Funny how ideas come when you're not obviously looking for them; how inspiration strikes about things that you're not consciously thinking about...
Maybe that just proves we need more time not doing very much or thinking too hard. The value of washing up and other such exciting tasks lies here, I suspect (not that I'm volunteering...)
Saturday, 27 February 2010
Thursday, 25 February 2010
What we've inherited...
Heard yesterday of the death of Michael Harper. Michael Harper was the leading figure in the Charismatic movement in the Church of England (and through the Fountain Trust, in other historic denominations in the UK) in the 1960s and 70s. Later he became an Orthodox Priest, which is probably a tale in itself.
I always find reading and hearing about the early days of the charismatic movement both exciting and fascinating. There was such a sense that God was on the move, that something new was happening. There was also a lot of immaturity, wrong attitudes and opposition as well; and much of the opposition from very genuine Chrsitians who simply didn't "get" what was going on.
There's lots that could be said about this - I almost ended up starting a PhD on the history of the charismatic movement about 12/13 years ago. Not sure it would really have worked then, so glad I didn't with hindsight. But I'm reminded that so much of what we take for granted in church life nowadays builds on what a previous generation of leaders and ordinary believers discovered and taught, often at some cost to themselves. I guess we need to be careful about what we're passing on to the next generation too.
I always find reading and hearing about the early days of the charismatic movement both exciting and fascinating. There was such a sense that God was on the move, that something new was happening. There was also a lot of immaturity, wrong attitudes and opposition as well; and much of the opposition from very genuine Chrsitians who simply didn't "get" what was going on.
There's lots that could be said about this - I almost ended up starting a PhD on the history of the charismatic movement about 12/13 years ago. Not sure it would really have worked then, so glad I didn't with hindsight. But I'm reminded that so much of what we take for granted in church life nowadays builds on what a previous generation of leaders and ordinary believers discovered and taught, often at some cost to themselves. I guess we need to be careful about what we're passing on to the next generation too.
Monday, 22 February 2010
Roots
Fascinating evening at church yesterday, led by a bilingual Israeli tour guide, who usually leads study tours for Christians around Israel. She focussed on the person of Jesus as a real human being in a real historical context. It was certainly eye-opening, and made you re-think preconceived ideas - e.g., it would appear that it's highly unlikely historically speaking that Jesus was more than 5ft2" in height. Hardly crucial to salvation admittedly, but it highlighted for me at least some of the stereoptypical images of Jesus that linger in our subconscious. And if that's true for his appearance, how much more true is it likely to be for our understanding of his teachng and mission. Again, there were plenty of examples where, historically, the way our English New Testament has been translated has effectively "de-Judaised" it (not sure if that's a word but you know what I mean). She was careful not to suggest that was all deliberate and anti-Semitic, though some may have been; more worrying is the effect of all this. You end up with a vague, spiritualised Jesus rather than a real man who lived a real life in a real context. And chances are then you end up with a vague, spiritualised faith as well.
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Back to the election build-up...
Just thought I'd highlight a couple of useful links to go with the post last week about the forthcoming election....The Jubilee Centre always has useful stuff on social and political issues, and they have here a video quiz to help you to vote ethically! And Care have launched a special election website, with what looks like it will be a series of responses from Christian leaders as to what the key issues will be from their point of view in the election campaign.
Monday, 15 February 2010
It ain't what you say...
At the moment at church we're working through a series on the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation. Every week I've been wondering if this week, what we're looking at might be a slightly "easier" message to bring, but 5 weeks in and each week has been challenging at a deep and sometimes uncomfortable level.
One interesting thing, whatever I'm speaking on, is when people comment on the way I've preached, both at WCF and when I'm speaking at other churches. And I guess that, while there is undoubtedly a basic Leveson style that is just how I am when I'm preaching, there are variations in delivery too. The interesting thing is that these genuinely aren't premeditated in any way. It's not like I decide in advance that today will be more passionate or whatever. Reflecting on it a little, I'd like to think that what determines not only what I say but how I say it, is the Bible passage in front of me. Because at the end of the day my task as preacher isn't first and foremost to bring strategic direction to the church (might be my task as leader but they're not necessarily the same), or even to bring a prophetic word (it might happen, and hopefully what's said will have a prophetic edge) but above all, to act as a kind of microphone that makes the Bible speak more loudly and clearly to those who are listening. No doubt there are all kinds of issues with that understanding of the task, but if you start to deviate too much you end up with the preacher's spiritual thoughts. And that's a high risk strategy, at least where I'm concerned!
