Big News

2004-08-12T23:35:00.000+12:00

OOPS!!

other blog is RIGHT HERE

2004-08-02T21:58:00.000+12:00

goodbye

As much as I`d like to blog here its all a bit time consuming, what with life, work, study and the other blog

So goodbye. Have a nice life. I may be back.

2004-07-30T23:00:00.000+12:00

goodbye

this blog has finally lapsed. Its impossible running two blogs with the little spare time I have so go here instead for a much better blog at least until I get some more time to do some of this stuff

2004-07-11T20:47:00.000+12:00

Im Baaaaaack

Yep, I;'m back, may not post every day but will post as often as I can. Tell your friends to come back now, and welcome me back to the DTR blog. All is forgiven.

post passion

I've a lot of time for George Barna - well most of the time. He has done a
report on The Passion of the Christ. It's very American, of course.

"The nation’s most prolific movie viewers tend to be people under 40 years of age, Asian-Americans and homosexuals. Other groups who watch more movies that the norm included those who cohabit, atheists and agnostics, born again Christians who are neither conservative nor liberal on political matters."

The median number of movies watched by movie-viewers in the previous 12 months was 38 movies".

Another words, many US Christian movie goers are not likely to have a strong opinion on politics - and will spend more hours watching movies than attending church, exercising, reading their bibles or forming an opinion on politics (had to throw the last one in…)

Most of these movies will be seen at home. No wonder there's so many unfit brain-dead Americans if they watch movies for at least a couple of hours a week and don’t exercise - and that’s just the movies, it does not include TV programmes. But the following comment indicates who liked the movie and who thought it was irrelevant.

"As might have been expected, evangelicals were the most enthusiastic about the movie (89% said the movie was excellent) while the lowest ratings came from atheists and agnostics, homosexuals and liberal Democrats. Protestants were more likely than Catholics to give The Passion an “excellent” rating (78% versus 68%, respectively)."

I wonder how many born again Catholic homosexual liberal Democrats there are in the US. Probably not many. Evangelicals appeared to lap the movie up. I thought it was pretty good, but I wouldn’t say it was excellent. I wouldn't see it again.

Nor did we find out how successful the movie was as an evangelical tool That wasn't a question that was asked, but I think we all know the answer anyway.

Of course not.

2004-07-03T12:48:00.000+12:00

I`ll be back soon

Now that the busy period is over I`ll be back soon,once Ive caught up with the goss in blogdom - probably within the next few days

OK?

2004-06-18T22:56:00.000+12:00

taking a break

This blog is taking a break. Its hard building community when it is not reciprocated. So I`d rathe put my energies into something that results in community. The Christian community here in NZ is a bit weak in terms of activism and on-line community.

I have another blog which although not getting as many comments is apparently getting more readers and a bit of dialogue.
it's over here. It will have more on politics, including the civil union bill, which I will post or link on Monday ( may even do it here, too) as well as other related stuff.

2004-06-12T17:40:00.000+12:00

What a Destiny Church service is like

Ship of Fools is a good website. They`ve recently posted a "mystery worshipper" who attended Destiny Church ( no not this one, unfortunately) and did a review. Thanks to Rachel for the heads up.

Heres a sample:

Which part of the service was like being in heaven?
Sorry, but nothing for me.

And which part was like being in... er... the other place?
Having the offering passed down my row after the pastor began praying. Presumably we were supposed to be joining him in prayer, but nothing gets in the way of the offering.

This is the top Destiny church – the one that broadcasts on TV2.The church where the ushers wear suits ands have earpieces. The Church whose pastor, Brian Tamaki, was profiled in The NZ Herald last year. The same Brian Tamaki who has his own TV show. The one with the link to the new political party Destiny NZ that was profiled in the Sunday Star Times last weekend.

Anyone been to a Destiny service and would like to comment?

2004-06-10T23:05:00.000+12:00

From the Herald

Bishop Vercoe is obviously an idealist - as he should be as a churchman of profound faith and devotion. But if his vision is a world without homosexuality, he might as well have a vision of a world without adultery and fornication, without cancer or heart disease, without poverty or violence.
For they are all part of the human condition, and have been since mankind was created (or dropped out of the trees, if you'd rather) and will be until Christ comes again.
Since Christianity is essentially a religion of virtue and morality, it seems strange that the churches which have made the acceptance of homosexuals into their communions such a controversial matter appear to be unconcerned about the adulterers and fornicators who sit in their pews (and preach in their pulpits) and who would surely outnumber homosexuals by a hefty margin.

More here

He's got a good point, that not too many church leaders are prepared to speak about.

UPDATE the Archbishop has written a letter to the Herald

"I am disappointed that my views have come across in your paper as extremist anti-gay when I am not. Nor did I use the word 'abomination' to describe gay people". Have a read.

2004-06-09T22:50:00.000+12:00

Archbishop and gays

I spoke with Archbishop Vercoe today. He doesn't agree with the Herald story. DOesn't like it at all. His comments and a bit of a commentary are over here

2004-06-07T10:19:00.000+12:00

Anglican bishops get gongs

l
The first woman in the world to lead an Anglican diocese, Penny Jamieson, has topped the Queens Birthday honors list. The new leader of the Anglican Church in New Zealand, Archbiship Whakahuihui Vercoe, refused to attend her ordination. Jamieson got a Distinguished Companion of the Order of Merit, which is equivalent of a knighthood.

Meanwhile, Author Witi Ihimaera, who also got a similar gong for, among other things, writing the novel Whale Rider has called for the resignation of Archbishop Vercoe, following his statements released during the weekend about a backlash against gays. Ihimaera is both Maori and gay.

Auckland Anglican bishop Richard Randerson also got a gong - a companion of the NZ Order of Merit. He has also jumped into the fray over the "world without gays" story in the Herald, saying that Maori find homosexuality "culturally difficult".

It was the first time since 2001 that
the clergy has topped the honors list here, although that was New Years Honours list.

The only member of the clergy to ever recieve New Zealand's top honour - the Order of New Zealand,(ONZ) limited to 20 living people - is Cardinal Thomas Williams, in 2000. The Rt Rev Te Whakahuihui Vercoe MBE also got a gong that year. He got the New Zealand Order of Merit (NZOM) which was also not awarded this year. In 1999 the (then) head of the Anglican Church was gonged, although he did not get a knighthood. Knighthoods were scrapped the following year.

2004-06-06T20:53:00.000+12:00

Postmodern v progressive

Some people in emergent circles seem to think it is cool to be postmodern. As if it was progressive. Nobody wants to stay in the same place, people want to move on. Often it is the evangelicals, rather then the pure traditionalists that are progressive. Some of the liberals like to think they are progressive, but many of them are reacting to traditional conservatism, from whence they came. Some have chucked out bits of scripture along the way. Perhaps some emerging church people are like this. They have moved on from denominationalism - but it is more relevant where they have moved from, as opposed to where they are moving to. It's a bit like getting out of an old flat because you can't stand your flatmates. Who cares where you end up as long as it's better than the old place of residence - and a platform to move on further.

Maybe that’s why the name "emergent" was coined - what you are emerging "from" is more relevant to what you are moving "to". Sounds pretty reactionary to me. A bit like becoming a Christian just because you don’t want to go to hell.

Many see their progressiveness as just being relevant, and see that others that are not so progressive aren't as relevant to the surrounding culture.

Those in emerging church structures may see themselves as postmodern, they may see themselves as cool, and they would surely see themselves as progressive, in the moving sense.

But how progressive are they? Are emerging groups moving - or have such groups merely moved from traditionalism to somewhere else and are just as irrelevant to the surrounding culture, but more relevant to each other? Are such groups more than just extra candles, incense, labyrinths and the odd liturgy? They are still communicating in modern terms, they still want new people to sing their songs and be part of their culture.

What really makes them any different to modern churches in terms of their influence to those in the surrounding culture? Could it be that some modern churches actually do a better job.

2004-06-05T15:03:00.000+12:00

New Maori archbishop for NZ

NZ has its first Maori archbishop He's 75. Some say he is anti-gay for his views on gays in the priesthood. He doesn`t support women priests, but has ordained women priests. We have a famale bishop in this country.

He equates women leadership with Maori protocol on Marae. Women can't speak at Marae: They shouldn`t be in church leadership.

He says, about gay priests: "I will not participate in anything that is contrary to what I believe".

So, what's he doing ordaining women priests, then?

And more:

Would he ordain a woman as a bishop? He thinks for a minute.

"Not a Maori woman. I don't think the time is right for it. It will come, but not in my lifetime."

It's no wonder the Herald says the bishop is "a mix of contradictions" But you`d think they`d at least get their headlines correct Top bishop's vision - a world without gays

That's not what the bishop said, thought or believes. Maybe a world without women bishops....

2004-06-03T23:18:00.000+12:00

here's the news- well our version anyway

I just popped over and had a look at Canary in the Mine - John
McNeil's blog. We have a few things in common: We both run two blogs, we are both former journalists and we are also into social policy issues.

John has just sat in a High Court case here in Wellington where the judge said, in relation to TVNZ, "the news is the news and not to be tampered with". Yeah right! John points out that it is the producers and sub-editors who decide what is the news. Well in broadcast media. In the print media it is the editor and the news editor.

Politics also play a part. If a story is written in line with the editorial teams predispostions, that certainly helps.

A good example of this is the Christian paper Challenge Weekly. The paper has a diminishing readership and a bunch of reporters that write unbalanced stories criticising homosexuality, Government policy, and a few human interest stories. Occasionally their will be a hard news story that some of us have read somewhere else already. Letters to the editor are printed only if they share the editorial viewpoint.

There is a lot of good local Christian news that is waiting to be published. Hard news. Yet much of the news is written by lobbists such as the Maxim Institute, The Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, and people such as Stephen D Taylor and other writers, who have their own spin on things. So why have three paid journalists when up to half of the stories (each week) in the paper every week are not written by editorial staff? I used to write a 16-24 page paper (with six pix and up to 20 stories) on MY OWN in THREE DAYS. The other two days were layout,subbing and any immediate hard news.

New Zealand needs a decent Christian newspaper. With decent stories and thoughtful columns. New Zealand needs a religious rag that has support within the wider Christian community. A paper that reports the news without getting lots of stuff from the likes of ASSIST News.

Challenge Weekly is the only non-denominational Christian paper in New Zealand Christian retail outlets. Yet Christians are better off reading the Gay Express or listening to Radio Rhema to find out about Christian related hard news.

2004-06-02T21:23:00.000+12:00

sharp dressed man

Maggi Dawn recently made the point that many people in the church, particularly the emerging church, wear very cool clothes. Some people like to dress up to go to church, parties, pubs/clubs etc. Maybe even shopping.

I don't. I`d rather go in my jeans and t-shirt, and if I had a choice between a club with a dress code and a grunge/techno club where everyone has dreads and smokes, I`d prefer the latter.

Just because a pastor is wearing a jacket and tie doesn't mean that a sermon is going to sound any better. If a barista at my local cafe had a haircut and wore a suit, the coffee wouldn't taste any better. He`d probably get a few strange looks, though.

Ever seen a DJ suited up? Ever had a knock on the door from a young mormon "elder" in casual comfortable clothes? For that matter ever been to a decent Christian music festival where you haven't seen a
"His pain your gain" teeshirt?

Ever been to a church where the topic in the foyer afterwards is Mrs Brown's nice new hat?

Sometimes our funky clothes can be a barrier to the poor. And who did Jesus gravitate towards? Sometimes it is those who are not so well dressed that are making a difference in the surrounding culture. Could that be because they look at clothes as a means to cover skin and keep warm as opposed to a fashion statement and a promotion of their wardrobe?

Its fun to dress up - but it can be overdone.

2004-05-30T00:05:00.000+12:00

stealing in the name of

Salon.com has an article on Christian music, and how that Christian teens steal music through downloads too.

As if that’s surprising. Why should those in the Christian music industry be surprised, after all the Contemporary Christian Music industry is run no differently to the secular music industry. Oh, that’s right, its owned by the secular music industry who bought CCM out to make a buck. Money is the main focus for record company executives within CCM.

John Styall, (former?) CCM Magazine editor and current Gospel Music Association president says, "We went into this study wanting to learn more about our young consumers and how their faith intersects with this vital issue. We were somewhat surprised to find that it does not."

Well, what he really meant was, "We are wondering whether we were being ripped off by teenage Christians, that's more important than what our comsumers believe".

I wonder how some of the CCM musicians faith and desire for ministry intersects with the issue of making money. Not that I think there is anything wrong with making lots of money, but when you say one thing on the stage - like " I really want to serve God" and another thing to reporters, like saying " I'm in it for the money" - as one famous CCM musician you have all heard of said to me a few years back. You’ve got to ask what is the motivation among some of the musicians, let alone the recording companies. Some of these guys are a bit like musical televangelists - give the audience an hour, take the money and then immediately take off to the airport.

Don’t get me wrong, most CCM musicians I have spoken with over the years - and that's many of the ones that have toured NZ over the past 10 years or so - are sincere and want to make a difference in people's lives, not just their own pay packet. But the number of artists raking in money in the name of God, whilst sidelining ministry is increasing. Cut the pay packet and then see how many would be touring to far off places like New Zealand.

Also, I got an email from amother blogger the other day after my comments on clergy abuse. I told him I was merely addressing some issues. He replied:

i don't think you're addressing issues, i think you're taking a cheap shop(sic) at an easy target...if you want to highlight issues in relation to ministry; then tackle some real issues- burnout; empire building; money

Well, I guess I have tackled money in ministry. One day I may even tackle gossip, or accountability. Those in pastoral or high profile ministries have a greater tendency to be publicly caught out if they sin. Fact. And if clergy and CCM artists were more accountable, they would be less likely to have affairs and get involved in sexual abuse.

2004-05-26T22:51:00.000+12:00

I'm busy

I am still here. I am working, I am studying, I am writing assignments. I don`t have much spare time. I am tired. I have been catching up with other blogs and media outlets. I've been sick. I was asleep for 20 hours on the trot earlier this week, I am blogging, previewing tomorrow's budget.I went to a farewell party in the weekend. I am spending time with my family. I am spending time with my wife. I am running the pub music trivia evening tomorrow night at the pub. It will be 100% NZ Music. If you are in Wellington, come to the Ferrymans bar tomorrow night at 7pm. You may win a prize, a CD, a DVD, a bar tab. Say hi.

I must be busy. I will be back. I appreciate all your comments. You are valued.

2004-05-22T13:50:00.000+12:00

Culture of the moral negative

I got emailed this article recently on how America has become the culture of the moral negative.
It points out that a moral negative exists when right and wrong - moral light and dark - are reversed. When this moral negative dominates thinking in a society, you have a culture of the moral negative.

It also points out that most of the 10 commandments are negative - "thou shalt not".

What happened to loving God and loving your neighbour, the two positive commandments. Is there anything wrong with that? Yet in New Zealand, loving God is seen as a bit irrelevant and loving your neighbour is seen as being tolerant of and accepting of diversity.

