God lazy and lax in their prayers as though they can pray tomorrow for something yesterday and still expect God's intervention.
This isn't a sci-fi film.
Monday, 18 March 2013
Digging through ancient texts
The Orthodox and Catholics have all the books from the Septuagint, which is what most of the early Christians would have known regarding the Old Testament. Those "extra" books that Protestants call the Deuterocanonical books (or that the general laypeople often refer to as 'The Apocrypha'), they're just part of the Old Testament the same as the more familiar OT books.
During the Reformation in the 16th century, Luther decided to remove these books (and planned to remove some New Testament books too) as he believed they weren't canonical and cited Jerome as his authority to make this decision. It was Jerome who, in the 5th century, distinguished between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments and said (quite controversially in his day) that those not found in the Hebrew version, were not canonical.
Other Christian writings were in some local canons of the New Testament, such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and writings of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. While they didn't end up being in the canon as we know it today, I think that everyone ought to read them, even if it's just once to see what the early church was reading and saying to each other after the Apostles were gone, or at the end of their era.
From here I've read many things and have been looking at the formation of the Canon, inspiration if scripture, how these things were decided and what the early church practice was in these matters.
I don't really have a conclusive answer to any of this yet, except that I don't believe that canon is (or should?) ever be completely closed. From my understanding so far, it would appear that the canonical lists were set as guidelines of what had been approved by the wider Church so that Christian communities could know what to use for teaching the basics of The Faith and to also guard against heresies, while at the same time still being "allowed" to use any other books/letters they had which were either unique or popular to that area or community.
I still have plenty more to read and study. At the moment I'm just reading through as many of these old texts as I can. I read the Apocalypse of Peter recently - that'll keep you awake at night! It was accepted at one point, kinda glad it's not now or we'd have some really freaky Hell doctrines (if we don't already). Think Dante's Inferno - this apocalypse was an influence for that!
During the Reformation in the 16th century, Luther decided to remove these books (and planned to remove some New Testament books too) as he believed they weren't canonical and cited Jerome as his authority to make this decision. It was Jerome who, in the 5th century, distinguished between the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments and said (quite controversially in his day) that those not found in the Hebrew version, were not canonical.
Other Christian writings were in some local canons of the New Testament, such as the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas and writings of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius. While they didn't end up being in the canon as we know it today, I think that everyone ought to read them, even if it's just once to see what the early church was reading and saying to each other after the Apostles were gone, or at the end of their era.
And this is what started my 'journey' into the older texts. I knew Catholics had "extra" books, but I never really understood why. I also knew the Reformation had something to do with it. So I began to research and, as stated above, I found that Luther removed some books from the OT and also wanted to remove some NT books as well.
This led me to a question: How, and on whose authority, did Luther just change the Bible? And why was it accepted?I know that Luther cited Jerome as an authority (and from what I understand so far about Jerome's reasoning against the Deuterocanonical books, I disagree with his decision), but is that enough to change the accepted canon? Could I, or indeed any Christian, cite another person from church history who opposed Jerome, as an authority to put the books back? Or remove others?
It all just seems like an endless spiral into chaos.
From here I've read many things and have been looking at the formation of the Canon, inspiration if scripture, how these things were decided and what the early church practice was in these matters.
I don't really have a conclusive answer to any of this yet, except that I don't believe that canon is (or should?) ever be completely closed. From my understanding so far, it would appear that the canonical lists were set as guidelines of what had been approved by the wider Church so that Christian communities could know what to use for teaching the basics of The Faith and to also guard against heresies, while at the same time still being "allowed" to use any other books/letters they had which were either unique or popular to that area or community.
I still have plenty more to read and study. At the moment I'm just reading through as many of these old texts as I can. I read the Apocalypse of Peter recently - that'll keep you awake at night! It was accepted at one point, kinda glad it's not now or we'd have some really freaky Hell doctrines (if we don't already). Think Dante's Inferno - this apocalypse was an influence for that!
I am intending to write more about these ancient texts as I go through them and my thoughts, as I journey closer towards understanding how we got to where we are today with the Bible and the Church.
Monday, 11 March 2013
Book review on Rob Bell's “Love Wins”
This book was quite openly condemned by some prominent Christian leaders when the book was first announced back around Spring 2011, mainly mainly accusing Bell of being a universalist and denying the existence of hell.
