lol

I actually think Loius Therous is more skilled at challenge than the Phelps family … which is very sad.

You are so right about our perspective. I think that the was the main thing our lecturers wanted us to learn in 4 years of theology. Took a bit longer for me though!

I agree about documentary makers. Although i like Louis Theroux, as he does seem to call it as he sees it. He did one of Paul Daniels and his wife debbie, who had got loads of publicity as a gold-digger. But when Theroux went thier he thought they actually had a good relationship and really loved each other … and said that. Showed some integrity i think.

I am not in any way saying that (a), (c), (d) aren’t important - they are.

Good comment Paul. I really agree about the community. It was very strong and very appealing … at least at points (i am not sure i would like having to phone my mum to ask permission to go out for a coffee! - but i did like everyone living all around the same plot of land, but in thier separate houses. I think that is sustainable community living … ie won’t kill each other

I think you are right too about apathy. I guess we now sometimes spiritualise that opposition so it becomes: the enemy is opposing me, so i must be on the right track!

Disapproval of homosexual thought-life and practice because it kills the potential for the full Glory of God in someones life (I believe this but there are many other such sins) is not the same thing as hating and wishing for final vengeance upon a homosexual person. “God is not willing that any should perish”.

When you challenge people about sin, people get angry, because that makes them out to be not-like-God. Simple.

People especially get angry if they have already murdered in their heart, on account of some real or imagined sin.

The difficult bit to understand is the cross. Could someone explain it to me again?

re: vasey … he is Michael Vasey, author of Strangers and Friends: A New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995) … a text I used for my dissertation years ago but the words lingered and remind me of the limitations of my own view from time to time.

I think the greatest direction we can take is to become more aware of the bias in our own perspective … I actually missed the show so can’t comment in great detail but from the trailers I did see it appears that there wasn’t even a willingness to engage in another’s perspective and that, I believe, is dangerous.

While I totally take on board that we all mess up, none of us has a perfect understanding/witness/church, etc… I think there is something about discerning whats at the heart of things by their fruits, and to me it seems that something that is so full of hate and lacking sensitivity (picketing funerals) (or even evidence of the fruit of the spirit?) seems to have missed the heart of God as I understand by a fair way. As such there seems to be a driven-ness to it that isn’t actually godly or something to be emulated, however sincere they may be in believing they are serving God.

Which isn’t to say that we couldn’t do with more passion and zeal in our own walk with God, ‘cos of course we can. Neither is it to say that we are better than the Phelps, who maybe have gt something of the heart of God we miss in other areas (maybe ones not seen on the documentary).

Which brings me on to the other point I’d like to make. I didn’t see it myself, but I’m sure Theroux’s programme was really shocking, but don’t forget that programme makers like Theroux, Michael Moore, etc… are primarily in the entertainment business - they take a lot of material and pick the worst bits to make their case as strong as possible and as entertaining.

Finally, love the idea of listening more fully to what non-christians make of church. It is after all one of the steps to greater self-awareness to understand how others see you.

Regarding point (2), given that you agree both points are two, why not emphasise both? As always, I think we need to ensure our message is faithful to the New Testament message. And given the centrality of death and resurrection of Jesus to NT theology, I would say the most important thing to emphasise that.

This may be a case of semantics, but I just don’t feel comfortable with any version of Christianity that starts to minimise what Jesus did for us. And currently it seems to me that if you remove (2a), you diminish the work of the cross, and also the depth of the love of God. Its like telling the parable of the prodigal son, only saying that after he left his father’s house he went to the temple and did some good deeds, then decided he was being independent so returned home again. Doesn’t quite do it for me!

So I guess really for me there are three things to talk about, essentially:

(2a) fallen world; fallen people; injustice; enslaved; oppressed; without hope; etc

(2b) But created as Image bearers; dignity, value, worth, etc

(2c) Jesus through his work (esp cross and resurrection) and through the outpouring of his spirit to his people, enables us to resolve the tension between 2a and 2b and be thrust into 2d:

(2d) Adopted child of God, restored image bearer, renewed mind, cleansed, freed, delivered, new creation, etc.

