I have to start by saying that I find Ray Anderson very wordy and long winded. He makes excellent points but strays too much into side issues. Perhaps that’s his writing style as a theologian. Anyways, what I gained from the first chapter is an appreciation for the Antioch Church (AC). Where would we be if there was no AC? Would Christianity have spread to Western Europe, Americas and India without it?
Ray makes clear that there is a fundamental dissimilarity in AC and Jerusalem Church (JC). He emphatically states, “What clearly set apart the emerging AC from JC was a theology of revelation as contrasted with a theology of religion.” Although he painfully elaborates on the ‘theology of religion’ in the following paragraphs, his use of the term is rather misleading. He is, as others have noted on the blog, pushing the point a bit too far.
Ray downplays the role of revelation in JC. If you read the acts account, there was the day of Pentecost and Peter’s dramatic sermon and people were being added daily to the church. There was ‘social concern’ for widows and people shared all they had. So in a sense they were a vibrant community and we have to credit them for that. When the persecution started, the ordinary JC Christians went everywhere spreading the word. So in a sense Both JC and AC had a theology of revelation and yet both had a theology of religion (although JC had a stronger sense of a ‘historical’ religious identity). Both churches had a mix of both theologies.
However, the crux of the matter is (I believe) much more to do with ecclesiology. How does the church understand itself? Why does the church exist in the first place? What is its nature and mission? I believe that the kind of answers we get from these questions reveal whether we (in this day and age) are JC or AC.
Ray highlights that JC was committed to ‘historical precedent, religious scruple and a fortress mentality…..’ Whereas Paul’s (and AC’s) ecclesiology was developed as a theology of the mission of the spirit as the continuing mission of Jesus. AC type churches can also defined as Missional churches – churches where mission is at the heart of everything. Mission, not in the sense of a department/ministry within the church but the force that drives and shapes the church. ‘A Church is no true Church if it is not missionary, and missions are not true missions if they are not part of the life of the Church.’ (Leslie Newbigin).
I wonder if both churches were dynamic in their own unique way but one thought of itself as a ‘vessel of truth’ that had to be guarded from the outside world so was very careful in its dealings with the world, while the other thought of itself as a ‘missionary people of God’ whose mission was to embody in its corporate life and ministry the continuing messianic and incarnational nature of the son of God through the indwelling of the holy spirit.
Practically speaking (and I have seen this in numerous churches) the question is, are we an ‘outward looking church’ or an ‘inward looking church’? Both JC and AC type can be dynamic and vibrant – good worship, accurate preaching of the word and wonderful and varied ministries, but only one remains true to the spirit of our messianic, incarnational Lord.
I suspect that a lot of emerging churches started as a reaction to the JC type which is inward looking, controlling and have a fortress mentality (Although I am speaking from a western perspective) My own understanding is that a lot of JC type churches start off as AC types but when things settle down and the church starts to be blessed and grows in significance it falls into the temptation to institutionalising things which takes it into the JC mould. The very success that started it off in the first place tends to be its downfall. I truly believe that a church that is married to the spirit of the age will be a widow in the next.
So I need to question myself, “in what ways am I trying to capture and mould God’s work rather than be humble enough to let the spirit work in its own way?”, “Am I operating out of a fortress mentality or from a truly incarnational mentality?” My hope and prayer is that we as the new generation leaders will start and nurture the AC type of churches.
PS: this may be nothing to do with the Indian situation, but I have found that emerging churches here in Europe tend to predominantly reach people on the fringes -those who are ‘spiritually uncertain where they stand’ and ‘don’t quite fit in’ types. Those who believe in Jesus but unsure of evangelical convictions of in/out, us/them, word/world, etc. I wonder if it’s the same in India?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Chapter One: Study and reflection from Nigel
These are my quick reflections after reading chapter one from Anderson's "Emerging Theology" book. My responses are ordered according to a three point structure that was listed earlier (1, notes about the chapter, 2. thoughts about the chapter, 3. application for (my) today's context).
1. A few notes about Chapter One
In my view, Anderson is justifying the emerging church movement (as seen in America) by showing a difference between the Antioch and Jerusalem churches in Acts. His main point is that the Jerusalem church was encumbered with the need for continuity with Jewish order/predecessors and the Antioch church in contrast found a new source of continuity… with Christ himself… and a discontinuity with some of the religiousity exhibited in the Jerusalem church.
He makes Paul the champion of this theology; and defines this theology as a direct relationship (continuity) with Jesus (the cornerstone), who gives direct access to the Father, through the Holy Spirit.