Lots of leaders formed opinions about the book and thus lots and laypeople took on various opinions as their own without much insight or research. The problem was that these leaders hadn't even READ the book! It wasn't released yet at the time. They decided their opinions based on the blurb and promo video which posed provocative questions about the doctrine of hell.
The book starts up asking lots of questions concerning salvation and how are you “attain” it and the consequences if you don't – while the same time pointing out the flaws in modern theology and general beliefs held by many in the Church today.
He then presents a lot more question to get you thinking and quotes Jesus' words, and a few other scriptures, which leads to more questions. Therein lies the purpose of this book – not for Rob to push you to believe what he does, but to get you to question and really think about the things we say we believe.
Bell then moves on to heaven. Unless you've really studied the Bible on Heaven, this chapter will likely smash a lot of cultural ideas you hold without you really realising it – the same can be said about the the chapter after which deals with hell.
Prepare for an eye-opener, and a lot of "Gospel Truth" that has somehow got lost, changed, misrepresented and mixed up in Medieval tradition and imagery over the last few centuries.
Anyone who is aware of the controversy that was/is surrounding this book and who heard that that Rob Bell "doesn't believe in hell" can rest assured that this isn't the case.
To quote the book, Bell writes:
Likewise, we can also create heaven on earth in the same way. This is what Jesus referred to when he prayed "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" – bringing the kingdom of God to the here and now.
The book then continues on from what is explained in these chapters to explore the rest of our theology and doctrines on salvation, the cross and the hereafter, often taking our contemporary doctrines (which aren't always as scripturally based as we may think) to their sometimes extreme logical conclusions; which often shows up the absurdities in them that we can overlook.
The book ends by examining the Good News, explaining that "it's better" than we first imagine; that God has done so much more through Jesus on the cross than we can comprehend at times – God's reconciliation is, literally, awesome and that ultimately, one way or another, love wins.
Whatever your thoughts or opinions on Rob Bell, whatever your beliefs about heaven, hell and everything in between, I highly recommend this book. Go in without an agenda – read it with an open mind and a willingness to learn and let the Spirit guide you.
You may not come out agreeing with everything written, but if you at least question and think about your views on hell and who goes there and, more importantly, why you think that – then I believe this book has served purpose.
Five stars – Well-written, easy to read and a thought-provoking book that everyone who takes Jesus' Gospel seriously should read at least once.
Lots of leaders formed opinions about the book and thus lots and laypeople took on various opinions as their own without much insight or research. The problem was that these leaders hadn't even READ the book! It wasn't released yet at the time. They decided their opinions based on the blurb and promo video which posed provocative questions about the doctrine of hell.
The book starts up asking lots of questions concerning salvation and how are you “attain” it and the consequences if you don't – while the same time pointing out the flaws in modern theology and general beliefs held by many in the Church today.
He then presents a lot more question to get you thinking and quotes Jesus' words, and a few other scriptures, which leads to more questions. Therein lies the purpose of this book – not for Rob to push you to believe what he does, but to get you to question and really think about the things we say we believe.
Bell then moves on to heaven. Unless you've really studied the Bible on Heaven, this chapter will likely smash a lot of cultural ideas you hold without you really realising it – the same can be said about the the chapter after which deals with hell.
Prepare for an eye-opener, and a lot of "Gospel Truth" that has somehow got lost, changed, misrepresented and mixed up in Medieval tradition and imagery over the last few centuries.
Anyone who is aware of the controversy that was/is surrounding this book and who heard that that Rob Bell "doesn't believe in hell" can rest assured that this isn't the case.
To quote the book, Bell writes:
"There is a hell now, and there is a hell later, and Jesus teaches us to take both seriously." (pg. 79)It's not only that he believes in hell "later" (i.e. after death), but also that because of our freedom of will in this life we can, and do, create hell on earth through our actions and sins.
Likewise, we can also create heaven on earth in the same way. This is what Jesus referred to when he prayed "Your will be done on earth as in heaven" – bringing the kingdom of God to the here and now.
The book then continues on from what is explained in these chapters to explore the rest of our theology and doctrines on salvation, the cross and the hereafter, often taking our contemporary doctrines (which aren't always as scripturally based as we may think) to their sometimes extreme logical conclusions; which often shows up the absurdities in them that we can overlook.
The book ends by examining the Good News, explaining that "it's better" than we first imagine; that God has done so much more through Jesus on the cross than we can comprehend at times – God's reconciliation is, literally, awesome and that ultimately, one way or another, love wins.
