Hi, if you subscribe to this, great, thanks. But I am organising myself a bit more and so I am going to use this a bit more for family holidays.
My thoughts on ministry can now be found at: http://petes-reflections.blogspot.com/
I will slowly move the other entries across to this one.
Pete
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Monday, December 15, 2008
Performance: Its not a dirty word
Recently there were two things going through my mind (yes, only two!). One was the conference I had recently been to where I had to yet again negotiate and explain the way the musicians were behaving on stage, some believing that we have drifted into the realm of performance etc. The other thing that was going through my head was the U2 concert that I was watching on TV.
Let me reflect firstly on U2. The question I wanted to know was “why were these people at the concert?”. It was not to listen to the music, as they could download this on iTunes. It was not to see the “U2 show”, as I was watching that for free in my living room. So why spend the $X hundred dollars for a few hours of entertainment? It would appear that there is something about the concert experience that works. I want to say that that experience is ‘church’.
That is to say that the U2 Concert is church (keep reading, I am not a heretic…yet). The word that we use to translate to church is ekklesia. Simply it means to “call to assembly”, hence the crowd or mob in Acts 19:32 is described as an ekklesia. U2 is a group gathered together, but it is not a Christian church, it is a U2 church. It is gathered by U2 for U2. A Christian church is gathered by Jesus for Jesus. The centre of U2 church is the music with some monologues from Bono. The centre of the Christian church is the Word with some music in teaching, expressing, praising and encouraging as well as some other experiences such as prayer.
My point is that both are churches, but both are different. Performance is at the centre of U2 church. But where does that leave performance in the Christian church?
Allow me to turn to the supreme authority on the English language (what’s the icon for tongue in cheek?) dictionary.com
But let me begin with the idea of “Performance is the execution of action.”
Let us apply this to preaching. Is preaching performance? If it is the execution of an action, yes. Though when we think of performance many of us have more than just the execution, there is a premeditation in the way that action is executed as well as that it is executed. Again can we see this as preaching? How many of us have practiced our sermons, even in front of a mirror? How many of us should be practicing, keeping in mind that some 80% of communication is non-verbal?!
In this sense music leading is performance, as any other part of church is. The real question is “Is music leading and playing merely helping the congregation technically or are there other dimensions to the leading, like modeling passion, etc.?”
Again if we apply the same principles to preaching I would say many of us would say there is more than just reciting the words on the page. How we say them means something (would love to debate this below, if anyone is up for it). How we sing is as important as what we sing.
Of course there are places we can go in terms of performance of music that can be just plain wrong.
Firstly, if the ‘performance’ is not honest. Applying this to the passion of musicians, if the muso is not passionate about what he or she is playing or singing about then it should not be put on. This is just a lie.
As a side point I think this is one of the places we are uncomfortable when it comes to the use of the word ‘performance’. When I perform as an actor, it is my character, not me that is performing. I.e. if my character is married on stage, it does not mean that I am married in reality. There is a longer debate to be had about whether I am morally responsible for my characters actions: i.e. if I kill another character night after night on stage, have I as a performer committed murder? All this being said, musicians are not actors and what we see on stage we expect to be the person. When we find out that performers personas and personal lives do not match then we have disappointment (Brittany was not a virgin??). This is even more serious for preachers (do I need mention Jimmy Baker?) and Christian musicians.
Secondly, if what is being done by the musician does not glorify God. I would encourage all musicians to have John 3:30 as their creed (look it up!) or consider this story from Frank Gaebelein (author of The Christian, the arts and truth):
At the end of the day we do not want church to be U2 church but Christian church, however, I think that musos can serve us well by being more than merely technical leaders and help us sing from our souls as well as our heads.
Let me reflect firstly on U2. The question I wanted to know was “why were these people at the concert?”. It was not to listen to the music, as they could download this on iTunes. It was not to see the “U2 show”, as I was watching that for free in my living room. So why spend the $X hundred dollars for a few hours of entertainment? It would appear that there is something about the concert experience that works. I want to say that that experience is ‘church’.