Basically, the Jewish oriented Jerusalem church, Anderson seems to say, was trapped in its own historical traditions (hence, geography) and Antioch, by virtue of its distance from Jerusalem and Paul’s own direct revelatory message, was able to break from the shackles of Jewish oriented teaching to embrace a new kind of Church that rightly included both Jews and Gentiles.
2. Some notes about Anderson’s points
While this is an interested parallel, I do feel Anderson is pushing the point too far. There was not such a dichotomy between the two churches, as if they were two separate movements. Each of the churches represented in the NT seem to have their own cultural strengths and problems… and one of the strengths of the Jerusalem church was that it had most of the apostles residing there. The weakness was that it had a strong Jewish presence, and thus most of the Christians there were Jews.
It was natural, still, that Jerusalem hold some ‘fatherly’ concern over the burgeoning churches, and it must be noted that it was the Jerusalem church that commissioned Barnabas and Paul to go to Antioch in the first place.
Also, it is unfair to call Paul the theologian of the emerging churches (ie. Antioch), when Paul, and thus the NT testimony, sees Paul as a theologian for all churches.
Nevertheless, I was excited by the talk about ‘direct’ relationship and accountability to the living Jesus.
While postmodernism will tell us that all our understandings of reality are coloured by subjective understandings, the fact that we have a living God, who is present in and through the Holy Spirit who has come down, it’s remarkable to see that God Himself is here and is making (not just past tense) Himself known.
Thus, I think it’s a great reminder for churches, even young churches and Christians who don’t fit into regular churches, whether we indeed are having a direct relationship with the living God!
3. How does this fit in to my ministry?
Just recently, Prakash came to SAIACS and said that he wasn’t sure what all this had to do with our Indian context. Anderson, he felt, was talking to and about a different reality from his. While that is certainly true in a specific sense, I do feel that there is something here that challenges us, especially our Indian churches.
Today our Indian emerging churches are understood are something different from the west… ie. the word emerging church as is understood in the west may not fully understand the reality that is prevalent in India.
In India, we have a growing number of un-trained pastors/leaders who become Christians and start teaching/leading other Christians. This movement (and it’s huge in rural/smaller sectors) is emerging in the true “verb” sense. They have little connection to theology or the practices of right hermeneutics. Often they are charismatic leaders… and often they are poorly managed institutions.
Whatever this reality, Anderson offers an interesting illustration of this phenomena. For most of us from “established” churches (and that means we who attend churches with a printed programme, a suited (or well-dressed) pastor and an established order/doctrine), our concerns for these churches would be… do they teach the right churches, do they represent the true “continuity” of faith in the Lord. In that sense, we are the new Jerusalem… and they are the true Antioch. These poor unschooled churches that are mushroomed every year, are not always biblical as we understand it… and yet the true question must be… do they know our living God, do they have a living relationship with Jesus, through the Holy Spirit? If they do, then praise God and let’s see how God moves in these people as well.
But that’s still a macro concern… and more to my own local context… I think I have always valued evidence of “direct” relationship with God. Even in our language. I want to see more of us, in our day to day language, workings, see how the living Jesus is alive with us today.
Too often our churches, our work, is being managed in the same way secular world is being managed. And sometimes it is easy to forget (or fail to see clearly) the living God at work.
A few days ago, I saw the living God do something amazing in SAIACS. And the miracle of his presence has begun to take shape. There’s no time/place here to get into the details. But even as I saw this, and then read Anderson, I felt confirmed of the fact that if we do not see Jesus working in our day to day activities then we are probably more institutionalized than we think.
Nigel, April 30, 2008
1. A few notes about Chapter One
In my view, Anderson is justifying the emerging church movement (as seen in America) by showing a difference between the Antioch and Jerusalem churches in Acts. His main point is that the Jerusalem church was encumbered with the need for continuity with Jewish order/predecessors and the Antioch church in contrast found a new source of continuity… with Christ himself… and a discontinuity with some of the religiousity exhibited in the Jerusalem church.
He makes Paul the champion of this theology; and defines this theology as a direct relationship (continuity) with Jesus (the cornerstone), who gives direct access to the Father, through the Holy Spirit.
Basically, the Jewish oriented Jerusalem church, Anderson seems to say, was trapped in its own historical traditions (hence, geography) and Antioch, by virtue of its distance from Jerusalem and Paul’s own direct revelatory message, was able to break from the shackles of Jewish oriented teaching to embrace a new kind of Church that rightly included both Jews and Gentiles.
2. Some notes about Anderson’s points
While this is an interested parallel, I do feel Anderson is pushing the point too far. There was not such a dichotomy between the two churches, as if they were two separate movements. Each of the churches represented in the NT seem to have their own cultural strengths and problems… and one of the strengths of the Jerusalem church was that it had most of the apostles residing there. The weakness was that it had a strong Jewish presence, and thus most of the Christians there were Jews.
