church/kingdom and church/mission

i was asked to answer some questions in a methodist fresh expressions research forum. specifically on the role of church/mission and church/kingdom as concepts within methodist fresh expressions. i thought i would repeat my answer here:

hmm… i’m not sure if i’m qualified to speak on methodist fresh expressions as i’m not a methodist myself coming from the reformed tradition. however, i have read wesley’s sermons and believe you might find wisdom in wesley’s seventh sermon entitled ‘the way to the kingdom’. it makes it clear that wesley saw two legs to the kingdom of God, the first being holiness/obedience and the second being happiness/peace in the heart. the way, wesley believed or even insisted, must be repentance and belief in the gospel – indeed he wrote, ‘He [God] would set up his kingdom among men, and reign in the hearts of His people’ and also ‘Wheresoever, therefore, the gospel of Christ is preached, this His “kingdom is nigh at hand”.’ – if this then doesn’t identify church and kingdom in the thought of the wesley brothers then i am not sure what will.

i believe one of the dangers of the fresh expressions movement, and perhaps a way not left open by wesley, is to make a false and potentially devestating separation between the church and the kingdom. it seems to me that fresh expressions rides on a wave that sees evangelicals (with a passion for evangelism proclamation of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus) and liberals (who embraced Adolf von Harnack’s emphasis upon the social message of the gospel) united in mission. equally those who might like to disrupt this holy harmony might use a radical, and unwarranted, separation between church and the kingdom as a lever to force apart evangelicals and liberals who are discovering common ground.

so to mission and the church, we agree that it is God’s mission, which the church is invited to participate in. this is in keeping with the methodist doctrine of prevenient grace but the goal is that God would reign (establish his kingdom) in the hearts of his people, the consequences of which are social holiness. without either of these, repentance or social holiness, the gospel of Jesus proclaimed by Wesley would be incomplete. i think, therefore, the church is both an agent of and result of mission in its most complete sense. the question ‘does “church do” mission or “mission do” church?’ then is answered,’yes, both, and’. but the challenge then is what shape our church should take if its task is to “make disciples” and disciples are to be both church and do mission. both of which are corporate and individual endeavours as the holy community the trinity reveals.

i suspect that we may have failed in our mandate to make disciples because we saw mission as something done by a select group within the church rather than the aim of the entire church. surely discipleship is best expressed not by cerebral creeds and formulas but by active engagement in theological mission. rather than thinking we must do mission to get people through the doors then we must do discipleship, surely we would do better to see mission as something we are calling people to whilst being engaged in ourselves? i am convinced that this is the meaning of the Christian life to meet with God and one another as we respond to God’s call to join His mission in the world.

The Foolishness of the Cross

It’s April fools day and I thought I’d speak to you this morning about foolishness. We’ve all played the fool from time to time haven’t we? Playing practical jokes on our friends, misleading them, or surprising them in humorous ways. Well, I certainly have.

But there is a stupider side to foolishness isn’t there? An embarrassing side, which I’m sure we have all had our fair share of.

I can remember waiting in the cold for several hours for a young lady I’d agreed to meet unfortunately she’d left before me and wasn’t coming but instead of waiting half an hour and going my own way I waited four hours before finally catching the train home. In hindsight, I guess that was a pretty foolish thing to do. 

But, I know I’m not the only one to act in a foolish way, in Hans Christen Anderson’s fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes: A great emperor is fooled into wearing nothing as he is told that only “the worthy and intelligent” are able to see the fine robes he is wearing. Being too embarrassed to admit that he cannot see the clothes himself the emperor parades through the streets until a young boy whispers ‘the emperor’s got no clothes on’.

I’m sure you’ve heard that famous story or perhaps you can think of an equivalent story.

In the Bible foolishness is treated in a number of ways: In the Old Testament the fool is a person who denies the existence of God or who acts without moral restraint. Fools are described as being ignorant of the truth, deceitful liars, slanderers, and lazy. In the New Testament fools are those who fail to heed the warnings, they ignore Jesus words. Hence, the story of the wise and the foolish builders; the foolish builder is compared to the person who ignores Jesus’ teaching.

However, in our verses today Paul writes about the foolishness of preaching the cross and picks out three groups (the Jews, the Greeks, and the Christian community) he argues that the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of great people and that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of great people.

