Several years ago i had a conversation with an international mission organisation about mission. He objected to me talking with local young people about 'doing mission' in their own backyards. The term he said should be evangelism. I have puzzled over this and came to the conclusion he was right, from where he stood we should use the word 'evangelism' but that I was right too becuase form where i stood is should use the word 'mission.'
The problem is that in the church in general at the moment we are going through transitions. modern to post modern, but more importantly I think is the falling way of Christendom to how we understand and work.
Under a christendom mindset missions is a church department that send money to overseas organisations. In this it was originaly sending people, but the reality is more to do with sending money to equip national to do ministry.
That was my friends view on things.
However I believe that the world we are now moving into needs to understand mission differently, mission being every chistian being a missionary to their local culture. it is a subtle shift but an essentail one I think. That does not mean that overseas missions stop but rather it is about partnership holding hands across the ocean. We do not just give to the 2/3 rd world we recieve something back - grace, kindness, love and a new undersatnding of our own context.
Short term missions people have known this for years that the real giver is not the young people involved but those who they go to.
In his book Church in Transition, Tim Conder tells the story of mission friendship that develops between his home church and an African church, over the course of conversation he hears of how many African chruches have drunk from the wells of American churches not questioning whether they may be poisoned or not. Such an insight into how apparently 'christian' values may be wrong is worth more than a 1000 consultants. To have your practices questioned and assesed from a global partner I think is gold. That for me is a major value in the shift of missiology and one that excites me, as we hold hands, cry with our family and hold them up we gain so much, and we glance the Kingdom of God right here on earth.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
When art imitates life...
I am writtinga seminar paper on time managemnt at the moment a huge part of it has been focusing on procrastination....
Needless to say - I am a living canvas of contradcition modeling exactly what I shouldn't and procrastinating....
Guilt is an amazing motivator somedays to get back to work
Needless to say - I am a living canvas of contradcition modeling exactly what I shouldn't and procrastinating....
Guilt is an amazing motivator somedays to get back to work
Monday, May 29, 2006
Jesus and the world cup....
The World Cup is the world's biggest event for the world's most popular sport. When your team wins, you can feel great; when your team loses, you can feel terrible. It's what makes soccer exciting -- some years your team does great, other years it may be a real struggle. If soccer is your source of happiness, then your life can go up and down.
There is just one source of peace and joy that doesn't change -- and that is God. Having a personal relationship with God can give you true peace no matter what happens on the soccer field. Here are 4 key steps you can take to begin a personal relationship with God.
Amen brother
football heaven maybe..
There is just one source of peace and joy that doesn't change -- and that is God. Having a personal relationship with God can give you true peace no matter what happens on the soccer field. Here are 4 key steps you can take to begin a personal relationship with God.
Amen brother
football heaven maybe..
Jesus and the world cup....
The World Cup is the world's biggest event for the world's most popular sport. When your team wins, you can feel great; when your team loses, you can feel terrible. It's what makes soccer exciting -- some years your team does great, other years it may be a real struggle. If soccer is your source of happiness, then your life can go up and down.
There is just one source of peace and joy that doesn't change -- and that is God. Having a personal relationship with God can give you true peace no matter what happens on the soccer field. Here are 4 key steps you can take to begin a personal relationship with God.
Amen brother
http://www.jesusandtheworldcup.com/
There is just one source of peace and joy that doesn't change -- and that is God. Having a personal relationship with God can give you true peace no matter what happens on the soccer field. Here are 4 key steps you can take to begin a personal relationship with God.
Amen brother
http://www.jesusandtheworldcup.com/
Community..
I have often found being as pastor quite an isolating experience from Non Christians. To try and address that we have done some interesting things over the years.
When we moved to Nelson - we deliberatly moved to a suburb that is very low on the socio economic scale. We knew that there would not be many Christians in our area compared with the bible belt of the suburbs. Only problem was our neighbours weren't as friendly as the bible belt suburban types...Why was that?
Well it's part of the changing world we live in where community is defined through leisure, work and friendship. I suspect this is soemthing that many suburban churches have not cottoned on to, but is a glaring reality in the more urban area's such as we live in. We are tryinng then to make friend sbut it is often hard to break into established nor central - leisure/work/friendship based communities.
Part of our intention was for the kids to go to the local school and we would get involved with people outside of the church that way.... Only problem was my son struggled in the school -and we felt the only option was to move schools. We did so and ended out putting him a local christian school - bang went that big idea.
In fact this seems to me to be a repeat of what happened in Christchurch. While there I offered to coach a local 8th grade football team, thinking I would meet a lot of non christian parents - I didn't... because nearly every one on my team was a church person... in fact most of them were from the same church...
This year I find myself again coaching football and am enjoying it, meeting other people involved in the club, and just to ensure I do extend my contact circle I signed on for a coaching class, which is held on SUNDAY mornings, not every week. I had to laugh because the only other person I knew who was supposed to be on the course was a guy who is also a christian and a pastor and he couldn't come.....because he had to work...
When we moved to Nelson - we deliberatly moved to a suburb that is very low on the socio economic scale. We knew that there would not be many Christians in our area compared with the bible belt of the suburbs. Only problem was our neighbours weren't as friendly as the bible belt suburban types...Why was that?
Well it's part of the changing world we live in where community is defined through leisure, work and friendship. I suspect this is soemthing that many suburban churches have not cottoned on to, but is a glaring reality in the more urban area's such as we live in. We are tryinng then to make friend sbut it is often hard to break into established nor central - leisure/work/friendship based communities.
Part of our intention was for the kids to go to the local school and we would get involved with people outside of the church that way.... Only problem was my son struggled in the school -and we felt the only option was to move schools. We did so and ended out putting him a local christian school - bang went that big idea.
In fact this seems to me to be a repeat of what happened in Christchurch. While there I offered to coach a local 8th grade football team, thinking I would meet a lot of non christian parents - I didn't... because nearly every one on my team was a church person... in fact most of them were from the same church...
This year I find myself again coaching football and am enjoying it, meeting other people involved in the club, and just to ensure I do extend my contact circle I signed on for a coaching class, which is held on SUNDAY mornings, not every week. I had to laugh because the only other person I knew who was supposed to be on the course was a guy who is also a christian and a pastor and he couldn't come.....because he had to work...
Friday, May 26, 2006
What did Mary Magdalene do for a living?
Yesterday i posted on what Jesus did for a living and some of my anoyance over the claim that he was a carpenter. It got me thinking though over the common assumption of folkelore that Mary Magdelane was a prostitute. Again the bible isn't that clear, in fact it seems to have been the Church that first gave her that label.
I for one am not certain about the history behind that but what Brown suggests in the Da Vinci code about the connection between the grail and the arrow in pagan symbols - or the pentagram may suggest that she were. In which case maybe the Church has a far higher view than Brown does of her.
Why do is say that, well in pagan religion the temple priestess and a king would undertake a sacred marriage or symbolic marriage, when they would be joined hence two opposing triangles that make the pentagram. Brown suggests that is what happened bewteen Mary and Jesus - the irony is if that is that case (which it isn't) then it throws a lot of weight back on the Mary is a prostitue claim. Becuase that is what a high priestess in a ferliity pagan ceremony was a prsotiute who would hand herself over to others to 'perform' the ceremony.
If what happened is as Brown claims then Mary is a prostitute - you can change the name but it's still the same job.
I for one am not certain about the history behind that but what Brown suggests in the Da Vinci code about the connection between the grail and the arrow in pagan symbols - or the pentagram may suggest that she were. In which case maybe the Church has a far higher view than Brown does of her.
Why do is say that, well in pagan religion the temple priestess and a king would undertake a sacred marriage or symbolic marriage, when they would be joined hence two opposing triangles that make the pentagram. Brown suggests that is what happened bewteen Mary and Jesus - the irony is if that is that case (which it isn't) then it throws a lot of weight back on the Mary is a prostitue claim. Becuase that is what a high priestess in a ferliity pagan ceremony was a prsotiute who would hand herself over to others to 'perform' the ceremony.
If what happened is as Brown claims then Mary is a prostitute - you can change the name but it's still the same job.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Finding faith in the Da Vinci code
Just seen the movie the Da Vinci code - and I was very suprised having heard how critical and potentialy destructive it was to the Christian Church - i came away thinking - yes that may be true but not to the Christian faith.