It was natural, still, that Jerusalem hold some ‘fatherly’ concern over the burgeoning churches, and it must be noted that it was the Jerusalem church that commissioned Barnabas and Paul to go to Antioch in the first place.
Also, it is unfair to call Paul the theologian of the emerging churches (ie. Antioch), when Paul, and thus the NT testimony, sees Paul as a theologian for all churches.
Nevertheless, I was excited by the talk about ‘direct’ relationship and accountability to the living Jesus.
While postmodernism will tell us that all our understandings of reality are coloured by subjective understandings, the fact that we have a living God, who is present in and through the Holy Spirit who has come down, it’s remarkable to see that God Himself is here and is making (not just past tense) Himself known.
Thus, I think it’s a great reminder for churches, even young churches and Christians who don’t fit into regular churches, whether we indeed are having a direct relationship with the living God!
3. How does this fit in to my ministry?
Just recently, Prakash came to SAIACS and said that he wasn’t sure what all this had to do with our Indian context. Anderson, he felt, was talking to and about a different reality from his. While that is certainly true in a specific sense, I do feel that there is something here that challenges us, especially our Indian churches.
Today our Indian emerging churches are understood are something different from the west… ie. the word emerging church as is understood in the west may not fully understand the reality that is prevalent in India.
In India, we have a growing number of un-trained pastors/leaders who become Christians and start teaching/leading other Christians. This movement (and it’s huge in rural/smaller sectors) is emerging in the true “verb” sense. They have little connection to theology or the practices of right hermeneutics. Often they are charismatic leaders… and often they are poorly managed institutions.
Whatever this reality, Anderson offers an interesting illustration of this phenomena. For most of us from “established” churches (and that means we who attend churches with a printed programme, a suited (or well-dressed) pastor and an established order/doctrine), our concerns for these churches would be… do they teach the right churches, do they represent the true “continuity” of faith in the Lord. In that sense, we are the new Jerusalem… and they are the true Antioch. These poor unschooled churches that are mushroomed every year, are not always biblical as we understand it… and yet the true question must be… do they know our living God, do they have a living relationship with Jesus, through the Holy Spirit? If they do, then praise God and let’s see how God moves in these people as well.
But that’s still a macro concern… and more to my own local context… I think I have always valued evidence of “direct” relationship with God. Even in our language. I want to see more of us, in our day to day language, workings, see how the living Jesus is alive with us today.
Too often our churches, our work, is being managed in the same way secular world is being managed. And sometimes it is easy to forget (or fail to see clearly) the living God at work.
A few days ago, I saw the living God do something amazing in SAIACS. And the miracle of his presence has begun to take shape. There’s no time/place here to get into the details. But even as I saw this, and then read Anderson, I felt confirmed of the fact that if we do not see Jesus working in our day to day activities then we are probably more institutionalized than we think.
Nigel, April 30, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Chapter One: It's about Theology, not Geography (from Malcolm)
Chapter One: It's about Theology, not Geography
How do we define Theology?
Some definitions are as follows:
1. The word "Theology" is a compound of two Greek words:
* theos which literally means "God"
* logos which literally means "speech" or "expression" (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-3)
* theo-logia which means a "speech or discourse upon the subject of God"
This is a very simple definition for so vast a subject as the infinite and eternal triune God. But the point is that the theological study of God will include His person, His works, and his ways. So our theological study will encompass both the immaterial and material universe, and God's relationship to both. www.calvarysbd.com/terms.htm
2. Formally, theology means "the study or science of God." Informally, theology is the means by which God gives us understanding to the things concerning Himself and our relationship to Him. ...www.theapologiaproject.org/glossary.htm
3. The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth; wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
4. Theology is reasoned discourse concerning religion, spirituality and God or the gods. The origin of the word theological comes from late middle english (in the sense [relating to the word of God or the Bible]): from medieval Latin theologicalis, from late Latin theologicus, from Greek ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
5. The science of the knowledge of God. Theology seeks to think God's thoughts after Him, insofar as He allows man through the Scripture to enter into His thinking. [I like this one]
www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm
Ray, in this chapter emphasizes the difference between kairos, the moment and chronos, the movement (in time, history), contrasting Antioch and Jerusalem church. Moreover, he states that the Antioch church was like nothing ever witnessed before in the history of Israel. He also contrasts the theology of revelation as against the theology of religion.