When Christians speak up about morals, it's normally in reaction to what they see as immorality of other people. Thats why you dont see to much clergy comment in the media on masturbation, peadophilia - unless there is a court appearence of some sort - and adultery. Many clergy are doing it too.

Let's highlight the positive rather than telling people what not to do.
After all if you spend all your time doing the dos, you wont have time to do the don'ts, so you won't because you can't, therefore you don't.

2004-05-20T23:57:00.000+12:00

this is just so worth reading

I found this post on a message board Scroll down to read a story written by a person honest about the church. Honest about its failings. He's gay. Talks about Church culture and tries to compare it with the gospel. Finds out that much of the culture does not match up with the gospel.

Read it. ONe person said "This is the best thread of discussion I've seen...on any message board...at any time....for any reason". ANd I agree.

What happened to loving your neighbour - that's what I wanna know.

2004-05-20T23:17:00.000+12:00

PM Blog

I mentioned the Prime Ministers blog a while back. It seems to have died. Perhaps it is as a result of being a "victim of her own success as a competent and popular Prime Minister"

However never fear - check out her new blog called Popular and Competent It's much better, but I get the feeling Helen Clark doesn't write that blog either.

2004-05-18T21:26:00.000+12:00

gay marriage

Is finally happened, and both gays and Christiansare celebrating. No bride, groom, husband, or wife, though. Too much has been written on same sex marriage. I`ll stop now.

2004-05-16T13:58:00.000+12:00

Feeling lucky>

Here's something for you to do - type "Dave the Rave" in Google and hit "I`m feeling lucky" - see where you go.
Then type Dave the Rave in again, and enter.
I didn't know Google liked me so much.

2004-05-15T16:50:00.000+12:00

Politics

Met with my Member of Parliament today - who so happens to lead a political party.He opposes the Civil Unions Bill but will support much of the Omnibus Bill. Both bills are due late next month. MP's in most parties are uneasy about these bills. Both are being redrafted which is causing delays in getting these bills in the House. The vote will come right down to the wire, just as it did when prostitution was decriminalised.

However the majority of the Christian community does not understand the proposed legislation and many leaders are commenting on it before they've even seen it. Most are against relationship equality. It's annoying to see public comment based on complete ignorance.

We have a budget May 27, which will assist low and no income families like no other budget has done - but don’t expect it to happen at once, we have an election next year and much of the assistance will kick in then. I was fortunate to be filled in last week on the proposed changes. My lips are sealed, but my pocket is ready.

However what amazes me is that many Christian leaders will complain after controversial legislation is passed. But in New Zealand, they are so politically naïve and ignorant of proposed legislation, policy and political issues of concern. Is that the case in the States, in Aussie and in the UK?

They should really get informed or keep quiet.

2004-05-13T23:50:00.000+12:00

too busy...

<
Too busy to blog here at the moment, I`ll be back, but read this instead

2004-05-09T21:57:00.000+12:00

Prime Ministerial blogger

Hey, our PM has a weblog.Helen Clark is a blogger. Her site is here.

What I find interesting is that, if you don't use the "read more" buttons, it is remarkably similar to the dullest blog in the world

She must have had a hard month, she hasnt blogged for a while.

2004-05-07T23:39:00.000+12:00

The H bomb

Justin and Dan have discussed gay marriage lately, with interesting comments from Christians and those in the gay community.

Hamo has also talked about relationships in relation to the church.

Keith asks on Justin's blog "Why is homosexuality the tipping point for the church? Matt. 23 talks against divorce, even stating that it can lead to adultry(sic). Where's the call for celibacy to those whose marriages fail? And where is the legislation to block people from divorce and remarriage, except in certain extreme circumstances?"

I`ll tell you why. Many church-goers who are actively against homosexuality don’t often have many homosexual friends, and don’t understand issues relating to homosexuality. Furthermore they see it as a greater sin than other moral issues like prostitution, adultery, and fornication. If the church wants promote celibacy as a good option for gay Christians, why doesn't it make it a good option for single unmarried heterosexual Christians? The reason, is that heterosexual couples can choose to marry, homosexual couples cannot.

And, where are the church leaders who criticize homosexuality in one breath but say nothing about divorce. Divorce is more of a sin than homosexuality. In fact, homosexual orientation is no more of a sin than heterosexual orientation, is it? Maybe homosexual practices can be seen as sin. Jesus said more about divorce than homosexuality. Are they keeping quiet about divorce as so many Christian leaders divorce, and homosexuality does not affect heterosexuals?

FWIW Guy Barnett wrote this in the Australian a while back, favouring the codifying of marriage as between a man and a woman,saying mariage is not a "fashion that is to be updated" ,and a couple of days later Rodney Croome responded in his article discussing "politics of prejudice and division".

Perhaps Christian leaders should promote marriage, then oppose divorce, then provide views on homosexuality, along with other sins instead of just focusing on homosexuality.

2004-05-06T20:52:00.000+12:00

Old, single and gay - forgeddit!

Green flame posted this interesting article on recruiting for pastors a while back. Most people looking for a pastor want a young man, married to a wife who will be willing to go on church committees, and their kids will go to the Sunday school. And the more pastoral experience, the better.

Apparently if you are over 40, female, gay and unmarried, you`d find it tough to get a job in a church -well at least in the US. We have at least one such woman just down the road from where I live. And she's got kids and a partner. She goes to a church where sexual orientation is not an issue - nor is the lack of a fundamental theological belief.

If you want to be an evangelical pastor in the US, make sure you are male, married to a compliant submissive hard working stay- at- home-except-when -on -church-committees wife, have a couple of beautiful children and don’t have any undesirable hobbies, eg: clubbing, surfing or smoking.

Otherwise, make sure you are a Catholic, heterosexual, single and celibate, and you may get to be a priest. Age is irrelevant, most priests in New Zealand are older than 65.

This is not a hierarchy competition - this is blog; bloody blog.

On Friday April 30, I posted an entry about hierarchy, importance and pecking order in blogdom. I named Andrew Jones as one having humility. I wrote this post as there are many blogs that are perceived as "popular", and fit into one of the categories such as church leaders/missionaries, authors and theologians. I had a few people in mind that fitted into one or more of these categories, men and women.

It never occurred to me that this person fits into most categories, and apparently values his networks - until he wrote a comment in the blog entry,

i started a blog to express myself and build my own links ... not to engage in a hieararchy ( sic) competition. i encouraged you to blog …. cos you were articulate and i thought your voice should be heard. i thought this was about speaking, not climbing some sort of ladder?

He's right.
But I think I caused offence
That was not my intention.
Perhaps I should have reworded it differently - and included the church in general.
Perhaps I should have named women who I think are credible, humble and church leaders.
Perhaps I should have highlighted some of the very good blogs I have read from those who are not seen as "popular".
Perhaps I shouldn't have written the post at all.
Perhaps I have the potential to be misunderstood. To rub people the wrong way. A bit like the OT Prophets. A bit like Andrew Jones, except I wrote about pastors. not girls.
Perhaps that’s just a consequence of treading the jagged edge of truth - walking the barbed-wire fence between the church and the world.
Perhaps I should just concentrate on my other blog so Christians don’t get pissed off with me. Religion is more offensive than politics, it seems.

Then again…
Perhaps I should keep writing and challenging people from where I sit.
Should I stay or should I go now?

2004-05-05T17:36:00.000+12:00

Read the Sunday Star Times this weekend

For those of you in New Zealand, we are to be interviewed for a follow-up to this story in last weeks Sunday Star Times. They`re gonna take our pic as well. The SST is the biggest weekly newspaper in the country.

It's the first time I've been approached - well for a major paper -and having done so many interviews, with associated pictures, in the past as a journalist, it would be interesting to see how it is from the interviewees perspective, and the other side of the camera..

For those offshore, you`ll probably be able to access it online, in which case I`ll blog it, if the story - and pic - is up to scratch.

Isn't it weird how this comes less than a week after my post where I implied - but not necessarily said - that the Christian media pretty much ignores me, but as for secular media.....

2004-05-04T20:00:00.001+12:00

What a dickhead

Some people, who claim to be evanglical christians, and in ministry, can make real dickheads of themselves by being plain abusive.Check out TJ's blog for example. A person who runs this site, among others, abused TJ by email so much she's given up blogging. He did a google search, found her and gave her a hit. That sucks. It sucks so much that I feel like emailing the guy and giving him an earful - well, an e-mailful.

But that wouldn't be all that Christian , would it? So the least I could do is blog it, and link it, just in case you want to give some money to his "ministry" and support the costs of his Internet connection. After all, he is on the lookout for some support " if you are so inclined".

2004-05-01T00:52:00.001+12:00

This is so FUNNY

....well, its actually a bit weird...at least I thought it was. You have been warned, though...Thanks to David Hopkins for the link

2004-04-30T23:32:00.002+12:00

I'm BACK!!

Yeah, it s been a while. I've been busy with a new job, study, family etc as well as my other blog at http: //big-news.blogspot.com.
I seriously considered canning this blog but may continue. What do you think?

Thanks to those of you who were still coming back during the past week.

Why did I consider quitting and concentrating on my other blog? In emerging blogdom, it appears you are seen to be credible if you are one or more of the following:

1. You are a pastor or church worker, or run a christian website (not your personal blog) and you preferably have a degree.
2. You are a missionary
3. You have written or are writing a book or you lecture at a theological seminary.
4. You value your reputation within your christian community and networks, and want to preserve and even extend it.

optional - you can speak fluent Christianese, and see yourself as tolerant of others. It might help if you are male.

Despite my networks etc, I dont fit into most of the above so I, unfortunately, am not seen as "important" as others. "people of influence" don't ring me if they want a book review,movie review, or theological insight fo, say, their publications ( but they may if they want a music review or a few quirky poems). Secular media, ah thats a different story.....

The thing is, how many of the four did Jesus fit into?

I'm actually a bit tired of the heirarchy displayed by people who are promoting a flat hierarchy in their "missional communities" but are happy to climb the rat race ladder in other aspects of their lives. Humility is a good thing, no matter where you are on the hierarchy. That's why I like Andrew Jones and his blog. He' comes across as having that kinda attitude.

And I emphasis "come across" - as blogs create an impression of who that person is. If you read this blog regularly, but not my other one, you may have a totally different view of me if all you just read my other blog.

Especially if you haven't met me - which is most of you.

Humility is a good thing and people with like minded qualities are easier to build community with.

And the male thing? Why should males be seen as more credible than females in this day and age.

2004-04-24T02:11:00.003+12:00

thoughts on civil unions

..::generally sympathetic to homosexual rights.
..::rights and responsibility of civil marriage while avoiding the word itself.
..::unjustified discrimination is a violation of human rights
..:: under NZ law, denying marriage to same sex couples is not unjustified discrimination.

The most common liberal argument to civil unions but against same sex marriage was summed up by Hillary Rodham Clinton in January. "Marriage," she said, when pressed to take a position, "has got historic, religious, and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been: between a man and a woman.

Same sex couples cannot have children - neither can sterile, infertile or aged couples. Why bring procreation into the debate?

There is no moral reason to support civil unions and not same-sex marriage unless you believe that admitting homosexuals would weaken a vital civil institution,

Both this party and this party oppose the legislation.

The proposed legislation

The aim of the Civil Union Bill is to recognise and formalise same sex relationships. Another bill, which will also be introduced in a few weeks, is to extend legal rights and privileges of marriage to unmarried couples. This is called the Omnibus Bill and will amend individual acts and regulations so that unjustified differences in the treatment of different kinds of couples under the law are eliminated, whether couples are married, de facto or in a civil union

The third bill is the Adoption Reform Bill that should surface later in the year. This will allow for same sex adoption.

If both bills pass, all couples will have equal legal rights, even those who do not formalise their relationship with a civil union.

Should the Omnibus Bill pass and the Civil Unions bill be rejected, all couples will have legal rights under the law

That’s why the Omnibus Bill is the vital piece of legislation of all three.

2004-04-18T13:41:00.002+12:00

Is the Christian Right Christian?

An explanation as to why the Christian right is not Christian - especially for Craig Young, who reads this blog.

2004-04-16T20:37:00.000+12:00

Ethics:What would you do?

OK, you`re an accountant, you've just been to the country's biggest Christian music festival - because you're a Christian who's into such things - and you have been caught speeding on the way home.

Do you pay your ticket? Of course!

But what if your ticket had the incorrect accident date- and that date was your date of birth. Would you pay it or write in and try to get off.

Well, you may take that chance. And if you succeeded, would you
brag to the media about how clever you were in getting off it, email not only your very clever letter letter and your scanned copy of your ticket, but the reply from the police and email it around on a PDF file to boast how clever you were? Maybe not.

But after hearing the story, would you want to read the letters and see the ticket?

Of course you would! Well, drop me a comment and I`ll email it to you. It really is very clever. I just can't post it. Maybe you can if you`re not on blogger.

2004-04-15T01:29:00.000+12:00

Dull, dull, dull, so very dull

This is the dullest blog in the entire blogosphere,but it is has the most comments of any site I have seen. It started like this and it is even duller now

ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!

2004-04-14T12:18:00.000+12:00

I like The Age It has a good article on religion replacing ideology .....well western ideology anyway. But Christianity is not religion, and it is more than an ideology, isnt it?

Resurrected Christendom ( some call it post Christendom) may be a good thing after all.

2004-04-13T16:46:00.000+12:00

Millions for what?

Here's something interesting: As of April 9. 435,456 people have signed this petition supporting gay marriage. That's at least 250 every day. They are trying to get to a million. These guys have responded with a similar poll to get a million signing up for Christ. They have no counter. They are about 20% of the way there. Who will get there first? I`ll be watching….

I know which web site I prefer, though.

I wonder how many have signed onto both petitions. Maybe I could start my own poll - a million people who do not wash their hands after going to the toilet. C'mon, I know you`re out there .

2004-04-12T09:40:00.000+12:00

The Passion of the Kan

SUnday Star Times columnist Raybon Kan, who doesn't really seem to know the difference between Christianity and religion, has a pretty funny piece in yesterday's paper on the re-rating of The Passion of The Christ, blaming the lower rating on the Bible, rather than the board who lowered the rating. He says the film may as well be rated GA - God Approves.

Read it, Raybon is a very funny boy, actually. Perhaps Raybon would rate the movie RD (Raybon disapproves). He writes "The same voices who quibble about movies they haven't seen, and fight to prevent us seeing them, supported this film without even seeing it first. Plainly because it came from their literature."

Ummm... Not true. This time most of these voices actually saw the movie.

However, now that the rating for The Passion has been lowered - and is being pregressively lowered right around the world - does that mean that film censors will be taking a more tolerant approach to violence in films in future, purely because some Christians sucessfully attempted to lower a rating based on cultural significance?

2004-04-08T21:22:00.000+12:00

It's Easter!

seen on bus-stops all round town

2004-04-06T06:54:00.004+12:00

"Passion" rating lowered

The Passion of the Christ is now R15 in New Zealand, from R16, thanks to an appeal by the Society for the Promotion of Community Standards, a watchdog group notorious for challinging ratings of violent and sexually violent films. Could these challenges be because the group is predominately Christian and the chief and deputy film censors are both gay?

