Friday, December 19, 2008
Hopefully by then some more contributors will have things to say (hint hint). Take care of yourselves and feel free to comment on old posts and try and get a conversation going or contribute to one that has already started.
Have a blessed Christmas :)
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Matt 25 is a really hard one to interpret because it really needs to be read and understood in the context of Matt 24. It does not really stand alone as it is a continuation of Jesus speaking about events that will soon take place and giving more pictures to explain this. It starts by likening the Kingdom of heaven to five wise virgins who took extra oil with them, waited and did not share with others because they might need it themselves and were then invited into the wedding feast. So... the kingdom of Heaven is an imminent event that is coming but will take a bit longer than everyone anticipates! (If Jesus were communicating a more than 2000 year wait instead of just 30 years then I think he would have used a different illustration but it is not clear what time frame from these verses.)
The next part of the chapter compares the kingdom of heaven to wise servants who use their talents and multiply them so that those that have will receive more and those that don’t have will be tossed out. So we need to do the best with what we have and keep on working until the master returns.
Then Jesus talks about the nations (ethnos) being gathered and judging them, separating the sheep from the goats. First of all, I believe Jesus is talking about the same "nations" (ethnos) as he just mentioned in Matt 24. Mat 24:14 and this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations (ethnos), and then the end will come. And it must be the same "nations" that is mentioned in Acts 2:5. "Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation (ethnos) under heaven." If there were people from every nation under heaven in Jerusalem does that mean there were Maoris’ there? Germans? A lot of people groups and nations didn’t even exist then as we know them today. So "Nations" either meant the Roman Empire or perhaps more precise, all the Jews that were living in all the nations that were known in that time. The meaning has to stay the same for all of these passages to remain consistent so with that in mind it follows that the gospel has to be preached in all nations in the Roman Empire before the end will come. In the end and when the kingdom of heaven begins all (Jews in the) nations in the Roman Empire will be gathered and judged. Then finally in Acts it is recorded that people from all the nations were gathered in Jerusalem and heard the gospel. Also in Col 1:5, "because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing" and even in Romans 16:26- 27, “but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith-- ) So if all the nations did hear the gospel and the end (the beginning of the kingdom of Heaven) was imminent and actually did come in AD70 during the colossal destruction of Jerusalem when it is estimated that almost 1 million Jews were killed and the Jewish nation ended. Then I believe they must have also been judged and the sheep separated from the goats. What was this end that is talked about? I believe that the end that is talked about is in fact the end of the Jewish (Mosaic) covenant and system of temple worship and “righteousness”. A process that Jesus began with his birth and then death on the cross and it was completed when the Jewish race was "judged" and destroyed by the roman armies in AD70.
So the separating of the sheep and the goats refers to the judgement of the Jews that died from the beginning of the Jewish covenant untill that point. Those who were the true sheep went into eternal life and the goats were sent away to eternal punishment. Notice that Jesus talks specifically about what they did and didn’t do in relation to Jesus and his family (the least of these...) on earth... "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to drink". It was a judgement specifically for the Jewish nation in their time and context. Jesus spoke of this coming judgement in the parable of the vineyard owner in Matt 21:33. This judgement concluded the Jewish (Mosaic) age (time or covenant) and the Kingdom of heaven was established and began to grow here on earth as it is in Heaven.
We are now Abraham's offspring by faith in Jesus and no longer by blood and circumcision and his everlasting covenant applies to all of us. Rom 4:13 "for the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith." Rom 4:14 "for if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void." Gal 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:29 "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." How does this change the way we live today? We have focussed on a very small part of Jesus’s teaching about the end times that was not even intended for us but was for the Jews pre AD70. Because of this we have missed the major message that Jesus spoke to us about! The Kingdom of Heaven! What is it and how do we live it and bring it here on earth as it is in heaven. That is what we are here for, what Jesus died to set us free to do and is all we need to focus on! Bringing God’s kingdom on earth is our job with his and the Holy Spirit’s help and the more we do it the more we will see it come. It is up to us and we need to start living it and doing it!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No-one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. (1 John 4:7-12)I must confess, I am becoming more and more frustrated with the songs we sing in church and the songs I hear on Christian radio. Far too many of them focus on our love for God. There is nothing wrong with telling God we love God, or expressing our feelings of gratitude, or even expressing how we want to feel towards God (despite the reality of our cold hearts). But it is depressing all the same. My love for God is pathetic, of mixed motives, and constantly wavering. God's love for me is unlimited, pure, and never failing. Which would you rather focus on? Instead of singing to God "I love you" it is much more amazing to sing "you love me!"