These thoughts encourage and emphasize God’s creativity according to the age and time. It releases theology [the attempt to understand God’s mind through the Spirit, my simplified definition based on the Bible] from the confines and bondage of tradition [human attempt at one-sided spirituality and worship in accordance with inherent limitations in human thinking, and understanding] and religion [set of rules for spiritual practices] as mere progression. (I am open to refining my personal definitions. Please feel free to correct my understanding. However, the attempt at correction must be to simplify the meaning and understanding of the words rather than copy or complicate. The time has probably come to redefine our understanding, examining it from a fresh perspective).
Ray attempts to fortify his proposition by appealing through biblical exposition. He is correct when he notes that the “new kind of church and a new gospel of grace… did not evolve out of the Jerusalem community but was radically revolutionary in nature, much to the alarm and concern of the elders at Jerusalem!”(p. 21-22).
The first revolutionary shift that comes to my mind is the abolition of circumcision. The Jerusalem church insisted that the new believers go through Jewish religious rites to be part of the church. Here, we observe religion coming against revelation. Here I feel the need to recheck the basis for the abolition of circumcision for a believer in Christ. According to a brief and quick study, I realise that this was based on revelation and it was Paul’s revolutionary teaching.
The other revolutionary shift was that the believers were now assembling in homes where the relational needs were met. This practice was a paradigm shift from the early practice of meeting in a Tent and then a Temple, as per God’s direction of course. And then, when the dispersion took place, the concept of the Synagogue was established. The synagogue probably functioned as a meeting place to worship together in an alien nation and to keep their faith intact. However, it became a place of power-mongering and authority without real care or concern for people.
In my opinion, the present style and practice of Church is probably similar to the Synagogue model, where we attempt to worship without a relationship, neither vertical nor horizontal. On the other hand, we had majorly overlooked the house-church model, which encourages worship flowing out of a relationship. This is now becoming more popular and may also be found to be very effective. However, there could be many variations.
Therefore, in my opinion, I agree that kairos and revelation must play a vital part in our emergent theology as Ray suggests. I believe it gives us the freedom to seize moment to further Christ’s Kingdom. Unfortunately, we keep looking back at history and humans rather than up to God and aligning with what He wants to achieve in the present and in the future. By the way, I am not against looking back for learning from the past but I believe it is imperative that we need to look to God for His revelation and guidance that will take us in to the unknown future.
Then there is this issue of authority to do new things. As is known and accepted, Paul was not appointed by a human individual, group or an institution. He was a direct appointment by God, in the presence of witnesses. The witnesses were required as he was an enemy turned servant. What a turnaround! But then we come to the question of authority for doing new today two thousand years after Paul. How can we prove today that God has sanctioned us to do things differently? Do we need to prove this? Of course, some would argue in the affirmative. But then how would we prove it and who would be the judge?
According to 1 Cor. 2:10-16, Paul reveals that the Spirit in a person is essential, to know God’s mind and if we have God’s mind, He will reveal His will to us. If we are convinced that we have the Holy Spirit, we can be convinced that God is leading us to new and creative ways to reach out to this generation. Ray states the same, “If the church is historically determined in its authority, it will either seek some kind of institutional connection with the past or in a strongly clerical ecclesiology based on a link with historical precedent, neglecting the role of the Holy Spirit as the present authority of Christ” (p.34).
Today, if we are willing to hear and see, the world is yearning for a community rather than a religion. They reject a conceptual theology but are willing to experience a relational theology, the void that exists in this world. We have material wealth but lack relational wealth. Thank God we have His permission to be what the world needs. Unfortunately, we refuse to use that God-given freedom which comes packaged with the gift of the Holy Spirit, our Counsellor and Guide. He continues, “If the church were to lose the presence and life of the Spirit as the source of its own existence and life, the church would sever its vital connection to Christ so that its worship would become worthless and its religion mere ritual” (p.38). I believe this is what has happened to the Church, we have lost our first love, Christ, and the seal of our authority, the Holy Spirit.
Ray insists that we align our theology with God’s mission for the world through the Spirit (p. 34). In essence, he is pushing us to think as God would, as we seek an emergent theology. He states, “Biblical truth stands as revealed truth on the reality of its effect not merely on the theory of its origin” (p. 41-42). He continues, “…the theology of the Word of God goes deeper than textual criticism that only scratches the surface of Word of God and, as a result, yields superficial reasons rather than revelational reality” (p. 42). How true, we have successfully degraded theology by our logic and reason. We have unfortunately, restricted ourselves to shallow waters leading to a shallow theology. We have gradually sunk lower to depend on ourselves and human wisdom rather than on God and His wisdom.
Ray’s observation, analysis, insistence and emphasis on going back to depend on the Holy Spirit and God’s Word for an emergent theology is not only right but true. He states what we need today is not a new theology but a theology that is based on Christ, the revelation of God through the Word, combined with the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. This will give new life to our vision to see and do what God inspires us to do.