I really enjoyed the challenge of it to faith which at the end of the day struck me as an important 'message'. Becuase at the end of the day a lot of these things do fall back on faith. And maybe Langdon's prayer as he struggled in the well and the feeling that Jesus was there with him should be enough. It's a testimony - I think that Jesus was everything he claimed to be...and more.
While the Church may have tried to protect that through the sword, the only way it can really be protected is through the witness of those who have faith and live by that faith....
"Perhaps what I love most about the controversy created by The Da Vinci Code is that it exposes how the institutional church has corrupted the message and mission of Jesus Christ. It has clouded in secrecy and hypocrisy what should have remained a simple message of acceptance, forgiveness, and freedom. Yes, there is a secret, and it is that our souls long for God and that strangely enough, as hard as it may be to believe, God longs for you". Erwin McManus http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/expert.cfm?e=225
I really enjoyed the challenge of it to faith which at the end of the day struck me as an important 'message'. Becuase at the end of the day a lot of these things do fall back on faith. And maybe Langdon's prayer as he struggled in the well and the feeling that Jesus was there with him should be enough. It's a testimony - I think that Jesus was everything he claimed to be...and more.
While the Church may have tried to protect that through the sword, the only way it can really be protected is through the witness of those who have faith and live by that faith....
"Perhaps what I love most about the controversy created by The Da Vinci Code is that it exposes how the institutional church has corrupted the message and mission of Jesus Christ. It has clouded in secrecy and hypocrisy what should have remained a simple message of acceptance, forgiveness, and freedom. Yes, there is a secret, and it is that our souls long for God and that strangely enough, as hard as it may be to believe, God longs for you". Erwin McManus http://www.thedavincidialogue.com/expert.cfm?e=225
What did Jesus do for a living???
I was woke this mroning by a bible quiz playing on our local christian radio station.
Question one, "What did Jesus do for a job before going into ministry?"
Answer, "A carpenter."
all sounds fine and dandy except that you will not find anything in the bible or historical records to prove it - though a genuine Jesus made coffee table would be a nice religious icon.
While it may seem trivial to point out the error on such thinking - if we are going to be biblical can we at least stick to the facts...
And i know it says in Mark 6:3
On the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary [Other ancient authorities read “son of the carpenter and of Mary”] and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
—Mark 6:2-3 (NRSV)
Depending on how you read it - remember in greek there is no coma the people are either asking if Jesus is a carpenter or if He is the son of a carpenter.
Either way, they were asking because they were surprised to see someone whom they thought was a carpenter functioning as a rabbi. Jesus was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath; in other words, He was preaching the sermon. Since they thought He was a carpenter usurping the role of a rabbi, they understandably took offense. If He were a carpenter, as they wondered, His ability to preach would be quite amazing.
However, the only people who thought this situation was remarkable and offensive were the people who were mistaken. Obviously, the synagogue authorities had allowed Him to preach, which means they knew that He was not a carpenter.
The New Testament calls Jesus ‘rabbi’ about 13 times and a vague mention of a carpenter once.
What did Jesus do prior to MArk chapter 1 - PASS - we do not know, while it is possible that he may have followed in his step father business - tradtion a big part of ancient culture. I think there is enough evidence to indicate that he became part of the religous teaching culture, maybe even more so 13 x called a Rabi. Why, well he certainly knew his scriptures... well maybe that was divine revlation or it could be that the incarnation meant that he had to work as hard as anyone else to learn the God story, that he may have had to sit and study the torah like every other little Jewsih boy. While the story of him being lost by his parents would suggest he was a brilliant scholar and understood the Scriptures well, it could also suggest that such a brilliant scholar would not have worked as a carpenter.
My argument is that I don't know what he did, but to claim he was a carpenter is a stupid argument and i wish people would stop doing it!!! And as for the my boss is a jewish carpenter bumper sticker well that is not even funny...
On the same grounds you could argue that he was married - because that was also part of tradition, and expected. In which case maybe Dan Brown was right.... Great movie by the way but utter fiction...
Let's not argue from silence, but stick to what we know
Radio Rhema you should be ashamed of your self and stop asking stupid question in your supposed Bible Quiz - and can we have some decent music to wake up to at 7:00am - or do i need to turn my station to the rock....
Question one, "What did Jesus do for a job before going into ministry?"
Answer, "A carpenter."
all sounds fine and dandy except that you will not find anything in the bible or historical records to prove it - though a genuine Jesus made coffee table would be a nice religious icon.
While it may seem trivial to point out the error on such thinking - if we are going to be biblical can we at least stick to the facts...
And i know it says in Mark 6:3
On the Sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary [Other ancient authorities read “son of the carpenter and of Mary”] and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
—Mark 6:2-3 (NRSV)
Depending on how you read it - remember in greek there is no coma the people are either asking if Jesus is a carpenter or if He is the son of a carpenter.
Either way, they were asking because they were surprised to see someone whom they thought was a carpenter functioning as a rabbi. Jesus was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath; in other words, He was preaching the sermon. Since they thought He was a carpenter usurping the role of a rabbi, they understandably took offense. If He were a carpenter, as they wondered, His ability to preach would be quite amazing.
However, the only people who thought this situation was remarkable and offensive were the people who were mistaken. Obviously, the synagogue authorities had allowed Him to preach, which means they knew that He was not a carpenter.
The New Testament calls Jesus ‘rabbi’ about 13 times and a vague mention of a carpenter once.
What did Jesus do prior to MArk chapter 1 - PASS - we do not know, while it is possible that he may have followed in his step father business - tradtion a big part of ancient culture. I think there is enough evidence to indicate that he became part of the religous teaching culture, maybe even more so 13 x called a Rabi. Why, well he certainly knew his scriptures... well maybe that was divine revlation or it could be that the incarnation meant that he had to work as hard as anyone else to learn the God story, that he may have had to sit and study the torah like every other little Jewsih boy. While the story of him being lost by his parents would suggest he was a brilliant scholar and understood the Scriptures well, it could also suggest that such a brilliant scholar would not have worked as a carpenter.
My argument is that I don't know what he did, but to claim he was a carpenter is a stupid argument and i wish people would stop doing it!!! And as for the my boss is a jewish carpenter bumper sticker well that is not even funny...
On the same grounds you could argue that he was married - because that was also part of tradition, and expected. In which case maybe Dan Brown was right.... Great movie by the way but utter fiction...
Let's not argue from silence, but stick to what we know
Radio Rhema you should be ashamed of your self and stop asking stupid question in your supposed Bible Quiz - and can we have some decent music to wake up to at 7:00am - or do i need to turn my station to the rock....
Friday, May 19, 2006
More reasons other than Tax cuts for Kiwi's to jump the ditch....
Yesterday the budget was announced by the governemnt here in NZ - needless to say the opposition had a field day calling a it another reason for Kiwi's to jump the ditch to OZ, well here is another reason - you will soon be able to tape of your TV and use your MP3 player legaly - which currently you cannot here in NZ
From the Sydney Morning Herald By Kerry-Anne Walsh
May 14, 2006
DOWNLOADING music from CDs onto iPods and MP3 players will no longer be illegal after the federal cabinet agreed to make sweeping changes to copyright laws.
But beware the trap of downloading from the internet - the Government will increase surveillance and fines on internet piracy in a package to be announced by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today.
Once the new laws are passed, "format shifting" of music, newspapers and books from personal collections onto iPods and MP3 players will become legal.
The laws will also make it legal for people to tape TV and radio programs for playback later, a practice currently prohibited, though millions of people regularly do it.
Currently, millions of households a day are breaking the law when they tape a show and watch it at another time.
Schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions will in the future be free to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes. But the Government is giving police greater powers to tackle internet piracy, signalling the days of downloading music from the internet danger-free may be limited.
Police will be able to issue on-the-spot fines and access and recover profits made by copyright pirates. Courts will be given extra powers to award larger damages payouts against internet pirates. Civil infringement proceedings will apply to copyright pirates who make electronic reproductions or copies of copyright material.
In a big win for recording artists, the laws will include the removal of the legislative 1 per cent cap on copyright licence fees paid by radio broadcasters for playing sound recordings.
The Government is bracing for a stoush with commercial radio stations over the removal of the cap, which has been in place since 1968.
But Mr Ruddock believes the archaic provision was established to protect radio broadcasters, which were facing a difficult economic environment at the time.