This God of love is manifested as we love each other. Another confession, I would feel awkward to sing songs of love to the rest of my church family. But that is no reason not to do it. This passage of scripture asks us to respond to God's love, not with an introverted spiritual activity where we experience an intimate and loving moment with God "I love you, you love me", but by loving each other "you (God) love me, so I love your people". It is this outward loving (towards each other) rather than the 'upward' love (towards God only) that actually sees the transcendent God living among us completely. We love God as we live through Christ by loving each other. Experiences of Spiritual intimacy are not wrong, in fact they can be wonderful, but neither are they complete experiences of God's love.
Anyone know any songs that combine "God loves me" with "we love each other"?
Sunday, December 14, 2008
[updated 16/12/08] And here is a second post on a series Paul did on whole books of the Old Testament and linking them in different ways to Jesus of Nazareth.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Now God doesn't live in the box, but it represents the covenant God has with the Israelites, so, if you like, it's a bit like a wedding ring represents a marriage between two folks. So God feels pretty strongly about this box and the way people treat it, because God feels strongly about God's relationship to Israel. The next day the Philistines get out of bed, go to the temple of Dagon and find the statue of Dagon on his face before the box (5:3). Now this can't be right because they beat the Israelites, so their god must be stronger. So they pick Dagon up and go about their business. The next morning Dagon is eating dust again, but this time his head and hands have fallen off (5:4). As if to prove the point there is then an outbreak of tumors in the town and surrounding area. The locals are pretty fed up with this so pass the 'victory spoils' on to the next town, who are similarly aflicted (5:8-9). So it goes on (5:10). Eventually they realise that, although they wooped Israel, Israel's God has got them wooped. They are going to have to give the box back (5:11). So they do, complete with a special 'sorry' note in the form of 5 golden tumors and 5 golden mice (representing the rulers of the Philistines, 6:2-6).
Now I love this story because it is very funny. But also because it is loaded with theological content. First, the Israelites try to use God's ark like a magic charm to force God to help them when their own relationship with God is in tatters. They treat God like a slot machine: 'if we carry the Ark, we will win.' God doesn't turn up to help because to do so would only compound the problem. The Israelites think their great need is to win in battle, God thinks their great need is to sort out their relationship with God. Remember this, God is not to be manipulated by religious formulas, God demands a real relationship from God's people. Sort that out first and then let God worry about your circumstances.
Second, the Philistines think that because they have defeated Israel they have defeated God. But God and God's people are not the same thing. The Israelites are defeated, not because God is weak, but because they were being unfaithful to God. God shows God's-self to be so overwhelmingly great that even the statues of the Philistine god has to bow down to the Ark of the Covenant. Remember this, a crappy church, or crappy Christians do not mean a crappy god. Even when God's people are way off course God is still great, and God is still good. Don't use the behaviour of others to justify your unbelief, look at God to make that decision, not people.
Third, it is the pagan Philistines who are the first to start behaving respectfully towards the box. They soon realise that God was not wooped along with his people, and presumably also that if God had been on the Israelite's side they would never have won (see 7:10). After the box is returned to Israel it takes decades for God's own people to learn the same lesson (see 2 Sam 6). Remember this, those who are outside of the church are often showing those of us in it the way to go when it comes to justice and righteousness and honouring God. Don't refuse to learn lessons from people just because they have a different creed to you (or no creed at all).