Malcolm F. Ezekiel
Date: April 10, 2008.
How do we define Theology?
Some definitions are as follows:
1. The word "Theology" is a compound of two Greek words:
* theos which literally means "God"
* logos which literally means "speech" or "expression" (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-3)
* theo-logia which means a "speech or discourse upon the subject of God"
This is a very simple definition for so vast a subject as the infinite and eternal triune God. But the point is that the theological study of God will include His person, His works, and his ways. So our theological study will encompass both the immaterial and material universe, and God's relationship to both. www.calvarysbd.com/terms.htm
2. Formally, theology means "the study or science of God." Informally, theology is the means by which God gives us understanding to the things concerning Himself and our relationship to Him. ...www.theapologiaproject.org/glossary.htm
3. The rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth; wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
4. Theology is reasoned discourse concerning religion, spirituality and God or the gods. The origin of the word theological comes from late middle english (in the sense [relating to the word of God or the Bible]): from medieval Latin theologicalis, from late Latin theologicus, from Greek ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology
5. The science of the knowledge of God. Theology seeks to think God's thoughts after Him, insofar as He allows man through the Scripture to enter into His thinking. [I like this one]
www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm
Ray, in this chapter emphasizes the difference between kairos, the moment and chronos, the movement (in time, history), contrasting Antioch and Jerusalem church. Moreover, he states that the Antioch church was like nothing ever witnessed before in the history of Israel. He also contrasts the theology of revelation as against the theology of religion.
These thoughts encourage and emphasize God’s creativity according to the age and time. It releases theology [the attempt to understand God’s mind through the Spirit, my simplified definition based on the Bible] from the confines and bondage of tradition [human attempt at one-sided spirituality and worship in accordance with inherent limitations in human thinking, and understanding] and religion [set of rules for spiritual practices] as mere progression. (I am open to refining my personal definitions. Please feel free to correct my understanding. However, the attempt at correction must be to simplify the meaning and understanding of the words rather than copy or complicate. The time has probably come to redefine our understanding, examining it from a fresh perspective).
Ray attempts to fortify his proposition by appealing through biblical exposition. He is correct when he notes that the “new kind of church and a new gospel of grace… did not evolve out of the Jerusalem community but was radically revolutionary in nature, much to the alarm and concern of the elders at Jerusalem!”(p. 21-22).
The first revolutionary shift that comes to my mind is the abolition of circumcision. The Jerusalem church insisted that the new believers go through Jewish religious rites to be part of the church. Here, we observe religion coming against revelation. Here I feel the need to recheck the basis for the abolition of circumcision for a believer in Christ. According to a brief and quick study, I realise that this was based on revelation and it was Paul’s revolutionary teaching.
The other revolutionary shift was that the believers were now assembling in homes where the relational needs were met. This practice was a paradigm shift from the early practice of meeting in a Tent and then a Temple, as per God’s direction of course. And then, when the dispersion took place, the concept of the Synagogue was established. The synagogue probably functioned as a meeting place to worship together in an alien nation and to keep their faith intact. However, it became a place of power-mongering and authority without real care or concern for people.
In my opinion, the present style and practice of Church is probably similar to the Synagogue model, where we attempt to worship without a relationship, neither vertical nor horizontal. On the other hand, we had majorly overlooked the house-church model, which encourages worship flowing out of a relationship. This is now becoming more popular and may also be found to be very effective. However, there could be many variations.
Therefore, in my opinion, I agree that kairos and revelation must play a vital part in our emergent theology as Ray suggests. I believe it gives us the freedom to seize moment to further Christ’s Kingdom. Unfortunately, we keep looking back at history and humans rather than up to God and aligning with what He wants to achieve in the present and in the future. By the way, I am not against looking back for learning from the past but I believe it is imperative that we need to look to God for His revelation and guidance that will take us in to the unknown future.
Then there is this issue of authority to do new things. As is known and accepted, Paul was not appointed by a human individual, group or an institution. He was a direct appointment by God, in the presence of witnesses. The witnesses were required as he was an enemy turned servant. What a turnaround! But then we come to the question of authority for doing new today two thousand years after Paul. How can we prove today that God has sanctioned us to do things differently? Do we need to prove this? Of course, some would argue in the affirmative. But then how would we prove it and who would be the judge?
According to 1 Cor. 2:10-16, Paul reveals that the Spirit in a person is essential, to know God’s mind and if we have God’s mind, He will reveal His will to us. If we are convinced that we have the Holy Spirit, we can be convinced that God is leading us to new and creative ways to reach out to this generation. Ray states the same, “If the church is historically determined in its authority, it will either seek some kind of institutional connection with the past or in a strongly clerical ecclesiology based on a link with historical precedent, neglecting the role of the Holy Spirit as the present authority of Christ” (p.34).