But the film should really be R13, with parental guidance.

Perhaps SPCS secretary David Lane could take a trip to Singapore - where the film is R18...

2004-04-05T20:50:00.000+12:00

Saw a good article in The Age on how the churches can become relevant again.

I have a few "why" questions:
1. Why should churches be relevant - relevant to whom?
2. Why are all religious articles for The Age written by Anglicans?
3. Why are church leaders concerned that congregations are declining, and then put programmes as a higher focus than building relationships?
4.Why is being a gay christian such a big issue?

2004-04-05T00:30:00.000+12:00

OK we're going through a light blogging phase.... two people have put chapters of their books online. One chapter of a book is here,, on punk rock, and another whole book here. Me, I'm too busy to write a book, but I've started a new blog here which has taken a bit of time....

Off to Palmerston North tomorrow. Back on Wednesday or thereabouts

2004-03-30T20:26:00.003+12:00

The emerging church - alien or phenomenon

Darren of the Living Room has posted this letter from Angus Cruickshank in which he questions certain aspects about this "phenomenon" called the emerging church, and some of its pitfalls. As humans have the propensity for organization and formalization, so do those in the emerging church, despite their apparent dislike of it.

Angus also mentioned that emerging churches seems to work on the cell type principle of meeting with those of like mindedness. He calls this exclusivist, saying we end up having the rich meeting with the rich, poor with poor - and, I guess, social activists with social activists. If you`re not in the right category....well, read the post. Then read my response:

The emerging church is not a phenomenon. Maybe it is seen as a phenomenon by those who are part of it. But, to modern churches, it is as alien as Christendom is to those who do not go to church. Yet the Gospel is supposed to be embodied in a community of faith that is open to all.

It appears to me that the emerging church is no different to other types of churches in its desire to relate to outsiders - and young people. It is no less exclusive to secular people outside it than the modern churches are. I say this as many emerging churches appear to make a big thing of being authentic, particularly to those under 40. Authentic to whom - their faith community? Perhaps, but also to those outside their faith community. In other words, those who desire to be in emerging -type churches do not desire to be in modern-type churches as they want to be able to provide an authentic - yeah - it's an emerging buzzword - community for those who are not Christians.

Perhaps emerging churches do "target" groups of people such as young families or students.Perhaps they do see themselves as missional commuties. But it is not clear how many secular people become part of emerging communities and branch out to start resultant cell communities.

Does the emerging church reach out to the surrounding community with the gospel any better than other churches? Some in emerging churches have come from churches that did not relate well to outsiders. But could it be that emerging communities are no less alien to the surrounding culture than most modern churches and there is an "emerging church culture" that has to be overcome by newcomers, particularly the over 40's.

Furthermore, if emerging churches are no less alien, but are seen as less judgemental, hypocritical and close-minded by those in the church, is that merely just an acceptable form of alienism?

There are some great relevant, authentic, discipling modern churches. The emerging church is no different. It's just that some in the emerging church - and some who would like to be in an emerging community but are not - appear to think that all these types of communities are relevant, authentic and discipling - or are more likely to be so.

Which is rubbish.

2004-03-28T22:09:00.000+12:00

Robins rocks out

You should read this article by Duffy Robins, about postmodern youth ministry. As Jason, who has run the article in full on his site, says, it sound much like all the talk in emergent blogdom.

2004-03-27T22:25:00.000+12:00

Mortal God and divine freedom

A column in today's Dominion Post discussed a London production of His Dark Materials, a stage adaption of atheist Philip Pulman's three-volume fantasy for children, which climaxes in the violent death of a senile God. Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams has applauded the play, but asks "Which God is it who gets killed? Is this what a believer would recognise as the real God?"

Easter is coming up soon, and Christians remember a God that was killed, and rose again to life a few days later. The Passion of the Christ gave us preview. Pulman has a contempt for organised religion, and views the church as the agent of domination. Dr Willams thinks he has a point.

"If you believe in a mortal God who can win and lose his power, your religion will be saturated with anxiety and with violence."

"If you see religious societies in which anxiety and violence predominate, you could do worse than ask what God it is that they believe in."

"The chances are that they secretly or unconsciously believe in a God who is just another inhabitant of the universe, only more powerful than anybody else."

Clearly, the god in His Dark Materials is not the God of the Bible, or of Easter. So Dr Williams wonders why the church has often behaved as if it were there to protect a mortal and finite God.

He asks a good question: What would a church look like that actually expressed the reality of a divine freedom that makes human freedom possible?

Any thoughts?

2004-03-26T23:49:00.000+12:00

Every kind of church is not ok

Every kind of church is not OK. There, I've said it too. If the church is the greenhouse of transformation, why aren't more people being transformed? If the church is a place to "reach" someone, why isn't our "reaching" doing any transforming. Perhaps it is because our out reaching is actually "in reaching" and this inreaching is not getting enough candidates to be transformed, either because not too many want to be "inreached" or those doing the inreaching have no candidiates to select from as all their friends are "in the bless-me club".

Sorry if that sounds so cynical, but for some churches that is the reality. I'm getting a little sick of people who seem to think church is some sanctified once-a -week "bless me club" where you can feel good, all get along fine, and tell each other how to "reach out" to outsiders without actually doing it yourself. That’s not evangelism, it's hot air. It's not even New Testament Church. It's not OK.

Sometimes I think we spend more time on process and programmes than our passion and the people we have a passion for. And I mean those in the church and those we hope to get into the church. But in so doing, I think we have lost our passion and we are fast losing people - but we have heaps of programmes for people to replace the "backdoor gang", and we seem to think that they will all work out if we get the process - and the programmes - right.

Yeah right.

Rant over. More later

2004-03-24T13:59:00.000+12:00

Gay clergy

Reading this post from Karen today reminded me of how some people have more of a phobia against gay people leading church, than they do regarding people with incompatible religious beliefs. In New Zealand a gay Presbyterian was recently barred from training for the ministry at her third attempt, despite her own minister being a lesbian. No mention was given of the fact that the woman concerned did not believe in the virgin birth or other fundamental Christian beliefs. Now the Church will discuss the role of homosexual people in leadership at the church general assembly in September.

Is sexual orientation really a bigger deal than theological or religious beliefs? Are church leaders employed - or refused - on the basis of their sexual orientation - or gender for that matter - or their ability to lead a church, including theological belief? When will churches make a higher priority to discuss incompatible theological beliefs over sexual orientation?

Perhaps some church leaders believe that gay people, even single and celibate gay people, have differing theological beliefs purely because of their sexual orientation, and as a result they are barred from ministry unless the denomination is gay friendly.

2004-03-24T11:54:00.000+12:00

politiking and polls

Banning gay marriage while allowing civil unions seems to be the American way at the moment.(both sites require registration)

This decision has annoyed people from both sides of the debate. This may be an election issue. Its certainly an issue in one county of Oregon, where all marriages are banned - gay and straight.

....and whats all this about. Has the election campaign started? If so then why doesn't Miss Clark want to debate Brash on TV? OK, there's no election campaign, but Miss Clark has debated leaders on TV four times outside an election campaign since gaining the top job so what was the real reason for the non appearance?

2004-03-22T21:20:00.004+12:00

Government and Virgin

"When a government becomes powerful, it is destructive, extravagant and violent; it is an usurper which takes bread from innocent mouths and deprives honorable men of their substance for votes with which to perpetuate itself." - Cicero
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force." - George Washington
"In all that people can do for themselves, the government ought not to interfere." - Abraham Lincoln
"The most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power." - John Stuart Mill
"The government's role is whatever the government defines it to be" NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark

Via Nigel Kearney

....and this brings new meaning to virgin birth

2004-03-21T11:09:00.000+12:00

just thinking...

A few things have happened in blogdom that have made me think. They are encouraging me to reconsider why I am doing this blog. At the moment my mind feels like a food processor - who knows what may come out the tips of my fingers onto the keyboard after my thoughts
I`ll keep thinking - and reading - and learning. One day I`ll type.
So today I`ll leave you with this.

"I don't go along with this living in sin before holy matrimony," said one minister. "I won't marry them if I know about it. I certainly didn't sleep with my wife before we were married, did you?"

"I'm not sure," said the second minister." What was her maiden name?"

And no bolt of lightning struck.

read the rest in the New Zealand Herald - healthy debate in the church

2004-03-20T11:04:00.000+13:00

Mark Pierson's off to Melbourne

Cityside Pastor Mark Pierson is moving to Melbourne. Mark will be spending 3-weeks a month in Melbourne with Urban Seed and one week a month at Cityside for the remainder of the year while Cityside looks for a replacement(s). For those who didn’t know, Mark used to be pastor of Wellington Central Baptist (now pastored by Alan Jamieson) and was also responsible for setting up Mainstage music festivals, which have metamorphed into the biggest Christian music festivals in the Southern Hemisphere - the annual Parachute Festival.

More on Prodigal Kiwi's site

2004-03-18T15:48:00.000+13:00

Emergo Theology

I'm not sure what to think about the talk about emerging churches and emerging theologies. Is an emerging theology really needed for an emerging church?

It seems to me that a lot of the emerging church talk is done by those associated with liturgical or evangelical modern churches - Anglicans, Catholics, Charismatics. Get them all together and there will be lots of similarities and a few differences in theological beliefs. Just like if you get a whole lot of evangelicals from the Open Brethren or Baptist tradition together. Jonny Baker has posted a comment from Maggi Dawn's blog with two questions:

Is emerging church limited to strictly the
conservative/evangelical wing of Christianity?
Can others play too?

Justin says yes ( well, a limited yes), meaning others can play too.

I agree. Others can play too. So let's play. Just a few quick thoughts. As nobody has defined the Emerging Church - nor an emerging theology, if it actually exists, why should an aspect of church that is not defined be limited to an evangelical wing of a church - or even a postmodern church?

That’s why I wrote yesterday that in my view, an "emerging church" - as opposed to an under 30's church - should espouse all theologies - ancient, future, Anglican, Methodist, and the rest. Not to do so would mean that the emerging church would be limited - and some would not be able to play. I don't think the EC should be limited by conservative evangelicalism.

The way Anglicans and Catholics do church (ecclesiology) is a lot different tto the way most evangelicals do it - but I don’t see why there cannot be an emerging community full of, say, Anglo-Catholics.

It cuts to the heart of what an emerging church actually is - some people seem to be able to articulate what an emerging community is and does, even if they are not happy defining it.

We need to discuss out similarities as well as out misunderstandings with each other well before secular people get a look in. Emerging church principles may knock down denomination walls, and that won`t be a bad thing either.

2004-03-17T23:35:00.000+13:00

What is an emerging theology

What is an "emerging theology?" It's a question some people are asking and not too many people are coming up with an answer that satisfies them. A bit like the definition of what an emerging church is. Nobody can be too sure

Well, I think I have the answer - and it satisfies me: There isn't an emerging theology, in the sense of getting a new one. Nor do we need one, as the old ones are doing us fine. So lets combine them all.

Maggi Dawn, who's much more theologically hip and trained than myself, says we need good theology and she's right. Good theology is not just evangelical theology. Maggi suggested taking a leaf from a few theologians that have been around for ages, rather than creating a new theology. And you know what - none of the theologians were at the recent Emergent Convention in San Diego- or any other conference, were they. Was Lesslie Newbigin? No. Were his books at the Emergent Convention? Somebody tell me. Please please tell me now.

Of course, good theology has been around since books were published. Rather than redefining your own tradition, Maggi suggests you fill your shelves with Catholic, Lutheran, Penticostal, and Baptist books. Good idea.

Hey Presbyterians - Catholics are not theological weirdos. And you Catholics - Baptists are actually nice people and have a lot to offer theologically.

Perhaps it is time to put the "ancient" back into "ancient-future" and "trade up traditions for tradition." Brian McLaren is writing a book in which he will invite readers to value the whole range of the Christian tradition Called A Generous Orthodoxy, it may go some way to answering questions relating to what people should be meaning when they say "emerging theology". Should be a good book - the first chapter is Chapter 0 and it will be out shortly.

2004-03-16T11:17:00.000+13:00

Agnostic, Prime Minister

New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clark is an agnostic. She said so in this morning's paper. She was denying Don Brash's allegation that she was an atheist. Brash is the opposition leader and a son of a former moderator of the Presbyterian Church, but doesn't believe there is a god he can talk to.

Miss Clark - yep, she has kept her maiden name and honorific - is not sure on that one. What she is sure of, is that she doesn't want to know if there is a god. This makes her a hard agnostic. She was brought up Presbyterian as well.

Hey, perhaps we are a politicially agnostic country. Perhaps we don't really know whether Miss Clark is the best Prime Minister or not. Perhaps Miss Clark doesn't either. She's a politically hard agnostic who wants to stay in power, remember.

Perhaps there is someone better.

Like Prime Ministeral aspirant Peter Dunne, leader of the Christian stacked United Future Party. Like Don Brash or Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson.

The difference is that perhaps we are a soft agnostic country in that we would like to know who the best Prime Minister - and governing party - should be, but collectively we can't make up our minds. The polls are split.

Maybe we don't even know whether we should have an early election. Would we all vote if we had one? Or don't we believe that good, honest political leaders actually exist, leading to difficulty in deciding whom to vote for.

Could it be that we are politically indifferent - taking a lead from Miss Clark's indifferent views on the institution of marriage?

Miss Ciark - who has been married for more than 26 years - says marriage has a lot of "inappropriate connotations". Politics certainly does. She is on record that if civil unions were available in the early 1980's she would have got one, rather than being married.

It's all a bit sad - she cried on her wedding night, her best man was politician Jim Anderton ( or was he husband Peter Davis's best man, we were never all that sure ).

Mr Anderton strongly suggested in the early 1980's that Miss Clark should be married to save her politicial career. Maybe it saved his as well, as at one stage he was Deputy Prime Minister under Miss Clarks leadership.

There may be more - watch this space!

In the meantime read this:

If you tried to guess who was the best-selling artist of all time, the first names that would come to mind might be van Gogh or Picasso, Charles Schulz or Matt Groening - Messrs Peanuts and Simpsons respectively -right?

WRONG! It's Annie Vallotton and you've seen her work everywhere
read all about it and see an illustration you've probably already seen.

2004-03-15T23:29:00.000+13:00

Irresistable, really

found here via this site

2004-03-15T01:14:00.040+13:00

flogging blog posts for publication and distribution

The following comments are selections of a series of emails that
Duncan, who lives in the UK, and I exchanged following my post on this topic and Duncan's subsequent follow-up above. For what it's worth we decided to add much of this exchange to the public conversation, and agreed together to publish them both here and on his blog...

So after Duncan's post, I wrote:

Hi Duncan,

I just want to clarify a few things in regards to creative commons licences.

As a journalist, copyright is something I have thought about a lot. Before I read your post I didn't know about these licences. I do know about copyright law though, and I see a difference between distribution and publishing.

