Skip to content

4

Brian Cox - dream-boat physicist, not craggy-faced actor - recently said this:

 Our civilization was built on the foundations of reason and rational thinking embodied in the scientific method, and our future depends on the widespread acceptance of science as THE ONLY WAY WE HAVE to meet many, if not all, of the great challenges we face. (here)

Well now.  Them there's fighting words.  Therefore, I thought it was time to repost this from two years ago (see how cutting edge CTT is?  Discussing Cox two years ago!)

......

Just watched this documentary on the Large Hadron Collider: "The Big Bang Machine." (BBC4) presented by Brian Cox.

[youtube=http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kaRKpQ5QvUQ&feature=channel]

Here's an extract from around 4:20 - 7:20.

Physics is stuck and the only thing left to do is recreate the universe as it was a fraction of a second after the big bang.  That's what the LHC is designed to do.  To smash bits of matter together at energies  never before achieved so that we can stare at the face of creation...

So here's the aim - to stare at the face of creation.

And this is the means - to smash particles together.

Notice the disjunct between the stated aim and the means!   Cox excites us about the scientific quest promising us a 'face' to creation.  Of course "face" says communicative, conscious.  It says personality.  It's no wonder that Cox wants to reach for this kind of language because at bottom it's personal reality that we long to see.  But all Cox can give us is particles.  This is the trouble.

What do you say of a person who promises you a face but gives you only particles?

What do you say of an enterprise that can describe a face only in terms of its sub-atomic particles?

He continues...

...Every civilization has its own creation story.  The ancient Chinese, indian mystics and Christian theologians all place a divine creator at the heart of their creation stories.  Science too has an elaborate story that describes the universe's genesis.  It tells us how the fundamental constituents of the cosmos took on their form.  The difference with this story is that we can test it.  We can find out if its true by tearing matter apart and looking at the pieces.  All you need is a machine powerful enough to restage the first moments after creation...

This was the sentence that made me sit up and take notice: "Every civilization has its own creation story."  And Cox puts 'science' in there among Indian mystics and Christian theologians.  Ok good.  We're all telling stories about the world around us - scientists included.  But what does Cox say is the difference with science?  Answer: "we can test it."  Hmm.  How will science be tested?  Tearing apart matter and looking at the pieces.

Well now that's a very sensible test if you think that matter is what explains everything.  If you have a story about the world that says everything came about via material means then test matter.  Yes indeed that's testable.  But it's not the only thing that's testable.  What if your story about the world says 'Everything came about via the Word who was with God in the beginning and then became flesh and dwelt among us.'  Is that testable?  You betcha!  Every bit as much as the 'science' story.  It's just that you test this story in ways appropriate to its nature.

All science works by testing its object of study in accordance with its nature.  You don't do astronomy with a microscope - your means of testing is adapted to the thing tested.  So if you think it's all about matter, you study matter.  But if you think it's all about the Word then you study the Word.  Theology in this sense is completely scientific.  It is taking its Object of enquiry completely seriously and pursuing thorough investigation according the nature of the Word - ie it is listening obediently to Him.  That's good science.  And it's our only hope of actually seeing the Face that explains our world.  Particles won't get you to the Person - but the Person can help you explain particles...

Cox continues...

In the beginning there was nothing. No space, no time just endless nothing.  Then 13.7 billion years ago from nothing came everything.  The universe exploded into existence.  From that fireball of energy emerged the simplest building blocks of matter.  Finding experimental evidence of these fundamental entities has become the holy grail of physics.

Notice first that this creation story is just as miraculous as any other.  "From nothing came everything".  No explanations are given.  None ever could be.  This is the astonishing miracle at the heart of our modern creation story.  It is not the case that only primitive 'religion' believes in miracles.  The 'science' creation story is equally miraculous.