Today, if we are willing to hear and see, the world is yearning for a community rather than a religion. They reject a conceptual theology but are willing to experience a relational theology, the void that exists in this world. We have material wealth but lack relational wealth. Thank God we have His permission to be what the world needs. Unfortunately, we refuse to use that God-given freedom which comes packaged with the gift of the Holy Spirit, our Counsellor and Guide. He continues, “If the church were to lose the presence and life of the Spirit as the source of its own existence and life, the church would sever its vital connection to Christ so that its worship would become worthless and its religion mere ritual” (p.38). I believe this is what has happened to the Church, we have lost our first love, Christ, and the seal of our authority, the Holy Spirit.
Ray insists that we align our theology with God’s mission for the world through the Spirit (p. 34). In essence, he is pushing us to think as God would, as we seek an emergent theology. He states, “Biblical truth stands as revealed truth on the reality of its effect not merely on the theory of its origin” (p. 41-42). He continues, “…the theology of the Word of God goes deeper than textual criticism that only scratches the surface of Word of God and, as a result, yields superficial reasons rather than revelational reality” (p. 42). How true, we have successfully degraded theology by our logic and reason. We have unfortunately, restricted ourselves to shallow waters leading to a shallow theology. We have gradually sunk lower to depend on ourselves and human wisdom rather than on God and His wisdom.
Ray’s observation, analysis, insistence and emphasis on going back to depend on the Holy Spirit and God’s Word for an emergent theology is not only right but true. He states what we need today is not a new theology but a theology that is based on Christ, the revelation of God through the Word, combined with the leading and guiding of the Holy Spirit. This will give new life to our vision to see and do what God inspires us to do.
Malcolm F. Ezekiel
Date: April 10, 2008.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
First review: Sandeep Emmanuel
Sorry for the delay. Just a quick word to introduce myself….
I am Emmanuel Sandeep. I am the Senior Pastor of Pearl City Church and I am also the helping as National Co-ordinator for John Maxwell's EQUIP training in India. Pearl City Church strives to be non-traditional and is trying to be more relevant to the modern younger generation in the way we do church. I kept our target audience as those who are below 40 years. So you will find 90% young people in our church and probably around 10% are families. In order to be pastor of this kind of church, I need to be more open minded and study the developments emerging around us.
Cheers,
Sandeep
I am Emmanuel Sandeep. I am the Senior Pastor of Pearl City Church and I am also the helping as National Co-ordinator for John Maxwell's EQUIP training in India. Pearl City Church strives to be non-traditional and is trying to be more relevant to the modern younger generation in the way we do church. I kept our target audience as those who are below 40 years. So you will find 90% young people in our church and probably around 10% are families. In order to be pastor of this kind of church, I need to be more open minded and study the developments emerging around us.
Cheers,
Sandeep
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
First Review: Malcolm Ezekiel
Hi Everybody,
Thought I'd get the record straight and answer the first round of questions that Nigel had requested. Well, here it is!
Question one: Who are you? And what "ministry" are you involved with?
My name is Malcolm F. Ezekiel, 39 years old, married for 13 years to Shirley, blessed with two children, Carol 12 years and Ronald 7 years, studying in class 7 and 2 respectively. I cherish 10 years of working experience in ANZ Grindlays Bank, one of the first pioneering MNCs in India dating back to the 1800s (if my memory serves me right). The work experience has enriched and shaped my attitude and approach to Christian service.
I am presently serving through the Evangelical Fellowship of India, as Secretary, National Youth Commission.
Question two: Why are you interested in emerging theology for emerging churches in India? (not the book, but the idea of working with young churches and its theology).
My interest in the subject, incidentally started as I observed the growing intolerance of the younger generation to traditional methods and approach to theology and practice. As I started to dwell on it and attempted to study the changes, I came across postmodernity, Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet and others. What they were saying about the changes occurring and the growing divide between the church and the present generation, made me think more on the subject. And thereafter began a quest to understand whether there is an emerging theology that could accompany the changes all around. I wanted to critically evaluate postmodernity and Christian postmodern thinkers and theologians.
Following this, I made a conscious attempt to break away from traditionalism and to engage with people, by joining an emerging church attempting to reach out to professionals and businessmen, and to apply some practical suggestions.
Question three: What were some of the questions/thoughts you had when you were reading the foreword/preface of the book?
The foreword made sense to me, realizing that Ray Anderson, presumably belonging to an earlier theological thinking was attempting to critically yet neutrally analyze and evaluate the emerging theologians and the emerging theological thought process.
Question four: Has anything inspired you to do anything different in your ministry already?