My comments regarding unethical emailing was done without the knowledge that Steve had a creative commons licence. Now that I know he has one that makes an ethical difference. I thought these licences were to make it easier to publish articles as you only have to get permission from the author on one occasion, not the second or third etc. Does this mean that If I see another article on Jeffrey Overstreets site I can post it if he has a creative commons licence as I have already asked for his permission to post the initial article on my blog?

It is my understanding that a creative commons licence does not make too much difference in regards to NZ copyright law in terms of publication unless you make money from the reposting without the permission of the author.

As the creative commons site says "Want to encourage other writers and artists to make, transform, and build on your stories, provided they don't resell them?" (my emphasis).

But if you edit or add to a work licensed by creative commons for
publication, you must have a creative commons licence to do so even if you comply with copyright, unless agreed to by the author.

If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one unless the author agrees otherwise.

Duncan... these licences don't protect you from anything, do they?

Duncan responds to me the next day:

Hi Dave,
Hmm, you raise some interesting points actually.

I have to confess I'm pretty fuzzy on the difference between publishing and distribution. I guess you're saying emailing is distribution, not publishing? But what if it was distributed on a mailing list with a thousand subscribers?

If someone has a Creative Commons license on their blog, you can click through and see which one they are using, to find out what terms they are licensing the material under. In I think all cases, this should at least permit non-commercial reproduction without alteration, providing the author is attributed, the original source is linked to, and you also link to the Creative Commons license that covered the original post. Even if your blog normally refuses to allow people to reproduce your material, anything reproducing someone else's work covered under these licenses, and any derivative works, is usually required to be covered by a similar license. It wouldn't mean you'd have to have a CC license for your entire blog, but you'd have to indicate that that entry (or at least, the reproduced section of it) is covered by that CC license.

Does this mean that If I see another article on Jeffrey Overstreets site I can post it if he has a creative commons licence as I have already asked for his permission to post the initial article on my blog?

Technically, if it's covered by a CC license, I don't think you ever need to ask permission, providing you comply with the other aspects of the license.What I'd usually do though is simply include a pertinent excerpt, and link to the original for the reader should they wish to read the whole thing. I guess it depends on how you conceive of the purpose of your blog. Mine is to present my own ideas and experiences, linking out to others. Other people may adopt a more newspaper or magazine format, reproducing material from around and about as well as editorial comment and in-house articles.

It is my understanding that a creative commons licence does not make too much difference in regards to NZ copyright law in terms of publication unless you make money from the reposting without the permission of the author.

Certainly, Creative Commons licenses explicitly state that they do not reduce the rights you have under fair use aspects of legislation. I suppose it is an interesting question whether an author could state that their CC license had no legal authority in New Zealand, and therefore not allow you to use material released under one. But since a CC license is about the author waiving their rights under law, I think any defendant would have a fairly strong moral case. It is hard to imagine a realistic situation where this would come to court... perhaps where an employee put a CC license on something that his employer later decided they owned. (Not revocable, remember.)

As the creative commons site says "Want to encourage other writers and artists to make, transform, and build on your stories, provided they don't resell them?"

Interesting question: are there any CC licenses that explicitly say, hey, use my stuff, and even sell it yourself if you like? (Probably not!)

Duncan...these licences don't protect you from anything, do they?

Arguably they protect the author from being pestered with requests to republish their material, when they're quite happy for anyone to do that. And I suppose they reinforce the things you don't want to be done with your material, though the license merely states things that are already in law, rather than creating any protections. But primarily the license protects the person copying the work or making derivative copies, reassuring them they are doing so in a way the author is happy with. That's what is such a pity about the case with Steve he isn't actually happy for his work to be reproduced (in this case anyway) in the manner allowed by his license.

That's why he really needs to review that license.

Nice to hear from you! An interesting discussion.
Cheers,
Duncan.

I thought it was an interesting discussion as well - and emailed back:

Duncan,
just attempting to answer a question of yours, particularly as I sense that that you are a person who thinks things through.

First, some definitions.

Publish = to make generally known (there are not restrictions on who can view).

Distribution = to give a share to each of a number (there are
restrictions on who can view).

You asked I have to confess I'm pretty fuzzy on the difference
between publishing and distribution. I guess you're saying emailing is
distribution, not publishing? But what if it was distributed on a mailing list with a thousand subscribers?

You raised a good point, and I compare this with the scenario where papers like the New York Times requires registration to view its site. Anyone (who is not blind and can read) can view the New York Times online as long as they register. Of course anyone can read the physical paper if they see it. Any one can view the emailout as long as they subscribe. I actually see the difference is that I consider an emailout (to one or a million people) is not a publication as it is sent to a restricted group, whereas publishing is in the public arena and is not sent to people, the people come to the publication. There is the possibility of no restrictions.

Also to throw a spanner in the works, anyone with an internet connection has the possibility of stumbling across your blog by accident ( as I recall that is how you found my blog), but it is impossible for everyone to stumble across an emailout by accident.

That is why I consider your blog a publication.

That's what is such a pity about the case with Steve he isn't actually happy for his work to be reproduced (in this case anyway) in the manner allowed by his license. That's why he really needs to review that license.

And I happen to agree with you, Duncan. Thanks for filling me in about the licence.

Good conversation, lets publicise it - or at least distribute it! It will
come up again and again.

outta here

cheers
Dave

I add some final thoughts:

Is it OK to post, without permission or attribution, an article, a blog entry, or a picture on your blog that you didn't create?

That comes under fair use laws. Fair use is limited, or use of content, for example a few sentences of a New York Times article as opposed to the whole article.

Flogging someone's website templates and stealing posts can really annoy people,especially if there is no attribution. It is also breaking the law, which is worse. So always ask written permission and use attribution when reposting articles and blog entries in full.

Back to fair use. For fair use to enter the picture, you have to implicate a right of the copyright holder.A good post on fair use is here. Read it. Fair use is not always an infringement of copyright, but abuse is not fair use and could infringe copyright. I believe fair use applies to all publications, and I include blogs here. If blogs were excluded, maybe anything that was copied from blogs without permission, no matter how small, would be an infringement - like some of the content in this blog entry, and this piece, from a 1985 Wired Magazine no longer online, which was sourced from another blog.

Chief among the [Internet's] new rules is that content is free. While not all content will be free, the new economic dynamic will operate as if it were. Intellectual property that can be copied easily likely will be
copied.

2004-03-12T14:05:00.001+13:00

Open Letter to Steve Taylor

Dear Steve,

I understand why you are disappointed that people have been cutting, pasting and emailing your letter to Mel Gibson to others. The letter you posted on your blog. I understand why you are cross with the Internet. I understand why the magazine that is publishing your article is annoyed that others have seen it prior to publication. But this publication does not hold the copyright.

It sounds like you wrote the article for a Christian publication in New Zealand and posted it on your blog for feedback. Perhaps, as you say, that was a little naive. There is no legal requirement for people to consult writers before emailing articles they have seen posted on the Internet.

In New Zealand, copyright laws are such that if you are working for yourself, or a freelancing, you hold the copyright. So you hold the copyright for everything original you post on your blog. If you send the article to another publication, you also hold the copyright. If you are employed by a magazine or paper, they hold the copyright.

Trouble is, unless you want to pay for it, it is very difficult to enforce Internet copyright through legal action.There is nothing illegal about cutting, pasting and emailing articles to friends. It is done every day and this does not breach copyright as it is not classed as publishing. However if a magazine or paper was to run your post, or if I was to post it on this site without your knowledge, we would be acting and publishing unethically as we would be breaching copyright.

I notice that you have now taken the letter off your site. I trust that was your decision, not a decision of hte editors of Reality Magazine. Reality Magazine should not dictate where their articles are otherwised published.

Reality does not hold the copyright. You do. If the magazine or paper holds the copyright, that is a different matter.

Perhaps you could repost your letter to Mel back onto your site, even if you wait until publication date of April 19. It is a great piece. People need to read it. Not everybody reads Reality magazine. What you have written needs to be read, it needs to be said. It demands international readership.

Perhaps you are somewhat naive, as you said. But really, I thoink you should be honoured that people want to read your work, as opposed to being annoyed that they e-mailed it without your consent. People are not required to ask for consent unless they want to publish it - and even then some don't ask for permission. Even if you make it clear that written permission - and a link to your blog - is mandatory for republishing your work on other blogs or Internet sites, that would not stop people from emailing around your articles and postings. People will flog your stuff.

I almost posted your letter on this site - however I would have asked for written permission and linked to your site as I did with the article from Jeffrey Overstreet. That is the ethical way to do it, and I would expect written permission for any of my original postings and articles I write to be posted eslewhere. No permission means no post.

However, many do not subscribe to these ethics, and there is nothing illegal about emailing cut and pasted articles - or URLs - from any Internet site. Ethics appear irrelevant in the world of e-mail, it is virtually unenforceable anyway, but should be upheld ( and enforced) in the world of Internet publishing with exactly the same rules as in the print media.

regards

Dave Crampton

2004-03-11T17:52:00.000+13:00

Jesus is my Homeboy

That's what Pam Anderson's t-shirt says.

Thanks to the Passion of the Christ movie, Jesus has all of a sudden become cool. Jesus is now dope. Jesus is now da bomb. Jesus me ol' buddy, mate, pal, hoochie, homeboy, whatever. Jesus is way cool. Perhaps this coolness is now the fashion of the passion.

It sucks.

I wonder, in a world that increasingly embraces spiritually, while disregarding religion, if it will ever become cool to say "Jesus is my saviour", or "Jesus is alive"?

2004-03-10T17:43:00.001+13:00

cutting the crap in emerging blogdom

There are two types of people who regularly read my blog: Those that know me and know that I blog, and those that know that I blog but have never met me. Many read this blog daily, and I am thankful for a growing readership.

I also read other weblogs, and I have noticed a little unnecessary hierarchy in emerging church blogdom. There's a pecking order, and it's unnecessary. There are some emergent blogs EVERYBODY seems to read - and include on their blogroll. There are some "famous" or "recognised" voices in blogdom. They get the hits, some get the comments, but, in my opinion, are not necessarily the best blogs in terms of content.

So lets cut the crap here. Lets forget about hierarchy. Lets not post lots of crappy comments on Andrew Jones' blog -( a blog I actually read a lot and like a lot like, BTW) just to get hits on your own blog. Just comment when you have something worthwhile to say - as opposed to comments like " I'm glad your kids are enjoying school today, Andrew", or "your attitude sucks". How can you judge an attitude of someone you have never met? Are you really glad Mr Jones' kids are enjoying school, or are you a grease-artist?

Instead of quick comments, perhaps you could trackback to your site and write something constructive thait adds to the debate. If you consistantly write good posts, then consider getting trackback yourself so others can track you back.

To contribute to the anti-hierarchy, I have decided to alter my blogroll. If you don't want to know who is on it, you don't have to look. Read the news instead, thers at least 30 choices of newspapers on this site. I will be deleting some names and adding others, for my own reference, that may or may not be widely read. They may or may not be from people who have been in full time ministry for five years, but does that really matter? Of course not. Content matters, and thats the only criteria for being on my blogroll.

I blog just about every day. Others blog a few times a month. We need some more people who are prepared to put some serious thought and time into their blogs, who regularly write from the heart, not just the head. There's lots of them out there and some of them are on my blogroll.

Jokes are fine, but after you see the same joke on three or four different blogs it starts to wear a little thin.

Polite rant over.

If you don't understand or read emerging church blogs, then read some other posts below. They`ll probably be more interesting. Hey, you may even find a link to something funny.

2004-03-09T15:00:00.000+13:00

Gay sheep and civil unions

The New Zealand Government is almost ready to air two bills that, if passed, will ensure that unmarried couples have the same rights as married couples. One is a Civil Union bill, similar to Vermont's civil union legislation, and the other is a bill called the "Legal Recognition of Relationships Bill". One bill aims to recognise unmarried relationships legally ,amending loads of other bills to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of marital status. The other aims for social recognition, particularly same sex relationships.

The Government is taking this measure as it does not think it is politically achievable to amend the Marriage Act 1955 to include same sex relationships. It is not known how many people in New Zealand are gay, but studies show that one in eight sheep are gay. - well, rams anyway. New Zealand has about 80 million sheep so, according to the stats, it is a pretty gay country. New Zealand also three gay MP's, one of whom is a Cabinet Minister, and another a transsexual. This nationwide magazine has alleged that our Prime Minister is a closet lesbian.

I have been writing on same sex partnerships, legislation and related issues. You can read a couple of my articles on same sex relationships and civil unions on Scoop media here and also over here

Christianity Today has also posted this article on civil unions today. The article notes that some support civil unions but are opposed to same sex marriage.

Forty years ago Christians would be horrified to think that that gay couples would even suggest to have access to marriage, or have their relationship legally recognised as equivalent to marriage. It was a view that two unmarried people of the same gender having regular sex was not "in the nature of marriage", for obvious reasons. Many Christians these days see it as a matter of justice that gender should not be an issue in regards to marriage, while others, both in New Zealand and in other countries, are campaigning hard-out for a "one man one woman" marriage requirement. US President Bush wants to amend the US Constitution (something only done twice) to ensure marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. New Zealand does not have a constitution. Thirty-eight US states have already defined marriages as between a man and a woman - so gay sheep are out of luck. ( Does the US have any sheep?)

What do you think? Should same-sex partnerships be legally and socially recognised by governments? To what extent?

2004-03-08T20:41:00.000+13:00

I think this is cool

from liquid thinking" -so I DO quote sources....

2004-03-07T15:10:00.001+13:00

Is wireless free Internet the way forward in the church?

Every generation must learn how to make the scriptures and church practices more relevant to believers: Here's a run-down found on Richard Tallent's site.

 Two years ago, we started hearing of churches with alternative services in coffee-shop-style rooms with smaller crowds, live music, fresh Starbucks, and video presentation of the "normal" sermon.
 Ten years ago, the thought of a pretty waterfall photo as the backdrop to song lyrics projected on a 15-foot screen was somehow undignified compared to dead-tree hymnals or lop-sided, blurry transparencies.
 Fifteen years ago, a trap set, electric bass, and electric guitar (with distortion!) was bordering on heresy.
 Thirty years ago, football tables started appearing in youth rooms and "family life centers" (i.e., gymnasiums) started becoming popular.
 Fifty years ago, the official church hymnal, a prayer book, the 1797 Authorized Version of the Bible, and the Sunday School circular were the only acceptable things to be found reading.
 200 years ago, persons designated "Bobbers" would walk the aisles with a long rod and whack anyone over the head who fell asleep during the sermon.
 Nearly 500 years ago, two heretics named Wycliffe and Luther had the odd idea that reading the Scriptures for yourself in your own language should not be verbotem.
 Two thousand years ago, the man who wrote most of the New Testament droned on so long that a young man in the audience drifted to sleep and fell out a window and down three stories.

Today, we spend much of our energies discussing how to make the scriptures and church practices relevant to secular people, while some believers still find church irrelevant. Others are promoting technology such as wireless free Internet access to make churches more attractive for Internet-savvy believers who can go online to find message- related sites. Here's one church that is using Wifi :: Here's someone who thinks Wifi will change the way teaching is done in church.

