Starbucks and Christians

First, a photo that I took in Seattle of the first ever Starbucks coffee shop. We didn’t go in – there’s better coffee at Top Pot and a host of independent places.

But here’s something I came across on the BBC news website.

A group of Christians want Starbucks to ditch their new logo on the left) because it looks too slutty. They think the two-tailed mermaid has is in a compromising position. Did I mention its a mermaid?

This is the sort of thing why Christians aren’t taken seriously – over-obsessing with pointless bugbears that bear no relevance to anything and that look like they’re spoiling other peoples fun, rather than truly engaging with culture in order to help people know God.

How does protesting about a coffee shop logo share the love of Jesus?

The poor in the gospel of Luke (viii) – summing up

Ending my series on the subject of the poor in Luke’s gospel. Other posts in the series can be found here: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven.

We’ve got up to chapter 19. The only other references to the poor between chapter 19 and the end are these two. The first is from the calling of Zacchaeus the tax collector:

But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount. (Luke 19:8 )

And the second is the example of giving from the poor widow:

As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. “I tell you the truth,” he said, “this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on. (Luke 21:1-4)

Zacchaeus was not poor, but in a way he was an outcast. A Jew working for the Roman government to collect taxes would now have gone down well. And it seems that he cheated in what he took. When confronted with Jesus, he immediately came down and followed, honoured that Jesus would want to be with a ‘sinner’ like him. His immediate reaction is to recognise his sin at cheating people and pay them back four times, and gice half of what he has left to the poor.

The widow was giving money to the temple treasury which would go to pay the priests and for upkeep of the temple. She put in financially not a lot, but it was a great amount of what she had, Jesus commends her for it.

These, and the example of the rich young ruler from 18:18-30 may not tell us much about the poor per se but serve and example to all of us in giving. Often we have the idea that a Christian is to tithe 10% of their income to the church and charity. Here we see the rich young ruler being asked to give away all of his possessions (100%), Zacchaeus volunteered to give away half, plus more to those he cheated, and the widow gave away ‘all she had to live on’. These all add up to far more than 10%.

Rather than coming to any hard and fast rule that Christians should stick to, as that would be legalism, I think the principle is that we give out of generosity, like Zacchaeus and the widow, not out of duty. Giving should perhaps be the first thing on our agenda. Too often its gets relegated to what we have left over.

Summing up what Luke said about the poor:

• Jesus came for them as well as all people, but he message is good news for the poor in particular who were being overlooked by society. Is that still the case?
• They are often more willing to receive from Jesus, trust him, and follow as they recognise that they can’t do everything on their own. Others feel they have too much to lose, so they lose out on the mose precious thing. The lesson here is humility.
• There is nothing inherently wrong with riches and wealth, but they cannot save and often distract from God
• There is an expectation that those who have money and wealth will care and provide for those who don’t. Generosity and care seems to be a value of the Kingdom of God.
• Justice and mercy are also marks of the kingdom seen in Luke. In the parables that Jesus told, the poor were able to gain justice and a fair hearing that they are often denied in the world. If Christians are living out ‘kingdom values’ and giving a foretaste of the kingdom to come (already, but not yet), then a social conscience is a necessary part of that. Without it, Christians cannot be said to be living the values of the kingdom to which they claim they belong.

Mission Shaped Questions (iii)

I’m currently reading through the book Mission Shaped Questions, edited by Stephen Croft.

In chapter 6, Graham Tomlin opens by asking the question, should the church transform culture. The usual quick answer is yes. Behind this answer lies work done by Richard Neibuhr – the idea that fiath should engage with a particular culture to transform and change it. However, one can’t help but say that and have in the back of your mind all the times when the church has had power over culture and has either wasted it or done terrible things.

In the opposite corner is a church that does not try to transform culture, but simply builds its own (based on work by Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder). My first reaction to this was that it was stupid. Hasn’t the church been doing that for too long and in the process become irrelevant? That is not what they meant.

Tomlin claims that the main aim of the culture of the church is to bear witness to the kingdom of Christ in the world:

“Church is intended to be a place where we can catch an echo, a glimpse of the kingdom of God, in which God really gets his way. Church, of course, is not the same as the kingdom, but it is to point to it, to embody it, to identify it, and the demonstrate it for anyone to see” (p69)

Out of church may (should?) come Christians who are able to influence culture positively (such as the Clapham sect who helped to end the slave trade), but the mission of the church is not that. It is to demonstrate and live out the kingdom.

So, when thinking of fresh expressions of church or new congregation plants that seek to engage with particular aspects of our fragmented culture, the task for a church is to find the values and practices that most effectively express the culture of the kingdom to the society we’re in. This calls us to be relevant as well as faithful; to express the culture of the church in accessible and appropriate ways.