Whatever your thoughts or opinions on Rob Bell, whatever your beliefs about heaven, hell and everything in between, I highly recommend this book. Go in without an agenda – read it with an open mind and a willingness to learn and let the Spirit guide you.
You may not come out agreeing with everything written, but if you at least question and think about your views on hell and who goes there and, more importantly, why you think that – then I believe this book has served purpose.
Five stars – Well-written, easy to read and a thought-provoking book that everyone who takes Jesus' Gospel seriously should read at least once.
Sunday, 27 March 2011
So I'm reading that controversial book.
UPDATE (March 2013) - I finally did the rest of the review on this book... even if it is two years later! Better late than never, right? Go and read it now!
I ordered this a while ago and had been waiting in anticipation for it to arrive. "Love Wins: A book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived" by Rob Bell has been causing quite a stir on the interwebs various corners. I'm sure it's not new news to anyone who listens and watches these things that a few major church leaders quite openly condemned this book and its author because of its subject - before it had even been released and read!
Anyway, old news. What I want to talk about is what I have read so far. Right now I am half way through the book and still I'm not really sure what the controversy is about. All the nay-sayers were ranting about Rob Bell now being a "universalist" and that he'd thrown out hell and all that. Well I just read the chapter on hell and here's a quote from it:
I don't really see anything so controversial about that.
Jesus calls us to do the opposite of these things in the here and now - to bring justice, righteousness, peace, love, morality and goodness to this world now in the form of the Good News, as bringing the Kingdom of God to people around us right now in our very actions. Our actions bring a little bit of heaven and its principles and realities to this reality in this time.
Is it then so hard to think that the opposite can be true? That a little bit of "hell" can be brought to this present reality by our actions that remove those Kingdom principles?
Take a look at the world around us and ask yourself that question.
I'll write more once I've finished the book.
 | |
| Love Wins by Rob Bell |
Anyway, old news. What I want to talk about is what I have read so far. Right now I am half way through the book and still I'm not really sure what the controversy is about. All the nay-sayers were ranting about Rob Bell now being a "universalist" and that he'd thrown out hell and all that. Well I just read the chapter on hell and here's a quote from it:
So... where's the controversy? In that he says all the injustice, pain, torment, hate, tears, and death that we experience now in this lifetime is just as equal to hell being now as hell being a future place of such things? That when we give up all things good, humane, decent, moral, divine, that we have in some form or other just created a type of hell on earth scenario for people to live in?
I don't really see anything so controversial about that.
Jesus calls us to do the opposite of these things in the here and now - to bring justice, righteousness, peace, love, morality and goodness to this world now in the form of the Good News, as bringing the Kingdom of God to people around us right now in our very actions. Our actions bring a little bit of heaven and its principles and realities to this reality in this time.
Is it then so hard to think that the opposite can be true? That a little bit of "hell" can be brought to this present reality by our actions that remove those Kingdom principles?
Take a look at the world around us and ask yourself that question.
I'll write more once I've finished the book.
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Another Shameless Plug
I'll cut to the chase:
My brand new, very first publication, The Three, is now available on Amazon for Kindle!
You can get it here (a free sample is also available): http://amzn.to/ekIUih (or go to the US Kindle store: http://amzn.to/fFrqBG)
Now to fill this blog out with something else to make it seem like its not all about plugging my new eBook: a little background.
I've been writing stories pretty much all my life. I like to tell stories. When I was really young I'd write small stories and make little "books". That developed into comics and for many years I would draw a comic series that I began in about 1997 and continued until early 2000's, which I then turned into three PC RPG/Adventure games.
Then in 2005 I wrote this story (The Three) for an online short story competition - and came in first place! In 2007 I wrote another for another competition called Message in a Bottle which came in 2nd place. In 2009 I wrote another story, called 'Love, Ire and Alcohol'... and as I write this I'm seeing a pattern emerge of when I seem to write! Especially as the latest story (called 'Obsession') I am currently half-way through writing is being written in 2011!
Of course, all of these will be available on Amazon Kindle store. 'The Three', and 'Message in a Bottle' (the coming next story) have and are being re-edited and re-written in places as they were originally done with competition word-limit restrictions, so now I'm releasing them to the public I thought I'd take the opportunity to expand on the stories where I couldn't before.
