Little River Big Bike Day

This post has little to do with most of the other topics I have done, but it's still about "living my faith; sharing my life".

Oct 31st a group of friends are planning a cycle ride that will be a big challenge for us. I thought I could share this with others.

Yes for those who enjoy the outdoors and an increase in your heart rate then this is for you.

This is open to everyone who has a bike and likes to bike.

When: Oct 31
Time: 8.30am
Where: Little River
What to bring: Mountain bike, all whether clothing (layers), plenty of energy snacks and drinks.

Format: We meet at Little River and leave at 8.30. Those who want a smaller challenge could base themselves at Little River cycle the Rail Trial and enjoy some good coffee.
• The rest will leave our comforts and head on a gentle flat ride along Wairewa Pa Rd, Kinloch Rd, and Okuti Valley road; all sealed with some nice bush.
• Then we turn into Reynolds Valley Rd for a good uphill puff, from the flat up to 680m! Along Bossu Rd to Jubilee Rd.
• A quick downhill slide till we reach Wainui and for some wonderful harbour vista we amble round till Barry’s Bay.
• Now as we value your safety we have decided not to go up to Hill Top by the main road.
• Travel on towards Duvauchelle but turn off at the Duvauchelle Stock Route and again climb from about 100m to 450m to the Summit Rd.
• Around some undulating rods to Harman’s Track and it’s all down hill to Little River for a coffee.


This should cover approx 50KM. Rain or shine.

Now you might say “I can’t do this, my little legs will not go round and around that many times, my bum is too soft.” Well don’t despair we have almost two months to get into shape

Now I hope to get some photos on the page at some future time, just to wet the appetite.

Christianities versus Christianity

Came across this post by Brian Mclaren the other day thought it was worthy of pondering on....

September 15, 2010
Christianities versus Christianity
I think David Gushee gets it right:


I remember the first time it became crystal clear to me that there is no such thing as Christianity, but only competing Christianities. It was when I was working on my doctoral dissertation on Christians who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. During that time I attended a most remarkable conference in New York on hidden children of the Holocaust. This gathering brought together the now-grown adults who had hidden from the Nazis to survive. Some of these children were saved by Christian families.

The most memorable speaker for me was a hidden child, and now a sociologist, named Nechama Tec. A Polish Jew, she survived the war hiding with Christians. She was asked after her address whether it was Christianity that motivated her rescuers. Her unforgettable response went like this: “It wasn’t just any kind of Christianity that would motivate a rescuer. Only a certain kind of Christianity would lead someone to risk their lives for us.”

A certain kind of Christianity -- the phrase stayed with me. It is enormously helpful. From hard experience, young Nechama Tec learned the difference between versions of Christianity that teach hatred of the religious/ethnic other and versions that teach sacrificial and inclusive love. Her very survival depended on being able to tell the difference between these competing Christianities and the people who embodied them.


Of course, this is what was in my mind when I wrote A New Kind of Christian and A New Kind of Christianity. It's also at the heart of my upcoming book, the title of which will be released soon.

Gushee adds this important note, reflecting on recent tensions among Christians of competing Christianities and Islaams:


So the Christianity of “International Burn a Koran Day” exists. It is a sorry version of Christianity, but it exists. It must be defeated by better versions of Christianity. Maybe some progress has been made on that over the last week.

Could it also be that there is no such thing as “Islam,” but only competing versions of Islam? Could it be that those who are casually declaring that al Qaeda’s Islam just is Islam are about as accurate as those who would say that Terry Jones’ Christianity just is Christianity? Could it be that we need a moratorium on people who know nothing about the competing Muslim traditions making blanket declarations about the eternal nature of that religion?

An Earthquake - sent by God?

Many people will know that Christchurch has recently experienced a major earthquake; causing a lot of damage to older buildings, some roads and a few newer homes. Overall we escaped very lightly. There was no lose of life and only a small part of the city was damaged.

What I would like to look at is how to see this as people of Faith. How much is God involved in this, what should our response be to tragedies like these?

The usual response from Christians, after something like an earthquake when they escape injury or death is to 'praise God' for 'saving' them or 'protecting' them. We see God as proactively stepping in looking after us, keeping us from danger. This attitude is so prevalent in Old Testament, God intervening in human history; bringing judgment down on sinful people, rescuing those he wanted to. Natural disasters were the responsibility of God, if you got killed then you were most probably doing something wrong. However God also seemed to spare people even when they disobeyed him; David is a key example of this. He lusted, wanted, committed adultery, lied, killed and got caught out, then confessed.

So we see different reactions on Gods part. He used disasters to bring judgement down on people but he saved people even though they sinned, their 'salvation' had nothing to do with their actions. Sometimes when God took action it was instantaneous, like the giving of the 10 commandments and the disobedience of the people. God judged them at the moment but he gave the nation of Israel and Judah repeated warnings before allowing them to be taken into captivity.

The greatest example of God stepping into human time is when he became a baby and lived on this earth as Jesus. Does this mean that from that point on God has stopped using disasters to punish us directly, because Jesus has taken on all the anger and judgment of God?

Now I also know that when sin entered this world it not only infested humans but also corrupted this world. The earthquakes are part of that 'groaning' of the world, it is the 'natural' consequence of our sin (Gen. 3:17).