That is to say that the U2 Concert is church (keep reading, I am not a heretic…yet). The word that we use to translate to church is ekklesia. Simply it means to “call to assembly”, hence the crowd or mob in Acts 19:32 is described as an ekklesia. U2 is a group gathered together, but it is not a Christian church, it is a U2 church. It is gathered by U2 for U2. A Christian church is gathered by Jesus for Jesus. The centre of U2 church is the music with some monologues from Bono. The centre of the Christian church is the Word with some music in teaching, expressing, praising and encouraging as well as some other experiences such as prayer.
My point is that both are churches, but both are different. Performance is at the centre of U2 church. But where does that leave performance in the Christian church?
Allow me to turn to the supreme authority on the English language (what’s the icon for tongue in cheek?) dictionary.com
Performance:
1. a musical, dramatic, or other entertainment presented before an audience.
2. the act of performing a ceremony, play, piece of music, etc.
3. the execution or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.
4. a particular action, deed, or proceeding.
5. an action or proceeding of an unusual or spectacular kind: His temper tantrum was quite a performance.
6. the act of performing.
7. the manner in which or the efficiency with which something reacts or fulfills its intended purpose.
8. Linguistics. the actual use of language in real situations, which may or may not fully reflect a speaker's competence, being subject to such nonlinguistic factors as inattention, distraction, memory lapses, fatigue, or emotional state.
But let me begin with the idea of “Performance is the execution of action.”
Let us apply this to preaching. Is preaching performance? If it is the execution of an action, yes. Though when we think of performance many of us have more than just the execution, there is a premeditation in the way that action is executed as well as that it is executed. Again can we see this as preaching? How many of us have practiced our sermons, even in front of a mirror? How many of us should be practicing, keeping in mind that some 80% of communication is non-verbal?!
In this sense music leading is performance, as any other part of church is. The real question is “Is music leading and playing merely helping the congregation technically or are there other dimensions to the leading, like modeling passion, etc.?”
Again if we apply the same principles to preaching I would say many of us would say there is more than just reciting the words on the page. How we say them means something (would love to debate this below, if anyone is up for it). How we sing is as important as what we sing.
Of course there are places we can go in terms of performance of music that can be just plain wrong.
Firstly, if the ‘performance’ is not honest. Applying this to the passion of musicians, if the muso is not passionate about what he or she is playing or singing about then it should not be put on. This is just a lie.
As a side point I think this is one of the places we are uncomfortable when it comes to the use of the word ‘performance’. When I perform as an actor, it is my character, not me that is performing. I.e. if my character is married on stage, it does not mean that I am married in reality. There is a longer debate to be had about whether I am morally responsible for my characters actions: i.e. if I kill another character night after night on stage, have I as a performer committed murder? All this being said, musicians are not actors and what we see on stage we expect to be the person. When we find out that performers personas and personal lives do not match then we have disappointment (Brittany was not a virgin??). This is even more serious for preachers (do I need mention Jimmy Baker?) and Christian musicians.
Secondly, if what is being done by the musician does not glorify God. I would encourage all musicians to have John 3:30 as their creed (look it up!) or consider this story from Frank Gaebelein (author of The Christian, the arts and truth):
“A distinguished artist had completed a canvas of the Last Supper. All was done with great skill, and the chalice in particular had been portrayed most beautifully. As one after another of the artist’s friends looked at the painting, they said “what a beautiful cup!” Then the artist realized that he had diverted attention from the Lord. Taking his brush, he painted out the gorgeous chalice and substituted for it a more quietly beautiful but far less obtrusive one. So should it be with music in worship.”
At the end of the day we do not want church to be U2 church but Christian church, however, I think that musos can serve us well by being more than merely technical leaders and help us sing from our souls as well as our heads.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Organic Church
I have found a 'friend'!