Some of the values that Tomlin pulls out (from Eph 4:24-32) as important to the culture of the church are the ones that develop real relationship and community, such as truthfulness, generosity, compassion etc. The values to be avoided are those that promote ‘personal empires and conflict’. For example in a culture where consumerism is rife, a culture of generosity might be one of the virtues that a new church strives for. Where there is a lot of aggression and violence, church should promote and practice love for enemies, peacefulness etc.

Tomlin also promotes the use of disciplines to help these virtues and aspirations become a regular reality rather than an occasional good moment. He does give examples but stresses that the disciplines should be contextualised to the target culture, so to stand out and have a good effect.

This was an interesting chapter. In the course of setting up a fresh expressions it is all too easy to go in gung-ho for the target culture and forget some important parts of Christian living. The Church is called to have a mission to express a kingdom that is contrary in many ways to how this world works. A church which doesn’t do this (like MeChurch) can simply become no different to the surrounding culture. This will neither be attractive nor useful. Equally, however, a church must be serious about engaging with the world so to live out its ‘kingdom’ culture in a way that is understood and accessible to the people they are trying to reach.

Mission Shaped Questions (ii)

I’m currently reading through the book Mission Shaped Questions, edited by Stephen Croft.

In the second chapter Martyn Atkins asks the question, what is church? What is its essence? What attributes are important?

He begins:

“The church has no essence ‘in itself’ as it were. Rather, its essence necessarily derives from the Christian Godhead, and therefore the nature and life of the Church is created and configured by the life and character of the Christian Godhead. To use theological shorthand, theology – read mainly through the lens of missiology – produced ecclesiology, rather than vice versa.”

This observation of Atkins is freeing for the church when coming to think about what is important in church congregations and fresh expressions. If the essence of the Church is tied to who God is, then the purpose and work of the church must be tied to those things God sees as important. The church is involved in the mission of God (missio Dei). The fact that the Church is derived from God means it must be contextual – fitting into the culture it is set in. Atkins doesn’t spell out how to do this, instead he delves in more depth into who God is and what His mission is. And it seems that Jesus talked a lot about the kingdom. A right understanding of the nature and consequences of the kingdom can help us understand what church should be about. It enlarges the vision beyond just evangelism and conversion.

“Sharing with God in bringing in the kingdom involves every facet of human life, the whole of life, in all creation.”

Near the end of his chapter Atkins looks very briefly at some of the defining practices that have been common to most churches throughout history and fresh expressions in particular. He sees sharing bread and wine to be important in remembrance of Christ, whether informally or formally. He states that most Christian groups baptise people upon initiation – sometimes in fonts, sometimes in rivers, seas, or swimming pools. Nearly all churches take hospitality and community seriously (the ones that don’t tend to diminish).

It is not a surprise that the aspects that Atkins has picked out can be seen in abundance in the New Testament.

one final quote:

“The challenge of fresh expressions in a mised economy for most of us lies not so much in a refusal to inhabit these practices per se, but in accurately distinguishing between these practices and the [existing] structures and rules in which they take place, especially when [these rules] seem to hamper rather than enable participation in the missio Dei”

Mission shaped questions (i)

I’ve just started reading Mission Shaped Questions edited by Steven Croft, the follow up to the report ‘Mission-shaped church’ brought out by the Anglican church a few years ago in the UK. It examines the beginnings of the Fresh Expressions movement which seeks to create fresh ways being/doing church which are culturally relevant. I thought I’d blog my way through it.

In the first chapter, the editor Steve Croft, who also heads up the Fresh Expressions movement gives an overview of the aims of the movement and the types of church that it was intended to create.

It is based on the premise that the church must become a ‘mixed-economy church’ because we are living in a mixed economy culture. That is – society is becoming fragmented and there are now a lot of different forced at work. In some places community is still based around a geographical location, such as in some villages or some areas of cities that have a firm identity. But increasingly, community is networked. That is, it is based around an activity, interests, age, ways of thought, and others.

“British society is becoming itself more diverse. This means it is no longer enough to imagine that the Christian Church can change in one particular direction (such as introducing guitars or informality into its worship) and so move with the times. That may appeal to some, but it will alienate others. Different parts of our culture are actually moving in different directions”

So diverse forms of mission and worship need to be developed that are in tune with the surrounding (sub?)culture. The church is now aware that one weekly service cannot appeal to everyone – fresh ways of proclaiming and living out the message need to be found for different groups.

But at the same time, the fresh expression of church needs to be based on something. In the Anglican Declaration of Assent, which all newly ordained ministers have to proclaim, it says:

“The church of England…professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation”

The basis of a fresh expressions must be the gospel, set out in the Bible and creeds. This is foundational, but how you then express this is up for debate. These gospel foundations can then be contextualised (not changed, but proclaimed in a relevant way) for the culture.