So let us come back to the question of God's involvement in this world.I should however state some foundations of my belief; I do believe in a personal God who created this world and has revealed Himself through Jesus. Our God is omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign God. He is both imminent and transcendent, he is Love in it's fullest sense.

If we say that we are 'most blessed' because God has saved us from harm through this earthquake, if we believe that God heard our prayers and kept us from danger; then what does that say to the people of Haiti or Chile or Pakistan or China? Does that mean that those people who lost life in these other countries were not so 'blessed' of God that God didn't judge them to be so worthy? This is my problem and it arises every time there is a car accident or some other tragedy. Has God actually protected us and not the other person (Matthew 5:45)?

Could it be something like this: God has created this world, he has set in motion certain laws and he has allowed sin to corrupt this world. There are consequences to sin and death is the major one. Natural disasters are also part of the consequences (Rom. 8:19). God is not standing over us and manipulating the earth so that certain people are killed and others live as a rule. I wonder if he just lets things take their natural course. Now I should add here that I do believe that God does sometimes protect people for a special reason and that he does sometimes interrupt the natural order of things to accomplish his purposes but these are exceptions more that the norm. Are we not also to blame for natural disasters or their severity; we build on unstable land, we strip land of trees, and we pollute our rivers and air.

So we were not more blessed than Haiti in the eyes of God with our earthquake, we were not more important than the people of Pakistan to God. No we were saved because we have a higher level of educated people, we have implemented better rules for building and we have a less corrupt government that keeps the rules for everyone. We were more fortunate to have fewer people packed into our city and they don't live in a high density area. We had an efficient Civil defence programme that worked pretty well.

Can we thank God for being alive? Yes we can because God loves us and he has work for us to do now. Perhaps disasters should challenge our perspective on life and eternity and join Paul when he said "If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord." Rom 14:8.

This is not my full and final thoughts on this subject, I am open for others to share their thoughts. This is really just my questions set out to help me make some sense of all this.

Homosexuality/Homosexual

Are we the subject of social engineering? I think we are especially in our attitude to Homosexuality. We are continually being told that it is a fact that Homosexuality is part of our DNA and a valid lifestyle choice. However I should make the comment that there isn't complete agreement amongst the medical profession or the scientific community as to the reason for someone being Homosexual; is it DNA, our genes, social conditioning, environmental or a sickness or moral deviation? Although the ‘experts’ do not have undisputed facts the media, and community groups certainly think they do. They say Homosexuality is definitely not a sickness or a ’sin’ and most probably not social conditioning. Because we are a tolerant society we can not speak against Homosexuality. In fact in our tolerant society we are very intolerant towards anyone who deems to say it is anything but our DNA.

People are tagged as Homophobic if they dare to criticise Homosexuality or question popular opinions on it. I would like to post my thoughts on this subject, when I look at Homosexuality I see three things that help form my view on Homosexuality; evolution, Biblical morality and common sense speaking against this lifestyle, in other words it’s ‘wrong’ behaviour. But it is no worse than other sexual sins. In our moral bereft world our attitudes to sexuality have been tipped up side down; young people are bombarded with conflicting messages but the strongest one is ‘to do what feels best for you’ or ‘be happy’ because that’s what really is important. Take condoms with you and don't deny your desire for pleasure, any time or any cost. How you express your sexuality is yours to choose and actually it is a 'mature person' who is able to experiment with different styles.

Now I believe that there are certain things we do that are wrong and always will be. Sexual immorality is wrong; such practices as cheating on your partner, sex before a committed relationship, child sex, homosexuality and others out there. They are wrong and eventually will destroy our lives and families. What I am not saying is that people, who would be known as homosexual, gay, and lesbian or what ever, are evil or bad people. They are just as bad or good as I am, because I have and will do wrong things. People who do wrong things are nice, every day people. They are not criminals and should not be discriminated against and in fact I don’t need to know about their sexuality. What people do in their private moments is between them, God and the person they are doing it with. I have friends who have cheated on their wives and I have friends who are homosexuals and that is not a problem as far as them being my friends. I may not agree with their choices, if I know of them.

What I find frustrating is that where ever we look, the message is being subtly and blatantly pushed on us that Homosexual lifestyle is a normal and valid alternative lifestyle choice. Newspapers, magazine, radio programs, TV plays and novels all seem to need their token and not so token references to homosexuality as normal. It is not though! The message is carried by the media and a strong Gay lobby group. We cannot speak against it; we live in a tolerant and inclusive society that says that everything is okay if it doesn't hurt the other person, that what one person might think as wrong someone else thinks it’s right. When people do say that homosexuality is wrong then tolerance disappears, they are 'homophobic'!

The problem is not just ‘them’ but also those that have spoken out against Homosexuality, usually from within the Christian community. They have ended up speaking against the Homosexual person, seemingly lacking any sense of love or tolerance or acceptance. They become hung-up on the outward sinful acts of people but often forget the many other sins. They forget to treat people with respect, dignity and love. They become homophobic in their attitudes and lose sight of the person.

What causes people to be Homosexual? I don't really know but I suspect there are different reasons; some choose this lifestyle through environment, upbringing, peer pressure maybe especially with young people unsure of their sexuality, engaged in a permissive society, ready to experiment with different practices but not really Homosexual. Maybe some who are born with this disposition have an illness like for example; Depression or schizophrenic. I don't know, but if so they need help not condemnation.