1.      Paul argues that the cross is nothing but weakness to the Jews, for they demanded signs but they saw the messiah hung upon a cross. Our first reading this morning told of Jesus triumphant procession into Jerusalem; expectations must have been high the Jews must have felt that Jesus had come to overthrow their Gentile rulers but their expectations were dashed upon the rocks of reality.

It is interesting to note all the excitement surrounding Jeffrey Archer’s The Gospel According to Judas. In this story, Judas is portrayed as being a faithful follower of Jesus. Speculating about Judas’ motives for betraying Jesus it suggests that Judas is acting upon Jesus command. However, the orthodox interpretation raises a more interesting possibility. Judas betrayed Jesus not simply for thirty pieces of silver but to engineer a showdown between Jesus and the civil authorities.

In Jesus day, people were awaiting the coming of a king who would overthrow the Roman Empire and Judas Iscariot was no different. In fact, Judas was probably a zealot, committed to overthrowing the Roman Empire. Judas’ surname Iscariot may be a form ‘Sicarii’ meaning ‘dagger-man’. However, when Judas realised that his plan had failed and Jesus had been nailed to the cross he was overcome with remorse and the gospels tell us that Judas took his own life.

But, “what does all this stuff about Judas have to do with the weakness of the cross?” you may be asking. Well, if the Jews and Judas expected Jesus to triumph over the Roman Empire the cross must have seemed like an abomination!

Today, there are those for whom the way of cross and self-sacrifice seems awful. For example, there are conservative bible-believing Christians who have been utterly behind the war in Iraq. I suspect that some of these Christians much like the Jews of Jesus’ day would feel more comfortable with a conquering hero than the crucified Lord. And although they would hardly admit it the suffering of the cross is a rebuke to their imperialistic Christianity.

Likewise, there are those who consider Christianity to be a religion of weakness and who reject the gospel on the grounds that Christ’s patience, unconditional love, free grace, and humility are weaknesses in a world that praises the ambitious, socially successful, powerful and admired icons of pop culture.

In all of this, with Paul, I affirm, “the weakness of God is stronger than human strength”.

So we know why the cross was a stumbling block to the Jews, but what about the Greeks? Why does Paul suggest that suggest that the cross is foolishness to the Greeks?

2.      It is easy to see that faced with the philosophy of Socrates and Plato; the teaching of illiterate fishermen must have seemed little more than foolishness. Indeed Aristotle, whose statue stands today in the great City of Thessalonica, was the tutor of Alexander the Great. Compared with him, the wisdom of an itinerant teacher from Israel, a vassal state within the Roman Empire, must have seemed ridiculous.

But there is a further problem, whilst Jesus held little esteem when compared to the Greek philosophers, the Old Testament prophecies and scriptures held even less interest for the Greeks. In fact, the entire Jewish faith with its forms of reasoning, ideas, symbols, and witticisms was like a foreign language to the Greeks. Hence, when Paul is speaking in Athens people dismiss him as preaching foreign gods.

It should come as no surprise that it is possible to draw a comparison between the situation that has arisen today and the context the apostle was writing into. We like the Greeks have our contemporary philosophers; people like Richard Dawkins, who chant the mantra “faith is the absence of reason”.  And despite our best efforts to argue: 

a.       with the explorer William Adams that “faith is the continuation of reason”

b.      or with the theologian St Augustine that “faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe” All our attempts fall on deaf ears because to Richard Dawkins these ideas are completely alien to his pattern of thinking.

And so like Paul we also end up affirming that, “the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom”.

3.      Finally, we come to the message of the apostle to the Christian community in Corinth.

“Brothers and Sisters think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many of you were influential; not many of you were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.”

In this Paul is reminding us that the God who has chosen to display His infinite wisdom in the form of foolishness and weakness has chosen us and called us in our foolishness and weakness to shame the wise and the strong. Pastor John Piper puts it like this: “the infinitely wise way of salvation in the death of Christ is rooted in an infinitely wise way of choosing sinners before the cross, and an infinitely wise way of calling sinners after the cross.” And why has God done it in this way? So, that “the one who boasts may boast only in the Lord”. In other words, everything that is involved in our salvation: the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ; our calling, response, and sanctification has been brought about so that we might not boast in ourselves but praise our Father in Heaven!