Steve Croft goes onto say that the Fresh Expressions network is dedicated to creating churches. It is not about evangelism as a stepping stone into an existing Sunday congregation, but to create new forms of church which are accessible to those who currently are not a part of any church. This may take many forms, such as reclassifying a midweek lunch club for the elderly by adding a community emphasis and some form of worship. Or it could be something much more innovative, such as the TubeStation, a church to meet the needs of the surfing community in Polzeath, North Cornwall. Because of this, Croft emphasises that service and discipleship must be founding marks of any fresh expression.

I visited the TubeStation a couple of days ago, albeit on a day they were closed to make adjustments to the interior. It is set in an old Methodist church which was practically dead. They gave the building to Christian Surfers UK who have turned it into a very welcoming skate cafe. Where the pulpit and communion table used to be there is now a skate ramp. The rest of the room is fitted out as an interactive cafe, serving good drinks and some food, with free Wi-fi, comfy chairs, and video games. This helps to build community. Out of this they can offer some well-tailored worship, informal chats and discussions. Looks great and it is attracting people who might never go into a more formal service, but still have a desire for God.

Pastors burn out.

There’s an excellent post over on Jesus Creed on pastors needing to ensure they have spiritual and physical support in their work – otherwise they’ll burn out.

Quote from it from Father Rob:

If we are going to minister to others, we better have people ministering to us as well. Personally, I’ve found I need a Spiritual Director (to help keep me growing in my walk with Christ), a Mentor or Coach (to help keep me growing in my vocation), a counselor or therapist (to help keep me healthy in my mental life, as I’ve already mentioned), and at least one friend with whom I can be completely open about everything—and I do mean everything (to help keep me honest.)

‘Fellowship’ or ‘relationship’ with God

For some time I’ve had concerns about the evangelical use of the phrases ‘personal relationship’ or ‘fellowship’ with Jesus or God. Not that I disagree that this is a good thing to aspire to, it’s just – What does it mean? Day to day – how do I do it? It is a phrase trotted out to describe something a intangible and as a consequence is quite hard to define.

Often Christians speak of God using the same terminology that they would of a personal friend or neighbour. But God is clearly not like our neighbour. In many ways He is harder to see, and in many ways He is more present. Can we use the word ‘relationship’ in the same manner with God as we can with other people? What sort of activity can be classed as knowing God?

I guess, in many ways the way to continue in our relationship with God is to do all the things that you would with a good human relationship: talk together, spend time listening, make time for, try to understand, aim to please each other, forgive, love etc. This helps – but it is the wrong way round. Good human relationships should echo the relationship that God has with us. He is our model for relationships, not us, his.

Father Stephen has just posted an excellent article on the subject. He focusses on the words fellowship and communion, rather than relationship, as these are two ways of translating the greek word koinonia. His point is clear. I’d recommend reading the whole article, but here is just a taste.

The entire concept of Church as a fellowship of believers, meaning a free association of like-minded Christians, is simply not a Scriptural notion, unless your Bible happens to be one of the many that has bowdlerized the clear Orthodox meaning of Scripture. We are saved by union with Christ, by participation in His life. We are Baptized into his death and raised in His resurrection. We eat His Body and drink His Blood. We have participation in the life of one another such that we cannot say to one another, “I have no need of you.” Such examples can be multiplied from every page of the New Testament and not one of them will support the weak image of an associational fellowship. This sad translation of a powerful word has helped support a notion of the individual believer with a relationship with Christ (what sort of a relationship is fellowship?) and his Bible. This is not the language or imagery of Scripture nor the doctrine of the Church.

Is fellowship with God possible? I’m not certain how to answer the question. I’d rather have communion.

Into the Wild – movie review

Into the Wild is a movie based on the true story of Christopher McCandless. After he graduated from university in Atlanta, he disappeared, seemingly without trace. He drove out west in search of adventure, in effect to find himself. On the course of his journey, he lost his car in a flash flood, and ended up walking, canoeing and camping to continue his journey. In his desire to find meaning, he eradicated his identity, burning his driving license and social security card, and reinvented himself as “Alexander Supertramp”. He was convinced that the way to find true meaning and happiness was to go into the wild, so he headed for Alaska, woefully unprepared. I should warn you that spoilers follow….