Lets tell people to ‘sin no more’ but to welcome the person into our arms, just as Christ did. We should not discriminate against people based on their sexuality but just love them.

Two Brothers

In the Bible there are many stories about brothers, from the beginning we have stories that follow brothers in conflict - Cain & Able, Joseph, Jacob & Esau, Moses & Aaron, Absalom & brothers. In the NT we have James & John as a good example of a postive relationship between brothers and back in the book of Genesis we have two brothers who have had a profound effect on subsequent history. Yes Ishmael & Isaac, introduced to us in Genesis 21.

As Christians we love to talk about Isaac, we know all about him and he is usually viewed in a positive light. Ishmael on the other hand - he gets bad press, actually he hardly gets any press from Christains. I came across a very good article on this the other day and have published it in full below:

"Muhammad is a direct descendant of Ishmael through his second son Kedar.

(There are some who would disagree with this claim as the following shows - "Long before Ibn Ishak, Muslims who lived in Mohammed’s own time also fabricated genealogies in an attempt to connect Mohammed to the descendants of Ishmael. Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:
Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.”[2][ii]
By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad, معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.[3][iii]")

Ishmael is the 1st and only one of four people to be named by God before his birth.
God heard the lad because Ishmael means “God hears” God knew the end from the beginning. He named Ishmael before he was born because of the plan and destiny of his life. God heard his cry in the wilderness and opened the eyes of Hagar so she could see a well of water and gave Ishmael water to drink that he might live. Amazingly the well was already there, but they could not see it.

4000 years later the Muslim people are in a spiritual wilderness with a cry that has deepened; they are dying of thirst, unable to see the well of their salvation. But God is going to hear the cry of Ishmael and open his eyes and show him the well of living water-Jesus- that he may drink and live. It took water to save his natural life, and it will take living water from the well of Jesus to save his spiritual life.

We (The church) must intercede for the Muslims like a mother would her dying child.
Intercession and prayer is the first step. Intercession is prayer that embraces the heart of God. God used a woman to give water to Ishmael to drink in the wilderness, and He will use another woman, the church, to give living water to him today, out of the well of everlasting life. Ishmael is thirsty for living water and hungry for fresh baked in the oven of God’s Spirit.

Some of us have walked away from Ishmael, just like his own mother did, because the condition of Ishmael seems so hopeless in many ways.

God will hear the cry of the Muslim people in this hour. God named Ishmael before he was born, in His wisdom, because one day he knew there would be 1.6 million Muslims in a spiritual wilderness. Church get ready-an entire generation of Muslims is going to come into the Kingdom.

We must understand to nature of Ishmaels cry.

It began when he was cast out of his father’s house and left with no inheritance. For 15 years he grew up with the love of his father, Abraham, but was cast out because the son of the bondwoman could not be the heir with the son of the free woman. The next time Ishmael saw his father was to bury him, he also buried his chance to ever be a son.

At the core of Ishmael’s cry is a desire to be loved by a father and a need for identity.

Centuries later, the children of Ishmael built a memorial around the cry of Ishmael and called it Islam, which means to submit to God much like a servant, rather than to have a relationship with him as a son. Islam filled the void of his heart, saying God is not a father and has no son. Islam became the face of God to Ishmael. Muslims still see themselves as servants or slaves submitting to God, hoping that, through their works, they can obtain acceptance and approval from God and avoid the inevitable judgement. They seek to earn acceptance by God through works rather than grace.

This is not just a moral code but a state of being of every Muslim. Regardless, the cry of Ishmael has never ceased but deepened with time.

The Bible says we should be living epistles read by all people. It’s one thing to be a written epistle; it’s another thing to be a living epistle.

Before they go to the Book, they should read the Book in you. You have been made a new creature; then you have new ministry; you have a new message, a word of reconciliation.

Muslim people respond to revelation. They do not respond to mental gymnastics and debates, they do not respond to arguments. Muslim’s love to debate, but when you debate, an argument may convince someone’s mind, but their mind is subject to change. Learn to talk to the heart of a person rather than argue with the mind of a person.

God will respond to cry of Ishmael with dreams and visions of Jesus. The answer to these dreams and visions will be the Gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation. The open door in their understanding is dreams and visions.
So we, the church, need to get serious – our hearts have to be hearts of love.
There is an element of terrorism and war within the Muslim world today.
Jacob became Israel. Even today Esau hates Israel. Esau does live by the sword, and Esau’s descendents are a people stronger than Israel. The struggle that began in their mother’s womb continues.

Esau went to Ishmael, his uncle, and married his daughter, Mahalath. Ever since the, Esau and Ishmael have been mingled together in covenant.
Today, mingled with Ishmael, is Esau, who has always been at war with Jacob. Ishmael was spoken of as being a man of war, and Esau was destined to live by the sword. They both were archers but with different intentions. Ishmael was an archer for survival in the wilderness war. Esau was a hunter of the wild, more interested in hunting his prey and celebrating his strength over Jacob, the worker of the fields. Esau lived by the sword, and Ishmael was always at war.

Islam is in a modern-day crisis. The cry of Ishmael and the pain of Esau that once united them are now forces that divide them."