Do you think is Wifi is the way forward? Or is Wifi more about Almighty Google than Almighty God?

Will Wifi really encourage studious parishioner who want to read online commentaries, make electronic notes or read alternate translations related to the sermon - or will that turn sermons into seminars? Maybe Wifi will be more of a distraction and encourage those in the congregation to check and send e-mails, read sites like this or play games like this (throwing rocks at boys - great game!) during boring sermons. They won't be listening to MP3's for the same reasons as not listening to a walkman - headphones are not a good look during sermons

Then there's the issue of people who can't afford laptops or are not Internet -savvy missing out on Wifi - but they'll probably take in the sermon as they would not be distracted. But those online won't be asleep during sermons.

If some church leaders feel that their services are not as relevant as they used to be, Wifi is not the answer to bring back the relevance. I think Wifi is an additional tool that will work for a select group of people - mainly young professionals that are Internet savvy and have laptops. Perhaps about 3 percent of the average congregation, if that - and half of the 3 percent may find Wifi a distraction.

What do you think - is Wifi the way forward or, unlike most church evangelism, should it's use be restricted to outside the four walls, in situations such as house churches and cell groups?

2004-03-05T17:33:00.000+13:00

March Next-Wave magazine is now online

Just in case you weren't aware, the latest Next Wave e-zine is now online.
Among the articles is a new feature called Answers from The Other Side with views from practitioners in the emerging church scene. This feature will appear in the next few months and will provide many voices and many different "answers. There will be two contributors each month. This month features Todd Hunter and Andrew Jones. Read it - and work out for yourself whether "Andrew is da man or Todd is da man".

2004-03-03T10:54:00.001+13:00

Best supporting country

in today's LA Times, and New York Times - GO KIWIS!!

2004-03-03T09:51:00.000+13:00

the evangelisation of the passion - A letter to Christians

Christianity Today film reviewer and writer Jeffrey Overstreet has posted an excellent commentary on the Passion of the Christ on this website he edits about - or aimed at, perhaps - Christians who want to make evangelical mileage out of the movie. It's my longest ever post, but it is essential reading. With his written permission I include it in full here. It is, quite simply, superb.
::::::........................ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........................::::::

Most Christian press publications will lavish praise upon Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. They will celebrate the arrival of a film rich with spiritual power, rendered with riveting and even excruciating detail.

Some will go so far as to declare that in this film, the Church has a fantastic “evangelical opportunity.”

But the fact that many Christians—many churches—are responding to the film as if it is a call to arms, an exhortation to use Gibson’s work as a blunt instrument of evangelism, reveals that they are blind to one of the very things that makes many people steer clear of the Gospel.
People view Christians as self-righteous. They see believers as thinking they have all the answers. They see us as confrontational, militant, ready to ambush them with a sales-pitch for Jesus.

This very thing happened this morning in Dallas. A crowd of believers and unbelievers filed into a cinema, experienced a work of intense and complicated art... something that requires a good deal of time for recovery afterward... something that requires contemplation.

But just as the credits started the roll, and while the music was just beginning to soar... the system was shut down.

A team of ministers appeared on stage.

The gospel was explained and an altar call was held.

Some filed out... believers and unbelievers alike... astonished that they were not allowed to absorb the film and think about it. They were ambushed, taken advantage of, while in a state of high emotion.
This is wrong... just plain wrong. It is presumptuous, arrogant, and manipulative. And I believe it is further hardening people's hearts, making them not want to have anything to do with a religion that does not allow them to experience something for themselves and have their own thoughts about it.

What is even worse is this: Believers come out from behind the walls of their churches only when they have their own story to talk about. They do not show much interest in hearing... much less discussing... the stories that the rest of the world has to tell. How will we ever get to know them and understand their questions, fears, and problems if all we do is come out and beat them over the head with Gospel tracts? Moreover, how will we ever be open ourselves to what God might say to us through a work of art... even one that an unbeliever crafted?

Now that there is a movie about Jesus on the big screen, sure enough, here we come, ready to sign folks up for Jesus as if The Passion of the Christ is some kind of army enlistment commercial. I saw a commercial for the movie the other night immediately followed by an ad for a local church, in which two smiling mild-mannered ministers basically said that after people get out of the movie, they should come on down to the local church and get their questions answered by the experts.

Folks, The Passion is not propaganda. It should not be treated as such.

The Passion is a remarkably imagined, powerfully executed work of art. Yes, it has the power to transform perceptions, hearts, whole lives. It gives us opportunity to examine how good and evil are in conflict, how God has worked and still works in our lives, and it gives us a wonderful… but human, and thus flawed… expression of one of spiritual conflict.

But we should note two things:

One--We should consider our own responses, search our own souls, after seeing this work. That should come before we worry about someone else's response.

Two: Meaningful movies happen all of the time. Why are we only bothering to interact with our culture about this movie?

Each month, a flurry of new films comes to theatres. Many of them are produced merely to make money, and very little attention or care is given to the quality of the storytelling, the acting, the technical aspects. These “flashes in the pan” are quickly forgotten, until they resurface on DVD, and the process repeats itself.

But several films, almost every month, reflect the passion of individual artists to tell meaningful stories to the rest of the culture. These films are in some way worthy of praise. And even if the artist did not intend to communicate anything about Jesus, anything about Scripture, anything about God... if they made something with excellence, they have given us something worth exploring, worth discussing, something that is, like The Passion of the Christ, flawed and yet revelatory.

When this happens, it is important that people gifted with vision and discernment be there to hear these stories and to discuss them with others in the audience.

Scripture exhorts us to “test all things and hold fast to what is good.” Instead, most churchgoers fear the culture's offerings, or else just prefer to stick with what is familiar and comfortable and "Christian."
It is especially important that Christians follow the example set by Jesus, who listened passionately to broken people of all kinds, and helped them find wisdom in their own words, helped them realize what their own questions revealed. He transformed the way a woman thought about drawing water from a well… a very practical and mundane act. He led Nicodemus to consider the profound implications of wanting to begin life anew… that there is, indeed, an offer from God that allows us to be forgiven for our past sins, so we can be “born again.” Jesus had a knack for metaphors.

Does the church remember the power of a metaphor? Do Christians realize that metaphors happen outside of the Bible? Do we know how to look at a great film like House of Sand and Fog and realize what it shows us about the consequences of sin? Do we see what it says about spiritual emptiness? Pride? Greed?

All good stories echo Scriptural truths about good and evil, choices and consequences, sacrifice and self-indulgence, slavery and freedom. Art, when it is excellent, is immensely powerful and rich, no matter who creates it--believer or unbeliever.

And shouldn’t we expect that to be the case? Scripture assures us that all men and women have been created by God, in his image, and (according to Romans) that on some level we all know and recognize the truth, no matter how little we acknowledge it or understand it. So of course the truth will become evident, to some degree, in the works of even the most outspoken atheist. Indeed, if anything about an artist’s work communicates anything, then there is something, however feeble, of God’s design reflected in it. It’s our job to separate meaning from lies, excellence from mediocrity, and to give God the glory.

That’s just what the Apostle Paul did when he found a secular monument “to an Unknown God.” He saw a work that inadvertently pointed back to Scripture, and he talked about it.
People come away from movies saying "I liked it" or "I didn't like it" or "It didn't do anything for me" or "I was moved by it." But rarely do they go deeper than that. Rarely do they say how it moved them. That's where we can start taking the discussion to a new level. That's where we can begin to explore a story's meaning.

What does it mean when someone says, “It moved me”? Do they mean they started at Point A, and now they are at Point B? What changed? How have they been transformed? Is it a good change?
Those are the sorts of things we should be talking about.
Our culture has become so desensitized, so numb from being over-stimulated by relentless media, that we have ceased to think about what it is we are consuming. Moviegoers just want the latest thrill. We need to learn to “digest” our cinematic “food.” We need to rediscover productive conversations about what we are watching, just the way the world is grappling with this film about Christ.

And we all need to realize—even Christians—that we do not have all the answers. We can learn from art, and from talking to others about what that art has meant to them.

This is why the favorite films of critics at the end of the year are so different from the favorite films of "the People's Choice." Critics have the job, and thus the responsibility, to guide us into examining the details: quality, meaning, symbolism, and originality. By thinking more critically, we can get more out of our movies and learn to appreciate richer cinematic "food."

NOTE: I am not saying film critics are better than other people. One person has already criticized this letter, saying I am being egotistical. That means I am not being clear... No, of course I'm not saying critics are better than other people. But I am saying that the discipline of discernment, of listening and "testing all things" is our responsibility as Christians. I need other Christians to see the things I don't see, to help me understand more clearly, to get involved in the discussion and lead me to insight and understanding.

But too many believers live in fear that they will be corrupted by the secular culture. They do not want to do the hard work of resisting temptation, testing all things, and striving out to engage the culture while wearing the full armor of God. Most Christians are more comfortable within the walls of the church, talking with other Christians, listening to music they write for themselves and each other that is free of anything offensive (“contemporary Christian music”), copying every cultural event and creating their own “sanitized” and "sanctified" versions. (Take the Grammys, and their Christian “clean” equivalent, the Dove Awards. There's even a Christian version of American Idol going on. How ironic.)

The truth is that Jesus did not just hang out at the church. He spent time with smelly fishermen, hard-working women at the well, religious people having crises of faith, demoniacs, prostitutes, drunkards, lepers, and tax collectors. He listened to them, ate with them, chatted with them, argued with them. He was engaged in the culture. He was not withdrawn, creating a cheap sanitized copy of the world where his disciples could live uncontaminated.

ANOTHER NOTE: Am I saying we must go and expose ourselves to pornography and other terrible, offensive things? No, of course not. We must be wise and responsible. But we must also be involved. Christ saw a lot of evil, and he dealt with it. He spoke the truth... but not in a self-righteous or condemning way... he spoke the truth in love.

Yes, he did tell us to avoid being a stumbling block. We should not take an alcoholic to a bar, and we should not take someone prone to sexual errors to a movie about sexuality. If I have a weakness, I should be cautious until God has helped me overcome that.
Christ exhorted us to become stronger, to put on “the full armor of God” that will help us “stand firm against the schemes of the devil.” This is part of graduating from "milk" to "meat", to use Scripture's words for it.

It would be wrong for me to over-generalize here. Indeed, there are many followers of Christ who are living in the world without becoming of the world. They understand Christ’s observation, that it is not what goes into us that can corrupt us, but what comes out of us that can corrupt us (Christ's words, again.) They see God’s truth showing up in all kinds of art from all kinds of people.

I sincerely hope that The Passion draws churchgoers out from the walls of their sanctuaries and into the local theater. I hope it inspires them to be a part of the larger cultural conversation about movies—what they they reflect, the questions they ask, the truths they reveal.
And I hope this is the beginning of the end of the era in which Christians condemn wholesale the world of mainstream art for reflecting the honest confusion, incomplete philosophies, and idea of popular culture. Sure there are gross and indulgent offenses at the movies, just as there are in professional sports, literature, business, and religion. But we are not to withdraw in disgust from the whole arena. We are to be salt and light, which means we will suffer. So let us suffer as Christ did, out of love for the broken hearts that are out there needing to be heard and loved.

It is time to stop judging the film by its ingredients and start looking hard at what those various ingredients create. (If we refused to hear stories in which people are sinning, we'd have to throw out the Bible!) Relevant storytelling for grownups will show us ourselves, at our best and at our worst. What is important is not how many times the hero said a bad word, but whether or not the WHOLE of the work contains glimmers of truth and beauty.

WHERE DO WE START?
Well, in the world of mainstream entertainment, there have been... even recently... many wonderful subjects for discussion and exploration.

Here are some of the recent works of art that, like The Passion, are flawed, human expressions, but that also reflect enough truth to merit discussion, debate, and exploration. They have the power to humble, convict, inspire, reveal… Like Hamlet and his players, they can “catch the conscience” of any of us, if we look closely enough, with eyes to see.

Where was the church in conversations about these films?

 House of Sand and Fog—a drama in which people behave desperately, with blind self-interest, and ruin things for others and eventually themselves, having hurriedly constructed their dreams on weak foundations.

 Stevie—one of many brilliant documentaries released last year that examines the way that the sins of the father lead to corruption, heartbreak, and worsening sins in the son. It also reveals miracles of compassion, the power of a good role model, the wisdom of angels given to some of the most damaged and unlikely individuals, and the foolishness of the “mature.” It’s one of the most powerful films I’ve ever seen, and I’ll bet you can’t find more than one or two people at your church who have even heard of it.

 Mystic River—a story about how the sins of our past continue to poison our futures until we see them, acknowledge them, and confess them.

 Lost in Translation—a story of failing marriages, in which two lonely people discover that life, even life in a foreign setting, becomes vibrant and meaningful when experienced in the context of compassion, understanding, and love.

 Finding Nemo—a fantasy that talks to kids about the importance of boundaries and obedience, while it talks to parents about the dangers of being over-protective.
Capturing the Friedmans—another new documentary, rated amongst mainstream critics as one of the year’s best films, and one of the best documents you’ll ever see of the way one lie can lead to evil that spreads like an epidemic and destroys whole families.

The Lord of the Rings films. Yes, a lot of Christians have cheered to see the success of a series based on a story created by a Christian. We’ve boasted that, yes, Tolkien was one of us! But have we opened ourselves to the humbling power of what takes place in the story? Most discerning viewers will come away challenged and convicted by at least one of its myriad storylines, inspired by its examples of Christ-like sacrifice, the power of mercy, and the way that even the righteous cannot withstand evil on their own, but need the grace of a Higher Power… “another Will at work.”

To name a few.

If we hope that the rest of the world will listen closely to The Passion of the Christ, the story we care about most, are we willing to attend with equal concern, questioning, and openness to the stories that everyone else has to share?

Look at this: Christ’s last words were a quote, a sign pointing to another work of art. His last words were an excerpt from a song written by an adulterer and a murderer. When he cried out “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsake me?” he was quoting Psalm 22. He was referencing another artistic expression, one written by a sinful, broken, corrupt man. Instead of coming up with original words of his own, he called upon the words written in the desperate expression of someone else.

For me, The Passion of the Christ is a vivid reminder of what God’s son endured. It shows me that he endured so much in order to show me just how far God is willing to go to replace my fear with peace. It reminds me of something else as well: That he loved and forgave even those who murdered him. Similarly, I must attend to those people with my own love, with my own attention, listening to their questions, their frustrations their fears, and… yes… their art.

2004-03-02T22:25:00.002+13:00

how blogs are ruining my life

From the Village Voice

2004-03-02T13:32:00.001+13:00

Pick of the blogs

Emerging Church Info, a UK "touching place for the emerging church" is doing a profile on Australian and New Zealand emerging voices this month and the blog you are currently reading is this month's pick of the blogs. Go have a look at their site, check out the emerging voices in Australasia and take part in the discussion boards

So thanks Adrian. I must be doing something right.