Well, I began this morning by talking about the emperors new clothes and the reception he was given as he was paraded through the streets, today we celebrate another emperor who was paraded through the streets, beaten, abused, taunted, tortured, murdered and the challenge is do you see the wisdom of the cross?

my sermon for Palm Sunday – some changes have been made- this is the more radical version)

In Defense of the Gospel of Peace: an evangelical anti-war view

‘In Defense of the Gospel of Peace: An Evangelical Anti-War View’  - And it is about time too. We’ve hand the name of conservative evangelicalism dragged through the mud by preachers of hate and violence. We’ve almost sacrificed every shred of credibility we have. All because we conformed to the political norm, we capitulated to an ideology, rather than seeking to remain faithful to Scripture.

Why Is Statecraft Problematic?

Ok, so I thought the answer to this question was obvious but as ever I am being asked to clarify my opinions, here goes:

It is easy to see why the Church of England, whose leader is appointed by the Prime Minister, whose Bishops sit in the House of Lords, and who recognise the Queen as the head of the Church might see legislation which curtails Christian freedom to be an issue! Nor is it difficult to see that for years there has been a kind of truce between the Church and the State, whether you are a member of a dissenting church or the recognised state church you have enjoyed the benefits of Christian freedoms resulting from that truce.

I have in the past welcomed greater separation between the church and the government, because I believe there are particular beliefs which result in Christians living in a different way to secular people, but to welcome legislation which could curtail my freedom to live as Christ has called me to live is not something I am obliged to do.

I am interested in church history and some of the earliest debates Christians had surrounded the extent to which it was appropriate for Christians to seek martyrdom. Orthodox opinion was that to seek persecution and martyrdom ruled you out from being considered a martyr for your faith. I am not being melodramatic to use this as an example, I do not think we are in danger of imminent persecution, but the principle is clear Christians are to seek to live peaceably alongside the government and they are not to invite conflict between the government and the Church nor are they to seek to use the power of the State.

I hope that is clear, as always my opinions are in the process of formation and reformation, so I welcome your thoughts.

Statecraft: A Secular Church?

I don’t know what you think of the Roman Catholic and Anglican rebellion over the freedom of Catholic Adoption Agencies to refuse homosexual couples the right to adopt children from their clinics – it seems based upon an interesting mix of biblical warrant, natural law ethics, and established tradition/ practice. I guess I’m not so concerned about this one particular issue as about a wider concern, voiced by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor and Bishop Tom Wright, as they accused the government of ‘imposing a new morality’. I fear the Cardinal and Bishops are right it is becoming increasingly difficult for Roman-Catholic, Anglo-Catholics, Evangelical, Orthodox, Charismatic, mainstream Christians to maintain the faith they inherited. I’m sure that some will find it worrying that the State has decided to legislate against the devout beliefs/ convictions of many mainstream Christians.
It is not the first time the state has legislated against Christian convictions, but in the past on issues such as abortion, individual Christians have been allowed the right to object on moral grounds. Sadly, no such right has been afforded Catholic Adoption Agencies.
I guess we are now seeing the separation of the Church and the State, we are learning what has always been true: the State and Church are living competing narratives! Over 1600 years ago, St Augustine wrote De civitate Dei and revealed the confrontation between the City of God and the City of Man. Claiming that the secular state is just a false imitation of the City of God, the Church. William Cavanaugh expounds this truth by writing ‘the modern state is “founded on certain stories of nature and human nature, the origins of human conflict, and the remedies of such conflict in the enactment of the state itself”’. In contrast, the Church is founded upon the story of creation, fall, and redemption.
It seems clear that the State is setting itself up as a source of alternative salvation. In other words, ‘the modern state seeks to replace the church by itself becoming a soteriological institution’. I guess now it may be appropriate to declare that the State is in the hands of anti-Christ – a false copy of the Body of Christ, the Church. In an academic setting these words feel comfortable, couched in philosophical, intellectual language, but today these ideas feel deeply disturbing- what do you think?

Note: quotes taken from James K.A. Smith’s ‘Introducing Radical Orthodoxy; Mapping a Post-Secular Theology’ (Grand Rapids, Baker Academic, 2004) pp.132-133

Speaking Truthfully- thoughts on ’salvation even in sin’

Yesterday, I was reading an essay by Stanley Hauerwas entitled ’salvation even in sin’ within this essay Hauerwas reflects upon Ephesians 4:25-5:2 and draws links between our ability to speak truthfully about our lives and our understanding of sin and grace.