Let us remeber that both Isaac and Ishmael were given a blessing from God, both were destined to be a 'great nation'. Try reading Romans 10:1-4 as if Paul was writting to Muslims.

Faith

I was thinking the other day about how I would summarise my faith; not give my testimony as we like to do in evangelical circles. So if someone asked me "What do you believe?" I would say the following:

'I Love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, strength and my mind' ; and, 'I Love my neighbour as myself.'

But "How can we know God?" I would say through Jesus, he is the only introduction we need.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

Someone may then ask "What does this neighbour look like?"

Anyone I come across who is in need, both here and around the world.

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

The church

I have been thinking about church for a number of years now. Part of my thinking has been a concern for where the church is today; a lack of connection with the wider society. Also from a dissatisfaction with my own church life or involvement. The church, as in local expressions, seems to have become a very complicated entity and lost it's impetus as a revolutionary movement, instead evolving into an institution. The church often seems to side with conservatism and the middle classes. It is very 'worship' oriented, internal focused. I should say this is from a New Zealand perspective only.

If you belong to the evangelical wing, then more than likely you will be middle class, white Anglo-Saxon. Your friends will be mostly from within Christian circles. You will work hard and aspire to the usual consumerist objects. Those from Pentecostals churches might be more 'cross-cultural', working class to middle class but still mix amongst Christian friends. Church life in both groups will focus on 'worship' times and how to live a more victorious life for God. Mainstream churches will be a mixture but mostly middle class to wealthy people; some will be 'liberal', some evangelical and some 'socially active' believers.

In most of these churches there is a strong emphasis on 'building one up in the faith'. Outreach on the whole seems to be getting people into church on a Sunday or to a special church programme. So programmes and buildings seem to take on a special priority. Most churches will have paid professionals leading them and naturally they are aware that their performance is based on 'bums on seats', so they will ultimately gear things around their local gathering to the exclusion of the "kingdom of God' approach. As mentioned in a previous post ' Sharing your faith. Living your life' is the norm.

Shape of church
That's my unscientific look at the church today. What do I think the church should be today?
I think the NT talks about different types of 'churches': the local body of believers meeting in a home (Rom 16:5), a number of local churches referred to as a city or region church (Acts 9:31) and the 'world' wide or universal church (Acts 20:28) (Col 1:18). What I'm thinking about is the local expression of church. What did it look like?

The Greek word for "church" is ekklesia, which means an assembly. In Acts 19:39, 41, it is used for a large group of townspeople. But among Christians, the word ekklesia came to have a special meaning: all who believe in Jesus Christ.

If we view the church as a group of believers meeting together then we can say, that one first must belong to Christ (born again, saved, redeemed by the blood etc). Does that mean that only 'saved' people can belong to the church? Yes to the universal church because it is the 'body of our Lord'. But the local church is not so proscribed.

The church is described in several ways: the people of God, the family of God, the bride of Christ. We are a building, a temple and a body. Jesus described us as sheep, a field of grain and a vineyard. Each analogy describes a different aspect of the church.

Many of Jesus’ parables of the kingdom describe the church, too. Like a mustard seed, the church started small and yet has grown quite large (Matthew 13:31-32). The church is like a field in which weeds are scattered among the wheat (vv. 24-30). It is like a fishnet that catches bad fish as well as good (vv. 47-50). The church is like a vineyard in which some people work a long time and others only a short time (Matthew 20:1-16). The church is like servants who were given money to invest for the master, and some produce more fruit than others (Matthew 25:14-30).

Jesus described himself as a shepherd, and his disciples as sheep (Matthew 26:31); his mission was to seek lost sheep (Matthew 18:11-14). He described his people as sheep that must be fed and cared for (John 21:15-17). Paul and Peter used the same analogy, saying that church leaders should be shepherds of the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2).

"You are…God’s building," Paul says (1 Corinthians 3:9). The foundation is Jesus Christ (v. 11), and people are the building built on it. Peter said that we are all "living stones...being built into a spiritual house" (1 Peter 2:5). As we are built together, we "become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit" (Ephesians 2:22). We are the temple of God, the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:17; 6:19). Although God may be worshiped in any place, the church has worship as one of its purposes.

We are "the people of God," 1 Peter 2:10 tells us. We are what the people of Israel were supposed to be: "a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God" (v. 9; see Exodus 19:6). We belong to God, because Christ purchased us with his blood (Revelation 5:9). We are his children, and his family (Ephesians 3:15). As his people, we are given a great inheritance, and in response we are to try to please him and bring praise to his name.

Scripture also calls us the bride of Christ—a phrase that suggests his love for us, and a tremendous change within ourselves, that we might have such a close relationship with the Son of God. In some of his parables, people are invited to attend the wedding banquet, but in this analogy, we are invited to be the bride.

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready" (Revelation 19:7). How do we become ready for this? It is a gift: "Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear" (v. 8). Christ cleanses us "by the washing with water through the word" (Ephesians 5:26). He presents the church to himself, having made her radiant, spotless, holy and righteous (v. 27). He is working in us.

What should be the main purpose of the church? Again I see different functions of the church; traditionally the church has seen it's role as a gathering for "worship" and teaching. When we look at the NT we can see certain practices that the local churches seem to do and we also can gain an idea from the overall focus of scripture.