2004-03-01T01:26:00.000+13:00

I've seen The Passion of the Christ - here's a review

We have just been to see the late screening of The Passion of the Christ. For those who haven't already seen it, I can tell you that it is a movie that will impact you. I wanted to see this movie before my friends told me about it. I also wanted to see if the media frenzy was to be believed. Was it similar to a bloodbath in a butcher's shop? Was it an evangelistic opportunity to take my friends along to do a passion Bible study afterwards?

The movie was subtitled, as it was in Aramaic and Latin. That made it a little more authentic. As I watched this movie, I couldn’t help thinking that this movie may well impact Christians more so than unbelievers. The movie brought the story to life more so than any pulpit sermon ever would. But this movie is more than the beating of one who is the Christ, as it also has a spiritual dimension.

The devil is personified as a bald woman - played by Rosalinda Celentano, but a man's voice is used. During the trial the devil is ever skulking around, and at one stage cradles a baby with a face of a man.

The beating of Christ is immediate and extensive. Christ's eye is swollen shut before he even leaves Gethsemane. It is hard to understand how Christ could stand under his cross after such an extensive flogging, let alone bear its weight for a while. Yet the much- reported violence is not sadistic. The movie relates the reasons for the beating by means of flashbacks. For example, when Christ is beaten there is a flashback 'No-one comes to the father but by me. When the nails are bashed through the palms of the Christ, we are reminded of what Christ said at the Last Supper 'This is my body, which will be given up for you'. This is the message behind the movie.

As well as following the line of the gospels, the movie also draws heavily on the Stations of the Cross. Mary is given a prominent part as she witnesses the suffering, and Veronica wipes Christ's face with a cloth as he makes his way to be crucified. The cloth shows an image of Christ's face and is commonly known as the Shroud of Turin. When Jesus is taken down from the cross, his body is cradled by his mother Mary.

I think this is a movie that every adult Christian should see. It is rated R16 in New Zealand, and I see merits in a lower rating, such as R13, with parental consent. Sure it is probably the most violent movie made about a prince of peace, sure the Christ is beaten to a bloody pulp. Yet the violence, although extensive and extended, is not gratuitous. In fact I was surprised that the crucifixion scenes were portrayed as much less brutal than the violent the beating and scourging. I was encouraged that the movie ended with Jesus sitting in the tomb very much alive, face cleared of blood, but the stake-holes visible in his hands. Still, the Passion is not a movie for young kids.

The movie intentionally emphasised Christ's humanity much more than his divinity. For that reason it is not as evangelistic as many Christians are making it out to be.

Would I use this movie as an evangelism tool and take my mates along for that purpose? Probably not. Would I expect my friends to be convinced that the Christ of the passion is the Christ that gives eternal life? Probably not. But I would encourage them to see the movie. I'd expect them to be impacted in some way. As the credits rolled, people filed out of the theatre silently, without saying a word. The last time I witnessed that was after Once Were Warriors.

Oh yeah, and I didn't get any tracts after that movie either.

It is not hard to believe that the Passion of the Christ is the highest grossing film promoting Christian beliefs. What did surprise me is that it achieved that distinction in just 24 hours. The success of the Passion is bigger news than the Oscars. After 3 days the movie grossed $65 million. It has now grossed $100 million. Mel Gibson will be rich. I wonder if he tithes.

2004-02-27T00:08:00.000+13:00

too tired to post

Too tired to post today, too much happening, family online at the moment. Then again, I may be too busy looking at this or getting over the fact that the 'Passion' has nailed $26.6 million on the first day of screening, ironically prompting most in the industry to use the Lord's name in vain.

2004-02-26T23:10:00.000+13:00

Pre- Passion

The Passion of the Christ by now would have already made more than the $25 million Mel Gibson put into the movie. We're going to see it on Sunday night, as it's the first night we can get a baby-sitter. I am so tempted to comment on the film, as others have, but I'll refrain from the temptation until Sunday.

There's hundreds of articles and reviews of this movie online already. The movie is almost entirely in Aramaic with a smattering of Latin, and rated R16 in New Zealand. Christian communities have geared up to use this movie as an evangelical tool. They are even encouraging people to give out tracts outside the theatres.

The media, rather than concentrating on the story of the last week of Jesus, are writing "gore reviews" concentrating on the violence. Before the movie opened yesterday in New Zealand - the first country to screen it - 78 reviews of the movie were already online. this is one of the best ( requires registration).

But what annoys me is that evangelical Christians all of a sudden think that as the Passion is about Jesus, they feel that at last - at long last - they have something cool to invite their secular friends to, so as to "reach them for Christ". Then they can have a passion bible study with them afterwards. This, without even taking a look at the film, what it is about, and what message it is protraying. Churches are booking theatres out all over the place. Talk about milking it!

Just because Christ is the centre of the movie does not mean the movie is a conversion tool. Mel Gibson didn't bankroll the movie for Christian brownie points. He did it to portray the sufferings of Christ. People I've spoken with say it is the most violent film they have ever seen.

The Jewish community had complained that the film is anti-semetic. Weird and ironic, really when you realise that Maia Morgenstern, who plays Mary, is the Jewish daughter of a Holocaust survivor.

Perhaps I`ll post a movie review on Sunday.

2004-02-25T16:17:00.002+13:00

:: Ouch!::

For American readers:
If you're one of the millions of Americans who uses your computers to burn music CD's, listen to MP3's, share video files, etc, you could go to jail if this becomes law.You'd face up to five years in federal prison and a $500,000 fine. Do I use my computer like that? No, of course not. Anyway, I don't live in America.

For all readers: You should read this, from my former Next Wave editor Jason Evans whose site I visit occasionally. Here's a taste: "For goodness sake, I'm just getting sick of the bitterness that surrounds this so called 'movement' (oh, sorry, we changed our minds on the 'movement' thing last month). I'm fairly certain that we were told somewhere that we would be known by our love. That seems to be fairly antithetical of where we are at some times."

2004-02-24T22:42:00.002+13:00

:: Adventures in missing the point::

I've just caught up with Andrew Jones' follow-up post to this post on girls.

In some ways Andrews humble reply did not need to be written. Perhaps the saga is a lesson to those who misinterpreted what Andrew was saying, but took offence and went straight to the keyboard.

As I suggested, here and on his blog, Andrew was comenting on girls in China. He was not commenting on 30-year- old western Anglicans. But women in western countries have experienced discrimination in churches and some comments highlighted strong feelings regarding this.

The Internet is immediate. Once a comment is posted it is online, there is no cooling down period. So don't let your hot irate fingers do the thinking, people. Especially if there is a possiblity that you may have missed the point. And then have to apologise. Like the person who retracted her "your attitude sucks" comments.

Yet, despite past struggles of dignity, women are having a voice - and not before time. I have noticed an increasing presence of women bloggers who are posting good comments regularly.Women are taking leadership positions in both western churches and the mission field. Long may that continue. In New Zealand, Penny Jamieson is a high-ranking Anglican bishop, and may women - and girls - are having a voice and leadership in increasing numbers.

But there is another side to the coin. I've noticed "discrimination" not just in gender, I've also noticed it on the basis of marital status - married people have it over single people - Catholic Church excepted, as clergy are all single (and male) - when it comes to ministry in western churches. How many lead pastors are women - married or single? How many male pastors are single? How many men make the coffee? Perhaps this marital status mistreatment/bias is contributing to the fact that many people who go to the overseas mission field are both female and unmarried.

Maybe different treatment of those based on marital status is a discussion that should be aired. Any takers?

2004-02-23T10:38:00.002+13:00

::my week from hell (cont)::

Well, got our washing machine, but couldnt get the car fixed. The electrican - as opposed to the mechanic - who was going to look at it, had a tree blow down at his house ( he lives up the road) cutting the power,so we couldn't contact him for 3 days as he couldn't use the phone. And when he did eventually contact us he said he couldn't do anything until he saw the car in its broken down state. It's just that the car is mobile, but is tempermental - it could break down at any time. I want it to break down at the right time - like at the electricians house - and keep going when I need it.

UPDATE Looks like the template kerfuffle I had is now over, and the car's now getting fixed - should have a car by the weekend, fingers crossed.

2004-02-21T21:33:00.000+13:00

::Girls, gurus, and sucking::

Two of the so-called charcteristics or values of the emerging church are a lack of hierarchy and an increasing acceptance of women in leadership. There is a move away from paid ministers - and spokespeople, paid or unpaid. Everyone is a minister in a kingdom of priests and gurus are just soooo 1980.

Well, sort of. That’s not entirely true. Some emerging churches are advertising for paid ministers. There are a few recognised gurus who preach emerging values. They are sought after. They are read, listened to and highly thought of and, on the whole, they are taken seriously. They are even described as gurus. They are seen as men (yes men, never women) behind a sort of a movement (or whatever it's called now) called the emerging church. These "gurus" were not self-appointed - they were "appointed" and are acknowledged by others. One has even been referred to as the Godfather.

Another other one is over here. Andrew Jones. He has been hailed as a spokesperson of all that is new and postmodern in the Church, and a "senior fellow of Emergent", as most recent as today. But get this: The very women who are recognising these gurus are now chiding one of them on his views on women. That’s because he referred to women as girls , not once, but twice, and some women took offense. One commented, in what she described as a scathing rebuke, saying, "Your attitude sucks". Not exactly pointing out the truth in love, is it.

But was Andrew really referring to 30-year-old women from the USA, as well as girls from China? The cultural situation is quite different. Maybe he will clarify later. Read the comments on the last link, they are quite entertaining. Some people are really heat-up.

Now the girly comments wouldn't have been so offensive if they had come from me. They never would, anyway. But they were from the Tall Skinny Kiwi, senior fellow of Emergent, who ought to have known better, say the women. I think Andrew may have been misinterpreted. Surely Andrew can say what he likes on his own blog? Others have on theirs.

This all illustrates that there are levels of respect in the emerging church -and in the blogdom of God - the more respect one has the more he /she gets slagged off if something is said that is offensive. Yet true missional people would not say someone's attitude sucks on his own blog. That’s not tolerance. That's knee-jerk, and taking a post on a website - written by someone they have never met - too personally.

Some people just need to grow up, others need to be a little more tolerant, and others could refrain from unnecessarily putting people on unwelcome pedestals. If you are offended, isn't it better to point out the truth in love - well, at least not be rude. Isn`t it better to show some leadership?
........................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::.........................

:: Post - evangelicalism hits the US::

Post-evangelicalism is a move away from Christian orthodoxy, and the very use of the prefix post indicates that it is not really evangelical either, says Albert Mohler. Who's surprised - he's the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

2004-02-20T17:50:00.000+13:00

::Our week from hell::

I guess most of the following happens to most people at some stage or other, but not usually all in the one week….but this was our week from hell, and the week is not over yet.

Saturday: ( or was it Sunday, it's so long ago now) : - while waterblasting the garage, the power went out when the extension cord short- circuited and blew a fuse. Power out until fuse replaced

Monday - fence blew down and smashed in the stormy weather -the worst summer storm in New Zealand for 20 years. In the evening the car broke down - my wife had to get it towed back to our local garage, and hitch a ride home with her dad.

Tuesday - woke up crook, not much sleep, had a small fire in the kitchen when the stove element started to melt the frypan and smoked out the kitchen- flames poured out the element. Had a crying son to deal with as he couldn’t go to creche as we couldn’t take him on the car. And as it was pelting with rain and was blowing a howling gale there was no point walking down. Got the car back from the garage as our mechanic said he couldn't find anything wrong with it. But he had other things on his mind - a giant tree smashed into his house in the previous night's storm, narrowly missing his sleeping daughter. There was a picture of the mess in the morning paper, with a gaping hole in his house. His daughter was about a foot away from being killed.

Wednesday - washing machine broke down. Flooded the washroom. Took a while to clean up the mess. However it could have been worse - had we not been home at the time the whole house could have been flooded out as the taps would not turn off.

Thursday - smashed a wing mirror on the car. It was, in many respects, a good day. As per my normal Thursday evening, went to the pub - during another thunderstorm - and had a great time catching up with friends. It's my weekly gig.

Friday - had to buy a new washing machine as our current washing machine couldn't be fixed. We still had to pay the $65 call-out charge to be told - in five minutes - we had to replace the washing machine. Work out the hourly rate for that!

Car broke down again. Can't get it fixed until next week. Couldn't use the car so I thought I`d cut the grass. Nothing could happen to the mower, surely. Wrong. Had to spend half an hour fixing the mower - including taking off the blade.

Saturday -tomorrow. Not sure what will happen tomorrow, but we haven't got a reliable car we can use, and our washing machine doesn't arrive until Sunday morning.

Oh well, at least we've still got an Internet connection, a roof over our head and some coffee in the fridge, so I suppose I`ll get up in the morning…. Hope we can borrow a car to get to a party we are supposed to be going to Sunday evening to farewell a friend ( Liz) who is going to the States. Looking forward to it.

UPDATE: Have just been rung to say the party has been cancelled - Liz has changed her mind. She's not going to the States after all. So no need for a party, she thinks. Why not just have it anyway? I mean, I've gone to all the trouble trying to organise a car...

So, how's your week been, then?

2004-02-19T17:19:00.000+13:00

::A couple of good links::

A friend emailed me this article from the New York Times Hip New Churches play to a different drummer" Have a read, it's OK.

Here's an interesting interview with Brian McLaren, even if it is a month old. Brian McLaren is the founding pastor of Cedar Ridge Community Church and the author of a few books. Thanks DJ Chuang.

Also, Haloscan reaches 100,000 members and has introduced trackback. So I've added this nifty and jiffy trackback feature to this site. YAY! Other folks on Blogger may want to pay them a visit and, along with the rest of you bloggers, track me back....

2004-02-18T23:10:00.003+13:00

:::Living in a Consumer culture:::

Found this on Scott's blog

Ways to be Christian in a consumer culture:
 Live simply
 Give without expecting return
 View others as intrinsically significant; view them as important for who they are, not for what they can do or for what they have
 Slow down
 Critique bigger-better-faster-more
 Be skeptical of marketing
 Be captured by mystery and wonder
 Think long-term
 Find fulfillment in relationships and service
 Create space for silence, stillness, and rest

Ironically, I saw Scott's post just after I saw this marketing site on giving a your church a "brand". - or an " image or feeling that their target community can connect with, recognizing that “this is not the average church”."

Trouble is, it takes forever in a day to even look at the sample websites they create due to the download time. Is that good marketing?

So, while I was waiting, I read this, "When your signage matches your bulletins, brochures, business cards and website you have more than some designed pieces - you have a brand, a Powerful Image Force! When they give their lives to Christ, they will feel the true sense of belonging that your branding efforts only began to foster".

Yeah Right!

Someone create a Tui billboard! Someone pass me a bucket! This is exactly the type of marketing I'm skeptical of.

2004-02-18T13:43:00.001+13:00

:::Tutu ticks off Bush and Blair over "immoral war":::

Former archbishop of Cape Town and Nobel peace prize winner Desmond Tutu has given a lecture and said that "immoral" war in Iraq has left the world a much more unsafe place, ridiculed "dangerously flawed intelligence" and has urged US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to admit they had made a mistake.