Fourth, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel, God still cares about the covenant God has with them, and shows it, not by disguising the fact that the relationship is dysfunctional but by demonstrating the supreme holiness (special-to-God-ness) of the box that represented that relationship. Israel is unfaithful, but God remains faithful and works to bring Israel back into right relationship with God. Remember this, when you fail or fall away, God is not defeated, when you make mistakes or are stymied, God is still greater. The answer is not to question whether you followed the right formula or not but to seek to show (in grateful response) the same faithfulness towards God that God continues to show to you.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God.The tragedy is not that someone should lose their faith, but that the first time they come across any reason for doubting, the faith that sustained them for so long it is immediately jettisoned as make-believe. he says:
I was so preoccupied with training and competing that I did not have the time or emotional inclination to question my beliefs. Sport is simple, with simple goals and a simple lifestyle. I was quite happy in a world populated by my family and close friends, people who shared my belief system.It seems to me that Edwards faith must have been so rigid and so complete in its construction that the moment one part looks like its could be pulled loose he abandons the whole thing completely. Interestingly the new found scepticism towards his lifelong faith is not applied to his doubts. There is no sense in the Times interview that there is any other rational way to approach the subject, or that the assumptions of materialism should ever be doubted. Edwards states that
Once you start asking yourself questions like, ‘How do I really know there is a God?’ you are already on the path to unbelief.But this is not true. A faith that acknowledges doubt, that is honest about difficult questions is not a faith that is heading for unbelief. On the contrary, a faith that never questions that cannot change, or admit it was wrong about something, that accepts everything without discussion, is only one step away from atheism because it has no way to grow or adjust. Its completeness and rigidity give the illusion of stability but are in fact just one good shake away from total collapse. This is why churches should be places for discussion and conversation not dogma and lines drawn in the sand. Making disciples is not about conforming people to a set of beliefs or theological system but about teaching them to ask questions and to develop their own real, growing, and meaningful relationship with the reality that transcends the universe, God. This is why when you choose your heroes, pick people not for the certainty they display, but for the way they have been able and willing to change. Not for their faith to a belief that has never been tested but for their willingness to be tested and listen to the questions that they can't answer straight away. Socrates famously said that 'the unexamined life is not worth living,' I quite agree, but would go further and say the unexamined faith is no faith at all, just a superstition awaiting destruction by the next unexpected turn life takes.
When I came to NZ my faith was at a crossroads. Working in pastoral ministry had given me lots of questions that i hadn't had the time or resources to explore. By taking the time out to study and probe these doubts and issues, I knew I was taking a risk, but I also knew that if God was worth believing in at all, God could handle both my doubting and answer my questions. This is why theological education is so important for those in Christian leadership, an enthusiastic but shallow faith wont last the long haul, I know because I was finished after five years. But a faith that is always learning and growing has no reason to ever crumble, because doubts are not there to destroy but are catalysts for greater honesty, depth and humility in your walk with God.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
"One insight from the "Loving God and Neighbor [sic] Together" dialogue between Muslims and Christians held this July at Yale University was the difference between our understandings of love, compassion, and mercy.
"The Christian participants had been taught by Jesus that love should be indiscriminate - just as the mercy shown by the Good Samaritan was conditioned on nothing but the wounded mans need. That may not be the way we generally behave, but... it is the standard against which we measure ourselves.
"The Muslim participants startled us Christians by talking about the limits their religion brought to their compassion. Orphans, widows, and others in need through no fault of their own deserve compassion, they said. But in Islamic ethics, there was no obligation to help the person whose drunkenness or gambling or otherwise unwise behavior [sic] put them in difficulty.
"Reflecting on what I heard those Muslim leaders say, the tension was not between a generous God and a stingy God... but between mercy that was defined and conditioned by justice (the Muslim view) and justice that was conditioned and defined by mercy (the Christian view)."
Now, pardon the long quote, but isn't that seriously interesting? Our view of God radically affects the way we view ourselves and treat other people. Some questions for discussion:
- What advantages does the Muslim view hold?
- If you were/are a Muslim how would you differentiate between those who were deserving of mercy and those who were not (e.g. an alchoholic orphan)?
- If you (Mulsim/Christian/other) have ever received compassion what was it about you that brought compassion from others?
- On what grounds do we (anybody) expect God to have compassion on us?
- If you are a Christian how do you ensure that you love indiscriminately, like your God?
Let me know what you think :)
Monday, December 8, 2008
You will be forgiven if you don't know what that is. Before a practice or performance a guitarist will often spend minutes hunched over such a box, focussed intently on its flashing lights and arm moving on the screen. The box itself makes no music, but if the guitarist wants her music to sound 'right', even more if she wants to play along with other musicians, the guitar must first be brought into accordance with the box. It is a guitar tuner.
For the same reason, Christians need to spend time as often as possible in prayer and reading the Bible. These precious times allow us to tune our thoughts, desires, and feelings into harmony with God's. When our lives feel dischordant and out of tune our greatest need is to reorientate our inner world according to the music we find in scripture and the great composer we meet in prayer. Then we will know what it is to live in harmony, not with the world around us but the transcendent reality of God. The same God who will one day bring all things into his loving and glorious harmony.