The same day, I had the great privilege to be given a preview of the next fresh expressions DVD, which features talking heads with Graham Horsley, Graham Carter, and Martyn Atkins. I was struck by something Martyn said about our failure to effectively disciple people over past hundred years. ‘How is it’, he remonstrated, ‘that people can go to church their entire lives and the something happens and fifty years of discipleship goes out the window?’

I suspect we find part of the answer in Ephesians 4:25 – 5:2. Sadly, the church has become a place where people put up the barriers. Instead of being real about the struggles we have faced, we smile and say things like ‘I’m great thanks’ even when things have not been good at all. I guess sometimes this is because we are scared of being honest about our struggles; we are afraid of speaking truthfully about our lives, and when somebody does, very often they receive condemnation rather than grace.

I believe in holistic small groups not because small group discipleship is the flavour of the week but because it seems to be the starting place for learning to speak truthfully to one another, to radiate grace. Not the otherworldly grace, which knows no sin, but the real gritty grace illustrated most eloquently in the cross of Christ.

Heavenly Father,
Help us to speak more truthfully about ourselves,
And enable us to listen to one another with grace.
Let us be slow to anger but quick to forgive,
And surround us with your love.
Be with us now,
In the coming minutes,
And help us to know your will.
We ask this in the power of the Holy Spirit,
And trusting in the love of Christ,
Your Son, our Saviour.
Amen

* In work at the moment I’m organising a conference entitled, ‘Creating Effective Disciples; through small groups’ it is designed to resource and encourage churches and leaders with small group ministries. It will be run at High Leigh in Hertfordshire on the 13th and 14th March, for more information, send me an email by clicking here.
Thanks.
James

Our Victory!!

I was considering the significance of eschatology for Christian discipleship in the midst of a hostile secular society and I came across this story on the Ekklesia Project website:Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa was preaching in the cathedral in Capetown during the days of apartheid. Police and paramilitary lined the walls of the packed sanctuary, intimidating the congregation and recording everything that was said. Tutu preached prophetically of the coming day when the walls of apartheid would fall, and even though the armed might of the state was powerful, it was not God. “Indeed,” Tutu said to the police, “You have already lost.” He paused, flashed his famous smile, “So why don’t you join the winning side?” The crowd roared and everyone got up dancing.

I thank God that I was not born amidst racial hatred or communist dictatorships, that I know Christ and that I am free to worship Him without fear of persecution. I thank God that the victory is in Christ. I only ask that I would know more fully, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the implications of Christ’s victory for my life in Christian discipleship.Lord God teach me:
to turn the other cheek,
to act with meekness,
to renounce violence,
to forgive as you have forgiven,
to offer mercy,
to avoid retaliation,
to resist accommodation,
to live with integrity,
to honour You,
to the glory of Jesus Christ,
Amen

thoughts on beauty…

The secret of beauty is not in what is seen it is in what is not seen, you can not replicate great master pieces, your can not capture love, because it is not something wholly present but something transcendent. Likewise, beauty is not passing away (saeculum) but rather eternal.

The myth of this world is that beauty is about what is seen, understood, and temporary. But Christians know this to be false for scripture assures us that what is seen is temporary but what is unseen is eternal. We are taught to see the world holistically; materially, emotionally, and spiritually – to look beyond images to the heart and soul of a person.

The great preacher, Charles Spurgeon once said ‘an ounce of heart knowledge was worth all the head knowledge in the world’ and he was right but there is a deeper call for people to hear the Spirit in their depths. For beauty (and the beauty of God) is not something formed just between the heart of a subject and an object itself but between the testimony of the Spirit to one’s soul.

I imagine some readers might think that I’ve finally lost touch with reality, but search yourselves – is not the world in the bosom of God, are there not moments of perfect contentment when you feel totally at one in communion with God. It is these moments that the world seems most completely beautiful, when you glimpse with your soul something of heaven.