And again do you how science proceeds?  It proceeds like theology.  The scientific worldview says there must have been simple building blocks of matter that existed after the big bang.  Of course we've never observed these.  Nonetheless the worldview tells us they must have existed.  Therefore science seeks after evidence of what it believes to be true even without the evidence.  It has faith (an assurance of things hoped for (Heb 11:1f)) and from this faith it seeks understanding.  That is the scientific pursuit and it is no more or less a faith-based enterprise than theology.  And that's no bad thing, it's just the way things are.  It would just be nice if scientists came clean about it!

The point is this - don't let anyone tell you science is about matter not miracles or fact and not faith.  The truth is we all have our creation stories.

.

5

Part one

Part two

Part three

Final Thoughts

If we are going to read the vast amount of material around this debate (some initial suggestions below), could I make a small plea for love and patience?  I find myself all too easily irritated by some who talk as if everybody in the ‘Western’ church is mesmerised by rampant individualism or when people dismiss the 19th century missionaries as colonial cronies who were mindlessly imposing Western culture as if it were essential to the gospel.  Conversely, I get irritated by those who assume that their own cultural expression of the church is ‘clearly’ the one that everybody should convert to as soon as they turn to Jesus.  I mention these things because there is no point in any of us getting lost in these side-issues of style [as I too often have done] but rather it is vital for us to get to the real substantive issues of how the global church family of the LORD Jesus Christ can enjoy fellowship together in His Name, supporting one another in genuine love and generosity.  How can we bring our Muslim friends to the liberating power and family of the LORD Jesus in the local church?

Another little plea... Throughout this debate there are many attempts to cite the examples of Jesus and the apostles with respect to the temple/synagogue in the New Testament.  We can’t really go into all of these references in this article, but it might be worth exercising care, caution and consideration about these references.  In these debates diametrically opposed conclusions are drawn from the exact same incidents!  Perhaps it is worth remembering that the temple was not a ‘pagan religion’ but the God-given but temporary centre of the Church community for 1500 years.  It was the centre of the system of law that was designed to prepare the church for the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of the LORD Jesus Christ, prophesied by the Law and the Prophets.  In a connected way, the local synagogues were centres for studying and living out the Law and the Prophets, not only in Israel but across the surrounding nations.  Yes, as we go on through the book of Acts and then on into the 1st and 2nd century developments we see that division opening up between ‘church and ‘synagogue’ as many Jewish people rejected the Jewish Messiah and began to formulate a new religious identity in distinction from Him.

We should be careful about drawing too simplistic or hasty parallels between a 1st century synagogue and a 21st century mosque or temple.  There are surely lessons to learn, but not all connections and parallels are legitimate, in my own opinion.

Further Reading:

John Travis on the C-scale and the C5 model.

 

John & Anna Travis on the assumptions behind the C-scale

 

Rebecca Lewis explaining some of the Biblical ideas behind the Insider Movement

 

Interesting article even if some of the earlier parts are dealing with other cultural issues in America -

 

Bill Nikides paper is stimulating -   Bill argues that the whole Insider Movement is not a work of the Spirit but a product of missiological theories developed in Western mission agencies.

 

4

Part one

Part two

We've examined the C-Scale as proposed by John Travis.  Let's now think through C2-C5 on the scale.

It is quite likely that many of us are aiming for a church community in our own situations that is around the C3-C4 style, but what about the C5 category?  That is where this debate becomes more heated.  The Insider Movement is the general heading to describe all that is going on under [mostly] the C5 heading: people remain “inside” their existing religious community but believe in Jesus.

Rebecca Lewis provides the following definition of the Insider Movement - “An ‘insider movement’ is any movement to faith in Christ where (a) the gospel flows through pre-existing communities and social networks, and where (b) believing families, as valid expressions of the Body of Christ, remain inside their socio-religious communities, retaining their identity as members of that community while living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible.”

The issues orbit around the extent to which a person can be described as “living under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the Bible” if they remain as a Muslim with the mosque as the centre of their community life, accepting the Quran as having religious authority and Muhammad as a prophet.  Can this be acceptable as a temporary stage on the way to the formation of a more Biblical church community or could a person or a group of people remain in a C5 situation as a valid expression of the church?  Is C5 nothing more than a stage of enquiry about the LORD Jesus Christ or could it be genuinely described as “a Jesus-centred community”?