Format will be a verse reference in Titus where the word is found, followed by the Greek lemma (root word), a transliteration, English rendering in two translations (NIV, then NRSV), and my own comment.
(NB. about halfway through, I realised the word study was going to be WAY too long, but I started so i'll finish. But pleased be assured, future word studies will be much shorter. :))
1:9 uses four different words related to preaching/teaching,
διδαχὴν, didachḗ, taught/teaching,
παρακαλέω, parakaléō, encourage/preach,
διδασκαλία, didaskalía, doctrine/doctrine,
ἐλέγχω, elénchō, refute/refute,
These words relate to the task of an elder/bishop/overseer/steward. What strikes me about these words is that the role of the teacher is not presented as a passionless task but both parakaléō and elénchō carry tones of urgency and the desire to convince others, either positively of the truth, or negatively by exposing falsehood.
1:11, διδάσκω, didáskō, teaching/teaching, here the verb 'to teach' is used of the false teachers who are damaging the church in Crete. All teaching is therefore not equal and must be judged to some extent on whether it edifies (builds up) or upsets/ruins the church.
1:13, ἐλέγχω, elénchō, rebuke/rebuke, this word from 1:9 reappears but here this term is rendered by both NIV and NRSV as rebuke rather than refute. Perhaps a nuance that is lost in translation is that elénchō carries with a a connotation of effective conviction, not merely empty rhetoric but actually bringing about a new realisation in the one being rebuked. This is born out by the context here where Paul's desire is for the false teachers to become 'sound in the faith' as a result of the rebuke.
λαλέω, laléō, teach/teach, while the word simply means 'speak', in context Paul is clearly detailing for Titus the content of his teaching hence the translation here by the NIV and NRSV. (NB. In 2:2 and 2:3 there is no Greek word where the NIV/NRSV use teach/tell but that is the sense implied.)
διδασκαλία, didaskalía, doctrine/doctrine, makes a second appearance again coupled with ὑγιαίνω, hygiaínō, translated by both NIV and NRSV as 'sound', giving us 'sound doctrine.' 'Sound', as in incorrupted, is is a figurative rendering, literally the two words together mean 'healthy teaching.' Although the word was used as a technical term in philosophical discourse of the day, I still think the idea of 'healthy teaching' has currency in our (health obsessed) culture today. 'Sound doctrine' on the other hand sounds awefully stuffy and boring!
2:4, σωφρονίζω, sōphronízō, train/encourage, is a fascinating word that specifies instruction or encouragement towards sensible or right behaviour. This is reinforced in 2:5 by the use of the adjective σώφρων, sṓphrōn, self-controlled/self-controlled.
2:6, παρακαλέω, parakaléō, encourage/urge, as in 1:9 but translated differently by the NRSV. The sense is still of a strong urgent appeal.
2:7, τύπος, týpos, example/model, shows that Titus is not just to teach with his words but also with his whole life, he is to be the Christian on which the young men can model themselves.
2:12, παιδεύω, paideúō, teaches/training, this word is used to refer to the act of educating or disiplining a child. Here it reminds us that before God's grace we are all children equally in need of being taught constantly how to live rightly. Paul and Titus may be teaching others, but they themselves depend on God's teaching.
2:15 sees another cluster of words related to our subject,
λαλέω, laléō, teach/declare,
παρακαλέω, parakaléō, encourage/exhort,
ἐλέγχω, elénchō, rebuke/reprove,
ἐπιταγή, epitagḗ, authority/authority, this word, which essentially means 'command' and hence implies authority, shows that Titus needs to be willing to take authority in situations and lay down the law in respect to those things which are being falsely taught. Now I am a big fan of conversation and discussion and giving people space to come to their own conclusions but some things cannot be tolerated and must be named for what they are. In particular when destructive views are being pushed on to other vulnerable members of the community. Drawing this line sensitively continues to be one of the hardest jobs a church pastor does.
3:1, ὑπομιμνῄσκω, hupomimḗskō, remind/remind, so here Titus is merely going over old ground, this is not new teachig for the Cretan's but it is important and so needs to be repeated. Teacher's mustn't be afraid to go over the 'basics' time and again. After all doesn't matter how much time you spend on the cutting edge if you dont have the foundation in place you are on a hiding into nothing.