Tutu said, "the belligerent militarist policies that have produced a novel and dangerous principle that of pre-emption on the basis of intelligence reports that in one particular instance has been shown can be dangerously flawed, and yet were the basis for the United States going to war dragging a Britain that declared that intelligence reports showed Iraq to have the capacity to launch its Weapons of Mass Destruction in a matter of minutes."

"An immoral war was thus waged and the world is a great deal less safe place than before. There are many more who resent the powerful who can throw their weight about so callously and with so much impunity."

"President Bush and Prime Minister Blair would recover considerable credibility and respect if they were able to say "Yes, we made a mistake".

The entire speech is here , and stories on it are here and also here.

2004-02-17T23:51:00.000+13:00

::: Newsweek asks "Who Killed Jesus?":::

Mel Gibson's powerful but troubling new movie, 'The Passion of the Christ,' is reviving one of the most explosive questions ever. What history tells us about Jesus' last hours, the world in which he lived, anti-Semitism, Scripture and the nature of faith itself. Newsweek asks Who killed Jesus?"

The article answers the question half -way down page one, noting, "As a matter of history, the Roman Empire did; as a matter of theology, the sins of the world drove Jesus to the cross, and the Catholic Church holds that Christians themselves bear 'the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus.' Yet for nearly 2,000 years, some Christians have persecuted the Jewish people on the ground that they were responsible for the death of the first-century prophet who has come to be seen as the Christ."

It's worth a read.

2004-02-16T14:19:00.003+13:00

::: The writer of the oldest Christian weblog writes…and bloggers hit back :::

Christianity Today.com commented on weblogs a while back. Here's what it said.

"Weblogs are a kind of pizza. Okay, they're not. Creators of Weblogs (bloggers) inevitably rip apart, sentence by sentence, any print media article about what weblogs are to prove how "old media don't get it." So I might as well make them happy by starting with something they can all universally reject.

CT writes that Assemblies of God pastor Tim Bednar " gushes that Christian bloggers are amateur preachers who, "as a network, are smarter, more responsive, and better educated than the traditional preacher. Sounds like Bednar needs a fact checker of his own."

Apparently, so did CT. Tim is not an AOG Pastor. Hasn’t been for three years. CT had to do a correction.

The full article is here, and here's the follow-up called "Revenge of the bloggers" where the online webzine recommends a few Christian bloggers - some of whom have written articles for Christianity Today. Well, I've written about six stories for Christianity Today.

CT is a good magazine - I've linked it, and read it. It says its weblong is the oldest Christian-oriented one. I`d like to read a Ted Olsen article on a few emerging church bloggers, starting with, say, Andrew Jones. After, all Andrew has written for CT a bit….

2004-02-15T23:35:00.001+13:00

:::communion, common unity, or community?:::

Community grows in the context of mission and spiritual formation. Many churches and sports clubs promote themselves as communities. In the case of churches, not too many promote themselves as missional communities. Well, actually some do, but many come across as spiritualised social clubs.

Some people attend churches to connect with others in a meaningful and fulfilling way - but they still don't find what they are looking for. These newbies are often "busy" looking at everybody being busy talking with everybody else after the services, and even if a new person wanted to make the first move, it's often difficult getting a word in. Has it happened to you?

Some leaders are up front about their concern and their "looking out for new people". Having a relationship with Jesus does not seem to give a head start on relational connection in churches, even if that relationship is usually the common unity that draws people together. But what about those who have been around 10 years or so and are known by everybody but not talked to by many. These people get swallowed up by the purpose-driven mega-crowds, and may need "looking out for "as well, before they conclude that the "common unity" is not so common after all before they head out the back door for a relational community that will connect with them.

They are regarded as being part of the culture, "in communion", but don’t feel like they are "in community". And who will notice if they are gone if they are seen as just a face in the crowds - being in communion, but not in community?

Well, some people are bound to feel detached and then drop out if the Sunday morning service is the basis for Christian community formation. Let's approach community formation a different way - like throw parties, go to other peoples parties or have a meal with them. It may take some effort and a bit more time than an hour of your Sunday.

Are emergent - type gatherings more likely to encourage community formation? Perhaps they are, they tend to be smaller, informal, participatory, and therefore more relational. Emergent gatherings don’t base community formation on a Sunday morning gathering.

Emergent gatherings are seen as missional, modern churches are often not - their mission work is usually seen as a department of the church often focussed on missionaries in other countries that need financial support to do their thing.

As emergent-type gatherings (and I don’t just mean to postmoderns here) aim to treat mission in surrounding subcultures just the same as most churches view overseas missionaries, they are therefore more incarnational as they tend to go to the people rather than inviting them over to their place of worship. I call it deeper community - leading to a deeper ecclesiology.

OK, a few questions. How do emerging -type gatherings embrace people who do not necessarily fit into "emerging culture?" Is there in fact an emerging missional culture developing - or is it a subculture? Is the basis for a "common union" any different from mainline churches? What's your experience?

Go in peace, to love and to serve.

2004-02-14T22:58:00.001+13:00

Being missional in a "post-cool" community

This "emerging" thing is bugging me. Firstly, it seems that some people who identify with the term tend to think that their way of doing church relates purely to people who have a postmodern worldview- well, at least that’s who their target audience appears to be.

But I'm starting to get the feeling that people who have a modern perspective - even middle aged people - equally appreciate these values. So surely this thing we call the emerging church relates to a culture that is post seeker sensitive, but also reaches beyond postmodernity, just like evangelism methods have progressed past a quick prayer to get into heaven.

Secondly, some emergent bloggers give me the impression that they think the emerging church is "cool", and it is radical to be engaging with postmodern people. Cool for Christ, if you will. Some are even leaders - and holding office - in modern churches. It's like the Rebirth of Cool all over again. I actually think emerging values are post-cool, rather than postmodern. Those seeking to be emerging have the following values: They try to be authentic, relational, missional, reject hierarchy, make use of the Internet, and journey with those who they are serving - y'know, all the "right stuff". Hey, some may even include women (as opposed to girls). Yet some modern churches also share these values and are missional communities.

Serving within a missional community is not so much about reaching out to postmodern people, as this reaches beyond postmodernism. It is about following Jesus in a missional authentic way. If that relates to postmoderns, cool, if it relates to those who are not postmoderns as well, then that’s even better. Missional communities ( as I like to call them) can do both.

Do we really need to have a label like "emerging church" that signifies that the target audience is postmoderns - just like the target audience of the seeker churches are seekers? If so, then anyone outside the target audience is less likely to feel accepted and feel like they belong. If not, then why are so many people truing to define a label that is not needed?

I'm sure I could belong in a church with "emerging" values. So could my friends. Perhaps my pastor could too. That’s because the values of such churches mean that anybody who wanted to can be included and feel like they belong.

Although those in emerging church desire to embrace tradition, think outside the modern square, and "do theology" together in relational community, they need to turn down the coolness and turn up the missional heat. As Jen Lemen wrote earlier this week.

"Maybe in our rush to be all things cool and new, we are missing some very old ways to uncover Christ in our midst, and I include myself here. Maybe in our desire to be on the cutting edge, we are missing some cutting edge ways to see the truth of god's presence emerge in the most ordinary people we know. "

Let's not race around trying to do cool stuff. Instead, lets put the G back into Grace and continue to serve out a missional ecclesiology.

2004-02-13T10:22:00.000+13:00

:: Half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day::

The chances are if you are reading this you are a white, middle class, English- speaking, western male who owns a computer, you have an Internet connection and a tertiary degree. You probably also blog. You want to develop community and mission among the surrounding culture and most of your closest friends are like you - Christians.

If you don’t fit into all the above categories, it's probably because you are a woman or you’ve stumbled across this blog by accident.

But it is a multicultural, multi faith world out there and not everybody is as privileged as you. There is a higher ratio of people who are black, lower class, uneducated African, female and poor. Africa is a country where half have AIDS, a quarter are orphaned, and they live in countries that borrow more to pay for debt than they spend on health, education and poverty reduction combined. And the church there is growing fast.

If we are all part of a global culture, what part does the "emerging church" play in these societies? Are we so caught up in out own little white middle class world, preaching the message that engaging with a post modern culture is the way to go, when the church in places such as South America is growing faster than any emerging community would realistically dream of. And by growth I mean in numbers and in spiritual formation.

Are we missing something here? Jesus lived among the poor and it was said "can any good come out of Jerusalem?"

Can any good come out of Africa? Of course.

Thanks to french blogger Jonathan Finley for making me think again.

2004-02-11T00:20:00.000+13:00

::: being missional communities:::

OK, I'm not sure if I like the term 'emerging church' today. It's a bit like the term postmodern - both words are reactionary - based on something other than what they are. Today I'm going to refer to missional communities. Note that the term is plural. Note it is not restricted to emerging church leaders. Tomorrow I may have another name. Like missional ecclesiological communities.

There is a lot of talk about being "missional communities", with several views on what it actually is. Being "missional" simply means to be outward and others-focused with the goal of expressing and sharing the love of Jesus. The term is plural, ancient future, and is non-reactionary (unlike emerging church - emerging from what?)

There has been criticism that many churches are not missional, but any mission they do is comparmentalised to a division of their church focusing primarily on ex-pat missionaries. Nothing wrong with that, but what about mission to the surrounding culture. Mission is an "add-on" for most churches. Get this: One church I know of would not permit anything about their mission work to be placed on their church's web site, perhaps because they wanted the site to be about what goes on within the four walls of the building they meet in.

These days, church leaders should be seen as "pastoral missionaries" - well, that’s my definition. Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch in their book The Shaping Of Things To Come consider a missional leader as one that takes mission seriously and sees it as a driving energy behind all that the community does. But that doesn't mean that mission is elevated above pastoral work and spiritual formation.

A missional community is a sent community with one of its defining values being the development of church life and practice that is contextualised to the culture to which it believes it is sent.

Another perspective I like: Jason Zahariades says a missional community is about becoming by grace what Christ is by nature. Read the whole post, Jason says it better than I ever could. My definition of grace (actually a borrowed definition) is "the empowering presence of God to be what God as called us to be and to do what God has called us to do". Nice. Jesus does it naturally. It’s a much better phrase than the naff "Gods Riches At Christ's Expense".

Some consider that there is a difference between churches and missional communities - ie: churches are, well, churches, and missional communities are associated "pre-church groups". But not church. Yet if a small group can be a missional community, why can't a church also be? A community does not have to have a smattering of non-Christians to be missional. It's just that church culture, on the whole, is not missional so anything that proclaims to be missional - especially a small group that is not associated to a "church" - is seen as a fringe or radical group - and is perhaps the sort of group Jesus would belong to. It would be a group that is incarnational, have fewer programmes, and more relationships. That's because missional communities are more about what they are than what they do.

And of course what a community does reflects what it is. A missional community is a mission based on the teachings of Jesus. It's all good. It's the way it should be. In other words, our ecclesiology should emerge from our missiology, which should derive from our Christology.

More later.

2004-02-10T10:04:00.003+13:00

:::New Zealand music rocks - at the click of a mouse!:::

If you thought New Zealand films such as Whale Rider and The Lord Of The Rings were hot, you should check out some kiwi music! I've put a selection up on the sidebar of this site. One of the things I`d like to do occasionally is provide you, dear readers, with some kultcha. So it's music today. Get listening, it's all good, and it's brought to you by New Zealand online.

You can start with Salmonella Dub. They have a flash site and a good one it is too. Have a nosey around and have a listen to several tunes. Then you can move on to the guitar bands starting with Fur Patrol. These guys are mates. I've known them for ages and they are a good live band. I actually wrote their first ever newspaper review of a live gig - which the band has not forgotten. Fur Patrol is currently based in Melbourne, Australia. I've linked a couple of videos of songs that you can play in full.

Then you can move onto Goodshirt. Although not a flash site, this link gets you to five songs - click on audio visual - which you can listen to in full (that’s half an album folks - at no cost!). You can even listen to all five tracks off line, should you choose to. Best tracks are "Blowing Dirt" and "Sophie". Great stuff. Then click on Auckland band Elemenop and have a listen to a few clips of their tracks.

Then let me know what you think and go buy some music. All artists bar one have topped the charts here.

Tommorow:Community-schmunity

2004-02-09T01:34:00.000+13:00

:::My new $839 fountain parker pen:::

Well, it's actually Sunday for me despite it being Monday. It's 1.30am and I'm still up. I had an interesting package couriered to me the other day. I opened it and it was a box with a fountain pen - and the pen was worth $839.00 - and that's not including the two bottles of ink I got with it as well. Who would buy a pen for that price? Not me. Happy to be given one, though. Pity I can't sell it for that price - 23ct gold trimmings and all.

I got the pen because I wrote a letter to North and South Magazine, which is a national monthly current eventsy magazine in New Zealand. The letter was judged the letter of the month, and the pen was the prize. But as I'm left-handed I have no use for a fountain pen so I'm going to swap it for perhaps a couple of cheap ball point pens - well, comparitively cheap at around $400 each.

Unless someone wants to buy it off me. I`m open to offers.

I got an email today ( or was it yesterday) from someone I knew a few years ago He contacted me after bumping into my blog - by accident. He used to live in New Zealand, but now lives in Wimbledon with his wife. Perhaps it is not so surprising he has got hold of me through the blog until you realise I've only been blogging a couple of weeks. Word gets around. Small world, innit.

2004-02-07T03:04:00.000+13:00

:::Cross-cultural communcation:::

Brian McLaren/Emergent sent out an email the other day about postmodern churches. They don't exist. Just like snowballs don't exist in hell. McLaren considers such PM gatherings are modern churches dressed up as church coolness trying to speak the language of the surrounding culture. Those doing so are better conversationalists, will inevitably be criticised as heretics, unorthodox or disturbers of the peace.

McLaren writes, "If one wants to do meaningful ministry among Spainards or Arabs, one must speak Spainish or Arabic. But if the Spainards and Arabs move out and the French and Chinese move in, then it’s a big mistake to still speak Spanish and Arabic."

Or to put it another way, if you want to communicate with modern people, you enter into modernity. If you want to communicate with those in a post modern culture, you develop a Christian theology written on post-modernese, rather than Christianese (which is really a sublanguage of modernese).

But what I found interesting in the email was comments attributed to a McLaren friend Ed Chinn.
::::
"We all know that the more traditional churches live in a ghetto of unreality; they speak only to themselves, write books for themselves and make music for themselves. No one else has any clue what they're saying. That’s why serious people have been ignoring them for a couple of decades.

While I appreciate the freshness and youthfulness of "the emergent church" sometimes I think they have simply become better conversationalists. But, very honestly, I've not heard very much in that world that really testifies of anything seen in Heaven. Like most other church worlds, they speak from a distinct "earthview" in a distinct earth-language."
::::
I call that language "emergentese" (well, it's actually more like post-Christianese). It is a developing language. Just don't describe the (predominately) white male post-graduate church leaders who are speaking the language as part of a "movement".