John Travis, in the original article, acknowledged that the C5 position may only ever be a transitional form, but since then there are plenty who argue that it is a valid form of church and that it is a way that Islam itself could be ‘reformed’ from within!  Yes, it is a very large vision... but is it built on an unstable foundation?

To cut to the chase: could we see the Quran as a perhaps partially revealed word from God or that Muhammad is in some sense a prophet sent from God?  Is it possible to hold to the gospel without holding to the deity of Jesus?  These are fairly ideas that are heard within the Insider Movement which create genuine concern for the wider church.

For this reason not everyone is happy about the C5 situation and on BiblicalMissiology.com Georges Houssney has provided a lengthy analysis of some of the problems -  Note especially the long and fascinating discussion forum at the conclusion of his paper.

The Biblical Missiology website has many resources and discussions that point out problems and criticisms with the Insider Movement approach to mission.

“The writings and practices of Insiders demonstrate a number of presuppositions that they seem to agree on. Generally, Insiders tend to have a positive view of Islam, Muhammad and the Qur’an. Many believe that Muhammad is some sort of prophet from God, that the Qur’an is at least a partially inspired word from God that points to Jesus, and that Islamic culture is not contradictory to the biblical message. Therefore, they do not invite Muslims out of Islam (they would call this “extraction”). Rather, they ask Muslims to follow Jesus while remaining Muslim and participating in Islamic religious practices such as prayer in mosques, reading the Qur’an, and fasting during the month of Ramadan.” [Georges Houssney].

Bill Nikides argues that the problems come from Western mission agencies trying to make C5 seem to be a legitimate expression of church when it simply is not.  We can all understand and work for C3 and C4 style churches that are culturally connected to the local culture and work carefully not to confuse the truth of Christ with specific cultural forms, BUT in a desire to deal with the perceived cultural difficulties that Islam has with ‘Christianity’ the attempt to see C5 as a valid form of church is unsustainable.  “The rationale for adopting C5 (cultural barriers) would also suggest C3- C4, a move that removes the threat of a slide into syncretism. Insisting on C5 when C3- C4 are plausible alternatives indicates theological deficiency. Whatever C3-C4 possibly surrender in terms of community acceptance is more than made up for by greater biblical and theological soundness.”

Perhaps the most positive conclusion Bill provides is to see C5 as a movement of Muslims who are beginning to seek for and develop a real hunger for the Living LORD Jesus - “Messianic Islam might in fact best be seen as a seeker movement. Classified as such, we can see C5 communities as an excellent springboard for biblical C3-C4 movements.”

Rev. Bassam M. Madany rejoices in the incredible awakening to Jesus that is happening across North Africa, but is very concerned about the whole concept of the ‘Insider Movement’ as it is promoted by Western mission agencies.   [NOTE: this website has many articles from the Arabic Christians who are committed to witnessing in dangerous situations using far more traditional models of outreach and church planting.]

For what it is worth, my own view is closer to Bill Nikides, but whatever view we take of this, it is vital that we think about how we can genuinely support the local churches around the Islamic world.  Mission is not an academic subject but the simple fact of the life of the local church.  When we try to disconnect mission from the local church then we do tend to fall into serious problems.

In the final post we will consider some final thoughts and further reading...

The Insider Movement 4 – Paul Blackham

4

This article by Paul Blackham is continued from here.

Before we examine various approaches to church and culture, let's acknowledge a key fact: becoming a follower of Jesus is a deeply social matter.  The LORD Jesus does not save mere individuals but saves His Church.  Too often we might talk about someone making various decisions in their heart/head about Jesus, but we might forget that in the Bible the key issue is about their membership of the community of the LORD Jesus Christ, becoming members of His Body.  The forms that His Body might take in all the different contexts and cultures of the world is gloriously and marvellously diverse, so a person must never feel that they are an isolated soul.  The formation of local church communities is how evangelism happens.