You cannot describe such moments, you cannot capture them physically, nor are they purely emotional experiences (though they may be emotional), but they are something more, they are spiritual. It is perhaps the feeling one gets when one finds oneself in step with God – a note to self on beauty seek communion, look beyond the images, feel more than emotion, listen to the Spirit.

some quick thoughts on models of atonement

1. sacrificial (salvation is bought by blood) – the nature of God is presented here as one who demands blood sacrifice, but the OT states that God demands obedience rather than sacrifice.
2. judicial (salvation through punishment on our behalf) – often presented as a way of reconciling justice and holiness with the mercy and love of God, but unpopular in post-Christendom context as Christianity is moving away rather than towards the seat of power and judgement (but perhaps this can be reconciled).
3. merit (salvation Christ won favour of God) – to what extent does Christ have to win the favour of God for our salvation (marcion theology).

- vulnerable to questions concerning the definition of sin (wrong done to fellow people but ultimately to God) criticism of deontic models which make God seem petty.

4. exemplary (set an example for us) – fails to deal with sin as an ontological reality.

5. participatory – through participation in Christ’s death and resurrection we become alive to God in Christ Jesus. Our person is changed as we put off the old person and become a new person (the old person is morally culpable). I fear this either lends itself to a dualistic (Gnostic) understanding of human nature, or to a bizarre metaphysical proposal.

6. a hybrid of the participatory model that recognises salvation deals with the ontological and relational problem whilst our sin is dealt with as a deontological problem through Jesus suffering in our place.

- in this theory of atonement biblical language of ransom, suffering, and sacrifice remain valid and are supported by a true and Trinitarian understanding of God’s nature, whilst the emphasis remains upon the relational within the participatory model. And of course none of this denies the significance of Christ’s death as a witness and example of resistance against the domination system.

Religion and Politics- what to do?

Please note- I struggled to write this because it really cuts to the heart of who I am as a Christian, who I want to be, how I want to live, and how I want others to learn to live as well, it also leaves me wondering whether there is a viable Christian political agenda- on the right or the left.

I think the religion and politics issues are really dangerous- as an evangelical it often hurts me to be characterised as a greedy, wasteful, arrogant, persecuting bigot. I think we as a church have a duty to respond to issues of poverty, global warming (and other green issues), and militarism (the myth of redemptive violence). I’m not sure how we can set these issues apart from our views on homosexuality, euthanasia (or assisted dying), and Christian education and formation.

Our secular governments trust in economic policies that protect our individual economies nurturing stable growth these policies set other nations (some of the worlds poorest) at a disadvantage economically. As Christians, we may want to criticise these policies but if we legislate against the policies the secular American wheat farmer goes out of business someone else pays the cost of our political agenda- the result is bitterness towards the Christian theocratic agenda and towards Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.

I was speaking to a Canadian who works for the Commonwealth, yesterday, focussing on world health issues (most notably HIV AIDS). We discussed the Christian role in combating the aids pandemic across Africa; he noted that in some countries the church is providing 50% of the overall health care. It is an amazing testimony to Jesus Christ who healed lepers, reconciled community and outcast, and preached an alternative lifestyle that the Church continues to be Christ’s hands and feet and voice in the contemporary world. However, you can’t legislate for community reconciliation or Christian moral values these things come about as we accept the discipline of the Father, follow in the footsteps of Jesus and receive renewal through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Consider another situation ‘global warming’ at the moment, our nations are placing blind faith in further scientific and technological developments save us from an environmental catastrophe. We might want to say as the People of God actually living God’s way and being good stewards of the earth will save us from global melt down. But, it depends where you put your trust and in whom you put your trust for many the cost of following Christ with our natural resources is far too high- so how do we work this out?

We can either trust in our democratic right by legislate against homosexuality, bad stewardship (or what we perceive is bad stewardship) of the environment, assisted dying, and health care. Alternatively, we can pursue the Christian theocratic agenda through the Church, which acknowledges Christ as its head. In this situation, we provide an example to the world of good (faithful) sexual ethics good stewardship, good palliative care (and good dying), good (holistic) health care.
I know it is a difficult choice, particularly when it means allowing for suffering (perhaps that’s what it felt like for God when he allowed us to go our own way), but it is surely the better way for a people who believe that there is both judgement and life after death.

What do you think? Is there a way to square the circle that I haven’t seen? What does it mean to live ‘in’ but not ‘of’ the world?