Love
A central theme that pervades scripture and seems to be foundational to any church is "love"! The church is a place where we can love one another: "Love one another," Jesus tells his disciples (John 13:34). When Jesus says "one another," he is not referring to our duty to love all human beings. Rather, he is referring specifically to the need for disciples to love other disciples — it must be a mutual love. And this love is an identifying characteristic of Jesus' disciples (v. 35).

Mutual love does not express itself in accidental meetings at the grocery store and sporting events. Jesus' command presupposes that his disciples are meeting with one another on a regular basis. Christians should have regular fellowship with other Christians. "Do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers," Paul wrote (Galatians 6:10). To obey this command, it is essential that we know who the family of believers is. We need to see them, and we need to see their needs.

But also this love will have an outward look too. We are to love God and to love our neighbour as ourselves. Our neighbour is not just within the church but in the world. "God so loved the world..."

Mission
Mission is the next most important foundational function of the church. The church in essence is missionary at it's very core; its reason for existence (The Christian faith is intrinsically missionary. It regards the “reign of God” which has come in Jesus Christ as intended for all humanity. This dimension of the Christian faith is not an optional extra: Christianity is missionary by its very nature, or it denies its very raison d’etre).. It starts with God's concern for the nations in the OT and for the poor, marginalised and alien peoples. The commission given to Abraham to be a 'blessing to the nations' and Jesus command to 'go into all the world..' (Luke 1:7) At the beginning of the book of Acts we see this command and at the end of the gospels; it is central.

In the letters of the NT again we see living and sharing our faith as pivotal to what the church was about. When the church wasn't moving out to the 'world' then persecution drove them out and the gospel spread through out the region.

Now lets look at the form of church,what do we do in church. Acts 2 has a wonderful description for guidance in doing church.

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

Teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and prayer are things that the early believers were engaged in when they met together. Where did they do these; in homes and at the temple courts, which means they didn't have a purpose built complex. They had an effect on their own members and the wider community because these activities were based on love and mission. There was leadership within the local and area churches, the apostles seemed to have leadership, elders and deacons are mentioned but we are not told much about any other form within the church.

There was certainly little emphasis on buildings, structure or form. When you read the NT there is emphasis on correct thinking and correct living (orthodoxy and orthopraxis), both within the community and in the wider community. Even the act of sharing in the Lords Supper was to have a witness to unbelievers.

The other point worth noting is that from the early beginnings there was conflict within the church, which in a sad way brings some comfort to us in the age of church splits! Which reminds me not to look at the church with 'rose tinted glasses'!
This reminds me about ‘the honeymoon’ stage after a wedding... Many of us have exhibited this same naïveté regarding the events of Acts 2. We are tempted to think of the first church in Acts 2 in the same way we think of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2. We are tempted to think of the church as perfect, pristine, and untouched by sin and later corruption. The difference between Genesis 2 and Acts 2 is that Genesis 2 comes before the fall of man; Acts 2 comes after the fall. The church in Acts is not perfect; it is simply pursuing the right things.

The right thing is not the size of the church but the health of the church. If a church is healthy, it will naturally grow. But if it is not healthy, no matter how many people come, it will be in danger until they are able to get healthy. Here’s the principle: focus on health and growth will come.
So how does a church stay healthy? It stays healthy by operating on Biblical priorities. Those priorities are set out in Acts 2 as seen above.

What is your escape route?

I have often read 1 Corin 10: 13 as saying that God will not allow me to be tempted beyond a certain point; at that moment he will rescue me. So keeping me from sin. Over the years I have also come to realise that somehow it doesn't seem to work out like that. Why? Because I have constantly acted out my sinful thoughts, I have sinned before God and man. Doing that which I know God does not approve.

Now on a second reading of that verse I see something I missed.

"No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to all people; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it."

What does the Bible really say? That when you become entangled in sin that at some point, before it is too late, God will provide an escape route so you don't have to commit that sin. The point is though that YOU must TAKE that escape, you must say yes thank you God I'm finished with this sinning and I'm out of here. You will overcome, and panting exhausted you will fall down on the grass and gasp to get your breath back and whisper "Thank you God , Oh thank you God."

God wont force us out of committing sin but he offers us ways out, escape routes if only we take them.

Prov 4: 23 says "Watch over (or guard) your heart with all diligence, for from it flow the springs of life." It is out of the heart that our thoughts arise and can so easily take control and lead us into sin. Heb 12: 1 "lay aside every encumbrance and the sin that so easily entangles us.."

We are actively involved in sinning and in resisting that sin but we must take due diligence of our lives. What have we invested in, what is preoccupying our thoughts?

"Fix your eyes upon Jesus", "walk in a manner worthy of your calling' and "He that is within you is mightier than he that is without."

People of Faith

Generalisations
Following on from the last discussion, about not making generalisations about people. I would like to talk about Christian (And Western) thinking about people of other faiths, especially Muslim peoples.

Over the last few years I have received many emails and articles with information on Islam, usually telling us the 'true nature' of Islam. Most often it comes via a Christian source. Either the information shows how violent Islam is, or how inferior to Christianity it is. How Christians have nothing in common with Islam especially, when using the Arabic word "Allah" for God. Finally how Islam is quickly taking over the Western (nee Christian) world.