One further introductory point.  Advocates of the “Insider Movement” are aware that this is not always the most helpful label as it tends to give the impression of something only for those “in the know” or something not entirely ‘above board’.  Therefore, there has been an effort to change the vocabulary to emphasise that it is all about the LORD Jesus Christ.  There has been an attempt to focus on the goal of making disciples of Jesus as the primary goal.  This is somewhat helpful, but again it is not always clear how it fits with the Biblical vision of the local church.

Let’s begin with John Travis’ seminal article as he argued for a way of understanding how Muslims were believing in Jesus but remaining as Muslims.  He provided a scale that helps to analyse different ways in which a person might join the church as they turn to Jesus.  The scale runs from C1 to C6, where C1 is a ‘Western’ style church with ‘Western’ languages and C6 describes mostly isolated people who are secretly trying to trust/follow Jesus whilst remaining entirely within their religion/culture.

The whole original article by John Travis is essential reading if we are going to really understand what this is all about.

As we go through this list, it might be helpful to think about it in terms of the church plants and emerging church situations that you might have personal experience of.  Many of the same issues that face a Jesus community in Tehran will also be relevant in Manchester.  Each of these C-ratings describes a church situation that has different levels of integration into a local culture.

C1 - A Christian church that is like an island in the local culture, where worship is in a language foreign to the local population, where the music, songs and styles within the church reflect the culture of another nation.  So we might imagine an English speaking parish church in an Arabic city, where English is spoken and English hymns, clothes and cultural styles are adopted.  I seem to remember Michael Palin coming across a church like that in his Sahara adventures.

C2 - The same as C1 but the local Church uses the language of the local population.

C3 - A Christian Church that uses the local language and culture, but is careful to reject the aspects of local culture that might have religious associations.  So, dress, music and traditions from the local church are all embraced, but if any of those things are tied into the local religions [whether Islam, Hinduism etc] then they are excluded.  In terms of Islam, a conscious attempt is made not to keep Ramadan and food rules.  In addition, the mosque is rejected as the communal centre in favour of the Church community.  In a C3 context the followers will normally call themselves ‘Christian’, but they do not necessarily meet in a distinctively ‘Christian’ building.

C4 - The church will retain those aspects of the religious tradition that fit in with or are permitted by the Bible, but these religious traditions and forms are now understood in terms of the LORD Jesus Christ and His Way.  So, for example, a Muslim background believer might be most comfortable with prostrating in prayer or using a prayer mat: that same style of praying is retained in the church, but now the prayer is to the Father through Jesus in the power of the Spirit.  The religious forms might remain, but the people no longer see themselves as “Muslim” or “Buddhist” etc.  In addition, the church might keep the food laws [rejecting pork and alcohol] and use Islamic words/phrases.  Often the people in this kind of local church might not call themselves ‘Christians’ due to the political and historical associations with this specific term and might instead use terms like “followers of Jesus”.  However, the Muslim community would recognise that this church is not a Muslim community.

[NOTE: in point of fact, some of the “religious traditions” may be more in harmony with the Bible than the supposedly ‘Christian’ forms: think of how little attention is given to body posture in some forms of Christianity, but how often it is noted in the Bible.  Speaking personally, my wife and I have been involved in planning a church plant that quite deliberately makes provision for Muslims and Muslim background believers to use prayer mats].

C5 - It is harder to think in terms of a local church community when we get to C5 because the Muslims in this category are described as following Jesus whilst remaining within the Muslim communities.  They would reject the title ‘Christian’, not only for the reasons in C4 but also because “becoming a Christian” might be seen as treason against their local religious community.  In an Islamic context, these people would continue to be legally/socially/politically within the Muslim community - [NOTE: given the intense legal/political difficulties that many Muslims have in terms of changing their religious designation, there are many obvious pressures to explain this].  Yes, those aspects of Islam that are understood to be clearly against the Bible might be rejected, but in practice this is not always the case.  They are involved in life at the mosque, continuing to pray traditional Islamic prayers and keeping the fast, along with all the other aspects of mosque life that their neighbours follow.  As other Muslims become aware that they are committed to the LORD Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, so they might be seen as no longer “true Muslims” and can then be rejected by the local Muslim community.  It is claimed that there have been examples when so many local Muslims are C5 believers in Jesus that a kind of C5 mosque is established.