For some time I have been advocating and teaching that there are a number of dimensions to the idea of church: visible and invisible, universal and local, etc. The dimension that is new is "organic or relational verses organizational".
The idea here is that there are two ways of looking at a church. One is the organisation: who is in charge, who leads, who is accountable to what, etc. The other is relational: who influences who, who is connected to who. I have been suggesting for some time that the organic church needs to determine the organizational aspect of church.
Now I have found a 'friend'! I have been reading through Organic Church by Neil Cole. This is a book that has a lot of theological holes through it, but is also very stimulating in his assertions and questions. On pages 125-26 he uses two illustrations that make my point very well.
The first is the difference between an endoskeleton and exoskeleton. An exoskeleton is on the outside of an organism, it will always hinder the growth of the skeleton as the organism grows into it. An endoskeleton is on the inside of the organism and helps and supports the organism as it grows. The structure is there to support the organic nature of the body. When the structure determines the relationships then the church will be destined to be hindered in its growth.
The second is the difference between pipes and water. When we enjoy the water out of our taps we say 'nice water' not 'nice pipes'. Again the structure is there for what is important.
The trick is working out how to make structures work for the organic nature of church. I think the best way as I have observed other churches is from time to time to blow them up and start again. Usually this will cause pain and anxiety, as it rightly should, but it also cause excitement and creativity and these can be great things for God's kingdom. It will also stop people from being too attached to their structures, something I am sure all of us in ministry are prone to!!
In his book Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. (p141 ff) Mark Driscoll points out that churches usually go through four phases:
Anyone else had personal experience in this?
For some time I have been advocating and teaching that there are a number of dimensions to the idea of church: visible and invisible, universal and local, etc. The dimension that is new is "organic or relational verses organizational".
The idea here is that there are two ways of looking at a church. One is the organisation: who is in charge, who leads, who is accountable to what, etc. The other is relational: who influences who, who is connected to who. I have been suggesting for some time that the organic church needs to determine the organizational aspect of church.
Now I have found a 'friend'! I have been reading through Organic Church by Neil Cole. This is a book that has a lot of theological holes through it, but is also very stimulating in his assertions and questions. On pages 125-26 he uses two illustrations that make my point very well.
The first is the difference between an endoskeleton and exoskeleton. An exoskeleton is on the outside of an organism, it will always hinder the growth of the skeleton as the organism grows into it. An endoskeleton is on the inside of the organism and helps and supports the organism as it grows. The structure is there to support the organic nature of the body. When the structure determines the relationships then the church will be destined to be hindered in its growth.
The second is the difference between pipes and water. When we enjoy the water out of our taps we say 'nice water' not 'nice pipes'. Again the structure is there for what is important.
The trick is working out how to make structures work for the organic nature of church. I think the best way as I have observed other churches is from time to time to blow them up and start again. Usually this will cause pain and anxiety, as it rightly should, but it also cause excitement and creativity and these can be great things for God's kingdom. It will also stop people from being too attached to their structures, something I am sure all of us in ministry are prone to!!
In his book Confessions of a Reformissional Rev. (p141 ff) Mark Driscoll points out that churches usually go through four phases:
- The Creative Phase: the dream stage
- The Management Phase: the reality stage
- The Defensive Justification Phase: the failure stage
- The Blaming Phase: the death stage
Anyone else had personal experience in this?
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Just how arrogant IS the Religion of Consumerism?
My wife and I have been agonising over the whole issue Halloween. That was until I watched an expert on Halloween (is that a real job?) being interviewed about it and was asked about "where did Halloween come from?" his answer included some fruitloop ideas about reaching the netherworld, but then my ears pricked up when he mentioned historically it came from a Christian celebration of "All Saints" (not the TV show - all the people who had died for the faith. This would make sense since today is also "Reformation Day".
So here is the question: if Halloween is really about celebrating those who died in the faith or even the pagan celebration of reaching the nether world, where did "trick or treat" come from???