3:8 διαβεβαιόομαι, diabebaióomai, stress/insist, this final word in oour study means to 'maintain strongly' or 'speak confidently' or 'insist', in this case the insistence is on the life of good works that comes in response to the transformation that God gives through Jesus by the Spirit. Paul is leaving no doubt that 'good works' could be some kind of optional extra, they are of vital importance.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
When Christoph Römhild, a Lutheran pastor in Hamburg, Germany, sent Carnegie Mellon Ph.D. student Chris Harrison a list of 63,779 cross-references between the Bible's 1,189 chapters, the two became enthralled with elegantly showing the interconnected nature of Scripture. Each bar along the horizontal axis represents a chapter, with the length determined by the number of verses. (Books alternate in color between white and light gray.) Colors represent the distance between references. The graph won an honourable mention in the 2008 International Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge, sponsored by the National Science Foundation and Science journal.Source Christianity Today
My only question is... can you spot Psalm 119??!! Frequently being the tallest person in the room myself I feel have a new connection with Psalm 119 :) Just as well because it's coming up shortly in my Bible reading schedule.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Woe to you who strive with your maker,The image of a pot speaking to the potter as he turns it on the wheel is hilarious. Apart from the the misshapen clay actually talking in the first place, there is also the audacity of the clay to be saying 'excuse me, but you've missed a bit!' A kindly potter might say 'I'm not quite finished yet and please hold still while I work.' Even worse is the picture of a child challenging their parents over the event of their conception or birth. My two year old daughter frequently questions my judgement when it comes to biscuit distribution, sun block, or bed time. But to question your parents at the point at which you enter existence or begin to breathe seems absurd in the extreme. In its context in Isaiah this passage is a rebuke to the people of God who are unwillingly to accept God's plan to rescue them with Cyrus, a Persian (and very pagan) king. The idea that God would use an outsider does not fit in with their theology. The irony is that their complaint against Cyrus is presumably that he is a pagan idolator and yet, by insisting that God is unable or unwilling to do something that God is in fact doing, they themselves have committed idolatry. When the clay questions the potter, or the baby her parents, they place themselves above the ones to whom they owe their existence and identity. The ones who are engaged in the very act of forming them. The people of God were not just refusing to let God shape them, they were telling God how to be God.
earthen vessels with the potter!
Does the clay say to the one who fashions it, 'what are you making'? or 'your work has no handles'?
Woe to anyone who says to their father, 'what are you begetting?' or to their mother, 'with what are you in labour?'
Thus says the Lord, the holy one of Israel and its maker:
Will you question me about my children, or command me concerning the work of my hands?
This is why this blog is not about expanding 'my theology' or 'a theology'. Any theology that looks like a system or complete method for understanding/knowing God is idolatry. It is making God with our own hands/minds instead of letting God be God. That's why I prefer to talk about 'doing theology'. Theology should not be static, a problem solved, a puzzle completed, instead it should be fluid and dynamic, a response to God's reality as it is encountered day by day in personal experience, the community of faith, and in the Bible. This is why it is necessary to read the Bible as a stranger, not assuming that you know what you will find there, because only then can we be allowing the potter's words to shape the clay of our lives. If we read the Bible as a book that we already know what it says and means then all we do is shape the potter into our own idea of what they should look like. I dont want to worship a God I have made. I want to worship the God of transcendant reality, not a figment of my imagination.
Such an approach also breeds humility. Like the half formed clay or the child being born, God hasn't finished with me yet. Of course I dont understand everything about God, or what God is doing with me or the world, but that is OK, because we're a work in progress. Aren't you looking forward to seeing what the master potter and father of the universe has in store?
Thursday, December 4, 2008
It saddens me when people pour their time and energy into fighting imaginary foes within the church instead of concentrating their energies on God's mission. The emerging church is not really a thing that can be attacked but a broad label that describes a number of different attempts to do church in a way that connects more effectively with our society for the sake of the gospel. I disagree with a lot of 'emerging' stuff, but find some of it very helpful, and I am wholly sympathetic to their project. I have yet to find one who isn't willing to listen to other points of view. I have no sympathy for petulant hate mongers who generate division in the church and attack those who are trying to constructively engage with a lost and broken world (see Titus 3:9-11).
Jazz and the Mode of Hopeful Transgression
The art of being church
If anyone wanted to write a response to one of those articles i would love to put it up on the blog.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Who is like the Lord our God,
who is seated on high,
who looks far down on the heavens and the earth?
He raises the poor from the dust,
and lifts up the needy from the ash heap,
To make them sit with princes,
with the princes of his people.