As they now operated in a "profitable and robust" industry, record companies and artists should be allowed to negotiate a fair market rate without legislative intervention, he will announce.
If both sides cannot agree on fees, the Copyright Tribunal would be called upon to adjudicate.
The Australian Institute of Criminology will be asked to undertake research into the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.
"Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates," Mr Ruddock said yesterday.
"Copyright pirates should not be treated like everyday consumers."
From the Sydney Morning Herald By Kerry-Anne Walsh
May 14, 2006
DOWNLOADING music from CDs onto iPods and MP3 players will no longer be illegal after the federal cabinet agreed to make sweeping changes to copyright laws.
But beware the trap of downloading from the internet - the Government will increase surveillance and fines on internet piracy in a package to be announced by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock today.
Once the new laws are passed, "format shifting" of music, newspapers and books from personal collections onto iPods and MP3 players will become legal.
The laws will also make it legal for people to tape TV and radio programs for playback later, a practice currently prohibited, though millions of people regularly do it.
Currently, millions of households a day are breaking the law when they tape a show and watch it at another time.
Schools, universities, libraries and other cultural institutions will in the future be free to use copyright material for non-commercial purposes. But the Government is giving police greater powers to tackle internet piracy, signalling the days of downloading music from the internet danger-free may be limited.
Police will be able to issue on-the-spot fines and access and recover profits made by copyright pirates. Courts will be given extra powers to award larger damages payouts against internet pirates. Civil infringement proceedings will apply to copyright pirates who make electronic reproductions or copies of copyright material.
In a big win for recording artists, the laws will include the removal of the legislative 1 per cent cap on copyright licence fees paid by radio broadcasters for playing sound recordings.
The Government is bracing for a stoush with commercial radio stations over the removal of the cap, which has been in place since 1968.
But Mr Ruddock believes the archaic provision was established to protect radio broadcasters, which were facing a difficult economic environment at the time.
As they now operated in a "profitable and robust" industry, record companies and artists should be allowed to negotiate a fair market rate without legislative intervention, he will announce.
If both sides cannot agree on fees, the Copyright Tribunal would be called upon to adjudicate.
The Australian Institute of Criminology will be asked to undertake research into the extent of piracy and counterfeiting in Australia and how best to respond to the problem.
"Everyday consumers shouldn't be treated like copyright pirates," Mr Ruddock said yesterday.
"Copyright pirates should not be treated like everyday consumers."
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Archbishop Phil Jenson and the emerging Church
last week i posted some responses to an article from the Sydney Diocese about the emerging church. This week I attended a conference in Christchurch where the main speaker was the archbishop of that diocese. Needless to say I was looking forward to having my views negative views reinforced by the prejudice and shallowness of the Archbishop of Sydney. But I was wrong.
While I cannot agree with everything that was said i took his thoughts as an opportunity to refine my own, his challanges as an opportunity to rethink soemthings.
The first thing i would like to say is that this man has a sense of humour, an important aspect of communicating potentialy negative information/thoughts is to do so in a way that makes people at ease - he did this well.
Much of his first talk regarded the nature of and future of the Church - he quoted extensively from Kevin Ward's analysis of the New Zealand situation, and agreed with much of what Kevin said. Believing that the church needs to become more fluid, however Jensen wanted to suggest that the fluidity relates to structure and not Theology - we should maintain a solid doctrinal basis. A criticism he gave of the Anglican church was it's willingness to be fluid in its doctrines but not in its structure (a criticism i would agree with). So what of this solid doctrinal base is it possible when removed from a solid structure, i for one am not sure whether that is entirely possible. Which is why I would prefer to talk of agreed and shared values or a rule of life as grouping principle - in my opinion that allows for structural fluidity - commonality and a high level of solidity in theology over first order principles (slavation, nature of Christ etc...)But allows room for the indivuduals values judgement on others (women wearings hats, music etc..) While this isn't perfect i think it does allow us to be missional and contextual in our work, and at the end of the day I think the nature of a 'church' should be formed more by it's mission than ancient theological principles that may have little connection. I also think that the values/rule of life think leaves space for people to associate with a group in spite of their beliefs on the important values - it's about journey rather than having arrived at a point of belief.
A second point of agreement I found with him was over the limit of diversity in fellowship, in his words comprehensiveness has never really been an option in the Christian church. There are certain guiding principles, the irony is that in the Anglican Church one cannot minister if you are opposed to infant baptism (which I am) but you can if you don't believe in the ressurection or the divinty of Christ, duh...
A third apsect i found some resonance with was over the way that Justice issues have tended to take precident over theology. He cites that this is where the homosexual ordination debate should be, believeing that those who say it is right do so on justice basis rather than a sound theoligcal base. I say i agree in part with this but not in it's entirety - Justice is in my opinion an aspect of what forms theology, it is not though I think right to make it the entire formative factor of any theology.
So what about women in ministry - well in his opinion it is a matter of order rather than salavtion and therefore not essential - he recognised the NZ dissagrement with them on that. As for the ordiantion of Gay clergy, well this is an area I have a difficulty with, believing that homosexuality is sin and that no one who willfully follows a sinful path should seek ordaintion. there is lots to say on that issue but I feel i have said enough.
So what challenges can i take out of this for the emerging church, I think the major one relates to why are we emergent? Well For me I prefer the term missional as it reflects my desire and commsion from Jesus to proclaim good news. For that end I will attempt to engage, confront, embrace, cherish and utilize that which allows me to share the Jesus I have come to know. The challenge of Sydney is to do so whiel remaining Biblical and doctrinaly sound (issues of what is appropriate interpretation spring to mind here) , this is a challenge I want to convey the story to make it come alive in the context i find myself in. I cannot do that without risk and by being narrow. To proclaim the gospel in this context I think draws us back to a previous post, where I said that I do not nail my foot to a particaular theoloigcal slant but anchor a bungy to that slant - evangelical - giving me freedom to move and incorporate what i see as approrpiate form other spectrums and positions
While I cannot agree with everything that was said i took his thoughts as an opportunity to refine my own, his challanges as an opportunity to rethink soemthings.
The first thing i would like to say is that this man has a sense of humour, an important aspect of communicating potentialy negative information/thoughts is to do so in a way that makes people at ease - he did this well.
Much of his first talk regarded the nature of and future of the Church - he quoted extensively from Kevin Ward's analysis of the New Zealand situation, and agreed with much of what Kevin said. Believing that the church needs to become more fluid, however Jensen wanted to suggest that the fluidity relates to structure and not Theology - we should maintain a solid doctrinal basis. A criticism he gave of the Anglican church was it's willingness to be fluid in its doctrines but not in its structure (a criticism i would agree with). So what of this solid doctrinal base is it possible when removed from a solid structure, i for one am not sure whether that is entirely possible. Which is why I would prefer to talk of agreed and shared values or a rule of life as grouping principle - in my opinion that allows for structural fluidity - commonality and a high level of solidity in theology over first order principles (slavation, nature of Christ etc...)But allows room for the indivuduals values judgement on others (women wearings hats, music etc..) While this isn't perfect i think it does allow us to be missional and contextual in our work, and at the end of the day I think the nature of a 'church' should be formed more by it's mission than ancient theological principles that may have little connection. I also think that the values/rule of life think leaves space for people to associate with a group in spite of their beliefs on the important values - it's about journey rather than having arrived at a point of belief.
A second point of agreement I found with him was over the limit of diversity in fellowship, in his words comprehensiveness has never really been an option in the Christian church. There are certain guiding principles, the irony is that in the Anglican Church one cannot minister if you are opposed to infant baptism (which I am) but you can if you don't believe in the ressurection or the divinty of Christ, duh...
A third apsect i found some resonance with was over the way that Justice issues have tended to take precident over theology. He cites that this is where the homosexual ordination debate should be, believeing that those who say it is right do so on justice basis rather than a sound theoligcal base. I say i agree in part with this but not in it's entirety - Justice is in my opinion an aspect of what forms theology, it is not though I think right to make it the entire formative factor of any theology.
So what about women in ministry - well in his opinion it is a matter of order rather than salavtion and therefore not essential - he recognised the NZ dissagrement with them on that. As for the ordiantion of Gay clergy, well this is an area I have a difficulty with, believing that homosexuality is sin and that no one who willfully follows a sinful path should seek ordaintion. there is lots to say on that issue but I feel i have said enough.