So there you have it, a little background about me and my writing!
My brand new, very first publication, The Three, is now available on Amazon for Kindle!
You can get it here (a free sample is also available): http://amzn.to/ekIUih (or go to the US Kindle store: http://amzn.to/fFrqBG)
Now to fill this blog out with something else to make it seem like its not all about plugging my new eBook: a little background.
I've been writing stories pretty much all my life. I like to tell stories. When I was really young I'd write small stories and make little "books". That developed into comics and for many years I would draw a comic series that I began in about 1997 and continued until early 2000's, which I then turned into three PC RPG/Adventure games.
Then in 2005 I wrote this story (The Three) for an online short story competition - and came in first place! In 2007 I wrote another for another competition called Message in a Bottle which came in 2nd place. In 2009 I wrote another story, called 'Love, Ire and Alcohol'... and as I write this I'm seeing a pattern emerge of when I seem to write! Especially as the latest story (called 'Obsession') I am currently half-way through writing is being written in 2011!
Of course, all of these will be available on Amazon Kindle store. 'The Three', and 'Message in a Bottle' (the coming next story) have and are being re-edited and re-written in places as they were originally done with competition word-limit restrictions, so now I'm releasing them to the public I thought I'd take the opportunity to expand on the stories where I couldn't before.
So there you have it, a little background about me and my writing!
Shameless Plug
"The Three" - Available soon on Kindle
"Moving to a sleepy village in Cornwall was meant to be a nice new start for Katie. That was until a rainy day changed everything in a single moment, making her life change in ways she could never have anticipated. Now with secrets about the world around her being revealed, how will Katie cope with all the new information? Life would never be the same again."
Short Story: Action & Adventure, Fantasy - 6684 words.
"Moving to a sleepy village in Cornwall was meant to be a nice new start for Katie. That was until a rainy day changed everything in a single moment, making her life change in ways she could never have anticipated. Now with secrets about the world around her being revealed, how will Katie cope with all the new information? Life would never be the same again."
Short Story: Action & Adventure, Fantasy - 6684 words.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Organic Church
I was reading an article on Christianity Today (amongst other blogs) earlier on about the subject of "organic church" and its possible success and probable future failures. Now, I'll admit I didn't (don't?) know a great deal about organic church other than I've heard the name thrown about before. According to the article it includes " at least three ingredients" to be counted as "organic". First being "Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it" - well I'm sure there's quite a few people who would fall into that category, I know I do! The second ingredient for this recipe for church is "a focus on people (vs. programs)" - now this is another point I reckon a fair few church-goers could relate to. I know we like to say the focus is on people, but there are times that come to mind where it's meant to have been about the people, but the project became the focus. With phrases like "it's our baby" and taking all the ownership of a project too heavily. Not that feeling a sense of ownership is necessarily a bad thing, but maybe when having a project means more to you than the impact it's having on the people it was initially intended for, then maybe it has become a bad thing and the program or project defines you rather than the other way around. We all like control and the feeling of our own little empires, but I believe Jesus was more about giving up those desires to follow the Kingdom and its principles - which is definitely people focussed. If a program isn't reaching people in a positive way, yet we cling onto keeping it alive and running, then we have lost the focus and care more for our own thing than for people.
I'm not saying all churches are like this, far from it, just that we ought to be aware of such things happening. Especially if we are serious about "doing" church right, doing it "the Jesus way" (if there is such a thing), expanding the Kingdom, being people focussed - being organic.
The third ingredient for this church-pie is "mission (vs. institutional maintenance)". Again, another heavily focussed people initiative, which is very similar to the second point, but at the same time much broader. Whereas programs are internal structures for members and maybe external but select groups of people, mission should be global. However local, local church may be, the mission field is still all the places outside of the church doors, and therefore global and not confined to a particular group of people. Yes, I'm aware that mission trips etc are often focussed in a particular area, or people group, but that doesn't take away from the fact that mission is a global endeavour - Jesus' words "to the ends of the earth" should echo through the very core of mission, and indeed, the Church as a whole in terms of where we should be going and aiming for.
Now contrast this with "institutional maintenance" - however you define that, it definitely doesn't sound much like "mission". Should we really be trying to maintain an institution? Is that really what people want in or as a church? But the real question I think is this: do non-church people want an institution?