C6 - This describes the situation of believers who are isolated by such extreme hostility and persecution that they remain as secret believers within their local community.  They may even have no fellowship with any other believers in Jesus, so know nothing of membership of a church family, but more often they may have limited fellowship with small groups of other secret believers.

Now, of course, there may be all kinds of initial comments to make about this analysis, not least that it doesn’t really address how Christ transforms a local culture and it is not at all clear how C5 relates to the church [understood as the fellowship of the followers of Jesus, with leaders appointed to teach the Bible and disciple the church family].   It provides only a snap-shot at a moment in time of the work of the Spirit in a given situation.  Probably all of us can see how C1 and C6 can only be stages that must develop into something more if the Church is to find a vital, Biblical expression.  Many of us pray that in 100 years time we will find culturally vibrant churches all across the Islamic world where the Way of Jesus has found expression perhaps in forms and styles that perhaps we can’t quite imagine today - in a C3-C4 range.  The churches of the LORD Jesus, all across the world, do tend to produce new and exciting cultural forms over time: think of the variety of styles of music, dress and architecture that have emerged over time in the different cultures of the world.

Surely, from a Biblical perspective, we want to be thinking more deeply about Christ transforming all cultures rather than conformity to any culture.

Speaking personally as a British person with more than a passing interest in the ancient druidic religion of northern Europe, I am very aware that Mediterranean and Asian cultural forms of worship were imposed on my ancestors together with a North African form of the doctrine of the Trinity, articulated by the Egyptian Athanasius.  Even after more than a thousand years, we are still processing and dealing with those cultural issues: how can we retain the Biblical truth in Jesus whilst transforming, rejecting or re-affirming the cultural forms and styles that have had such a massive impact on Europe.  Yet, whatever cultural issues we European barbarians have had to deal with we always think back with deep gratitude to those Mediterranean and Asian missionaries who planted local churches among us so long ago.

However, the C-scale does provide a way of thinking about this moment in the way that people are turning to Jesus in especially Muslim majority nations.  The C-scale helps us to think through what is happening in terms of religion/culture in a situation.

In the next post we'll think further about the C-scale and in particular C-5/6 - "the Insider Movement"...

The Insider Movement 3 – Paul Blackham

The Insider Movement 4 – Paul Blackham

5

In the recent discussion about Bible translation (here, here and here), several people have contacted me with questions and thoughts that are strictly not about the translation issue but about another issue that is often referred to as the “Insider Movement”.  It is important to divide this away from the translation questions because there is no necessary connection between the two - see “Clarifying some misconceptions”.

Any of us involved in evangelism and church planting will be aware of the range of issues that confront us when a person begins to follow Jesus.  How much of their existing life and culture needs to be immediately changed?  Do they need to dress differently, speak differently, socialise differently?  Some British and American Christians of earlier generations tended to insist on a much more holistic change when a person began to follow Jesus, encouraging a total rejection of all kinds of ‘worldly’ culture and friendships, but now we tend to encourage new believers to retain much of their existing lifestyle and social circle.

These issues did not seem so pressing in previous generations of the European and American cultures because the boundaries between ‘church’ and ‘world’ might have seemed more easily understood.  However, nowadays we find that we are having to go back to basics and think about British culture as an example of front-line cross-cultural mission whereby becoming a Christian has complex cultural implications.

These issues of cultural and religious boundaries have been much more obvious in ‘foreign missionary’ situations for decades.  How does a person move from being a Hindu, with all the dress, food, family traditions and cultural markers that go with that, to being a member of a Church community as a follower of Jesus?  What needs to change and what is retained?  What is transformed by the LORD Jesus and what simply needs to be rejected?