So what challenges can i take out of this for the emerging church, I think the major one relates to why are we emergent? Well For me I prefer the term missional as it reflects my desire and commsion from Jesus to proclaim good news. For that end I will attempt to engage, confront, embrace, cherish and utilize that which allows me to share the Jesus I have come to know. The challenge of Sydney is to do so whiel remaining Biblical and doctrinaly sound (issues of what is appropriate interpretation spring to mind here) , this is a challenge I want to convey the story to make it come alive in the context i find myself in. I cannot do that without risk and by being narrow. To proclaim the gospel in this context I think draws us back to a previous post, where I said that I do not nail my foot to a particaular theoloigcal slant but anchor a bungy to that slant - evangelical - giving me freedom to move and incorporate what i see as approrpiate form other spectrums and positions
More articles on generation Y research project
Here's another article form the Yorkshire post.
Young 'happy with a life without God'
Maggie Stratton
YOUNG people are quite happy with a life without God or spirituality, according to new research for the Church of England.
Authors of the Making Sense of Generation Y were shocked to find not only did under 25's think the church "corrupt", "traditionalist" and all "socks and sandal" but also had no desire to find a transcendent alternative in their favoured pursuits.
Clubbing, for example, was not a way of " transcending oneself to a deeper reality", but was simply a good night out.
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu said the report must be seen as a wake-up call.
"This book stresses the need for investment in relationships with young people and for 'patient sowing' of the Gospel story into our culture. There are no 'instant solutions', but there are things we, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can – and must – do," the Archbishop says in the book's foreword.
Making Sense of Generation Y is based on interviews with 120 young people aged 15 to 25 who have little or no connection with the Christian faith.
The number of young people who go to church has halved since 1979, and now less than seven per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds and five per cent of those between 20 and 29 attend church.
The authors set out believing that even if the young had little knowledge of the Christian faith they would have other spiritual or religious yearnings, but found even discussions about the September 11 terror attacks in America failed to prompt mention of religion.
But they did not find the young people interviewed for the book were disenchanted or lost in a meaningless world. Instead the young people found the world meaningful as it was.
"The data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe," the book says.
The researchers found young people found happiness primarily through the family and had little sense of sin or fear of death. They were, however, afraid of growing old.
The mission adviser for youth and emerging Church at the Church Mission Society, Jonny Baker, said yesterday: "This book is astonishing. Putting it bluntly, it suggests that many of our assumptions about young people, their world view and the quest for spirituality are wrong. This has implications for the future of mission, youth ministry and the Church."
Making Sense of Generation Y will be unveiled at the National Christian Resource Exhibition today.
One of the authors of the book, Bob Mayo, said: "The people we talked to were happy with life, they were enjoying themselves but were doing this with an almost complete ignorance of Christianity – a total lack of a working knowledge.
"That is the alarming thing for the Church.
"The positive thing is that they are not opposed to what the Church is saying, it is just that they have not been exposed to it.
"In many cases they seem interested but no one has ever talked to them about it before."
09 May 2006
Young 'happy with a life without God'
Maggie Stratton
YOUNG people are quite happy with a life without God or spirituality, according to new research for the Church of England.
Authors of the Making Sense of Generation Y were shocked to find not only did under 25's think the church "corrupt", "traditionalist" and all "socks and sandal" but also had no desire to find a transcendent alternative in their favoured pursuits.
Clubbing, for example, was not a way of " transcending oneself to a deeper reality", but was simply a good night out.
The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu said the report must be seen as a wake-up call.
"This book stresses the need for investment in relationships with young people and for 'patient sowing' of the Gospel story into our culture. There are no 'instant solutions', but there are things we, empowered by the Holy Spirit, can – and must – do," the Archbishop says in the book's foreword.
Making Sense of Generation Y is based on interviews with 120 young people aged 15 to 25 who have little or no connection with the Christian faith.
The number of young people who go to church has halved since 1979, and now less than seven per cent of 15- to 19-year-olds and five per cent of those between 20 and 29 attend church.
The authors set out believing that even if the young had little knowledge of the Christian faith they would have other spiritual or religious yearnings, but found even discussions about the September 11 terror attacks in America failed to prompt mention of religion.
But they did not find the young people interviewed for the book were disenchanted or lost in a meaningless world. Instead the young people found the world meaningful as it was.
"The data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe," the book says.
The researchers found young people found happiness primarily through the family and had little sense of sin or fear of death. They were, however, afraid of growing old.
The mission adviser for youth and emerging Church at the Church Mission Society, Jonny Baker, said yesterday: "This book is astonishing. Putting it bluntly, it suggests that many of our assumptions about young people, their world view and the quest for spirituality are wrong. This has implications for the future of mission, youth ministry and the Church."
Making Sense of Generation Y will be unveiled at the National Christian Resource Exhibition today.
One of the authors of the book, Bob Mayo, said: "The people we talked to were happy with life, they were enjoying themselves but were doing this with an almost complete ignorance of Christianity – a total lack of a working knowledge.
"That is the alarming thing for the Church.
"The positive thing is that they are not opposed to what the Church is saying, it is just that they have not been exposed to it.
"In many cases they seem interested but no one has ever talked to them about it before."
09 May 2006
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Church seeks spirituality of youth . . . and doesn't like what it finds
The Times May 08, 2006
Church seeks spirituality of youth . . . and doesn't like what it finds
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE Church of England has debunked the widely held view that young people are spiritual seekers on a journey to find transcendent truths to fill the “God-shaped hole” within them.
A report published by the Church today indicates that young people are quite happy with a life without God and prefer car boot sales to church.
If they think about church at all, the images young people come up with are “cardigans”, “sandals and socks”, “corrupt”, “traditionalist” and “stagnant”.
The report has prompted an “urgent” wake-up call from the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who writes of a large “mismatch” between the Church and the views of those aged 15 to 25. He says: “The research suggests young people are happy with life as it is, that they have felt no need for a transcendent something else and regard the Church as boring and irrelevant.”
The report, Making Sense of Generation Y, was funded by The Mercers’ livery company and written by academics and clergy including the Bishop of Maidstone, the Right Rev Graham Cray, who chairs the Soul Survivor Trust, a successful youth ministry. It is released today by Church House Publishing, the Church of England’s publishing arm.
As former Principal of Ridley Hall theological college, Bishop Cray commissioned interviews and group discussions with more than 120 young people.
The report comes in the context of a Britain awash with symbols of the supernatural, such as glow-in-the-dark crosses, Kabbalah bracelets and Harry Potter books.
Yet the Church continues to atrophy. The number of young people attending has been halved since 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 and 5 per cent of those aged 20 to 29 attend church. The number of children in Sunday school is less than a tenth of what it was in 1930.
The authors began their work believing that even if the young had little knowledge of Christianity they would still have religious or spiritual yearnings. They were shocked to find that they did not.
In the pilot interviews they included a picture of Salvador Dalí’s Christ of St John of the Cross but had to drop it from the main interviews because it failed to produce any response at all except one: “Oh, my grandmother has that picture.”
Discussions about Buffy the Vampire Slayer failed to open out into talk about “alternative spiritual realities”. Clubbing, rather than being a way of “transcending oneself and touching a deeper reality”, was simply a good night out. Even discussions about the September 11 attacks failed to elicit any mention of religion.
Nevertheless, young people do not feel disenchanted, lost or alienated in a meaningless world. “Instead, the data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe.” Their creed could be defined as: “This world, and all life in it, is meaningful as it is,” translated as: “There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family.
The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death. Nor did they find any Freudian guilt as a result of private sensual desires. The young people were, however, afraid of growing old.
In their advice to the Church, the report’s authors say that the first thing to do is “avoid panic”. It recommends means of reconnecting with young people such as through alternative worship forms, traditional buildings, church schools and civic occasions where Anglican clergy often officiate.
However, the authors also note the obvious contrast between the view of Generation Y that life is generally benign with the figures showing rises in eating disorders, substance abuse, teenage suicide, bullying and sexual abuse.
The authors conclude: “We live in an instant culture, which cannot be reached by instant missionary tactics.” And the desire for happiness is valid and should not be criticised by clergy. “It can only be outclassed by a Christ-like way of life, for in him alone is true happiness to be found.”