The Church, the spiritual movement, that Jesus began and that was continued through the apostles should be transformational to people's lives. The love, grace and healing power that comes through Jesus is what should define and change people in the Church and those that come to be a part of it. Institution breeds apathy and comfort that's easy. A place that we can proclaim to be a part of and attend each week, and maybe on a Tuesday and Thursday as well for Bible study and prayer from 7.30 until 9.30pm. If we're honest with ourselves, after reading the Gospels and Acts and then looking at our own church, and maybe the Church as a whole (at least in the Western world), does it match up, even slightly? Is what we have really what we want for Church?
I haven't read lots on the subject of organic church, but from my brief reading today of websites and blogs from church leaders who advocate this style of doing church, but what I've wrote here is what I can gather organic church to, at least in a small part, be like or aiming to have these qualities.
And this is the kind of church I'd like to be a part of.
I'm not saying all churches are like this, far from it, just that we ought to be aware of such things happening. Especially if we are serious about "doing" church right, doing it "the Jesus way" (if there is such a thing), expanding the Kingdom, being people focussed - being organic.
The third ingredient for this church-pie is "mission (vs. institutional maintenance)". Again, another heavily focussed people initiative, which is very similar to the second point, but at the same time much broader. Whereas programs are internal structures for members and maybe external but select groups of people, mission should be global. However local, local church may be, the mission field is still all the places outside of the church doors, and therefore global and not confined to a particular group of people. Yes, I'm aware that mission trips etc are often focussed in a particular area, or people group, but that doesn't take away from the fact that mission is a global endeavour - Jesus' words "to the ends of the earth" should echo through the very core of mission, and indeed, the Church as a whole in terms of where we should be going and aiming for.
Now contrast this with "institutional maintenance" - however you define that, it definitely doesn't sound much like "mission". Should we really be trying to maintain an institution? Is that really what people want in or as a church? But the real question I think is this: do non-church people want an institution?
The Church, the spiritual movement, that Jesus began and that was continued through the apostles should be transformational to people's lives. The love, grace and healing power that comes through Jesus is what should define and change people in the Church and those that come to be a part of it. Institution breeds apathy and comfort that's easy. A place that we can proclaim to be a part of and attend each week, and maybe on a Tuesday and Thursday as well for Bible study and prayer from 7.30 until 9.30pm. If we're honest with ourselves, after reading the Gospels and Acts and then looking at our own church, and maybe the Church as a whole (at least in the Western world), does it match up, even slightly? Is what we have really what we want for Church?
I haven't read lots on the subject of organic church, but from my brief reading today of websites and blogs from church leaders who advocate this style of doing church, but what I've wrote here is what I can gather organic church to, at least in a small part, be like or aiming to have these qualities.
And this is the kind of church I'd like to be a part of.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Hell and all that damnable stuff
So on light of all the Rob Bell controversy, it resparked my desire to look into the traditional doctrine of hell. My thoughts on it all began long ago before I went to study theology about 5 or so years ago now. A good close friend of mine was struggling in her faith over the traditional hell concept and found it hard to rectify or justify in her mind. It was the usual question of "how can a loving God burn people forever?" infinite punishment for finite crimes. I had thought about it before then but never in any great depth as I just didn't know where to begin, being a fairly new Christian at the time. I did my best to try work out an answer with my friend as we talked over Scripture, Jesus and God's nature but ultimately she lost her faith (though what her spiritual state of mind is now, I don't know). I don't know for certain if this was the cause or just one of the main deciding factors, but regardless, it damaged her once very passionate faith in God. And it was sad, I was quite upset and mainly at my own failings in being able to help more despite not knowing much in detail about the faith back then.
Nevertheless, this has always stuck with me all these years. I've never stopped thinking about the concept of hell and it implications and whether it really is as clear cut in the bible. I wasn't sure but in the times where i didn't understand fully, I just left it to God and decided that I'm sure he knows what he is doing with people once they passed on.
Then I went to Mattersey Hall and studied theology and biblical studies for 3 years. To be honest this didn't help much with the problem of hell. I studied the afterlife in the Old Testament as part of one of my courses and that just added to confusion. The afterlife is a vert strange concept in the OT. But I never got to study the New Testament concept of hell.
Now I'm taking the opportunity to really study it all properly and find what the Scriptures do teach rather than me just thinking of all the people who have said "well the bible says ... Doesn't it?" and never really being sure of what it really DOES say. I mean, obviously I known of the places where Jesus does speak of the afterlife but what I'm doing now is looking at everything as a whole rather than isolated verses and incidents.
