Not everyone can plant the trendy church..

Australia needs more churches.

Australia has an ageing population (eg. no. of old people > no. of young people).

So, who's planting the churches in the retirement villages?

'Cultural relevance'.. or cultural snobbery?

Often this passage is used to justify a new expression of church, in the name of cultural relevance:

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

And it's a fair call, I myself subscribe to a modern church methodology. But are we at risk of becoming the new cultural snobs?
I can't help but think that hip music, no robes or rites, 'missional' language and preaching to the postmodern persuasion is alienating many from the Gospel.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.

Are we possibly becoming too much of a Gentile to the Gentiles at the expense of becoming a Jew to the Jews?

Blogfast: partial failure.

I know, a week early.. I wasn't doing very well keeping away from the blogsphere. I found myself not only returning because you hear about what's going down in the blogsphere from people in the real world, but also because I would search the internet for things, and interestingly enough, most of the world is running their own blogs, not websites anymore! And people posted bloglinks on facebook.. I think next time both need to go, and not for as long a time.

But having made the (not so good) effort, I have noticed and learned a few things:

- It is unsettling that there are certain things that have become or are becoming designated blog discussion only, like talking about sexual issues, pornography and politics. I am glad it's being done, but is it easier done on blogs? And is it adequate?
Back in primary school, before blogs and the internet in fact, there were a lot of 'special books' and people brought in who didn't know you to discuss untouchable subjects. Why will it never be a personal thing?
-My current main source of written Theological influence is a blog. A corporate one, but a blog nonetheless. Is this a worry? Will books be better?
-The world is becoming segmented into bite sized pieces. I'm labelling it neither good nor bad, just interesting. But in light of this, what does this mean for educational blogs? Are we getting holistic information? Are we also adding to the simplifying of everything?
-We are spending our time talking more than ever, as everyone has an opinion, and will develop there own online opinion. Does this mean we listen less?

Just some thoughts and reflections.

Gospel according to..

Second hand information can be good.. but sometimes it's really helpful to get back to the source.

This has never been more true than with the Gospel.
In the big bad world of evangelism so many people have their own idea of the Gospel, and preach it daily..:

• "Jesus was just a man"
• "The Gospels of Mark, Mark 2.0 (Luke), Mark 2.1 (Matthew), and John are all literalist revisioning of a Pagan Mystery religion."
• "There was no literal Jesus."
• "The Good News is there's a sale on Mormon ties and hoodies"

In our present post-christian society (anyone got a technical term for this?), we have the challenge of preaching and ministering the Gospel to those who have already "heard it" today..
They'll accept anything as Gospel..


..without reading it themselves.

How can we be challenging the secular world to be opening the Bible before creating their own version of the Gospel?

"In the world, not of the world.."

A common phrase.
But what does this really look like?

How much should we be removed from the world?
To what degree should we involve ourselves in the activities of this world in order to win people to Christ?

There are the extremes.
The Exclusive Brethren are at one end, our 'lapsed' brothers and sisters at the other.

We are called to be the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), and shine like stars in a depraved generation (Philippians 2:12-18). We are also called to do all things to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:23-33).

Does this define our behaviour in certain contexts, or, does it define which contexts we place ourselves to behave?

Are we to witness in every place, or is there places or contexts that we cannot witness?

Can we also participate in the world, for necessity (say our Jobs), being witness to Christ to the best of our ability?