Sinead Berrigan, 19: “I don’t believe in God and I think, to a certain extent, religions are a waste of time. I don’t like being told how to live by a set of religious rules. I just want to be happy”
Pascale Buehler, 16: “I don’t believe in God, but I don’t think religions are a waste of time. For some people religion is important. Happiness is more important for me, because I want to enjoy the life I live now”
Xavier Laus, 24: “I believe in God because I am Catholic, but I am not a very strict Catholic. I don’t think that religions are a waste of time, but my own happiness is more important to me than my religion”
Jasmin Aregger, 17: “I don’t believe in God and I don’t live according to any religious rules. Religion is a waste of time. I don’t believe in a life after death, so for me happiness is more important”
Church seeks spirituality of youth . . . and doesn't like what it finds
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
THE Church of England has debunked the widely held view that young people are spiritual seekers on a journey to find transcendent truths to fill the “God-shaped hole” within them.
A report published by the Church today indicates that young people are quite happy with a life without God and prefer car boot sales to church.
If they think about church at all, the images young people come up with are “cardigans”, “sandals and socks”, “corrupt”, “traditionalist” and “stagnant”.
The report has prompted an “urgent” wake-up call from the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, who writes of a large “mismatch” between the Church and the views of those aged 15 to 25. He says: “The research suggests young people are happy with life as it is, that they have felt no need for a transcendent something else and regard the Church as boring and irrelevant.”
The report, Making Sense of Generation Y, was funded by The Mercers’ livery company and written by academics and clergy including the Bishop of Maidstone, the Right Rev Graham Cray, who chairs the Soul Survivor Trust, a successful youth ministry. It is released today by Church House Publishing, the Church of England’s publishing arm.
As former Principal of Ridley Hall theological college, Bishop Cray commissioned interviews and group discussions with more than 120 young people.
The report comes in the context of a Britain awash with symbols of the supernatural, such as glow-in-the-dark crosses, Kabbalah bracelets and Harry Potter books.
Yet the Church continues to atrophy. The number of young people attending has been halved since 1979. Fewer than 7 per cent of those aged 15 to 19 and 5 per cent of those aged 20 to 29 attend church. The number of children in Sunday school is less than a tenth of what it was in 1930.
The authors began their work believing that even if the young had little knowledge of Christianity they would still have religious or spiritual yearnings. They were shocked to find that they did not.
In the pilot interviews they included a picture of Salvador Dalí’s Christ of St John of the Cross but had to drop it from the main interviews because it failed to produce any response at all except one: “Oh, my grandmother has that picture.”
Discussions about Buffy the Vampire Slayer failed to open out into talk about “alternative spiritual realities”. Clubbing, rather than being a way of “transcending oneself and touching a deeper reality”, was simply a good night out. Even discussions about the September 11 attacks failed to elicit any mention of religion.
Nevertheless, young people do not feel disenchanted, lost or alienated in a meaningless world. “Instead, the data indicated that they found meaning and significance in the reality of everyday life, which the popular arts helped them to understand and imbibe.” Their creed could be defined as: “This world, and all life in it, is meaningful as it is,” translated as: “There is no need to posit ultimate significance elsewhere beyond the immediate experience of everyday life.” The goal in life of young people was happiness achieved primarily through the family.
The researchers were also shocked to discover little sense of sin or fear of death. Nor did they find any Freudian guilt as a result of private sensual desires. The young people were, however, afraid of growing old.
In their advice to the Church, the report’s authors say that the first thing to do is “avoid panic”. It recommends means of reconnecting with young people such as through alternative worship forms, traditional buildings, church schools and civic occasions where Anglican clergy often officiate.
However, the authors also note the obvious contrast between the view of Generation Y that life is generally benign with the figures showing rises in eating disorders, substance abuse, teenage suicide, bullying and sexual abuse.
The authors conclude: “We live in an instant culture, which cannot be reached by instant missionary tactics.” And the desire for happiness is valid and should not be criticised by clergy. “It can only be outclassed by a Christ-like way of life, for in him alone is true happiness to be found.”
Sinead Berrigan, 19: “I don’t believe in God and I think, to a certain extent, religions are a waste of time. I don’t like being told how to live by a set of religious rules. I just want to be happy”
Pascale Buehler, 16: “I don’t believe in God, but I don’t think religions are a waste of time. For some people religion is important. Happiness is more important for me, because I want to enjoy the life I live now”
Xavier Laus, 24: “I believe in God because I am Catholic, but I am not a very strict Catholic. I don’t think that religions are a waste of time, but my own happiness is more important to me than my religion”
Jasmin Aregger, 17: “I don’t believe in God and I don’t live according to any religious rules. Religion is a waste of time. I don’t believe in a life after death, so for me happiness is more important”
The Syndney Diocese has a view on the emerging Church or storm in a coffee cup
Just been reading an article out of Sydney. Regarding some worries concerns they have about the emerging Church. Amongst the criticisms was one layed at a worship service that Graceway. ran. The issue drawn out was in regards to a coffee cup prayer and the relationship of these 'type' of worship expereinces and the challenge to orthodoxy that the Da Vinci code is.
Anyway here is my response to Steve's post on the subject;
As an ex Graceway'er I would like to make some really rude comments about the Sydney Anglican Diocese Article, but as I work for a diocese that has very close connections with that diocese and I get in enough trouble for 'speaking my mind' so I will not say anything other than what a load of bunkem. I had a conversation with someone yesterday about my fears for anything that gets tagged 'emerging church', and my fears were that it will get dismissed as fadish, quirky or whatever else. And in doing so the 'observers' will fail to see what is really happening.
It is not about being trendy but in my opinion a genuine attempt to rediscover some lost aspects of Biblical theology - missio dei for instance which i do not think standard evangelical theology gives enough voice to.
It is also an attempt to develop a philosophy of ministry for a changing world - and in doing that remaining true to the good news of Jesus.
The Sydney Diocese carries a lot of clout, and I do hope they would go on from this article to at least attempt to converse rather than judge what is labeled 'emerging church.'
While the artcile was not only critical or Graceway i thought that fact that what they quoted from the worship service was actualy a Richard Foster suggestion. I always thought he was quite orthodox - maybe he isn't....
Needless to say I will follow the threads around this article
Anyway here is my response to Steve's post on the subject;
As an ex Graceway'er I would like to make some really rude comments about the Sydney Anglican Diocese Article, but as I work for a diocese that has very close connections with that diocese and I get in enough trouble for 'speaking my mind' so I will not say anything other than what a load of bunkem. I had a conversation with someone yesterday about my fears for anything that gets tagged 'emerging church', and my fears were that it will get dismissed as fadish, quirky or whatever else. And in doing so the 'observers' will fail to see what is really happening.
It is not about being trendy but in my opinion a genuine attempt to rediscover some lost aspects of Biblical theology - missio dei for instance which i do not think standard evangelical theology gives enough voice to.
It is also an attempt to develop a philosophy of ministry for a changing world - and in doing that remaining true to the good news of Jesus.
The Sydney Diocese carries a lot of clout, and I do hope they would go on from this article to at least attempt to converse rather than judge what is labeled 'emerging church.'
While the artcile was not only critical or Graceway i thought that fact that what they quoted from the worship service was actualy a Richard Foster suggestion. I always thought he was quite orthodox - maybe he isn't....
Needless to say I will follow the threads around this article
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
General Synod...
I got to attend a day of the Anglican General Synod in Christchurch yesterday. Growing up as a good Baptist boy the only thing i knew about Synods was that there was apparently a lot of beard pulling (Arian Nicean debate), that if all else failed in the debate you could always resort to the line..."well we have Peter's bones" (Synod of Whitby, the debate over amongst other things haircuts). Needles to say i went with expextations, instead there seemed to be a lot of people not saying what they wanted to say...the Politicaly Correct brigade were out in earnest.
Part of the debate I heard was over appointing a new primate/primates. Terms used to descrive this ranged from, "a three headed beast" to "this leadership will reflect the nature of thr Trinity." - what? thankfully they have moved away from the theoligical nonsense to at least talking about a TRIPARTITE leadership, but i wonder how well it will work.
While I suspect that the present candidates can pull it off, who knows what the future holds or how they will work it. "Well you'll be arch bishop on Saturday, Thursday, and we'll share Sunday..." or does it lead itself to a "how many primates does it take to change a light bulb.." type joke.
it was all very strange.... and I didn't once get to see Peter's bones or witness any beard pulling...