Often these articles are written by and sent by Christian folk who love God and have a real burden to reach the world for Christ. Their motivation is pure and honourable.

The facts that are in these articles are often correct and the historical stories are usually well documented, if however coming from a biased western, christian point of view.

Violent Religion
Many Christians point out that Islam is a violent religion. I have often counted this by saying that most Muslims round the world are just your average family person and when you get to know a Muslim they often are like you and me. I still believe this, however a recent article said that this notion is not valid because as with the Nazi's, when good people do nothing and stand on the sidelines while others participate in violent acts, then these people will triumph. This is true when good people do nothing then evil triumphs. People need to stand up against those people, groups or nations that promote violence over peace, war over dialogue, force over love.

Islam came out of a violent history and it did spread in the early days through conquest and forcible conversion. Today however Islam is spreading more by birth and immigration than war. Although I realise that in some African places there are some stories coming out that Muslim groups are trying force an Islamisation on their country.

Islam is not the only religion that has used force, unfortunately Christianity doesn't have a great track record; think about the Crusades, Inquisitions, Reformation and colonial days. Today Islam is associated with terrorist groups; Sept 11, London bombings, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Palestine. These are true places of ever increasing levels of violence and lack of respect for the value in human life. What is happening today in the name of Islam must be dealt with by the world, by Muslim people especially, by other means apart from the gun.

The article I have just read says that fanatics have taken over Islam, like they did in Germany, Russia and China, that the only group we should be concerned about are the terrorist. "As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life". It says that because moderate Muslims are not standing up then, "Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun".

Now this might be true in essence but how will we ever be able to reach Muslims if all we do is concentrate on the fanatics. How will there be dialogue with Muslims if all we see is a person wanting to take over the world. Instead of seeing Islam as a violent religion (because that automatically makes followers violent people) we need to see them as people loved by God, people that Christ came to save from sin to reconcile to God. We can't be blind to the fanatics and just stand by while people are butchered by terrorist, we need to encourage all Muslims to own the problems within Islam and to claim Islam back for them. We need to stand against those in the west who preach war above bridge-building. We, the ordinary 'Jo public' can't have much effect on the terrorist, they almost become irrelevant to us. Our point of contact is with the Muslim we live next too, see on our streets invite into our homes.

Counterfeit Religion!
Other articles talk about how wrong Islam is, built on a lie, so inferior to Christianity. They like to belittle Islam, showing all the mistakes and inconsistencies, and with the ultimate humiliation those practising Islam. One writer had just engaged an Imam in dialogue and felt he had won the argument, he was so proud that he had made the Imam 'look like a naughty school-boy caught doing wrong' and at the end 'you could have heard a pin drop as the Imam held his head down in shame'. He might have won the argument but I doubt that he won his soul. We might have all the answers and prove that the Quran is incorrect, an impostor, having stolen text from the Bible etc. If we come into a room and say your faith is wrong, your prophet is not really inspired, what effect will that have on the believer? Try looking at this from a Christian stand point. How do we feel when a Muslim says that what you believe is wrong, the Bible has been corrupted and is inferior to the Quran. That Jesus is not God just a prophet. We don't like it, we feel that the most important part of our life has been trampled on and that the person saying these things could never be our true friend.

Instead of throwing stones at Islam we need to build bridges so we can talk and make Friends and love them unconditionally - like God does. If we are firm in our own faith then we don't need to pull theirs apart but find points in common to open dialogue. Use the Quran in our conversations, learn about their faith in a non-judgemental way without giving away anything of our own believes.

World Conquest
Lastly the articles talk about Islam taking over the world through immigration and birth rate. These articles look at what has been happening with birth numbers amongst immigrants how they are projected to expand while native Europeans are declining.

"The human habit is simply to project current trends into the future. Demographic realities are seldom kind to the predictions that result. The decision to have a child depends on innumerable personal considerations and larger, unaccountable societal factors that are in constant flux. Yet even knowing this, demographers themselves are often flummoxed. Projections of birthrates and population totals are often embarrassingly at odds with eventual reality." ( Martin Walker)

It is true Northern European birthrates have been declining alarmingly over the last number of years and Muslim peoples have been migrating to northern countries usually with higher birth rates. For those who cherish a romantic illusion of a time when Christendom reigned supreme, then this will be alarming.

But population figures do not always follow predictions, there is some inductions that certain European countries are showing a slight increase in birthrates and a country that has seen huge growth is now predicted to decline, that is China. Many experts also believe that immigrant populations will show a slowing of birth rates as they become second generation and more prosperous. So you cannot accurately project out figures and say this trend will continue.

Fear Verse Love

What do these attitude towards Muslims do to the average Christian person? I feel they create a sense of fear towards Muslims, a competitive attitude with Islam and a feeling off "I need to convert these Muslims so I can get rid of this 'evil' religion"! Let's keep Muslim out of our country because they are here to take over. Our religious freedom or special status will disappear.

This is in complete contradiction to the Biblical record and the motivation of the early followers of Christ. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 2: 8 "We loved you dearly - so dearly that we gave you not only God's message, but our own lives too." and in Chap 1:3 "We continually remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labour prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ".