A few months ago I had begun to think about it all again properly and have some discussions with friends on the subject but that's about as far as it went. Now all this Rob Bell stuff has made me begin to question it all again and now I've decided to actually write down my research and really look into the history and context of first century beliefs, rabbinic traditions, the apostolic and early church fathers writings and anything else that seems relevant, all to see what I can find and to see where our doctrine has come from and how it got to be what it is today.
And so far what I'm finding is surprising me! I'm coming from the approach that the earlier beliefs in the Church were possibly closer to the original Christians views. The early church seemed to have much different views on hell than we do now, possible more in line with later Jewish rabbinic traditions from the Mishnah etc and almost closer to Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (but not quite) and maybe not as eternal.
Now, I haven't completed my research yet so there is still more to discover. I'm not set either way yet on what I think about hell, so I'm open to discover and learn whatever I can. If I come out believing the traditional view, then so be it, at least I've studied it for myself to feel confident and what I believe and have some conviction about it. But should I come out with a view that's not the "orthodox" in today's churches, and at the risk of being branded a heretic, well I'm happy with that too.
I'll write more about it once I've researched more to talk about properly.
Nevertheless, this has always stuck with me all these years. I've never stopped thinking about the concept of hell and it implications and whether it really is as clear cut in the bible. I wasn't sure but in the times where i didn't understand fully, I just left it to God and decided that I'm sure he knows what he is doing with people once they passed on.
Then I went to Mattersey Hall and studied theology and biblical studies for 3 years. To be honest this didn't help much with the problem of hell. I studied the afterlife in the Old Testament as part of one of my courses and that just added to confusion. The afterlife is a vert strange concept in the OT. But I never got to study the New Testament concept of hell.
Now I'm taking the opportunity to really study it all properly and find what the Scriptures do teach rather than me just thinking of all the people who have said "well the bible says ... Doesn't it?" and never really being sure of what it really DOES say. I mean, obviously I known of the places where Jesus does speak of the afterlife but what I'm doing now is looking at everything as a whole rather than isolated verses and incidents.
A few months ago I had begun to think about it all again properly and have some discussions with friends on the subject but that's about as far as it went. Now all this Rob Bell stuff has made me begin to question it all again and now I've decided to actually write down my research and really look into the history and context of first century beliefs, rabbinic traditions, the apostolic and early church fathers writings and anything else that seems relevant, all to see what I can find and to see where our doctrine has come from and how it got to be what it is today.
And so far what I'm finding is surprising me! I'm coming from the approach that the earlier beliefs in the Church were possibly closer to the original Christians views. The early church seemed to have much different views on hell than we do now, possible more in line with later Jewish rabbinic traditions from the Mishnah etc and almost closer to Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory (but not quite) and maybe not as eternal.
Now, I haven't completed my research yet so there is still more to discover. I'm not set either way yet on what I think about hell, so I'm open to discover and learn whatever I can. If I come out believing the traditional view, then so be it, at least I've studied it for myself to feel confident and what I believe and have some conviction about it. But should I come out with a view that's not the "orthodox" in today's churches, and at the risk of being branded a heretic, well I'm happy with that too.
I'll write more about it once I've researched more to talk about properly.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
The law is an ass
Today I read some articles on a court case against a Christian foster couple. They were apparently banned from fostering because if their beliefs against advocating homosexuality, despite them saying they would still look after and care for someone who was gay.
Now as annoying as this kind of "new" persecution against Christians can be, it's not really that which annoys me most. What gets me is that in one article it was quoted as saying that matters of sexual orientation take precedence over matters of conscience on the basis of "equality".
When.. Or rather, how, did the law end up like this? How has it become that having a clear conscience of your actions is second to whether you like men or women? I understand there are lots of issues with homosexuality and prejudices and hate towards people, but I still can't see how defending who people want to be with has become more important than some form of justice.
Plus, it's meant to be about being equal etc - well how is it equal to those with differing moral standards? This is why I think human rights and equality can't always work together; one way or the other something has got to give in order to let the other "right" be exercised. And once it does, the balance is tipped and it's not so equal anymore. But with homosexual rights being pushed so much by the govt., it doesn't matter who else loses their right to their freedom of expression and life or morals, as long as gay people don't feel marginalised.