Anglicans elect tripartite leadership
Part of the debate I heard was over appointing a new primate/primates. Terms used to descrive this ranged from, "a three headed beast" to "this leadership will reflect the nature of thr Trinity." - what? thankfully they have moved away from the theoligical nonsense to at least talking about a TRIPARTITE leadership, but i wonder how well it will work.
While I suspect that the present candidates can pull it off, who knows what the future holds or how they will work it. "Well you'll be arch bishop on Saturday, Thursday, and we'll share Sunday..." or does it lead itself to a "how many primates does it take to change a light bulb.." type joke.
it was all very strange.... and I didn't once get to see Peter's bones or witness any beard pulling...
Anglicans elect tripartite leadership
Church in Transition...
Just picked up a book at the recommendation of Bruce at Manna Books in Christchurch The Church In Transition - by Tim Conder, Tim is pastor Emmaus Way Church in North Caroline. It's a great book - dealing with some of the issues surrounding transitions and the fears that need to be addressed in the process.
One section that particualry appealed to me was in regards to a rule of life as opposed to doctrinal affirmations. Rule of life being far more fluid as opposed to the your in your out hokey cokey that can be an aspect of Dcotrinal affiramtions,
The rules he considers are :
The pursuit of the gospel expressed and explained in community.
A passion for living out the values of Jesus' kingdom in the present
Comfort with mystery and uncertainty
A spiritual holism that calls forth a radical and comprehensive discipleship
A reading of scripture that intersects with local stories and context
An experiential appraoch to both worship and pursuit of truth
A ministry that honours the beauty of God's Creationand the creative spirit found in humanity.
Probably what appeals most is the similarity though expressed differently of my values as I approach youth ministry.
One section that particualry appealed to me was in regards to a rule of life as opposed to doctrinal affirmations. Rule of life being far more fluid as opposed to the your in your out hokey cokey that can be an aspect of Dcotrinal affiramtions,
The rules he considers are :
Probably what appeals most is the similarity though expressed differently of my values as I approach youth ministry.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Friday, May 05, 2006
Some thoughts on the use of Hollywood movies in the Church
As any one who has read this blog would know i have been thinking long and hard about the minefield that surrounds Copyright laws in regards to use of Movies.
So here are some guidelines that I have made available, they are not legal or sanctioned by the Diocese only my suggestions.
1 If you are showing a movie ALWAYS seek guidance from parents - In
regards to rating M and PG require parental or guardian's permission, my
understanding has been that as a leader you are operating in a temporary
guardian role for the time of youth group. Not sure how or if this would
stack up in a court case, but then I doubt that you could be sued for
showing PG or M movies (though I could be wrong here). It does draw up the
importance of seeking parental permission for all youth activities, and
ensuring that parents understand this. This could be done on a weekly basis
with signed permission slips, or you could draw up a term permission slip -
2. The law is somewhat fuzzy over what you can and can't show and in
what context - I came across a Canadian company that edits and distributes
Hollywood movies taking the objectionable content out. While it sounds like
a great idea it would be illegal to do it here in NZ (in fact I suspect it
is illegal in Canada also). We do have the power to fast forward though.
And there are other ways of censoring:
* Stop the tape and talk about it, why do we need to censor this
scene, allow the young people to form them selves by looking at the moral
issues connected with this.
* Turn it into a game, 'Ok the scene that follows is dodgy, so we
are going to act out our own clean, healthy and smut free version of this' -
I have done this several times and it can be a lot of fun.
* Turn the volume down and improvise a voice over or if it's the
images you may be able to blank the image keep the soundtrack and improvise
alternate actions.
3. As for context, educational establishment are allowed to use movies
and videos for review, criticism, research and study. It could be argued
that the Church is an educational establishment - in which case we can use
clips in the course of a bible study or sermon. In a recent paper I
received from Australia (there copyright law is as far as I can tell the
same) a lawyer interpreted fair use of video in terms of illustrating versus
reviewing or critiquing. What that means is to play an extract from a movie
because it illustrates a point you are making in a sermon is an infringement
of copyright, it doesn't fall into educational criteria, however to give a
talk that is reviewing the ideas contained in a movie you do not need
permission to play extracts from the film. While that does sound rather
complicated I think it can be understood simply, if you describe a scenario
and then play a video clip to say it's like this - your breaking copyright.
But if you play a clip and then draw out or review what it is saying about
an issue then you're reviewing, not illustrating. When I use video even
prior to me becoming aware of this I used it in this way rather than
illustrating. It's a fine line.
4. If you think you are using it in this way then you can still only
use 10% of a movie as fair use.
5. So can you show a video to a youth group for a youth activity, again
it is not clear? The issue is that you are not allowed to show video's in
'public' without permission. What is 'public' well if it's a group of
friends sitting in a lounge in the context of a bible study then it is not
considered a public performance. But an advertised youth group or church
activity may be considered 'public' in which case permission is needed. As
you can imagine it is hard to police and even harder to know when I am
breaking the law or not. What I suggest then is if you are going to show
video's do so in a parent's home, AND DO NOT CHARGE. Apart from covering
yourself legally you are also creating a space where young people can
interact with adults other than youth leaders - this I very important for
young people's development.
6. Under Australasian Law you can use music videos in the context of
worship without having to seek permission. APRA the body that covers this
considers worship to have the same rulings as showing video's in a house
(well it is the House of God..) The same applies to playing CD's
Other ways of working with the issue.
In the event that you want to form a talk around a movie you could also
encourage people to act out the scene - this actually works well, if you do
a Google search on the movie you want and quotes or scripts you will often
find what you need without having to sit down and write out the whole
script.
The best illustrations from movies are the one's that everyone has
seen. If I was to say A long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I guarantee
that 90% at least of those you were talking to would know that it is the
opening scene of Star Wars.
Allow people's imaginations to work, use scenes that most people will know, describe the scene (maybe with a bit of drama).
Pick out memorable quotes to jog people's memories.
I think one of the problems we face with using movies is that they encourage people to be passive, the power of the scene when describing, illustrating or critiquing
an idea is that it draws people in, it touches them.
We do not always have to show the clip to do that, we can work on collective memory - "we've all scene this movie haven't we?" Emotion "while watching this movie I was
touched by this scene." describe it and why it touched you, what was so powerful about it. Still images, quotes and props may well help jog people's memories enough to draw them into the drama.
So here are some guidelines that I have made available, they are not legal or sanctioned by the Diocese only my suggestions.
1 If you are showing a movie ALWAYS seek guidance from parents - In
regards to rating M and PG require parental or guardian's permission, my
understanding has been that as a leader you are operating in a temporary
guardian role for the time of youth group. Not sure how or if this would
stack up in a court case, but then I doubt that you could be sued for
showing PG or M movies (though I could be wrong here). It does draw up the
importance of seeking parental permission for all youth activities, and
ensuring that parents understand this. This could be done on a weekly basis
with signed permission slips, or you could draw up a term permission slip -
2. The law is somewhat fuzzy over what you can and can't show and in
what context - I came across a Canadian company that edits and distributes
Hollywood movies taking the objectionable content out. While it sounds like
a great idea it would be illegal to do it here in NZ (in fact I suspect it
is illegal in Canada also). We do have the power to fast forward though.
And there are other ways of censoring:
* Stop the tape and talk about it, why do we need to censor this
scene, allow the young people to form them selves by looking at the moral
issues connected with this.
* Turn it into a game, 'Ok the scene that follows is dodgy, so we
are going to act out our own clean, healthy and smut free version of this' -
I have done this several times and it can be a lot of fun.
* Turn the volume down and improvise a voice over or if it's the
images you may be able to blank the image keep the soundtrack and improvise
alternate actions.
3. As for context, educational establishment are allowed to use movies
and videos for review, criticism, research and study. It could be argued
that the Church is an educational establishment - in which case we can use
clips in the course of a bible study or sermon. In a recent paper I
received from Australia (there copyright law is as far as I can tell the
same) a lawyer interpreted fair use of video in terms of illustrating versus
reviewing or critiquing. What that means is to play an extract from a movie
because it illustrates a point you are making in a sermon is an infringement
of copyright, it doesn't fall into educational criteria, however to give a
talk that is reviewing the ideas contained in a movie you do not need
permission to play extracts from the film. While that does sound rather
complicated I think it can be understood simply, if you describe a scenario
and then play a video clip to say it's like this - your breaking copyright.