So in summary I suppose I am saying that I feel there is a danger if we just emphasise (2b), as you suggest might be a good idea, that we start preaching some kind of Judaism (i.e. cross-less Christianity) or new-age paganism.

Can you alleviate my fears? (so to speak!)

Actually I have said that before concerning the scientology people. Here in Edinburgh they often set up a tent during the festival, complete with plasma screens, lots young people staffing it, it all looks good and impressive. Shame about the content But I did think that if the local churches made such an effort (and spent as much money) on outreach as they did, perhaps we would be onto something.

Or to put it another way to use my fave quote from someone who i can never remember - ‘if we surround ourselves with people like us we don’t have community we have a clique…’

i would say we are not facing hate in the western world - people don’t hate us they just kill us with apathy - yeah, whatever. Or plurality - yeah that is one path isn’t it, or just individuality - heh if it works for you etc.

By and large we as a church in the west are like that too, we don’t want to tread on any toes, or mess with anyone’s choices - we are almost the oppostite end of the spectrum to the phelps, which is maybe why we react in such shock to them?

So to get back to your Q - do we take our status as being ignored as proof of our rightness or are we just far too understanding and nice about it?

Maybe if we had the passion of the Phelps for the pursuits of the kingdom of God then that would be a good place - what are the counter-cultural radical ways of living that we need to be - picketing funerals is bad taste but what is the good taste actions for us to do?

Oh and i agree on theology point, as Brian Mclaren likes to say, what we focus on determines what we miss…

So i guess my question here is: how can we put that mirror up to ourselves so that we don’t cause carnage in the church and the community that we are a witness to, not because of our evil intentions, but because of our inability to learn?

One of the things that i am learning to do is to see every human being as an image bearer … made in the image of God, and somohow reflecting God. With some people it is difficult to see, but if we can connect with that part of them that longs to be pure, good and holy …

Anon … (are you always the same anon who comments, or do we have a number of anon’s here????)

Good comment. I love the quote by Vasey … who is she/he? Any thoughts on the direction we should move to see things differently?

That being said, it’s always good too look at things like this with a mirror being held to your face….

1 - My personal belief is that we (the church) need to listen very carefully to criticisms, especially from those that we are trying to include (i.e. non-Christians). I have said for years that the only “stumbling-block” should be Jesus and his gospel. As you say, we are told by scripture to expect that will be received either as offensive or foolish. Yet often its secondary things that offend and put people off. I think we should try harder to remove these secondary things, but by no means avoid the first category.

I guess one of the many problems with this so-called Phelps family is that they think every offense caused must be a good thing, clearly absurd. Why not set fire to King James bibles and throw them through windows? That way we spread the gospel and cause outrage all in one

I also wonder what the response of other churches in the area is to this nonsensical false church. Have they been ignored by other churches? I wonder, what is the proper response to such a “church”?

2 - not sure about this. Its seems we need, as always, to hold two opposite truths in tension.

a) the world is full of messed up, jacked-up sinners. This is not a theological point. This is a fact.

b) all people are created in God’s image; have dignity, value, and worth; and as many as will respond to Jesus will be offered eternal life, be transformed into the image of Christ, and will become a child of God.

It seems most churches emphasise either the former (leading to condemnation) or the latter (leading to self-righteousness). The trick is hold both as true and to preach both. Dr Tim Keller (Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC) says something similar and I think he is bang on the money on this point.

Yes, there is war; discontent; hurt; anguish; pain; heartache; people we would rather not encounter; situations that are not ideal; different beliefs & opposing opinions … but that shouldn’t mean we become blinded by ignorance and judge others to protect our own safe bubble.

I agree that people become who we expect them to become e.g. teenagers who are all tarred with the same brush. Vasey said ‘what we see depends on where we stand and what we expect to see’ … maybe it’s time we took a few steps in another direction?