Romans 10:1 "Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for the Israelites (Muslims) is that they may be saved.
2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.
3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness"
1 Cor 10:13 "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love".
Paul based his ministry on love and also he spoke of an indebtedness to all people to preach the gospel. Jesus says that, "we are to love the Lord our God and to love our neighbour as ourselves"
Our neighbour is not just the person living next to our house but all who are without the gospel.

So if we come towards our Muslim brethren as people we want to love because God loves them then it must change our attitude. Muslims must not become an item on our agenda, a project. We will not win them to Christ by belittling their faith or systematically exposing their errors. We will struggle seeing them come to faith through door knocking or inviting them to church. Muslims come from a culture of relationships, family, honour, commitment and outward piety. If we want to see Muslims come to faith then we need to change in our attitude, motivation and worldview.

Attitude, Motivation and World-view
Our Attitude should be the beginning of change. We see the Muslim as a people loved by God and we love them too, they are valued as human beings, we see them as individuals all different. So we remove the stereotypes that have been circulated. They are not all terrorists, they don't all want to see me, an infidel, killed. Because I value them I want to build bridges towards them so I can live the gospel and talk the gospel with them. I do not fear them because they become my friends and come into my home and I into their homes. We learn from each other and share meals together.

My motivation is out of love and respect. It is not to change them, to make them leave their religion. It is to be their friend and my hope is that God's Holy Spirit would bring them to faith, but I will remain their friend even if they don't come to know Jesus.

My world view will change from a mono-culturist to a multi-culturist. I can learn from other cultures and faiths. That Islam is not the "other' out there but our neighbour. That I need to see that western is not always the best. To the Muslim, his world-view is very precious. It is his whole way of life. Jesus Christ desires to become the very center and core of that world-view. To the Christian who is entrusted with the task of introducing and stimulating that change, the task is awesome, challenging and sometimes frightening. But to those of us who have had the privilege of meeting transformed Muslims, the task is eminently worthwhile!

I want to build bridges of understanding, weave faith into life (live my faith. Share my life), and make the most of opportunities that God gives to me each day. What a difference it would make if every believer became friends with a Muslim and their family, invited them into their homes, played together and then pray together.

Lets not be frightened into taking notice of Muslims, lets welcome them into New Zealand and learn to love them.

Aotearoa as a New Zealander

Intolerance
It never stops amazing me how intolerant we Christians can be! I remember back to when I was first out working and was visiting relations up north, this extended family over the years had had a profound and positive effect on my young Christian life. Now this particular part of the family I was visiting astonished me when they started talking about Maori people. They were so offensive, racist and intolerant. But especially displayed a lack of Christian love or Christian character. Their behaviour seemed out of place with all I had held dear in my Christian journey so far. My own family had always had an inclusive approach and a very respectful way of talking about those of different ethnicity's.

Unfortunately I came to discover that this intolerant and racist attitude was all to common amongst many of my Christian friends and relatives. I struggled to reconcile this attitude with the message of reaching out to people with the gospel. How can you say with words that God loves the world and that the 'great commission' commissions us to take the gospel to all the world when one denigrates those of a different background to us!

I also discovered that often Christians in New Zealand had no problem showing compassion to those from distant lands but not towards their fellow NZ'ers of Maori (or Asian) descent! It became obvious to me that it wasn't necessarily that these folks were racist but just had an intolerance towards people who were different and who seem to be at the bottom of our social structure. They had accepted the stereotypes that the news media betrayed; that Maori were responsible for most of our crime, therefore you can't trust them. Maori were responsible for most violent crime therefore we had to fear them. Maori were bludgers of the welfare state therefore they were lazy. These images were projected onto everyone who stood out to be Maori or had a brown skin.

How can you have an unconditional love for a people when you don't trust them, or denigrate them? So if they aren't racist then what generates this antagonism towards Maori? Is it connected to the issues of ethnicity and the 'Waitangi Treaty'. These are issues which New Zealanders are struggling with and the outcomes will have ramifications on how we treat others coming here who are different because of culture, colour or religion.

Where do we belong?
New Zealanders of European ancestry who are second or third generation NZ'ers I believe have a struggle trying to decide who they are as a 'people'. The problem is that we have a mixture of ancestral heritage. As an example in my family; we have a German surname but we have just as equal amount of English, French, Irish ancestors as well. So where do i come from (my tupuna)? I am not really German, or English, actually I really can't say that I'm European, I don't have a sense of connection, I don't feel that I belong there. I live on the edge of Polynesia but I'm not a Polynesian. I could claim the German side of my heritage because that is where my name came from and I must admit that I do look back to Germany as having a slightly stronger claim on my past. But this is based not on anything scientific but how I feel. However this is looking back not answering the question of who I am now! I don't really feel I am connected to Germany now or geographically. I live in the pacific close to Polynesian a bit further from Asia and close to Australia. I am a New Zealander, whoever that is.

I think until we can accept who we are as a nation, as an ethnicity, we will struggle with gaining a mature outlook to 'others who are different', accepting migrants from different backgrounds. Maybe the problem we have towards Maori is that they seem to be able to stand tall as Maori people; they feel they are Maori even if they have mixed ancestral backgrounds. Ethnicity is not a fact it is a feeling, it's me being happy with who I am as a people, being proud of my tribal canoe. Connecting with the geographical anchorage of where I live now. It would be nice if one day I can say I'm a New Zealander from Aotearoa. I believe we all should be "tangata whenua", although with special place to those original four canoes.

