Testing the brilliant new photo uploader thingy!
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Overnight in the prayer room
Last night some NYFC forumites stayed in the prayer room all night. There were five of us which was a nice number, but more are welcome to come when we do the same next week! It was quite a cool night, we stayed up for most of it. Started with a solitary couple of hours just being quiet and looking at all the stuff in the room to use as aids to prayer. Later we played with the inflatable globe, throwing it to each other partly to keep us awake and energised, and we called out names of countries to pray, and the more knowledgable among us told us a bit about the current situation in some of the countries. Later we moved on to areas in Norwich and people here and afar who need prayer for whatever reason. We had a brilliant open prayer time where we just prayed for people on our hearts. It was good to share the burden with others, and, as Ben said, let God take our burdens.
I think one of the things that struck me about last night was the thought that I can pray for lots of things and really want things to happen and for God to answer, but in a way it starts with me. I have to make changes and follow God in my own life and hope that the rest of the world does too. 'Lord, send revival, start with me'. Helen put another slant on that by saying that often we pray for ourselves a lot, but we need to care about others as well (or words to that effect as far as I remember!) which is another thing sinking into my mind. Philippians 2:4 says 'Do not be interested only in your own life, but be interested in the lives of others.' Keeping up with what's going on in my friends' lives and the world has an important purpose, to engage with them so that I can pray effectively and care for people and about issues properly in the spirit of humility (just as Philippians 2 goes on to describe Jesus' humility in giving up his place with God to become like a servant for us).
We also had an interesting discussion about the Holy Spirit and other related tangents. (Early hours of the morning is always good for those kind of discussions. Pity I can't function enough to articulate my thoughts though!) I have much to think and pray about. Mark said in his blog how the presence of God felt as thick as treacle in the prayer room. I wouldn't say I felt it that strongly, but there's definately a sense that God is there and doing good things.
All in all a brilliant night, looking forward to next week.
I think one of the things that struck me about last night was the thought that I can pray for lots of things and really want things to happen and for God to answer, but in a way it starts with me. I have to make changes and follow God in my own life and hope that the rest of the world does too. 'Lord, send revival, start with me'. Helen put another slant on that by saying that often we pray for ourselves a lot, but we need to care about others as well (or words to that effect as far as I remember!) which is another thing sinking into my mind. Philippians 2:4 says 'Do not be interested only in your own life, but be interested in the lives of others.' Keeping up with what's going on in my friends' lives and the world has an important purpose, to engage with them so that I can pray effectively and care for people and about issues properly in the spirit of humility (just as Philippians 2 goes on to describe Jesus' humility in giving up his place with God to become like a servant for us).
We also had an interesting discussion about the Holy Spirit and other related tangents. (Early hours of the morning is always good for those kind of discussions. Pity I can't function enough to articulate my thoughts though!) I have much to think and pray about. Mark said in his blog how the presence of God felt as thick as treacle in the prayer room. I wouldn't say I felt it that strongly, but there's definately a sense that God is there and doing good things.
All in all a brilliant night, looking forward to next week.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Biblical Interpretation
More from 'A New Kind of Christian'...
If Biblical text is infallible, but all human interpretation is fallible, we have to be open to having our interpretations challenged. The authoritative text is not what I say about the text or even what I understand the text to say, but rather what God means it to say. Our interpretations reveal more about ourselves than they do about God or the Bible. The real issue is not the divide between evangelicals (who believe in the infallible, innerant, absolutely authoritative word) and liberals (Bible is inspired but not authoritative), but is rather the authority of God, moving mysteriously at a higher level.
The Bible calls the church the foundation of truth, Jesus the foundation of the church, and Jesus calls Peter called a foundation [I'm not so sure on that, see an earlier post], but it never calls itself a foundation.
Jesus transcended the normal level of discourse - for example the woman at the well in John 4. The big debate is over where people should worship, on this mountain or on that mountain. Jesus didn't choose one point or the other, he says that the answer is on this higher level, that what God wants is for us to worship him in spirit and truth, wherever we are. Both mountains are good places to worship, so in that way they are both right. But where you worship isn't the point at all, so in that way both sides are wrong.
The whole notion of authority is thoroughly modern. That oft-quoted verse in 2 Timothy doesn't say, 'All scripture is inspired by God and is authoratitve'. It says that Scripture is inspired and useful - useful to teach, rebuke, correct, instruct us to live justly, and equip us for our mission as the people of God. We want to use it as God's encyclopaedia, rule book, answer book, scientific text, easy-steps instructions book, God's little book of morals for all occassions. The only people in Jesus' time who had anything close to these expectations of the Bible were the scribes and Pharisees. We need to let go of the Bible as a modern book and rediscover it for what itreally is: an ancient cook of incredible spiritual value for us, a kind of universal and cosmic history, a book that tells us who we are and what story we find ourselves in so that we know what to do and how to live. That letting go is going to be hard for evangelicals.