He gives the barren woman a home,
Making her the joyous mother of children.
Praise the Lord! (Psalm 113:5-9)
One of the connections often missing in our theology is the link between worship and social justice, a link that is strongly made throughout the Bible (e.g. Isaiah 58; James 1:27). At first reading I thought that was what was going on here in Psalm 113. But then I realised this psalm isn't directly addressing human justice but God's. God's transcendant otherness is described analogically here as being 'on high,' above both the 'heavens and the earth.' This might suggest that God is not concerned with such earthly and material issues as poverty and social exclusion.* But that is not the case. Instead, from God's transcendant perspective ('who looks far down') that which is important is the poor and needy and those without the structures of support that enable human living. God's agenda is to elevate the lowly and to place the lonely in loving families.
There is a tendency among the religious that the more otherworldly, 'spiritual,' and 'holy,' our beliefs are, the less concerned we are with the material and human. Psalm 113 shows how far this misses the mark. Who is like the Lord our God? Those who are most like God are the ones whose transcendant perspective (Spirituality) causes them to love and serve the poor, needy and excluded. And this is what the God we worship is like. Praise the Lord!
* In the historical context of this psalm childlessness implied both social stigma and economic insecurity.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
When I eat I say a prayer.
When I walk I say a prayer.
When I start a car journey, I say a prayer.
When I put my daughter to bed, I pray with her.
When I go to bed I pray with my wife (if she is awake).
When I read a prayer request on email I say a prayer.
When I see some bad news I say a prayer.
When someone prays at church or elsewhere I pray with them.
When I start a difficult task I pray.
When I have to make a big decision I pray.
When I feel anger, or despair, or joy, or love, I pray.
Not everytime, but if I miss one or two, then it is not such a big deal, and over a day I have ended up doing lots of praying. And I have spent time with God, the transcendant one, throughout my day.
The rioting began at 2.00 a.m. on Friday, 28th November, following local elections on Thursday 27th. A police spokesman said that the clashes were triggered by a rumour that the All Nigerian People’s Party (ANPP) had lost the election to the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). In the midst of the violence, the election results were announced, confirming that the PDP had won all 17 local government areas, including the Jos North local government area where the violence was centred. In Jos the ANPP is considered to be a predominantly Muslim party, whereas the PDP is perceived to be mainly Christian.
A curfew was enforced and troops deployed with orders to shoot curfew-breakers on sight. By Sunday calm had been restored. Most estimates of the death toll suggest that 200 to 400 people were killed. Both churches and mosques have been burnt.
[Please pray. For the rest of the article click here. Source: Barnabas Fund]
Monday, December 1, 2008
Blue Ocean Strategy.
In a nutshell: It's a big ocean, don't waste your energy competing with everyone else find a niche that is all your own.
For the church: how many towns have four or five churches singing the same songs, preaching the same messages and running the same programs. Evangelicals are the worst at this. We tend to 'fish in the same pond' when there is an ocean of need out there. Let's have some diversity. Get all the local churches together and all agree to do something different. That way we will stop using our time and resources doing exactly what the next guys down the road are doing just as well!
Communities of Interest
In a nutshell: Instead of having all the different people in all the different departments solving all the same problems on their own. People with similar skills and responsibilities network and share information, ideas and strategies. These networks can grow throughout the company and to include other stake holders.
For the church: In a town where 5 churches are all running childrens/youth/homeless/elderly minstry why dont they all team up, share resources, and work together? More than this, if your church doesn't run a particular ministry but someone in your church has a particular passion connect them to a group in another church who share that passion that they can get involved with. Shouldn't we see the other churches in our locality as 'stakeholders' in the same gospel mission as us and form a 'community of interest' around bringing God's restoration and renewal to our neighbourhoods?
No Job Titles
In a nutshell: By taking away titles you empower the whole team. When a stranger comes in to make a sales pitch they have to make it to everyone. Instead of the leader being the one responsible for seeing things through, it becomes everyone's responsibility.
For the church: Could we really do this? Have a community without job titles and management structures? Where we're not all accountable to a 'minister' but to each other? Where no one has a 'position' but can only get others to follow them by virtue of their proven character and abilities?
Now obviously these would all need some serious Biblical reflection, and we definately shouldn't be just implementing the latest management theories into the church just for the sake of it. But these secular management theories seem to offer a good critique of some of the secular management theories we already use in the church, but take for granted.