There is a conscious effort to avoid traditional style of preaching and communication. I have made an attempt to adapt to this change and have tried to adopt a different style as I studied postmodern Christian writings mainly focussing on their observations and suggestions. So far, the result has been positive and encouraging.
Moreover, I am able to understand the psyche and expectations of the present generation. However, this was all prior to Ray Anderson's book coming in perspective. But reading the book has both clarified and fortified some thoughts on the subject.
I hope at least some part of it makes sense to you. I am definitely attempting to make sense to myself first :-). Anyway, I hope that studying this book will help me understand the subject better as I objectively interact with the writer, Ray Anderson.
Regards,
Thursday, February 28, 2008
First Review: Prakash Rao
Hi! I am Prakash. My wife Uma and two children Sadhana (11) and Arpith (5) make our home at Delhi. I had an encounter with the Lord Jesus at the age of 15 when a Brahmin friend shared the gospel with me. My spiritual life has been molded by the Pentecostal Church (AG), EU, RZIM, SAIACS and of course the lives of many simple and genuine believers in the Lord Jesus. It’s almost going to be 25 years since my first encounter with the Lord Jesus. I have been serving with RZIM for the past many years and presently am serving at Delhi involved in Operations and Networking in the North India. I also do a little preaching and teaching in the Churches and through RZIM Seminars.
Why am I interested in the emerging theology and emerging churches? I was part of an AG styled church for 17 years and have been involved in its ministry. I have been blessed by the church in many ways, but have been frustrated with the stagnation with in the church- its "inward look" and "one man" leadership, etc., I found that it did not attract a majority of the Hindus among whom we lived. At present I am part of a church in Dwarka, which I shall leave unnamed. We have a "good" pastor and a few friends in the Church. But, I feel that we are not tuned to minister to the postmodern generation. Though I would not term myself as ANTI -Church as Nigel, I am fed up with the institutionalized setups of Churches as well as Organisations…. I am looking for a fresh wind of the Spirit…
I believe that we need more and more communities built around the name of Jesus, which will truly care for each other, serve the society and be contextual enough to attract the friends from other faiths. Hence, I was interested in ETEC (Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches) looking out for some new paradigms.
As we look at history, I find that a "new church" has always been emerging from an "old church." The Reformed church emerged from the Catholic church... the Methodist church emerged from the Anglican.... the Pentecostal church emerged from the Mainline churches in early part of the 20th Century... and today the Charismatic churches are emerging from the Pentecostal churches...
In India, I think we are living in a situation where the modern, premodern and postmodern generations coexist in parallel. We need a 100 different "Churches" which will cater to these different "communities," in India.
My thoughts as I read the foreword/ preface
I am not fully convinced of the division that Ray seems to bring between the Jerusalem and the Antioch Church, though its seems plausible. But, it definitely offers a paradigm, or window to understand the phenomenon of the "emerging church" in our generation. I agree with Brian McLaren who says "... each Christian community must constantly choose between being a Jerusalem or an Antioch." So, I feel we should not unnecessarily pit the "Mainline Churches" against the "Charismatic churches" and say that the former is Jerusalem and the latter is Antioch (Which Ray agrees to). Instead, each "community" should check whether it is becoming stagnant and keep moving forward with the Spirit to be relevant in its community. In that sense, I like McLarens definition of "Antioch"- as "bold innovators, creative explorers, daring boundary -crossers." Each church should definitely in this sense be an "Antioch" Church.
My reading is that Ray's book is about a theology for the emerging church and its not about mere contextualisation. Hope to grasp a little more of what its all about as we go on…..
Why am I interested in the emerging theology and emerging churches? I was part of an AG styled church for 17 years and have been involved in its ministry. I have been blessed by the church in many ways, but have been frustrated with the stagnation with in the church- its "inward look" and "one man" leadership, etc., I found that it did not attract a majority of the Hindus among whom we lived. At present I am part of a church in Dwarka, which I shall leave unnamed. We have a "good" pastor and a few friends in the Church. But, I feel that we are not tuned to minister to the postmodern generation. Though I would not term myself as ANTI -Church as Nigel, I am fed up with the institutionalized setups of Churches as well as Organisations…. I am looking for a fresh wind of the Spirit…
I believe that we need more and more communities built around the name of Jesus, which will truly care for each other, serve the society and be contextual enough to attract the friends from other faiths. Hence, I was interested in ETEC (Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches) looking out for some new paradigms.
As we look at history, I find that a "new church" has always been emerging from an "old church." The Reformed church emerged from the Catholic church... the Methodist church emerged from the Anglican.... the Pentecostal church emerged from the Mainline churches in early part of the 20th Century... and today the Charismatic churches are emerging from the Pentecostal churches...