My thoughts - this all makes much sense and I think it would be more helpful to have this view of the Bible, but I'm not entirely sure how it differs from the libralist view and how it's a higher truth rather than an evangelical/liberal divide.
Further reading (it's amazing how other bloggers suddenly make sense!)
Interpretation Part 1 and Part 2 by Heather
What is Biblical? by Paul
If Biblical text is infallible, but all human interpretation is fallible, we have to be open to having our interpretations challenged. The authoritative text is not what I say about the text or even what I understand the text to say, but rather what God means it to say. Our interpretations reveal more about ourselves than they do about God or the Bible. The real issue is not the divide between evangelicals (who believe in the infallible, innerant, absolutely authoritative word) and liberals (Bible is inspired but not authoritative), but is rather the authority of God, moving mysteriously at a higher level.
The Bible calls the church the foundation of truth, Jesus the foundation of the church, and Jesus calls Peter called a foundation [I'm not so sure on that, see an earlier post], but it never calls itself a foundation.
Jesus transcended the normal level of discourse - for example the woman at the well in John 4. The big debate is over where people should worship, on this mountain or on that mountain. Jesus didn't choose one point or the other, he says that the answer is on this higher level, that what God wants is for us to worship him in spirit and truth, wherever we are. Both mountains are good places to worship, so in that way they are both right. But where you worship isn't the point at all, so in that way both sides are wrong.
The whole notion of authority is thoroughly modern. That oft-quoted verse in 2 Timothy doesn't say, 'All scripture is inspired by God and is authoratitve'. It says that Scripture is inspired and useful - useful to teach, rebuke, correct, instruct us to live justly, and equip us for our mission as the people of God. We want to use it as God's encyclopaedia, rule book, answer book, scientific text, easy-steps instructions book, God's little book of morals for all occassions. The only people in Jesus' time who had anything close to these expectations of the Bible were the scribes and Pharisees. We need to let go of the Bible as a modern book and rediscover it for what itreally is: an ancient cook of incredible spiritual value for us, a kind of universal and cosmic history, a book that tells us who we are and what story we find ourselves in so that we know what to do and how to live. That letting go is going to be hard for evangelicals.
My thoughts - this all makes much sense and I think it would be more helpful to have this view of the Bible, but I'm not entirely sure how it differs from the libralist view and how it's a higher truth rather than an evangelical/liberal divide.
Further reading (it's amazing how other bloggers suddenly make sense!)
Interpretation Part 1 and Part 2 by Heather
What is Biblical? by Paul
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Yay!
I got a job! Went for an interview yesterday with Norwich Union, and they called me this morning saying I start on Monday! I'll be a customer services representative, working in the NU building on Colegate in Norwich. I'm looking forward to it :D
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Postmodernism
I'm currently reading 'A New Kind of Christian' by Brian McLaren. It takes the form of a fictional narrative between two friends, and is described in the blurb as 'a wise and wondrous approachfor revitalizing Christian spiritual life and Christian congregations.
I'm going to summarise what I've read so far, partly to make it all stay in my brain, and partly because I bet there are a few people out there who are as confused about postmodernism as I am and it my be helpful...
The modern world can be described as a period in history, roughly AD 500-1500. There are several characteristics of this era, such as conquest and control, for example from Columbus's explorations to the Western European world conquering areas such as philosophy, culture, economies, languages, religion and technology. The modern era was also an age of analysis, making the universe knowable and controllable through science. Absolute objectivity is important in the modern era, and what was still unknown was thought to be ultimately knowable. There was the highest faith in human reason to replace all mysteries with comprehension. It was an age of debate, dialect, argument and discussion, and also of individualism (as conquest and control is pursued, individuals are left disconnected) and consumerism.
To understand the term 'postmodernism', it's helpful to see 'modern' in terms of an historical age rather than meaning that which is in the present. So to be postmodern doesn't mean to be anti-modern or non-modern, it simply means to have experienced the modern world and to have been changed by the experience to such a degree that one is no longer modern. The postmodern era could be said to have started around 2000.
Before the modern era, there was the medieval era. The transition from medieval to modern was marked by some significant changes. For example, there was new communication technology in the form of the printing press. There was a new scientific worldview when Copernicus asserted that the earth is not the centre of the universe. A new intellectual elite emerged (people such as Galileo, Newton, Bacon) which challenged church authority and introduced a new epistemology (way of knowing). There was new transportation technology in the shape of the sailing ship which made the world seem smaller. There was also the decay of an old economic system and the rise of a new one, new military technology and a new attack on dominant authorities with a defensive reaction (notably the Protestant Reformation).
There are similar changes being seen today, indicating a change from the modern era to the postmodern. We have improved communications in radio/television/internet, new scientific ways of seeing the world and ourselves (eg post-Einsteinian theories of relativity, and theories such as expanding universe unsettling the modern, stable view of modern science). Postmodern philosophy is challenging existing elites. Air travel had greatly intensified the integration of world cultures, we have new economic structures including e-commerce, new military technology and a decline of institutional religion as it is attacked by secularism, materialism and urbanism.
Understanding this can give us a different perspective on Christianity today. To the Christians of medieval Europe, we would not be considered Christians, simply because we don't believe in things that were fundamental to their faith. For example, we don't believe that kings rule by divine right, we don't believe that God created a universe consisting of concentric spheres of ascending perfection, and we agree with Copernicus that the earth rotates around the sun.
All this leads to an important question: Is it possible that we as moderns have similarly intertwined a different but equally contingent worldview with our external faith? Is the modern version of Christianity destined to become a medieval cathedral? Our peers have already crossed the line into the postmodern world, but, wanting to be faithful to our Christian upbringings, so thoroughly enmeshed with modernity, few of us have. We need to venture ahead in our faith and learn to practise our faith and devotion to Christ in the new emerging culture of postmodernity.
So that's what I've read so far... and I have to admit it's hugely challenging to me, comfortable in my modern, absolutist faith. And also slightly scary - has my worldview contaminated my faith? Is it holding me back? How do we separate faith from its intertwined worldview?
At the same time, this book is proving to be an exciting journey. I've often felt that my faith is archaic compared to the views of my non-Christian friends, so maybe it would be an exciting challenge to be able to 'catch up' with my postmodern peers and make Christianity relevant to a postmodern world. Maybe more thoughts on this and the rest of 'A New Kind of Christian' in later posts.
I'm going to summarise what I've read so far, partly to make it all stay in my brain, and partly because I bet there are a few people out there who are as confused about postmodernism as I am and it my be helpful...
The modern world can be described as a period in history, roughly AD 500-1500. There are several characteristics of this era, such as conquest and control, for example from Columbus's explorations to the Western European world conquering areas such as philosophy, culture, economies, languages, religion and technology. The modern era was also an age of analysis, making the universe knowable and controllable through science. Absolute objectivity is important in the modern era, and what was still unknown was thought to be ultimately knowable. There was the highest faith in human reason to replace all mysteries with comprehension. It was an age of debate, dialect, argument and discussion, and also of individualism (as conquest and control is pursued, individuals are left disconnected) and consumerism.
To understand the term 'postmodernism', it's helpful to see 'modern' in terms of an historical age rather than meaning that which is in the present. So to be postmodern doesn't mean to be anti-modern or non-modern, it simply means to have experienced the modern world and to have been changed by the experience to such a degree that one is no longer modern. The postmodern era could be said to have started around 2000.
Before the modern era, there was the medieval era. The transition from medieval to modern was marked by some significant changes. For example, there was new communication technology in the form of the printing press. There was a new scientific worldview when Copernicus asserted that the earth is not the centre of the universe. A new intellectual elite emerged (people such as Galileo, Newton, Bacon) which challenged church authority and introduced a new epistemology (way of knowing). There was new transportation technology in the shape of the sailing ship which made the world seem smaller. There was also the decay of an old economic system and the rise of a new one, new military technology and a new attack on dominant authorities with a defensive reaction (notably the Protestant Reformation).
There are similar changes being seen today, indicating a change from the modern era to the postmodern. We have improved communications in radio/television/internet, new scientific ways of seeing the world and ourselves (eg post-Einsteinian theories of relativity, and theories such as expanding universe unsettling the modern, stable view of modern science). Postmodern philosophy is challenging existing elites. Air travel had greatly intensified the integration of world cultures, we have new economic structures including e-commerce, new military technology and a decline of institutional religion as it is attacked by secularism, materialism and urbanism.
Understanding this can give us a different perspective on Christianity today. To the Christians of medieval Europe, we would not be considered Christians, simply because we don't believe in things that were fundamental to their faith. For example, we don't believe that kings rule by divine right, we don't believe that God created a universe consisting of concentric spheres of ascending perfection, and we agree with Copernicus that the earth rotates around the sun.
All this leads to an important question: Is it possible that we as moderns have similarly intertwined a different but equally contingent worldview with our external faith? Is the modern version of Christianity destined to become a medieval cathedral? Our peers have already crossed the line into the postmodern world, but, wanting to be faithful to our Christian upbringings, so thoroughly enmeshed with modernity, few of us have. We need to venture ahead in our faith and learn to practise our faith and devotion to Christ in the new emerging culture of postmodernity.
So that's what I've read so far... and I have to admit it's hugely challenging to me, comfortable in my modern, absolutist faith. And also slightly scary - has my worldview contaminated my faith? Is it holding me back? How do we separate faith from its intertwined worldview?
At the same time, this book is proving to be an exciting journey. I've often felt that my faith is archaic compared to the views of my non-Christian friends, so maybe it would be an exciting challenge to be able to 'catch up' with my postmodern peers and make Christianity relevant to a postmodern world. Maybe more thoughts on this and the rest of 'A New Kind of Christian' in later posts.
Friday, June 17, 2005
24/7 prayer
Nothing much to blog about... just want some people to sign up to 24/7 on Sunday morning because it looks like I'm gonna be all alone. If you're not going to church sign up now!
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