I have a suspicion that it is the same place that brought Santa into centre stage at Christmas, the Easter bunny and his chocolates for Easter and now pictures of ghosts and witches and lollies for Halloween: Consumerism.
Since reading Brian Rosner's work on greed, I am more and more convinced that consumerism is a religion in its own right: with it is temples (shopping centres), priests (marketers), and religious celebrations (sales). But I have just realized how syncrenistic it is. It does not seek to oppose Christianity, just subsume it: Let's not get rid of the Christian days of celebration, let's just change to focus to something that well....people have to buy!!
Brothers and sisters, we must be careful. I fear it is only a matter of time before we start going to church that is sponsered by big Corporations!
On the other hand there are places this could work. We could have Virgin youth groups, Communion brought to you by Jamie Oliver, Ikea pulpits (though it would take the preacher 20 min to assemble before he could preach), The doctrine of Adam's sin: brought to you by Apple.
I am sure there are others...anyone have ideas?
So here is the question: if Halloween is really about celebrating those who died in the faith or even the pagan celebration of reaching the nether world, where did "trick or treat" come from???
I have a suspicion that it is the same place that brought Santa into centre stage at Christmas, the Easter bunny and his chocolates for Easter and now pictures of ghosts and witches and lollies for Halloween: Consumerism.
Since reading Brian Rosner's work on greed, I am more and more convinced that consumerism is a religion in its own right: with it is temples (shopping centres), priests (marketers), and religious celebrations (sales). But I have just realized how syncrenistic it is. It does not seek to oppose Christianity, just subsume it: Let's not get rid of the Christian days of celebration, let's just change to focus to something that well....people have to buy!!
Brothers and sisters, we must be careful. I fear it is only a matter of time before we start going to church that is sponsered by big Corporations!
On the other hand there are places this could work. We could have Virgin youth groups, Communion brought to you by Jamie Oliver, Ikea pulpits (though it would take the preacher 20 min to assemble before he could preach), The doctrine of Adam's sin: brought to you by Apple.
I am sure there are others...anyone have ideas?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Why Jesus is NOT a good teacher
I come across a lot of people who will describe Jesus as a 'good teacher' meaning he is merely so and nothing else. I have started to ask these people 'how well do you know his teaching?' to which they give very vague answers. I would like to ask them 'if he is such a good teacher, why don't you follow his teaching or at least know it?'. If you look at Jesus' teaching you will see that he is not a good teacher at all. Here are three reasons why:
Firstly, Jesus spent a lot of his time preaching in parables. The reason for this is not to make things clear to people, but rather the opposite, to make things unclear to people.
Secondly, we see that within this select group we see a complete failure of the students to understand what is going on:
Finally, there the interaction with the man who actually calls Jesus a 'good teacher'.
Here is the logic of the 'good teacher':
The point I am making is simple. You can only think that Jesus is merely a good teacher if you have not actually read his teaching and probably have no idea what he is on about. If you have read his teaching you are confronted by a man who claims he is God and is focused on his work on the cross. I happen to think he is a very good teacher, which means I also think he is God who has saved me from my sin.
Firstly, Jesus spent a lot of his time preaching in parables. The reason for this is not to make things clear to people, but rather the opposite, to make things unclear to people.
“When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parablesOne really needs to ask what sort of teacher makes things unclear to the general public, but selects a few people to give his 'secret teaching'. The answer is a biased teacher who has favorites! If Jesus is merely a teacher there are some moral questions he needs to answer and the good in the 'good teacher' should be questioned.
so that, “ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’’”” (Mark 4:10-12 NIV)
Secondly, we see that within this select group we see a complete failure of the students to understand what is going on:
- Peter is referred to as Satan for not understanding Jesus' mission of going to the cross (e.g. Mark 8:33). And the rest of the disciples are not much better (e.g. Luke 18:34)
- Despite the fact that Jesus repeated mentioned that he had to rise from the dead, the disciples are completely surprised when he does (e.g. John 20:9).