Sometimes I think the law cares more about protecting peoples feelings than anything else these days...
Article Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html
Now as annoying as this kind of "new" persecution against Christians can be, it's not really that which annoys me most. What gets me is that in one article it was quoted as saying that matters of sexual orientation take precedence over matters of conscience on the basis of "equality".
When.. Or rather, how, did the law end up like this? How has it become that having a clear conscience of your actions is second to whether you like men or women? I understand there are lots of issues with homosexuality and prejudices and hate towards people, but I still can't see how defending who people want to be with has become more important than some form of justice.
Plus, it's meant to be about being equal etc - well how is it equal to those with differing moral standards? This is why I think human rights and equality can't always work together; one way or the other something has got to give in order to let the other "right" be exercised. And once it does, the balance is tipped and it's not so equal anymore. But with homosexual rights being pushed so much by the govt., it doesn't matter who else loses their right to their freedom of expression and life or morals, as long as gay people don't feel marginalised.
Sometimes I think the law cares more about protecting peoples feelings than anything else these days...
Article Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8353180/Foster-parents-defeated-by-the-new-Inquisition.html
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Controversy: Rob Bell's "Love Wins"
So the other night I decided to try get into this whole twitter thing. Yes, I know it's been around forever now but I never really "got it" and just stuck with Facebook. So I go on twitter and discover the trending topics and see a familiar name at the top of the list: Rob Bell.
Now I do like Rob Bell and his nooma series etc so I decided to check it out and found what I wish I didn't.. Hate. Lots and lots of hating going on from so-called christians about Rob Bell and his new unreleased book about heaven and hell called: "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".
The marketing makes it sound sensational and a very brief video from Rob Bell poses some provoking questions but nothing says what he actually thinks or believes, yet everyone on the twittersphere is yelling condemnation and heresy!!
It's no wonder the world sees the Church in a bad light.
Here's the article and video that has been retweeted a bajillion times already: http://ow.ly/445Q5
Now I do like Rob Bell and his nooma series etc so I decided to check it out and found what I wish I didn't.. Hate. Lots and lots of hating going on from so-called christians about Rob Bell and his new unreleased book about heaven and hell called: "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived".
The marketing makes it sound sensational and a very brief video from Rob Bell poses some provoking questions but nothing says what he actually thinks or believes, yet everyone on the twittersphere is yelling condemnation and heresy!!
It's no wonder the world sees the Church in a bad light.
Here's the article and video that has been retweeted a bajillion times already: http://ow.ly/445Q5
Saturday, 12 February 2011
BookSneeze
So I've signed up for a new site I found out about called BookSneeze. It gives you free books in return for reviewing them and posting the reviews on your blog and on a website, such as Amazon etc. Sounds like fun, so I'm gonna give it a try!
http://www.booksneeze.com
http://www.booksneeze.com
Friday, 11 February 2011
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Thursday, 23 October 2008
Tara Mathew
Brand new photoshoot with a Canadian singer! Go check out the photos and see what you think.
Plus there are some new family portraits photos up and some newly added and edited wedding pictures!
More to come soon! :)
Plus there are some new family portraits photos up and some newly added and edited wedding pictures!
More to come soon! :)
Friday, 5 September 2008
PAIN
How do you release the pain deep within? When the heart aches and pains is there ever a cure to fix the break?
Emotions are stirred, my focus is blurred.
pain = art
Emotions are stirred, my focus is blurred.
pain = art
Monday, 4 August 2008
Amazing Concept
I found this today on Flickr and thought it was an amazing concept that I can't believe hasn't occurred to me to try already! (I say that not with arrogance, but because I'm into and have done animation!)
Anyway, watch and be amazed:
Anyway, watch and be amazed:
Monday, 26 May 2008
Brand New Galleries!
Hello there once again! The website has been updated with some new galleries now that contain photography projects. These are themed photo shoots and so are different than just standard portraits etc. So far there are three sets to look at, the latest being "Kayleigh Colour Contrast" - which there is an example of on the right hand side. Go to Luke Wilson Photography and check out the Gallery pages to see some more for yourself!
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Help me get published!
Hello there! I have a photo submitted to a magazine, and it is in with the chance of being published! All that it needs is some votes to show you like it.
So if you would like to help by voting positively, then just follow this link: http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/405654
Thanks, and enjoy!
So if you would like to help by voting positively, then just follow this link: http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/405654
Thanks, and enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)