But if you play a clip and then draw out or review what it is saying about
an issue then you're reviewing, not illustrating. When I use video even
prior to me becoming aware of this I used it in this way rather than
illustrating. It's a fine line.
4. If you think you are using it in this way then you can still only
use 10% of a movie as fair use.
5. So can you show a video to a youth group for a youth activity, again
it is not clear? The issue is that you are not allowed to show video's in
'public' without permission. What is 'public' well if it's a group of
friends sitting in a lounge in the context of a bible study then it is not
considered a public performance. But an advertised youth group or church
activity may be considered 'public' in which case permission is needed. As
you can imagine it is hard to police and even harder to know when I am
breaking the law or not. What I suggest then is if you are going to show
video's do so in a parent's home, AND DO NOT CHARGE. Apart from covering
yourself legally you are also creating a space where young people can
interact with adults other than youth leaders - this I very important for
young people's development.
6. Under Australasian Law you can use music videos in the context of
worship without having to seek permission. APRA the body that covers this
considers worship to have the same rulings as showing video's in a house
(well it is the House of God..) The same applies to playing CD's
Other ways of working with the issue.
In the event that you want to form a talk around a movie you could also
encourage people to act out the scene - this actually works well, if you do
a Google search on the movie you want and quotes or scripts you will often
find what you need without having to sit down and write out the whole
script.
The best illustrations from movies are the one's that everyone has
seen. If I was to say A long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I guarantee
that 90% at least of those you were talking to would know that it is the
opening scene of Star Wars.
Allow people's imaginations to work, use scenes that most people will know, describe the scene (maybe with a bit of drama).
Pick out memorable quotes to jog people's memories.
I think one of the problems we face with using movies is that they encourage people to be passive, the power of the scene when describing, illustrating or critiquing
an idea is that it draws people in, it touches them.
We do not always have to show the clip to do that, we can work on collective memory - "we've all scene this movie haven't we?" Emotion "while watching this movie I was
touched by this scene." describe it and why it touched you, what was so powerful about it. Still images, quotes and props may well help jog people's memories enough to draw them into the drama.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
An interesting Canadian perspective on the use of video
I was sent this article about a Canadian group that are distributing edited Hollywood video's - interestignly enough one of the people involved thinks this is legal because;
Every edited DVD disc we distribute has an original unedited DVD disc, sitting on our shelves. When someone sells you a movie, it's yours to do anything you like with," he said
Funny becuase as far as production companies are concerned when you buy movie you buy use of not the actual movie to use as you wish....
Full article is below -
By Peter Biggs
"RENT edited Hollywood movies -- no graphic violence, sex scenes, nudity or profanity!"
So reads an advertisement for FamilySafeMovies, a web based movie rental service. Some Christians are rejoicing that at last there is an option for them to watch movies -- which ensures they will not be exposed to harmful, offensive material. Others question the practice.
FamilySafe was started in July 2005 by Rob Anderson. Although the business is based in Alberta, with offices in Calgary and Edmonton, the video rental service is advertised and accessed throughout western Canada and beyond. DVDs are ordered via the website, then sent out and returned by customers using Canada Post. This business model allows for a wide reach, with FamilySafe claiming to have a solid base in Alberta and B.C. and plans to expand into the U.S.
Anderson, a professing Christian, told CC.com that he started the company after noticing a similar service in the U.S. "There was nobody doing this in Canada," he said. "My wife and I are tired of the cursing and the violence. People shouldn't have to shut themselves out of society."
Asked exactly how they 'edit' the movies, he described a team of editors who use professional software to make cuts look seamless.
"We don't edit every movie. Some movies, like Brokeback Mountain, are too much to edit; we just don't carry movies like that. Most movies only have between 20 seconds and two minutes cut; occasionally we've cut up to four minutes."
Is it legal?
Along with this business venture, Anderson is completing his training to become a lawyer. "As to legal issues, we purchase original copies of the movies. Every edited DVD disc we distribute has an original unedited DVD disc, sitting on our shelves. When someone sells you a movie, it's yours to do anything you like with," he said.
Currently they distribute around 10 DVDs of each movie. The cost of reproducing a DVD is minimal, thus enabling FamilySafe to easily compete in the rental market.
The practice of editing movies, he conceded, "has been challenged in the US, unsuccessfully. In addition, in Canada things are more lax."
He added confidently: "What we are doing is perfectly legal, and is unlikely to be challenged."
Censoring or fast forwarding?
For some, the greater question is whether it is ethical to take an artist's creation and alter it without their permission. Is this synonymous with censorship? Christians are divided on this.
Canadian scriptwriter Kevin Miller, who writes for Hollywood Jesus, a Christian web site that engages issues of spirituality in the movies, sees things differently. "As for physically altering someone else's artwork to make it more palatable, forget it," he said in an e-mail to CC.com. "What are these people going to do when confronted by Michelangelo's David? Quickly chisel a pair of pants for him?"
He added: "I'm not saying I like watching sex, violence, and foul language in films. However, I would never avoid a film because it contains such elements. To me, they are incidental to what is really going on in any particular film. I'm much more interested in the artistic/political/social/religious statement in a film. Sometimes a film needs to use graphic elements to make that statement clearly. Contrast is everything in art. It's all about darkness and light, sound and silence, black and white."
FamilySafe's Anderson responded to the question of altering an artist's creation with: "All we are doing is fast forwarding movies for people." He said he believes FamilySafe is merely providing choice. "We try to strike a balance, and have never received a complaint. People can go and rent the original movie from any movie outlet. We are simply giving people choice."
Some argue that movies and shows are already censored on the television. CBC TV spokesperson Ruth Allen told CC.com: "Any program that airs before 9 pm has inappropriate language edited out by 'dipping the audio.'" She declined to say whether the editing could include the cutting of scenes as well.
Edmonton Alliance church youth pastor Kirsten Glidden frequently uses Familysafe movies -- both at home and for church based youth outreach movie nights. Her church is happy to recommend the service and indeed mentions it in the bulletin in the context of its movie nights. Glidden said she does not see what the fuss is about, regarding censorship.
"I am not a conservative," she said, "but even many Disney movies that are G rated have questionable content."
Asked to cite an example, Glidden said: "Sleeping Beauty, because of how evil and cruel the queen is. Also, Ice Age 2 has a lot of sexual innuendo. I don't like how there is an absence of definition as to who the movie is for. We live in an R-rated world -- and as a church, we should look different, have a higher standard."
She summarized her support of FamilySafe: "I'm a parent. We've got one shot to protect kids from things that could destroy their lives."
Miller conceded: "I realize that James 1:27 says 'keep oneself from being polluted by the world." However, he stressed: "To me, that doesn't mean insulating yourself from the world."
Jesus, he said, "certainly didn't insulate himself from the world. He spent much of his time eating, drinking, and fellowshipping in dens of iniquity. And I'm sure he wasn't wearing earplugs or a blindfold. Eradication or elimination of sin is not the goal of the Christian life. It's about embracing holiness, becoming godly. That may sound like the same thing, but I can assure you it is not. One is human-centred, the other God-centred."
original is atCanadian Christianity
Every edited DVD disc we distribute has an original unedited DVD disc, sitting on our shelves. When someone sells you a movie, it's yours to do anything you like with," he said
Funny becuase as far as production companies are concerned when you buy movie you buy use of not the actual movie to use as you wish....
Full article is below -
By Peter Biggs
"RENT edited Hollywood movies -- no graphic violence, sex scenes, nudity or profanity!"
So reads an advertisement for FamilySafeMovies, a web based movie rental service. Some Christians are rejoicing that at last there is an option for them to watch movies -- which ensures they will not be exposed to harmful, offensive material. Others question the practice.
FamilySafe was started in July 2005 by Rob Anderson. Although the business is based in Alberta, with offices in Calgary and Edmonton, the video rental service is advertised and accessed throughout western Canada and beyond. DVDs are ordered via the website, then sent out and returned by customers using Canada Post. This business model allows for a wide reach, with FamilySafe claiming to have a solid base in Alberta and B.C. and plans to expand into the U.S.
Anderson, a professing Christian, told CC.com that he started the company after noticing a similar service in the U.S. "There was nobody doing this in Canada," he said. "My wife and I are tired of the cursing and the violence. People shouldn't have to shut themselves out of society."
Asked exactly how they 'edit' the movies, he described a team of editors who use professional software to make cuts look seamless.