For many years we have become familiar with the idea of “contextualisation” whereby the teaching of the Bible is expressed in forms that are meaningful and relevant to a target group.  This does not mean that the teaching needs to be made any easier to deal with or more acceptable, but that the true meaning of the Bible’s teaching is made clear by speaking it in a specific local context.  So, Tim Keller spends so much time making sure that the secular, metropolitan New Yorkers feel and understand the hard-hitting nature of the Way of the LORD Jesus.  He contextualises the gospel in that he tries to make sure it is clearly heard, but he does not try to make it more acceptable by compromising the message.  In that same way, we are all aware how, when we speak to our Muslim friends, we try to make sure to clearly explain how Jesus was not conceived through sexual union between the Father and Mary; how the Trinity is one God; how following Jesus is a holistic life of discipleship; how Abraham and the ancient prophets were all trusting in the Promised Messiah; how the Cross is the centre of our salvation etc etc.  Our goal is not to make these truths ‘acceptable’ or ‘credible’ to our Muslim friends but to make sure that we have clearly, lovingly and faithfully explained the truth in Jesus.

Throughout the Islamic world there are local churches teaching the Bible and bearing witness to the One God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit; explaining the Trinity, the Cross and the Way of Jesus.  At the moment the Holy Spirit is doing an amazing work as the local churches in these places are being heard as never before.  In one sense all the Western missiological agencies and theorists are mere spectators as the Holy Spirit works through His living church on the ground across the world.  If we are able to supply any needs that the local churches ask for then it is a great privilege for us, but we all, whether we see ourselves as specialists or not, need to remember that the churches throughout the Islamic world have centuries of experience and wisdom.  Our brothers and sisters in these local churches know better than any of us what the key issues are and how to set these in the proper context.

However, what if the principles of contextualisation are extended further and further until the issues of faith, worship and discipleship are happening within the Muslim community?  Could these realities be so grasped by a Muslim that they could remain inside the Islamic community and also be faithful to the truth in Jesus?  Is it possible to be a member of a local church whilst remaining a Muslim inside the Muslim community?  Or is it even necessary to be part of anything other than the Muslim community?  Is it even necessary to hold onto the whole idea of a distinctive, visible community of Christ’s followers, with appointed leaders meeting for Bible teaching and the Lord’s Supper?

These are the sorts of questions the "Insider Movement" seeks to raise and address.

The Insider Movement 2 – Paul Blackham

The Insider Movement 3 – Paul Blackham

The Insider Movement 4 – Paul Blackham

2

Here's a couple of older Dawkins' articles reposted...

 

dawkins_southpark

I think, actually, [Richard Dawkins is] a pre-Christian atheist, because he never understood what Christianity is about in the first place! That would be rather like Madonna calling herself post-Marxist. You’d have to read him first to be post-him. As I’ve said before, I think that Dawkins in particular makes such crass mistakes about the kind of claims that Christianity is making. A lot of the time, he’s either banging at an open door or he’s shooting at a straw target.

Terry Eagleton (via Halden)

.

But before we feel smug.  Let's allow him (and others) to critique a knee-jerk theism that too often passes for Christian apologetics:

[Conservative Evangelicals] despise Richard Dawkins while actually believing in the kind of God he rightly rejects, as if the existence of God were, in principle, demonstrable, as if the proposition “God exists” were a hypothesis to be affirmed or denied, as if God were simply the hugest of individuals.

Kim Fabricius (I object to his other points, but this one has a lot of truth to it).

.

One God furtherDawkins himself says that all he does is stretch his disbelief one God further than the Christians.

Which is absolutely right.  Both Dawkins and the Christian reject Thor and Vishnu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and any other super-being you care to imagine.  The task of the Christian apologist is not to establish a deity but to proclaim the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

As Mike Reeves recommends - the question for the atheist is 'Which God don't you believe in?'