In India, I think we are living in a situation where the modern, premodern and postmodern generations coexist in parallel. We need a 100 different "Churches" which will cater to these different "communities," in India.
My thoughts as I read the foreword/ preface
I am not fully convinced of the division that Ray seems to bring between the Jerusalem and the Antioch Church, though its seems plausible. But, it definitely offers a paradigm, or window to understand the phenomenon of the "emerging church" in our generation. I agree with Brian McLaren who says "... each Christian community must constantly choose between being a Jerusalem or an Antioch." So, I feel we should not unnecessarily pit the "Mainline Churches" against the "Charismatic churches" and say that the former is Jerusalem and the latter is Antioch (Which Ray agrees to). Instead, each "community" should check whether it is becoming stagnant and keep moving forward with the Spirit to be relevant in its community. In that sense, I like McLarens definition of "Antioch"- as "bold innovators, creative explorers, daring boundary -crossers." Each church should definitely in this sense be an "Antioch" Church.
My reading is that Ray's book is about a theology for the emerging church and its not about mere contextualisation. Hope to grasp a little more of what its all about as we go on…..
First Review: Deepak Samson
The following post (by Deepak Samson) is written in response to the four questions posted here.
>>>Question one: Who are you? And what "ministry" are you involved with?
Hi all, my name is Deepak Samson and I am a true Hyderabadi - Love eating Biryani, wearing Sherwani and inviting Pareshani. However, I have been away for the past 11 years from India, I live in the UK. I am a father of a toddler and a husband and that keeps me busy and I am
also involved in youth work here in Belfast.
>>>Question two: Are you interested in emerging theology for emerging churches in India?
Being away from India for a decade I have seen how much India has changed in that time. Every time I go back (usually annually) I having this all sense of things arent improving in 'church context'. I have realised that much of our church thinking, practice and structures are based on what the colonial missionaries have left behind. we need authentic fresh thinking which is both scriptural and also contextual. Thus my fascination with emerging church movements and their beliefs
>>>Question three: What were some of the questions/thoughts you had when you were reading the foreword/preface of the book?
Fully endorse the Idea of McLaren (also one of my all time favourite authors) who says that if we have a nee world we need a new church...... I read that in his original book 'church on the other
side' and it really gripped me and especially as I think of the Indian urban context it is so much of a wake up call. My research leads me to believe that we as a nation have changed in our collective /psyche/ more in the last 15 years than on the last 100 years put together (check out
Pavan Varma's book The Great Indian Middle Class)
>>>Question four: Has anything inspired you to do anything different in your ministry already?
Yes, I have tried some stuff here among youth and young adults and found that this kind of an approach is loathed by 'good church goers' and is extremely appealing to the unchurched and those on the fringes. Its an approach that embraces a 'messy spirituality' and one that is not ashamed to talk of the ambiguities of life and faith and spirituality.
I hope to do this as book project as I would really enjoy learning from you guys. thanks for the invite.
Deepak
>>>Question one: Who are you? And what "ministry" are you involved with?
Hi all, my name is Deepak Samson and I am a true Hyderabadi - Love eating Biryani, wearing Sherwani and inviting Pareshani. However, I have been away for the past 11 years from India, I live in the UK. I am a father of a toddler and a husband and that keeps me busy and I am
also involved in youth work here in Belfast.
>>>Question two: Are you interested in emerging theology for emerging churches in India?
Being away from India for a decade I have seen how much India has changed in that time. Every time I go back (usually annually) I having this all sense of things arent improving in 'church context'. I have realised that much of our church thinking, practice and structures are based on what the colonial missionaries have left behind. we need authentic fresh thinking which is both scriptural and also contextual. Thus my fascination with emerging church movements and their beliefs
>>>Question three: What were some of the questions/thoughts you had when you were reading the foreword/preface of the book?
Fully endorse the Idea of McLaren (also one of my all time favourite authors) who says that if we have a nee world we need a new church...... I read that in his original book 'church on the other
side' and it really gripped me and especially as I think of the Indian urban context it is so much of a wake up call. My research leads me to believe that we as a nation have changed in our collective /psyche/ more in the last 15 years than on the last 100 years put together (check out
Pavan Varma's book The Great Indian Middle Class)
>>>Question four: Has anything inspired you to do anything different in your ministry already?
Yes, I have tried some stuff here among youth and young adults and found that this kind of an approach is loathed by 'good church goers' and is extremely appealing to the unchurched and those on the fringes. Its an approach that embraces a 'messy spirituality' and one that is not ashamed to talk of the ambiguities of life and faith and spirituality.
I hope to do this as book project as I would really enjoy learning from you guys. thanks for the invite.
Deepak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
