generally i completely agree with all that stuff. a "few" things: (well, a few, long things!)
1. d-f: since writing/ thinking that, i've been thinking about that a lot more than before and am starting to get lots of ideas about how it could work etc. will be trying some in near future i think.
1. g: whilst i'm really not questioning St Toms willingness to follow God's leading in things, your statement does still assume that anything and everything that God asks of any of us people (obviously incl st toms leadership) is carried out to the T. not saying this is a common problem at all, just stating (in a really pedantic and so not wishing to cause offence kinda way) that i think that particular point could simply be re-writen slightly better... really no offence meant by that.
1. h: i dont think certain people are saying that "musical/singing act of worship is all we'll be doing in heaven", (neither do i think you think they do either), its just the whole exclusivity thing. singing'll be a part of it, just not the whole part of it. crap point i made there. perhaps forget this one. might delete it...
2. b: (skipping forward a few lines) how is "protection in numbers" such a great thing to uphold? dont get that one...
but the main point of this whole blog, (and this unfortunately is making an assumption that you are referring to myself on this one. if not, then this is an unfortunate problem of blogging conversations and misunderstandings. if you are referring to me [(and i dont want it in this case to be a bad thing between us or anything - i definitely (in fact even more so) want to remain in conversation about this whole thing with you matt (maybe even set up a blg for this very purpose?!))whoah - to many brackets here.... square brackets to give closure to that sub-discussion), ] and possibly to others as well, i'l just speak for myself, not wanting to get others into trouble on this one, so here goes...)
i dont consider myself to be "operating in 'churchless faith' ". a lot of what i've been going through over the past year or more has been about re-defining what "church" is. whilst i would easily be able to say i have been operating in a largely (although not complete) "st tom's less faith" (or at least trying - having been a part of it (and only it) for so many years, its unbelievably hard knowing where my belief in God and belief in St Toms differ (if that is your point then this is a whole other conversation! assuming not...)). when i see the body of christ, i see a very large family of people that have common beliefs - not all agree, but are all seeking after the unbelievably huge heart of God. going to greenbelt last year (in retrospect only) was probably one of the most profound things to change and challenge my faith in God in a very long time. still trying to come to terms with it all now (having brought tickets for this years event), the ways it widened my eyes to what God's about and more importantly, who God is, i'm only just beginning to touch the tip of the iceberg now.
seeing a God thats into so much more than what i thought he was has completely refocused how i see so much of life, i hardly know where to start. whilst God is completely into, and in love with, the evangelical movement of his body, i've suddenly seen how he's into the other parts of his body. dang - this is going to start sounding liberal in a moment, but i've started to see what the liberals were all banging on about too. jesus DID die on a cross for our sins, to give us forgiveness, to reconcile the relationship we messed up with our Father, BUT he did also came to bring justice to the world right now, to get a bit political, to set us free, to be creative with who we are, to accept all the screwed up people in this world loving them as they are, and (dare i say it) get a bit fuzzy round the edges. generally speaking i dont think you disagree with me on this one (realising that is probably best said in an email to you matt, but its also where i'm at as a person, so can also be said on a blog), and also agree that we should be accepting all the messed up people of the world, but i think an inherent problem of all the different other parts of the church is that the various groups dont overlap very easily; but i'm not sure God minds that much. he loves all the parts of his bride, so surely we should to. i dont think any of us (neither personally nor types of churches wise ( i know there's a good churchy word that says that...)) have or ever will get it right and be a perfect representation of what the bride could look like, but i dont think we should be persecuting the other parts of the body just cause they look different ("ear says to hand" etc...).
eh...
i dont know if any of this is making sense. if we are all on a balance/ tension between the values of vision and grace (is that right? its been a while), all our life's gonna be is a constant state of change trying to get the balance right between 2 opposite but equally good/ God things. i mean we see things through very different spectacles, but i think we both think we are seeking the same thing, God and his heart for his people.
maybe i'll get a bit more clarity on this thing in a few days once i've ahd a bit of rest.
any way - off again for part 2 of pinks' stag w/e again at 7.45 tomorrow morning and the time is:
No comments:
Post a Comment