There has been lots written about Christopher McCandless and the mistakes he made. I’m not going to repeat that here, but I will make two points:

Chris McCandless was portrayed in the film as determined to escape the life of western materialism that he was born into. He considered it to be a lie. Why? Well, he discovered truths about his parents that undermined his confidence in them – his father had another family that had been kept secret. He remembered the time when his parents sat he and his sister down around the dinner table and informed them they were going to get a divorce, and they should pick which parent they wanted to live with. The divorce never happened, but the marriage didn’t get any happier. He witnessed blazing arguments and even violence between his mother and father. All the time, the family kept up the appearance of a well-kept, happy, loving family, which had fun together, spent time together and went to church together – living the American dream. It is this that led Chris McCandless into leaving, going into the wild to find himself. I guess the message that the film gave to me was that a lack of integrity between inner life and family and outward appearance can be very damaging indeed. It is indeed, living a lie.

Secondly, the film portrayed Chris as leaving to find himself and find happiness. He was convinced the only way of doing this was to go into the wild on his own, survive by himself, and commune with nature. On his way out there he met many interesting people, from farm labourers in South Dakota, to Hippies in Slab City, to a nice old man in Northern California. From each person he learns, and enjoys their company. But he was still convinced that Alaska was the place to go. He headed out beyond Fairbanks and finds an abandoned bus in the middle of nowhere which had previously been used as a hunting shelter. He makes this his home and starts to hunt and scavenge. At one point it seems that he has learned his lesson and found himself, so he starts to make his way home, only to find that a river that he crossed on his way out had swelled and was impassible. He reluctantly returns to the bus. This time he is overcome by desperation and loneliness. At the end of the film, when Chris is dying from starvation – there had been a lack of animals he could hunt for food – he writes in his journal: “HAPPINESS ONLY REAL WHEN SHARED” – and he remembers all the interesting relationships he struck up on his journey out West. I think this is a good point – happiness comes from relationships, with each other and with God, not through achieving tasks or ‘finding oneself’. It’s a shame that Chris had to be on the point of death to realise this.

The movie itself is beautifully shot – not difficult considering the beautiful surroundings of the countryside of Alaska and the West Coast. The Acting from Emile Hirsch and others is excellent. Well worth watching.

A set of photos from the bus which Chris made his home can be found here.

Young people’s challenge to the church

In her new book, Visualising Hope, Dr Sarah Dunlop explored the values and spirituality of students in Central and Eastern European countries. She wants to know what makes them tick, what their hopes are, and if the church is meeting them. In a very creative way, by getting students to respond to and take photographs of things that are significant to them over a period of time, Dr Dunlop gets underneath the pat answers and stereotypes to discover their real motivations.

The top values and concerns, she discovers, are to do with self-expression and creativity, freedom – from institutional rules and to be able to think for themselves, quality relationships, and fun.

Given that, she writes:

“The students perceive the church as a place where they would be expected to conform to a set of rules and unthinkingly forced to subscribe to outdated beliefs. Therefore, it is no surprise that the students reject the church on the basis of their values: self-expression, freedom, fun and relationships. We believe that if church leaders take time to engage with young people’s values, they may find that young people become a part of their community, and their contribution to the worship of the church will be vibrant and full of life.”

It’s a good point. There is nothing wrong with values of freedom, self-expression, relationships, and fun. In fact, Christianity is supposed to make us more free. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand ourselves and apply our gifts in a way that is tailored to us – we are made uniquely – isn’t that the ultimate statement of self-expression. Relationship and community is at the heart of the faith – the early church was a congregation that welcomed, loved and supported each other. These values are not the sum total of the faith, but they are definitely there.

When did these positive values get lost from congregational worship? When did it become dry, unwelcoming, and irrelevant? It is true that there are many in the fresh expressions network and emergent church that are beginning to counter this stereotype.

This book is a wake-up call to the church, leaders and congregations, to find out which essential Christian values they are not meeting, and to life them out in ways that are accessible and welcoming.

It is available on Amazon.com in the USA and in the UK.

More on John Terry’s penalty miss

Following on from my post a couple of days ago, I found some more quotes by John Terry who missed the penalty that (he thinks) lost the Champions League final for Chelsea. The quotes are from the BBC news website.

“I am so sorry for missing the penalty and denying the fans, my team-mates, family and friends the chance to be European champions,” he said.

“I have relived that moment every minute since it happened.

“I walked forward to take it knowing that it was there to be won and it was all down to me. What happened next will haunt me for the rest of my life.”

“I feel I have let everybody down and this hurts me more than anything.

“I am not ashamed about crying. This is a trophy I have tried so hard to win year after year and it was just an uncontrollable reaction. I wear my heart on my sleeve and everyone knows that.”

John Terry does not need to be ashamed about crying, and he doesn’t need to apologise for what he did – the team tried hard but just came up short by the smallest of margins. He does need to forgive himself though, and know that his self-esteem and identity need not be linked to his success or failure on the football pitch.