"We don't edit every movie. Some movies, like Brokeback Mountain, are too much to edit; we just don't carry movies like that. Most movies only have between 20 seconds and two minutes cut; occasionally we've cut up to four minutes."
Is it legal?
Along with this business venture, Anderson is completing his training to become a lawyer. "As to legal issues, we purchase original copies of the movies. Every edited DVD disc we distribute has an original unedited DVD disc, sitting on our shelves. When someone sells you a movie, it's yours to do anything you like with," he said.
Currently they distribute around 10 DVDs of each movie. The cost of reproducing a DVD is minimal, thus enabling FamilySafe to easily compete in the rental market.
The practice of editing movies, he conceded, "has been challenged in the US, unsuccessfully. In addition, in Canada things are more lax."
He added confidently: "What we are doing is perfectly legal, and is unlikely to be challenged."
Censoring or fast forwarding?
For some, the greater question is whether it is ethical to take an artist's creation and alter it without their permission. Is this synonymous with censorship? Christians are divided on this.
Canadian scriptwriter Kevin Miller, who writes for Hollywood Jesus, a Christian web site that engages issues of spirituality in the movies, sees things differently. "As for physically altering someone else's artwork to make it more palatable, forget it," he said in an e-mail to CC.com. "What are these people going to do when confronted by Michelangelo's David? Quickly chisel a pair of pants for him?"
He added: "I'm not saying I like watching sex, violence, and foul language in films. However, I would never avoid a film because it contains such elements. To me, they are incidental to what is really going on in any particular film. I'm much more interested in the artistic/political/social/religious statement in a film. Sometimes a film needs to use graphic elements to make that statement clearly. Contrast is everything in art. It's all about darkness and light, sound and silence, black and white."
FamilySafe's Anderson responded to the question of altering an artist's creation with: "All we are doing is fast forwarding movies for people." He said he believes FamilySafe is merely providing choice. "We try to strike a balance, and have never received a complaint. People can go and rent the original movie from any movie outlet. We are simply giving people choice."
Some argue that movies and shows are already censored on the television. CBC TV spokesperson Ruth Allen told CC.com: "Any program that airs before 9 pm has inappropriate language edited out by 'dipping the audio.'" She declined to say whether the editing could include the cutting of scenes as well.
Edmonton Alliance church youth pastor Kirsten Glidden frequently uses Familysafe movies -- both at home and for church based youth outreach movie nights. Her church is happy to recommend the service and indeed mentions it in the bulletin in the context of its movie nights. Glidden said she does not see what the fuss is about, regarding censorship.
"I am not a conservative," she said, "but even many Disney movies that are G rated have questionable content."
Asked to cite an example, Glidden said: "Sleeping Beauty, because of how evil and cruel the queen is. Also, Ice Age 2 has a lot of sexual innuendo. I don't like how there is an absence of definition as to who the movie is for. We live in an R-rated world -- and as a church, we should look different, have a higher standard."
She summarized her support of FamilySafe: "I'm a parent. We've got one shot to protect kids from things that could destroy their lives."
Miller conceded: "I realize that James 1:27 says 'keep oneself from being polluted by the world." However, he stressed: "To me, that doesn't mean insulating yourself from the world."
Jesus, he said, "certainly didn't insulate himself from the world. He spent much of his time eating, drinking, and fellowshipping in dens of iniquity. And I'm sure he wasn't wearing earplugs or a blindfold. Eradication or elimination of sin is not the goal of the Christian life. It's about embracing holiness, becoming godly. That may sound like the same thing, but I can assure you it is not. One is human-centred, the other God-centred."
original is at
George Lings in Nelson
George Lings is a name that not many people this side of the world would know but over in the UK George has been very influential, as part of thr driving force behind the Church Army there but more recently with the movement towards making the Church in England mission shapped and the development of Fresh Expressions of worship. Well he is comming to Nelson on Wednesday 21st June for a morning to share some of the story of what is happening in the UK - but also to encourage the Church in her Journey here. It's open to the publice and I'm sure in true Anglican style there will be a lovely morning tea with cucumber sandwiches and Asparagur roles.
Hope to see you there.
George Lings
Hope to see you there.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Gone Fishing
I preached on John 21 last week at church. It's one of them interesting texts with a lot of depth that can easily be missed. Part of my angle was the response of the disciples to what had happened on the Easter Sunday morning. confusion, bewilderment, excitment and fear coupled with a need to explore what this event meant philosophicaly and theologicaly.
There response was not to set up a Synod where they could debate the issues but to do what most normal blokes would do - they went fishing....
Next week General Synod for the Anglican church in Aotearoa and Polynesia takes place, over the course of a week they will debate, corcuss (my spellchecker tells me it should be spelt carcuss...go figure)and make some interesting decisions that i am sure we will all be grateful for. However i can't help thinking maybe they should just go fishing too...
There response was not to set up a Synod where they could debate the issues but to do what most normal blokes would do - they went fishing....
Next week General Synod for the Anglican church in Aotearoa and Polynesia takes place, over the course of a week they will debate, corcuss (my spellchecker tells me it should be spelt carcuss...go figure)and make some interesting decisions that i am sure we will all be grateful for. However i can't help thinking maybe they should just go fishing too...
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Why bother with Church?
I recently moved to another church, and the process of moving has been interesting to say the least. What is probably most interesting about it is the people i have comes across in the journey too.
On Sunday i was chatting with a couple who i believed to be quite fundametalist in their faith, not a wish washy evangelical like me, but people who blieve in recieving good teaching etc..etc.. anyway over the course of the conversation they picked up that I had a few frustrations with Church life in general - furstrations that in spirt of theological differences they shared... "How could this be?" I thought, and then it clicked - JESUS. That was the problem..
What i mean by that is that it is the recuring theme in every one i talk with who has an interest in the emerging/missional/church sucks type people. They have spent more time reading about Jesus and less on Paul.
While this may seem simplistic it does stand to reason anyone who has read Paul and not the gospels' would assume that Church is all their is and that our current models of Church are God given and therefore chould not be changed. I know growing up in a church I never heard the gospels preached from - it was always either the OT or Paul's letters.
As a grwon up pastor type person I normaly spend most of my time in the Gospels and little time in the Letters. While I thought this was because i perefer narratives to doctrine - I think it's because I also find a Jesus free from the Church very attractive. While i recognise that is not easy - given that the gospels emerged from the early church. It does give me an indication that there must be a way of honouring the whole of scripture without falling into the traps that we have set ourselves with much of what we now call Church...
I guess though at the end of the day Paul is important, especialy as he tries to bring order to the chaos that was probably so much of early church life.
Over the past few months i have been trying to get my head more round the NT world in the hope that I can re read Paul's letters (and other) without immediatly falling into understanding them in terms of current Church models.
I guess i hope to read them through the eye's of the gospel rather than to read the gosples through the eye's of the epistles
On Sunday i was chatting with a couple who i believed to be quite fundametalist in their faith, not a wish washy evangelical like me, but people who blieve in recieving good teaching etc..etc.. anyway over the course of the conversation they picked up that I had a few frustrations with Church life in general - furstrations that in spirt of theological differences they shared... "How could this be?" I thought, and then it clicked - JESUS. That was the problem..
What i mean by that is that it is the recuring theme in every one i talk with who has an interest in the emerging/missional/church sucks type people. They have spent more time reading about Jesus and less on Paul.
While this may seem simplistic it does stand to reason anyone who has read Paul and not the gospels' would assume that Church is all their is and that our current models of Church are God given and therefore chould not be changed. I know growing up in a church I never heard the gospels preached from - it was always either the OT or Paul's letters.
As a grwon up pastor type person I normaly spend most of my time in the Gospels and little time in the Letters. While I thought this was because i perefer narratives to doctrine - I think it's because I also find a Jesus free from the Church very attractive. While i recognise that is not easy - given that the gospels emerged from the early church. It does give me an indication that there must be a way of honouring the whole of scripture without falling into the traps that we have set ourselves with much of what we now call Church...
I guess though at the end of the day Paul is important, especialy as he tries to bring order to the chaos that was probably so much of early church life.
Over the past few months i have been trying to get my head more round the NT world in the hope that I can re read Paul's letters (and other) without immediatly falling into understanding them in terms of current Church models.
I guess i hope to read them through the eye's of the gospel rather than to read the gosples through the eye's of the epistles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)