- They do not understand the significance of what Jesus is doing in his miracles and what they say about him (e.g. Matt 16:9)
- When he spends an extended amount of time with them the night before he is about die, they still don't get what is going on (e.g. John 16:18)
Finally, there the interaction with the man who actually calls Jesus a 'good teacher'.
“As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.” (Mark 10:17-18 NIV)
Here is the logic of the 'good teacher':
- No-one is good by God alone.
- If I am a good teacher, I therefore must also be God incarnate
- If I am not God incarnate, I therefore must be a bad or at least incompetent teacher, so why are you bothering me?
The point I am making is simple. You can only think that Jesus is merely a good teacher if you have not actually read his teaching and probably have no idea what he is on about. If you have read his teaching you are confronted by a man who claims he is God and is focused on his work on the cross. I happen to think he is a very good teacher, which means I also think he is God who has saved me from my sin.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Guilt: Not being so guilty about hell
"I hate it when Christians talk about hell. They shouldn't make people feel guilty"I have heard Christians and non-Christians make this statement and there is something about it that I resonate with. But as a Bible teaching seeking to focus on Jesus, it is very hard not to talk about hell. He had a lot to say about it!
But then I realised the other day while watching TV that I am not the only one who will utilize guilt. While watching TV over a 24 period (I wasn't watching it for 24 hours!!) here is what I was made to feel:
- I am a bad father for not having the safest car on the market, which apparently is a Mercedes S Class.
- I am a bad husband for not arranging life insurance to pay for my funeral.
- I am a bad person for not supporting the starving in Africa.
- I am a bad father again for drinking beer in front of my kids and not making a Bridgestone tyre swing for them.
I am not against the advertising world for using guilt for these products. I think it is entirely appropriate. They are the kinds of things that I should at least aspire to get right. Indeed one only needs to think of the AIDS ads with the grim reaper going bowling to see how effective they can be.
As a side note, can you imagine pitching that one: "Well there is a grim reaper and he is bowling but the pins are people, we were going to go with playing darts...but well....it was pretty messy."
But back to my issue: the point is when we talk about hell - something that is more important and has bigger implications (forever is a pretty long time) then we need to talk about what's at stake and not feel guilty about it.
Why does everyone else get to do it and we don't??
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Training Gen Z
The great evangelist D. L. Moody returned hometo his wife from an evening of preaching the Gospel.That little anecdote changed the way I saw children's ministry. Especially the children's ministry I am involved with, namely with my kids.
"How did it go?" she inquired.
"2 1/2 converts" he replied.
She pondered on the unusal reply for a moment and then worked it out. "Oh, so how old was the child?"
"No, two children and one adult" She gave him a quizzical look. "The adult's life is nearly half over, but the children have their whole life ahead of them to serve Jesus" he explained.
So my 5 year old son, Calvin, and I instituted a new tradition called "Phenology Time" (should be Theology Time, but he mispronounced it once and it has stuck!). We spend about a hour or so on a Friday afternoon doing something together about the Bible. This is on top of our daily reading the Bible and praying. Part of this is that I thought I should be training him because he is my son, part of this is that I did not have a ministry apprentice at uni this year and train people because...that's what I do.
We have done a poster of the time line of the Bible, made a prayer diary for him to pray through, done a lego picture story of Esther and are currently working on a video of one of his favorite Christian songs.
Anyway the reason I mention this is that it is starting to pay off. He has been giving me feedback on my talks for a little while now. "You should say this next time you talk about Jesus...". Some of his feedback is more helpful than some adults!
But the big highlight was this week when he announced at dinner that he would like to be baptized.
"Do you know what that means, little mate?" (my name for him)I wish some of my friends in ministry had as clear view of the sacraments as a 5 year old!!
"Yep, it is what friends with Jesus do."
"Right, but you know there is nothing special about the water don't you?"
"Yep, it is about making promises and praying. But I, dunno, I just like the idea of the water."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)