The Waitangi Treaty is possibly another factor that causes some New Zealanders to feel aggrieved and to feel that Maori are 'getting another hand-out'. I struggle myself with the Treaty claims, I have no problem with settling past injustices, giving back land that was illegally taken, but when the claims start trying to settle 'customary rights' then I feel a little uncomfortable. We live in an entirely different society today, no longer a British colony, no longer a Polynesian people, nor a prominently English people. We are a mixture of different backgrounds, the Maori of today are very different from their ancestors so we need to be careful that we don't create laws that divide us on a subjective classification of ethnicity.

Colour blind
It is very easy to glibly go on to say that we are all one race, colour or culture, they don't matter we should be colour blind. We can quote scripture that says there is no more Greek, slave, male or female" etc "we are all one in Christ". That is right in as far as our relationship with God goes. We all stand before our heavenly Father as 'sinners saved by grace'.

When we say this within the context of race or culture then it usually comes from those within the dominant culture with it's structures firmly in place and with a culture that isn't disadvantaged. Those on the 'outside' feel they need an identity to give them a sense of significance or prevent their official invisibility and consequent discrimination. Although they want to be part of this new culture they also value where they have come from. We need to embrace unity in diversity, allowing people to be different to be Maori, German, black or white but accepting common values that have been shaped within this New Zealand culture. We need to be certain what our common values are and articulate them loudly so everyone is aware of them.

Because we are not a Christian nation we need be careful in how we express values that come out of our Christian heritage. We don't need to be ashamed of that Christian heritage and we should strive to keep truly Biblical values within our culture but outside that we should be flexible in what we proscribe for others who share different backgrounds.

I should say that these are thoughts getting typed out, not completely formed yet, so am open to a different slant on the above. Will continue on with the next blog on how we respond to people of other faiths especially Muslims.

Seeking a New Pastor

Our local church (that is believers not building) is looking for a new pastor. This is no easy task even in the normal run of things but when you are following in the footsteps of a Dr Steve Taylor, it becomes even more difficult.

So what type of person should we be looking for? Perhaps first we need to look over Steve's time here, what kind of pastor was he? Steve was a pioneer, a starter, an ideas person but able to give traction to those ideas. He had the ability to move a people into the new without them really feeling that they were leaving anything behind. To give him a label one might call him a 'missional' pastor; he cared for the mobility of the gospel and the relevancy of the message to today's generation and within the definition of 'missional' he saw the gospel moving out to the community. Steve was also free to empower people to do 'ministry' and not try and do everything himself. He moved our church from a dying introverted critical Conservative institution into the beginnings of a missional, loving community and creative movement. Well maybe he still had a way to go but at least we had started.

Areas where we need to still grow; would be not only missional within our local community but with a world perspective too. People need to be encouraged to deepen their understanding of the Bible but not try and apply it like a book of rules. We don't need just a people with a 'sound' theological basis but a people of faith immersed in the Word of God. Applying the great Truths of scripture to our living.

Do we duplicate Steve, go for consolidation or do a 'u-turn'?


It does makes sense going for consolidation; build on what has been started, go for depth and maturity. People can get burnt out starting new enterprises.

However this runs the risk of causing stagnation within the church; we could redevelop into an institution instead of a movement. Theorizers instead of practitioners. People have been attracted to Opawa because of what has been happening, what we look like and what we are saying. This has been in a large part through the initiative of Steve but enabled by the people who make up this church. If we put a hold or stop on this I fear we will loose the momentum and loose what we have gained. We need to be a prophetic missional people characterised by Faith, love and hope.

I would also like to add that we should look within our own ranks before looking outside our community and I like the idea of a part-time pastor. The 'eldership' or 'Board' needs to exercise strong spiritual leadership beyond the present 'paid' Senior Pastor.

Below is a list attributes I would love Opawa to be known for:
(JR Woodward at Dream Awakener).

•Not simply how many people come to our church services, but how many people our church serves.
•Not simply how many people attend our ministry, but how many people have we equipped for ministry.
•Not simply how many people minister inside the church, but how many minister outside the church.
•Not simply helping people become more whole themselves, but helping people bring more wholeness to their world. (i.e. justice, healing, relief)
•Not simply how many ministries we start, but how many ministries we help.
•Not simply how many unbelievers we bring into the community of faith, but how many ‘believers' we help experience healthy community.
•Not simply working through our past hurts, but working alongside the Spirit toward wholeness.
•Not simply counting the resources that God gives us to steward, but counting how many good stewards are we developing for the sake of the world.
•Not simply how we are connecting with our culture but how we are engaging our culture.
•Not simply how much peace we bring to individuals, but how much peace we bring to our world.
•Not simply how effective we are with our mission, but how faithful we are to our God.
•Not simply how unified our local church is, but how unified is "the church" in our neighborhood, city and world?
•Not simply how much we immerse ourselves in the text, but how faithfully we live in the story of God.
•Not simply being concerned about how our country is doing, but being concern for the welfare of other countries.
•Not simply how many people we bring into the kingdom, but how much of the kingdom we bring to the earth.