The distinction in our post Christian culture is that the Spaniards and Arabs (moderns) haven't actually moved out, it's just that the French and Chinese (post moderns) have moved in and are slowly taking over. Both groups have to be communicated with. The trick for those who wish to communicate in a post Christian church culture is to be multilingual: To speak - hopefully limited - Christianese (to those in the culture who themselves live and breathe the language) emergentese (to seekers and Christians with a post Christian worldview) and the language of the street, or surrounding culture, with everyone else. Of course there will be overlaps.

Here's the full version of the email.

2004-02-06T00:53:00.000+13:00

Give thanks and praise to the Lord

It's Robert Nesta Marley's birthday today......well it would be if he was as much alive as his music. Many people all over the world will be celebrating Bob Marley's birthday today.

Marley was the king of reggae. He was born on February 6, 1945 at 2:30 am and died of cancer 36 years later, on May 11, 1981. His hits included Could You Be Loved, No Woman No Cry, Buffalo Soldier, and the anthemic Get Up Stand Up. Lesser known tracks include goodies such as Three Little Birds and the classic One Drop. Marley was Jamaica's greatest cultural icon. A month before he died he was awarded Jamaica's Order of Merit, the nations' third highest honor, in recognition of his outstanding contribution to the country's culture.

Down here in New Zealand there will be parties celebrating his birthday, as it is Waitangi Day, (or for the colonial, New Zealand Day). Waitangi Day is a national holiday so most people will have the day off work today. In Wellington, as happens every year, there will be an irie reggae party this afternoon, with much skanking and a bit of ganja, one assumes, going down.

For the rest of you, check out some online Marley music from the best reggae had to offer.

You can listen to some vocals and take a listen to this midi track, to get you into the swing of things.

And to finish off, heres a Marley test: Which of these Bob Marley songs are you?
brought to you by Quizilla

Here's my result:
You are Jammin'. You are in love with your music
and use it to express yourself in all aspects
of your life, from religion to the government.
When you're jammin' mon, ain't nothin' gonna
stop ya from it, and jah want everybody to jam
wit ya!

2004-02-04T23:24:00.000+13:00

Sepll cehkc fro bolggres

Spelling getting you down when you hit the blogs? Uoy cnat sepll nad is't bceomnig a pian in teh bcaksdie? Yuo'd raelyl lvoe to sepll btu wuold lkie sum hlep?

Dowload this software. It has a spell check built into Internet Explorer. Type in your blog entry and click the spell check button and it checks all your spelling.

Yay, it’s a start. Just don’t use the word 'sum' instead of 'some'.

2004-02-02T22:44:00.000+13:00

February Next-Wave magazine is now online

The latest Next Wave e-zine is now online and my latest article is in it.

This zine comes out every month and is a good read. My article is entitled God bloggers, seekers and the emerging church and its one of at least two I am writing on the emerging church. As an added bonus, you even get to see what I looked like a year or so ago.

There's also a couple of reflections on the Mayhem conference held earlier this month - as I say, check it out, the articles are a good read.

2004-02-02T20:21:00.000+13:00

Caffeine addicts may be able to enjoy church

Café church is an approach that originated in New Zealand, according to Anglican bishop Graham Cray. The Guardian has done a story on serving up coffee with religion, noting that Anglican leaders will soon debate a series of initiatives designed to broaden the Church's appeal in a secular, consumer-driven society. Top of the list - outlined in the aforementioned book Mission Shaped Church, - a book endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury - is backing for a series of 'café churches', where people talk about their faith over food and nibbles. It reminds me of a poem I wrote about 10 years ago… I've since hardened up to long blacks.

I'd love a cup of coffee
In a coffee cup
Have to keep it down
Just to keep me up
Cuppiccino coffee
As frothy as can be
Cuppiccino coffee
Yeah, that’s the stuff for me

Make it in a coffee cup
Brew it in a pot
Drink it slowly, drink it quick
But drink it while it's hot.
Hot in the coffee cup
Fresh from the packet
Wake up and smell the coffee
And when you’ve done that- drink it

It's an oral inhalation
The sipping of salvation
Espressaholic cuppiccino
Culture for the nation

I'd much prefer a coffee binge
Than beer, without a doubt
You can't get pissed on this strong drink
But it may string you out
These crowded city coffee bars
Are great for drinking up
Espressaholic cuppiccino
Coffee in a cup

Give me coffee anyday,
Milk, no sugar thanks,
Make it proper caffeine coffee
Packed with pop-eye punch
Serve it up strong
Quick, boy, quick
Gotta have another cup
And get my caffeine fix

It's an aromatic inhalation
The late night lubrication
Have a havana- the coffee you feel
Beware of imitations

Another cup of coffee,
In a coffee cup
Have to drink it down
Just to keep me up
Cuppiccino coffee
As frothy as can be
Cuppiccino coffee
Yeah! That’s the stuff for me.

2004-02-01T14:51:00.000+13:00

Breakdancing for the Pope

Happy LORDS day to you all. Word of the day from Our Daily Blog.
"You will find, apart from Him, that nearly all the trust you place in men is a total loss. Therefore, neither confide in nor depend upon a wind-shaken reed, for "all flesh is grass", and all its glory, like the flower of grass, will fade away".

And, speaking of " flesh is grass", here's a story (and pic and video), of the Pope attending a break dancing session

Trust he doesn’t get too many ideas. The 83-year-old pontiff seemed to approve, waving his hand after each dancer completed a move, then applauding for the entire group. He watched the performance from a raised throne.

"For this creative hard work I bless you from my heart," he said.

2004-01-31T11:04:00.000+13:00
Just doing a bit of site tweaking

I've been adding stuff to this site, today I've added what I'm about to read and what I am listening to. So why don't you click on the music link just coming up ( and also on the sidebar), crank up your speakers, and listen to great New Zealand Band Salmonella Dub in the meantime. Theres a choice of tunes.....or you may want to try out some drum and bass, if, like me, you are that way inclined.
Things will be back to normal shortly

2004-01-30T00:06:00.000+13:00
Is the emerging church a movement?

Alan Creech has posted his views on the emerging church saying" It is an illusory notion that there is some unified ecclesiastical "animal" called "the emerging church" which has some kind of common voice and authority of some sort. That is simply not so".

Some disagree, and say it is a movement. I think the emerging church is a movement - of sorts, but it is not a unified collective with a common voice, despite some people viewing Brian McLaren as the spokesperson for emergents the way some people saw Bill Hybels as the brains behind the seeker service movement and Rick Warren as the head of the purpose driven "movement" - and Martin Luther King as the spokesperson for the civil rights movement. Yet these men - and yes they are MEN, never WOMEN - did not set themselves up as spokespeople - and in fact they probably rejected the tag. We'll I think I read somewhere that Brian McLaren did, despite him being a keynote speaker at the emergent Mayhem gathering earlier this month.

The fact is that each movement wants to look for leaders representing the collective of a common voice. So-called emergent leader who see themselves as part of a collective that doesnt exist are no different. It's the ones ( like Alan, I suspect) that have a true emergent leaders heart. Sure, Alan sees himself as a role model among emergent types ( I'm sure he wrote that somewhere) - as I guess others like him do - but a role model is not a spokesperson, is it?

The Emerging Church doesn't have, want, or need a spokesperson, purely because it is not a movement with a common voice. Some have compared the emerging church movement to the church growth movement. I don't know so much about the church growth movement, but, as a "movement" I see the emerging church as different, to say, the charismatic movement.

It's different because the emerging church is more of a mindset and an outlook, as opposed to a movement or a collective. Its certainly not a unified voice. Well, thats what I think. So there you go.

You've only got to read some of the bickering in the weblogs of so-called "emergent leaders" regarding, for example, the role of women in the church (see an earlier post) to see the differences in so-called emergent types.

Perhaps some take the view as noted by Adam Omelianchuk who commented that some people in the so-called emerging church: 1) think they are really profound, 2) are anti-historical, 3) are marked by a "we don't want to be like our parents" mentality, 4) say systematic theology is out and art is in, 5) think that celtic crosses make you "authentic." 6) think worship is whatever you want it to be 7) the Bible doesn't matter that much, 8) the church has completely failed God in every generation for all times and places, 9) "modernism" is the devil, 10) "community" is all that matters.

If you are reading this post, and consider yourself as an emerging leader, and can say yes to one of the above points - there's only two things to do - change, or quit referring to yourselves as emergent. I think some aspects in the the above list may well relate to some of those who are leaders in emerging churches - to a degree.

I wonder if some ( not all) so-called emergent leaders - many who see themselves as having a post modern outlook, armed with a post graduate degree from seminary, many of whom post messages on each others internet blogs - spend more time posting messages and reading other blogs as compared to time spent reading their bibles and praying?

And a final thought, if I may: Are some "emerging church" gatherings merely smaller,groovier, less structured versions of the kind of modern churches and house groups that are attended by people who leave their Bibles at home?

2004-01-29T12:33:00.000+13:00

Lots of Oscar Nominees for New Zealand Films

After picking up all four Golden Globes it was nominated for, The Return of the King has been nominated for 11 Oscars, including best director and best picture.None of them are for acting, though. It is the only the second time (after the Godfather films) that a trilogy has had nominations for all three films. Also weirdly enough, Sir Ian McLellans nomination as best supporting actor was the only nomination the LOTR trilogy has had for acting.

But what was even more stunning news was that 13-year old Keisha Castle-Hughes beat the likes of Nicole Kidman to be nominated for best actress, the youngest ever nomination for that Oscar - and the first time a New Zealander has been nominated for best actress. She's very excited - well wouldn`t you be?

Also in this mornings paper… Wellington-based costume designer Ngila Dickson has been nominated ford for costume/makeup Oscars in both The Return of the King and the Last Samurai.

Lots of expensive outfits are now to be made for February 29.

Must get to see these movies sometime, everyone else has seen ROTK at least twice. Perhaps this is why director Peter Jackson earns $1932 every, minute - in other words, he gets more money in the time it takes him to do the dishes than the average person makes in a year.

2004-01-29T01:38:00.000+13:00

Mayhem II - Girls light up

There's a bit of a discussion in the kingdom of blog about women leadership. It's Mayhem II. The whole discussion started off after Mayhem, a conference of 260 emerging leaders and bloggers in Ohio earlier this month. The men did all the leading and talking while the women (apparently) made the coffee. The concert had the slogan of "Not Alone".

Once it all sunk in that there weren't too many women leading, or coordinating discussions, and that some women did feel "alone", Lilly Lewin had a rant. Chris Marshall reposted the rant on his site here on Jan 19 and got 34 comments... Amber Bishop posted this the same day.

Then it all happened. Mahem II. Jonny Baker has done lots of posts on this, as has Maggi Dawn. Jordan Cooper posted this post from Jenny Baker.Jenny suggested that men and women do not know how to be good mates with each other. Jenny suggested that some fear inappropriate relationships.

Sure, that can happen. A 2001 study by the Fuller Institute of Church Growth found that 37% of pastors were involved in inappropriate sexual relationships.

Back to Jordon. He said he is so appalled by the narrow-mindedness of some replies regarding women that he feels like giving up blogging. But he blogged today. Read the replies, and other comments made today here.

Jen lemen rants here, calling for women to have a louder voice and to be released as more than a whisper in the emerging church. She also rants here in response to comments from Jenny Baker and Jordan .

Adam Cleaveland busted out of the court of women while Darren from the Living Room asks if the Emerging Church was just a male thing.

Molly and Bill Bean have also done posts, as has Tammy Jo Reiser, who notes that this discussion happened way before the Mayhem conference. Perhaps the Mayhem conference aftermath brought these issues to light.
The Red Pill also blogs here on the issue, Blue Tapp Scheffer comments here, and Becky Barkaway joins in here, - and Stephen Garner posts a few links from Reality Magazine.

So what started off as one rant turned into this debate - and it hasn’t finished yet. But then again, this is not just about a debate, it's about a discussion that if it is worth having, must result in some action - and I don`t mean sisterhood gatherings.

But if this discussion is merely hot air and keyboard tapping, everything will remain same-old same-old.

2004-01-28T10:05:00.000+13:00

A Churchless Faith

Alan Jamieson is author of a book about why people leave church. It's called A Churchless Faith. Today he's speaking at a conference run by emergent UK.

Andrew Jones is there. He's also a Kiwi, tall and skinny like Alan. Alan is the senior minister at Wellington Central Baptist Church and continues to research and write in the area of emerging forms of church in post-modern culture. Alan interviewed 108 church leavers to find out why they left church. Most were employed, tertiary qualified, were previously in leadership positions and involved in the church for more than 10 years. So, what made these people open the back door? Read all about Alan's research here. This is how Alan sees the church:

"The church is the pilgrim community of believers, not of those who already see and know. The church must ever and again wander through the desert, through the darkness of sin and error. For the church can also err and for this reason must always be prepared to orientate itself anew, to renew itself. It must always be prepared to seek out a new path, a way that might be just as difficult to find as a desert track, or a path through darkness"

This "pilgrim community" - as told by M Scott Peck, author of "A Different Drum", and repeated on Alan's notes - is a "safe place precisely because no one is attempting to heal or convert you, to fix you, to change you. Instead, the members accept you as you are. You are free to be you and being so free, you are free to discard masks, disguises; free to seek your own psychological and spiritual health, free to become your whole and holy self."

Nice.

2004-01-27T23:25:00.000+13:00

Nudist resort for Christians

Here you go, it's summertime in New Zealand and the first Christianity-themed nudist colony created primarily for Christians in the United States is due to open in Florida in April. Bill Martin, co-founder of Natura, which will be the first in the stages when it opens said, "In Isaiah 20.2, God tells Isaiah to go into the wilderness naked for three years. So there's historical basis for a Christian nudist lifestyle," continued Martin, who is a Quaker.
Well, that explains that, then. Apparently the resort area will have 500 homes, a hotel, a water-slide park, and a non-denominational Christian church. Not exactly a wilderness. Although nudity will be mandatory, attending church services will be clothing-optional for residents.
You can find the articles on the new sanctified nudist resort - where they probably do nude baptisms - here, with pic and here

2004-01-26T21:30:00.002+13:00

Are Sunday services a thing of the past?
mission shaped church church planting and fresh expressions of church in a changing context

A recently published report from the Church of England's Right Reverend Graham Cray has suggested that going to church on Sunday could be a thing of the past because people would rather go shopping and play sport (and go to cafes and drink coffee yay!) The report, Mission-shaped church, ( of which you can get a 29 page version here) recommended that the church should stop trying to bring people to Sunday services and instead attempt to rebuild itself by setting up new, less formal churches that meet at different times. it's published by church house publishing. and will be available next month. Check out this article on the report written in a place where attendance - especially by young people - is actually increasing.

2004-01-26T18:32:00.000+13:00

Here goes....

Well here goes....
A Baptist pastor deserves a bit of thanks for encouraging this blog to be a part of the kiwi blogdom of God - and also an Anglican priest deserves a plug for giving me a virtual kick up the pants (when she asked when I was going to do a blog). So here it is. Thanks to Steve for being the "comments - man". We`ll see how it all goes….

To kick things off, here's a great interview with
Philip Yancey I saw a while back. It's about sex, lies and…. well, have a read. Good stuff.