One interesting thing, whatever I'm speaking on, is when people comment on the way I've preached, both at WCF and when I'm speaking at other churches. And I guess that, while there is undoubtedly a basic Leveson style that is just how I am when I'm preaching, there are variations in delivery too. The interesting thing is that these genuinely aren't premeditated in any way. It's not like I decide in advance that today will be more passionate or whatever. Reflecting on it a little, I'd like to think that what determines not only what I say but how I say it, is the Bible passage in front of me. Because at the end of the day my task as preacher isn't first and foremost to bring strategic direction to the church (might be my task as leader but they're not necessarily the same), or even to bring a prophetic word (it might happen, and hopefully what's said will have a prophetic edge) but above all, to act as a kind of microphone that makes the Bible speak more loudly and clearly to those who are listening. No doubt there are all kinds of issues with that understanding of the task, but if you start to deviate too much you end up with the preacher's spiritual thoughts. And that's a high risk strategy, at least where I'm concerned!
Monday, 8 February 2010
X marks the spot
Well, there's going to be a general election this year, and already I've found myself willing the politicians to just announce the date and get on with it. Interesting post from Simon, another Pastor in SE England, about some of the issue for Christians as they consider who to vote for.
At the moment, I honestly don't know who I'll vote for when the time comes, and the process of trying to work it out doesn't seem straightforward either. Maybe things will become clearer as time goes on. It struck me though that there are all sorts of reasons why people vote in the way they do, including Christians. But many of them seem increasingly inadequate as the pace of change in society continues:
At the moment, I honestly don't know who I'll vote for when the time comes, and the process of trying to work it out doesn't seem straightforward either. Maybe things will become clearer as time goes on. It struck me though that there are all sorts of reasons why people vote in the way they do, including Christians. But many of them seem increasingly inadequate as the pace of change in society continues:
- Family/personal history: we've always voted Conservative/Labour/whatever and to do anything else is a betrayal of some kind.
- Ideological commitment: only trouble with this is that the gap between the parties ideologically is hardly huge at the moment. There are differences but, on the whole, they seem to be about how we develop a certain kind of society, not what kind of society we want.
- Issues perceived as "fundamental": Could be pro-life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryo experimentation); or maybe family and morality issues; or indeed issues of justice and poverty. Two problems here it seems - first, no mainstream party seems to tick all the boxes for many Christians on these issues, and second, how do you prioritise among them?
- Personality: There are various twists on this - so and so seems a good bloke, hasn't been caught with his trousers down or fiddled his expenses too much - to the more "spiritual" one where you vote for a Christian even if they're not from a party you'd normally support.
- Working through policies: This sounds like it should be the right answer, and does have a lot to commend it. Reality is, however, that most of us don't have the time or the expertise properly to compare manifestoes, check alleged costings etc
- Self-interest: For many, including I suspect many Christians, it maybe comes down to this, crass though it is. But even then, of course, our choices might backfire in any case...
Any thoughts on how we work our way through all this? One thing I am sure of is that easy answers are likely to be wrong ones. I'm guessing we'll need to pray, think, discuss, argue even. Then make our choice and trust God with the outcome.
Friday, 5 February 2010
O...
I had the joy of being interviewed by an Ofsted inspector yesterday afternoon. It was all painless enough in the end, it was a "monitoring visit" to make sure the school where I'm Chair of Governors has made sufficient progress since the last full inspection. And the feedback was positive, which was encouraging. The overall process is still dominated by statistics, proving with data that the children are making progress etc. Seems to reflect the obsession of some parts of our society with measuring things, then labelling them. "If we can't put a number on it, how can we know it's really happening" seems to be the attitude. And there's a danger that creeps into church life too. Not just in the obvious ways (bums on seats), but in subtle ways too as we try to "measure" where we're at spiritually and assess it against others. This approach definetely has value and can be helpful; but let's get it in a bigger perspective, in education and in church!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)