And once they've described it, the response to have ready is 'I don't believe in that either, let me tell you about the cross.'

.

And in this article Dawkins was asked, "Where does evolution leave God?"  He answered:

“Before 1859 it would have seemed natural to agree with the Reverend William Paley, in “Natural Theology,” that the creation of life was God’s greatest work. Especially (vanity might add) human life. Today we’d amend the statement: Evolution is the universe’s greatest work. Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated. Evolution, to quote a T-shirt sent me by an anonymous well-wisher, is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.

[...]

“Where does that leave God? The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear. Evolution is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip. But we have to go further. A complex creative intelligence with nothing to do is not just redundant. A divine designer is all but ruled out by the consideration that he must at least as complex as the entities he was wheeled out to explain. God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”

Again ask the question - who or what has Dawkins taken aim at?  He's railing against a divine designer entirely dependent on its own creation.

Rail away Richard.  Christian theology does a far better job, but if it makes you feel better - go for your life.

And if you want to lay the smackdown on some god-of-the-gaps who is posited simply to explain the inexplicable, then please don't let us stop you.

And if you're invigorated by venting splenetic rage on a god 'ruled out' by the logic of its own creation well Richard, who isn't?  I'm regularly energized by such disdain.  And we certainly have no wish to spoil your fun.

While you heap adolescent contempt on those gods, we'll be over here - stoning modern-day Paleys for providing you with such irrelevant and idolatrous targets.

.

By the way - if you read the Dawkins quote and thought to yourself 'Aha, but who created the laws of physics!?' - you are Paley.  And I'm coming to get you.

.

 

 


Me and Pete, side by side, speaking to the issues of the day
.  Well we're consecutive articles on a protest blog anyway...

I rambled with a lot of nonsense, and wasn't as gospelly as I'd like to have been.  But there are no retakes, a mic gets shoved at you and you say what you say.

Live and learn eh?

The direct link to my soundbite is here.

 

As I said yesterday, eleven adults (and one child of the revolution) spent Sunday afternoon speaking to the folks around St Paul's.  We took about 100 bible books (mainly Romans but also some Gospels) and got into dozens of conversations.  There were also some brief opportunities for open air preaching.

Before Sunday I wrote ideas of what to say (many of which I used).  Here are some other reflections:

  • Everyone I spoke to expressed deep respect for Jesus.  Of course they wanted Jesus to be their mascot for the protest, but nonetheless there was a knowledge of the Gospels and some Christian-ish background to protestor after protestor.
  • Very few could articulate exactly what they wanted to happen, but their sense that things have to change was, of course, palpable.
  • Speaking of eternity was a real eye-opener for some.  The whole 'let's try communism for a thousand years' fired the imagination.  These guys are idealists, but actually Christians have a real utopia that frees us from greed now and enables us to be generous today.  It's a bit like the slogan, think global, act local.  Christians can think of an assured future and therefore act today.
  • The most fruitful lines of conversation followed the "why" question.  I kept asking: "And then what?... And then what?... And then what?"  Imagine that everyone gets their acre of land, imagine if its free education and health-care for all, imagine there's equality of wealth... and then what?  One guy said "Well then we'll stop being so envious."  "Ah, so it's a heart problem then?" I replied.  "If it's a heart problem, legislation and force is not going to solve it, is it?  It might actually exacerbate the envy mightn't it?"
  • The most eye-opening lines of enquiry followed the "how" question.  The word "expropriate" was used on literature to describe what some want to do with the wealth of the 1%.  I was speaking to a guy who grew up in church (in fact he grew up in St Thomas's North Sydney - my old Sydney church!) - he was a Christian communist who made excellent points from the Bible about usury.  But when I pressed him on what it meant to "expropriate" wealth he said "Well they're not going to give it up freely, we'll have to take it."  "By force?" I ask.  "Well let's hope it doesn't come to war, but, if it's necessary...."  "Well then, you've abandoned the way of Jesus, haven't you?"
  • Christ's revolution is utterly unique - it is thoroughly non-violent and (partly because of this) it goes much deeper than societal structures.  Yet, perhaps counter-intuitively, it has been the one global force to actually affect societal structures in positive ways down through the centuries.
  • Josh V-B asked the excellent question to this Christian communist "Was Jesus' first coming a success?"  Not just, 'Did it plant the seed of an idea for social reform' but did His coming and dying actually accomplish something.  Because Jesus said it did!
  • This moves the conversation out of the realm of "What would Jesus do" to "What has Jesus done."
  • What He's done has been to obliterate the old structures totally and to rise up again at the head of a new world.  This is the real revolution.
  • A couple of times I had the opportunity of speaking publicly and declaring  "St Paul's manifesto for change!  Let me read to you St Paul's statement.  It's on the public record, and we have free copies if you want one.  Listen to St Paul's public announcement...  Then I'd preach on 2 Cor 8:9 or 1 Tim 6:10, speak of Jesus and then offer copies of Romans afterwards.  These proved very popular.
  • When I had the opportunity to preach I should have preached longer. I was aware of taking up the microphone, not knowing who was scheduled to be next and not being a particularly welcome voice.  But that's street preaching!  Next time!
  • This kind of evangelism is much more like speaking to people of other faiths than it is like open air work to random shoppers.  These guys have entrenched positions and have plenty to say for themselves.  I didn't feel like I got as far yesterday as I get when we evangelise the town centre on a Saturday.  (HINT: Get evangelising your town centres, it can be very fruitful indeed!)
  • Nonetheless, the name of Jesus is being used here - a lot.  And it's being used publicly, very publicly.   Therefore it's important that His people stand up and proclaim His true revolutionary message to the world.
Other thoughts from those who came?  From others looking on?

7

If you're up for it, let's assemble at St Paul's Tube Station at 2pm.  (The Eastbourne crowd might be slightly late but we'll be there soon after).

Ideas running through my head:

  • I've got loads of Romans to hand out under the banner of... "St Paul's released a statement!  Free copy of St Paul's official position paper.  Come and hear/read about St Paul's comment on the current situation, etc, etc."
  • I'm thinking of making Mike Milmine dress as Jesus with a massive "Not in my name" placard.  (Mainly to embarass Mike you understand).
  • I'm sick of Jesus being used as a political mascot.  I'm also sick of Him being spoken about (even, and especially by clergy) as some long dead teacher whose teaching should be honoured.
  • Jesus is not left or right but seated at the right hand - "from there He shall come to judge the living and the dead" and the capitalist and the communist and all points in between.
  • Jesus remains above us all as Judge (Law), but there's good news - He has come down to us as a gift for the world - the bankers, the protestors and even the religious! (Gospel).
  • "Let me ask you a question... I'm going to read something from St Paul and as I read, ask yourself, "What side is Jesus on?"" - then read Philippians 2:5-11
  • "What would Jesus do?" is folk Christianity.  Historic Christianity is what did Jesus do?
  • Let me tell you about two of the 12 disciples.  One was called "Simon the Zealot".  He was an anti-establishment protestor.  He'd have been on Rome's list of potential terrorists.  A freedom fighter and a rebel.  The other was called "Matthew."  He was a tax-collector, getting rich through unfair practices.  A fat cat.  A white collar criminal.  Both of them were loved by Jesus - both of them found a place in His kingdom and in His ministry.
  • When Jesus returns, let's give communism a really good go.  Let's try it for a thousand years.  Maybe we can be Bolshevik's for 500 years and Menshevik's for 500 years, but let's give it a proper try.  Before then, our number one need is to be in on Christ's kingdom...
  • The LOVE of money is the root of all evil.  All the regulation in the world can't get at the heart.  The Law is like that.  but there's one thing that can bring lasting change - the gospel of Jesus - that can change the heart.
  • St Paul's statement on the use of wealth - read out 1 Timothy 5-6
Again, more ideas gratefully received.  And please do pray.

 

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer