Phil Goodacre reports on a Re:source conference in which Andrew Jones was sharing… Some great basics:
He (Andrew Jones, aka Tallskinikiwi) started off by reflecting on how the Kingdom of God is like yeast (Matthew 13:33). As yeast is worked throughout the dough the yeast cells divide, yet it’s impact is what makes the bread rise and grow. This cell division is so small, microscopic, invisible to the human eye. For us, as members of God’s church, must not our actions also be almost secret and meek rather than proud and showy, just as Jesus warns against in Matthew 16:6 – also talking about yeast.
He also talked about Luke 8, when Jesus was on His way to Jairus’ house. Jesus was stopped by an ‘unclean’ woman on the way there. Yet Jesus stopped, and spent time with this woman, her faith having healed her. Who are we called to work with? The cool, important people, or the inclean, those that nobody else will even touch?
We then moved on to look at Luke 10, from which I noted down a number of things that grabbed me.
We are told to enter other people’s houses, rather than us dragging them into ours. What does this say about the way we do mission, and the way we do church???
God HAS prepared a harvest. The harvest IS out there. We must learn to find where God’s favour is.
The 72 were told to go out, eat, drink, heal etc etc. THEN tell people about the Kingdom of God. Is this the way we do it? Or are we often in a hurry to get all the ‘God stuff’ in right at the beginning. People need to experience the Kingdom of God before we start banging on about it verbally.
We must ask God – the Lord of the Harvest – to send out workers. But these workers might not include us.
In the afternoon we started off by looking at a bit of emergence theory. Now I have to be honest, this is an area about which I knew very little. But it was actually quite interesting (though probably simplified somewhat).
In Proverbs 6:6-6 we are told to go and look at the ants, and it is with ants that this emergence theory was explanined.
Ants don’t have a leader or a queen ant or anything like that, but they still manage to accomplish a whole lot. Some characteristics of both ant colonies, and this whole emergence thing are:
1. low-level chaos leads to high-level sophistication without orders being given.
2. everyone communicates with everyone.
3. simple structures.
Link: philgoodacre.blogspot: reflections on "creating church in the emerging culture".
Comments
11 responses to “Some Andrew Jones Basics”
“The 72 were told to go out, eat, drink, heal etc etc. THEN tell people about the Kingdom of God. Is this the way we do it? Or are we often in a hurry to get all the ‘God stuff’ in right at the beginning. People need to experience the Kingdom of God before we start banging on about it verbally.”
This is one of the things that I have long disagreed with in the IC. There was outreach/evangelism…but very seldom was there any relationship building. The method of the IC demonstrates that we don’t really care about anybody unless they become like we are. It demonstrates that their lives have little to no value to us unless they “get saved,” and even then that is just an agenda, because very little real discipleship ever takes place. It basically says, “Okay, now that you’re saved, sit down, shut up, listen up, pay up, you’re done.”
Even in the new emerging efforts, a lot of what I have seen, even a lot of what I have found myself doing is seeking someone to build a relationship with simple to try to “transform” their life.
We’ve got to strive for a point in our lives where we realize and fleshout the truth that everyone, everything is important to God, whether it is “christian” or potential christian or whatever. It all matters to Him. We all have value to God. He loves us. Oh how He loves us.
I agree with most of the emergent stuff except where they fail to affirm the scriptures. This is a big problem. The emergent movement cannot affirm anything more than a good buddist. So we all end up stuck in the same shit. Can emergent emerge? Is there room to affirm? Many of the emergent leaders don’t even affirm Trinity. What is that….?
I believe community is critical in establishing any sort of reaching to people other than “Christians”. We have lost the art of “living” together and replaced it with “learning” together. We must learn to live together in order to experience this full life in Christ. I believe the reason most “Christians” don’t “reach” out to neighbors and such is because they themselves do not have anything or “perceived” anything to give/impart. If church begins hin the home then reaching out to others will become natural as having people over for dinner or coffee.
According to Luke 10:1, Jesus literally “apostled” the seventy-two out ahead of them. They went to new towns and suburbs and established Christian communities in the home of a person of peace or a person of influence. This is the ministry of the apostle. This ministry is essential for the development of a living church.
Ray – In what ways (aside from the select few mentioned in your comments) are you hoping to see the emergent folks affirm the scriptures? Are there particular parts that you are hoping will be affirmed or the scriptures as a whole? If as a whole how are you hoping they will be affirmed? As the “Word of God”? As inherent? Infallable? Some other theological way?
Just trying to better understand your thoughts on this.
Peace to you.
hey – thanks much for putting this up. I am honored and glad that Luke 10 also strikes a cord with you.
My apologies to St Valdez for not affirming the scriptures – i guess i was so busy teaching out of them and challenging young church planters to follow them that i did not have time to affirm them.
As for the Trinity, you can read my response to someone named Aaron here
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2005/06/my_response_to_.html
in which i not only affirm quite a number of creeds and covenants, (more than him, i suspect) but also challenge my Reformed friends to a greater trinitarian missiology which we all must embrace if we are to move forward in our emerging culture.
The other yeast i spoke of was the yeast of the Pharisess which puffs itself up with knowlege rather than gives itself away in love. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. 2 kinds of yeast – lets choose the yeast of the kingdom that divides and multiplies to fill up the whole world, and lets beware of the yeast of the pharisees
peace to you all.
ahhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . MISTAKE . . it was RAY i was apologizing to and not St Valdez.
my bad!
Some thoughts for Ray. I think that a lot of the criticism (at least that I’ve read) of the emerging church stems from evangelicals seeking a particular affirmation of the Bible. In other words, if the emerging church does not use scripture in the exact same way and hold it in the same kind of regard, there clearly is a problem.
This characterizes the critique of McLaren (who uses scripture but does not put a reference next to everything he writes) and Stan Grenz (whose Theology for The Community of God puts scripture under his section regarding the Holy Spirit, not in the opening chapters). I affirm scripture, read it, pray it, share it, but think that Christianity must not raise the Bible above relationship with God, hearing him, obeying him, etc. The Bible is a big part of our relationship with God, we must affirm it, but the ways in which we affirm it will vary.
No one that I have read in the emerging church has dropped the Bible like the liberals did in the mid-1900’s, but there is also a desire to avoid the opposite extreme of making Christianity chiefly about the Bible and some abstract notion of truth. Though no one has found the right balance for sure, the Bible must take a prominent, but not dominant place in our relationship with Father, Son, and Spirit.
Peace
“Though no one has found the right balance for sure, the Bible must take a prominent, but not dominant place in our relationship with Father, Son, and Spirit. ”
I agree Ed C. I think in many of institutional churches I’ve been involved in there was such emphasis put on the scriptures that it almosted seemed they had raised the scriptures to some level of diety or object of worship, which is totally off the mark.
Instead of trying to find a balance, the word harmony presents a better image for the Trinity & scriptures. Balance would suggest and equality to the others, where as harmony would suggest more of a cooperation with the others.
“Harmony” I like it. Thanks for the clarification. I will have to use that word from now on.
Glad you like it Ed, but I can’t take the credit for it. I picked up the term from Joseph R. Myers’s book The Search To Belong, which is one of the most thought provoking books I’ve read in the past few years. He discusses Hall’s definitions of the fours spaces that we exist and allow others to exist in. It really helped me to better allow people to exist within the space that they are comfortable being in. Check it out.
Peace to you.