Well, we got some big news and I was kinda holding off on it because we weren't sure which way it would go. But now it looks like it will be a go, so....
We are going to go back to Japan. A friend of mine phoned from Japan a couple days ago with the ultimate job offer. It is basically a job that will pay big and allow us to pay off debts. At the same time, I will be working only weekends, so there is lots of extra time left over to be building communities of faith (dare I call it church-planting? I had a bit of a falling out with that word) and pursuing the music stuff. We are well connected with friends there, and my buddy who offered the job is a radio DJ in Nagoya and plugged in to the music scene in Japan. So it all seems incredible. Whether it is debts, music, or community, this one answers all the questions in one fell swoop.
And the biggest way I know it is right is that Andrea is into it. She basically has done a 180 since this summer saying that there is no way she would be going back to Japan for years to come. But she feels like this is a perfect fit.
Looks like I will head over in November, come back for Christmas and then take the whole family over in January. I gotta get back into my Japanese language texts.
Oh, and the job.... I will be performing wedding ceremonies. Weddings in Japan are very big deals and they often want a westerner to perform a western ceremony. So that'll be me.
Thank you God to a great answer to a lot of prayers.
20020907
Here is a quote I like that relates well to the previous post:
Americans see the isolated individual as the source of all moral virtue and society as nothing more than a collection of these individuals. Evangelicalism implicitly agreed. It spoke eloquently of saving individuals; but it did not take seriously what these individuals were saved into. They preached the gospel of the individuals rightly enough; but as true Americans, they did not see that God might intend to go further and make a people out of these persons. Evangelicalism sought to transform people and so transform the world. They did not see that something might be missing from this vision, something their assumption of American individualism would hide from them. The true Christian vision is to transform people, transforming them into a people, and so transform the world. The evengelicals missed that middle term. They could not see the church as a foretast of the new society; it was a club for the new individuals. The evangelicals simply dressed up American individualism in Christian clothing. They ended up with the new isolated individuals, but in the old society. ("The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Evangelicalism," Voices in the Wilderness, July '86).
I found that quote in Frank Viola's book, Re-thinking the Wineskin.
Americans see the isolated individual as the source of all moral virtue and society as nothing more than a collection of these individuals. Evangelicalism implicitly agreed. It spoke eloquently of saving individuals; but it did not take seriously what these individuals were saved into. They preached the gospel of the individuals rightly enough; but as true Americans, they did not see that God might intend to go further and make a people out of these persons. Evangelicalism sought to transform people and so transform the world. They did not see that something might be missing from this vision, something their assumption of American individualism would hide from them. The true Christian vision is to transform people, transforming them into a people, and so transform the world. The evengelicals missed that middle term. They could not see the church as a foretast of the new society; it was a club for the new individuals. The evangelicals simply dressed up American individualism in Christian clothing. They ended up with the new isolated individuals, but in the old society. ("The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Evangelicalism," Voices in the Wilderness, July '86).
I found that quote in Frank Viola's book, Re-thinking the Wineskin.
A good comment from Simon Kiela got me thinking:
Hi John,
This is a very interesting discussion both from you and from James. I am not sure if either of you understand (I hope so) that both of you are speaking from TRADITION :-). Yes, both of you are influenced by your sub-culture. John is speaking from the North American democratic tradition that reinforces our individualism (yes!), OUR responsibility, OUR ability to decide, to question, to think :-). What James is trying to do is to balance (or, more likely, to outweigh) this view with another view - a Community of Saints view. Now, the latter one can also become an abuse if an autocrat usurps the power. However, the hopes are that the Tradition (the teaching) of the centuries in the Church of Christ will prevail.
I do not spit into the well of the history of the Church. The corporate leading of the same Spirit, I believe, continues into our days. Thus, if we come up with a weard interpretation of the Scriptures and don't find any support in a variety of commentaries, consider it very suspicious, no matter how interesting it is :-). Look for support within the Bible, then in the Patristics, then in the councils, then in the middle ages, then in Reformation, then in contemporaries. Does the same Spirit lead us all? It should, shouldn't it? Thus, we all are under His supervision. Let's hold to our responsibility to check against each other. This is where more historical branches of the Tree (the Church) are right, I think.
My two cents worth...
My response was...
Hey Simon
I hear what you are saying regarding cultural bias. Of course we are all influenced by our sub-culture, but you must understand that I am not completely oblivious to the water I am swimming in. To reduce the arguments down to only cultural bias is maybe a little simplistic.
I'm looking pretty closely at individualism, and see that it can be both very good and very bad. Real maturity can only really come through a knowledge of yourself as an individual, but it gets sick if that is where it stops. I think much of the North American mindset is stuck in this independent, its-all-about-me stage. The next step of giving up some of your individuality to become inter-dependent with others is vital; but those relationships are codependent (like parent/child) unless both sides enter into them with a strong sense of their own identity.
I think I will always emphasize the importance of 'individualism" because I believe true inter-dependent community rests on individuals freely choosing to bind themselves together. But without that, community turns into pyramid style control.
Hi John,
This is a very interesting discussion both from you and from James. I am not sure if either of you understand (I hope so) that both of you are speaking from TRADITION :-). Yes, both of you are influenced by your sub-culture. John is speaking from the North American democratic tradition that reinforces our individualism (yes!), OUR responsibility, OUR ability to decide, to question, to think :-). What James is trying to do is to balance (or, more likely, to outweigh) this view with another view - a Community of Saints view. Now, the latter one can also become an abuse if an autocrat usurps the power. However, the hopes are that the Tradition (the teaching) of the centuries in the Church of Christ will prevail.
I do not spit into the well of the history of the Church. The corporate leading of the same Spirit, I believe, continues into our days. Thus, if we come up with a weard interpretation of the Scriptures and don't find any support in a variety of commentaries, consider it very suspicious, no matter how interesting it is :-). Look for support within the Bible, then in the Patristics, then in the councils, then in the middle ages, then in Reformation, then in contemporaries. Does the same Spirit lead us all? It should, shouldn't it? Thus, we all are under His supervision. Let's hold to our responsibility to check against each other. This is where more historical branches of the Tree (the Church) are right, I think.
My two cents worth...
My response was...
Hey Simon
I hear what you are saying regarding cultural bias. Of course we are all influenced by our sub-culture, but you must understand that I am not completely oblivious to the water I am swimming in. To reduce the arguments down to only cultural bias is maybe a little simplistic.
I'm looking pretty closely at individualism, and see that it can be both very good and very bad. Real maturity can only really come through a knowledge of yourself as an individual, but it gets sick if that is where it stops. I think much of the North American mindset is stuck in this independent, its-all-about-me stage. The next step of giving up some of your individuality to become inter-dependent with others is vital; but those relationships are codependent (like parent/child) unless both sides enter into them with a strong sense of their own identity.
I think I will always emphasize the importance of 'individualism" because I believe true inter-dependent community rests on individuals freely choosing to bind themselves together. But without that, community turns into pyramid style control.
20020906
Ok. if this seems confusing, that is because I am confused. How do I make this thinner without making the words unreadable?
Anyway, this was a kind of concept-map I drew up for a seminar I did a few years ago. It's me trying to crunch all kinds of big concepts into a simple diagram. It was well received, so I thought maybe it would add to the money discussion....
Anyway, this was a kind of concept-map I drew up for a seminar I did a few years ago. It's me trying to crunch all kinds of big concepts into a simple diagram. It was well received, so I thought maybe it would add to the money discussion....
I was getting back into the swing of things preparing for my history class by going through some of the original source documents we use. I came across this quote from Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits:
"If we wish to be sure that we are right in all things; we should always be ready to accept this principle: I will believe that the white that I see is black, if the hierarchical church so defines it." (The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. pp. 139-141)
Such a quote reinforces to me the extremes that an institution will go to in order to have the final say. It is eerily close to the voice of Big Brother in 1984 demanding that "2 + 2 = 5". It is yours to blindly accept the truth of the guys on top. It is not yours to reason your ask questions. Truth becomes solely an issue of who holds the power.
Institutions display a great propensity towards wanting to quash the dissent that is necessary to conversation. Perhaps the main problem with a centralizing of control is that humankind strives to bring under its own auspices that which belongs only to God. And it would seem that our own discomfort with ambiguity is what leads us there. We seem to despise the vagueness that comes with freedom, preferring instead the blacks and whites of the law. Don't tell me that I am not only free but responsible to approach God myself, and determine my steps according to the mysteries of the spirit. Give me instead a rule I can keep to bolster my (perhaps false) sense of righteousness.
Maybe that's what happens in Protestantism with our many denominations. God births something by his spirit that ignites the hearts of many. After twenty years or so the people say, "What a good thing God has done; however, he may need our help in sustaining it, so let's set down a constitution and get a national director to oversee and make sure everything goes as WE desire it." What begins as a free and unhindered response to the spirit becomes codified according to human estimations. Too easily it becomes an extrinsic duty to the way things were rather than an intrinsic cooperation with the spirit of God.
This all relates closely to a debate raging in my head about the nature of "church" fuelled by emails back and forth with James Ferrenberg. I know I've gotta expand it a lot for it to make more sense�.
And speaking of James Ferrenberg, I find this post freakin interesting...
"If we wish to be sure that we are right in all things; we should always be ready to accept this principle: I will believe that the white that I see is black, if the hierarchical church so defines it." (The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1964. pp. 139-141)
Such a quote reinforces to me the extremes that an institution will go to in order to have the final say. It is eerily close to the voice of Big Brother in 1984 demanding that "2 + 2 = 5". It is yours to blindly accept the truth of the guys on top. It is not yours to reason your ask questions. Truth becomes solely an issue of who holds the power.
Institutions display a great propensity towards wanting to quash the dissent that is necessary to conversation. Perhaps the main problem with a centralizing of control is that humankind strives to bring under its own auspices that which belongs only to God. And it would seem that our own discomfort with ambiguity is what leads us there. We seem to despise the vagueness that comes with freedom, preferring instead the blacks and whites of the law. Don't tell me that I am not only free but responsible to approach God myself, and determine my steps according to the mysteries of the spirit. Give me instead a rule I can keep to bolster my (perhaps false) sense of righteousness.
Maybe that's what happens in Protestantism with our many denominations. God births something by his spirit that ignites the hearts of many. After twenty years or so the people say, "What a good thing God has done; however, he may need our help in sustaining it, so let's set down a constitution and get a national director to oversee and make sure everything goes as WE desire it." What begins as a free and unhindered response to the spirit becomes codified according to human estimations. Too easily it becomes an extrinsic duty to the way things were rather than an intrinsic cooperation with the spirit of God.
This all relates closely to a debate raging in my head about the nature of "church" fuelled by emails back and forth with James Ferrenberg. I know I've gotta expand it a lot for it to make more sense�.
And speaking of James Ferrenberg, I find this post freakin interesting...
Some comments on the money thing from Frank Dorian:
I'd like to share a few stories. The first is from Tony Campolo. If you know anything about Tony you can picture his gruff New York accent. "I teach sociology at St. Davids. One year I had 8 Jewish students in my class. By the end of the year they had all given their lives to Jesus. One night there was a knock on my door. Two of those Jewish students had come to visit me. When you're at my house we don't get too far before we start talking about the church. Anyways these guy's asked me, "Mr Campolo, do you have insurance." I said "of course I do." They continued, " How do you line up insurannce with Matt 6 when it says take no thought for tomorrow." "Well, I protested, I have a wife and family, If I don't take care of them then who will." These two new converts to the living Christ simply said, "The church." How do you tell two new and excited Christians that the best you can expect from the church is a 50 dollar gift certificate from the deacon's board."
Churches everywhere have money for million dollar structures, to pay for Sunday school materials, for pastor's salaries, for conferences but so very little for those who are widow's, those who are hungry, those who are thirsty, those who are homeless..... and so on. Any church I have been to never had money in their budget for the poor.
The second story comes out of the 40's from Clarence Jordan. It seems that a certain church had an extra $25000. They had to decide what to do with it. In that same town half of the residents did not have running water. They decided to build a revolving fountain on their church lawn. "I was thirsty and ye built me a revolving fountain."
If you look at Jordan Cooper's site he has a picture of a 193 million dollar Roman Catholic building. Jordan Cooper wonders what 193 million dollars could do for the poor in L.A.. If the site of such a building does not sicken you than I guess nothing else will. I ask you this question. Has Jesus or Paul asked us to build any building (Let alone $193,000,000 structures) to house us. Did Jesus instruct us to feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, shelter the homeless the orphan, care for the widow. You know the answer. Then why have we turned it around? Why does 80-95% of our money go into these very things........ and very little to the poor.
Now there is a teaching that Jesus gave that answers the question to radical giving. He was talking to the rich man about selling his possessions. the rich man couldn't do it. The disciples asked a startling question. We have left all and followed. What do we get. Jesus said, "He who has done that will receive many brothers and sisters and lands and farms and animals and cars and houses in this life and the world to come." This was not a teaching on prosperity gospel but on community. This is how we live in a more radical manner. Our trust is not in people nor community but in the living God Himself. But God gives us community to help and sustain and encourage us.
Finally If the church does not begin to see itself as a community of faith, a community, family and continues in it's institutional ways we will continue to focus in on the minors like church buildings and will continue to ignore the widow, the orhan...........
Tom Sine: The earl believers did not view church as somewhere you go to once a week. It was a living breathing community that met from house to house, breaking bread, felowshipping all centered in the worship of the living Christ.
A quote from one of my articles: God creates a community of people that love, serve and worship him, but man always creates an institution for us to serve.
I'd like to share a few stories. The first is from Tony Campolo. If you know anything about Tony you can picture his gruff New York accent. "I teach sociology at St. Davids. One year I had 8 Jewish students in my class. By the end of the year they had all given their lives to Jesus. One night there was a knock on my door. Two of those Jewish students had come to visit me. When you're at my house we don't get too far before we start talking about the church. Anyways these guy's asked me, "Mr Campolo, do you have insurance." I said "of course I do." They continued, " How do you line up insurannce with Matt 6 when it says take no thought for tomorrow." "Well, I protested, I have a wife and family, If I don't take care of them then who will." These two new converts to the living Christ simply said, "The church." How do you tell two new and excited Christians that the best you can expect from the church is a 50 dollar gift certificate from the deacon's board."
Churches everywhere have money for million dollar structures, to pay for Sunday school materials, for pastor's salaries, for conferences but so very little for those who are widow's, those who are hungry, those who are thirsty, those who are homeless..... and so on. Any church I have been to never had money in their budget for the poor.
The second story comes out of the 40's from Clarence Jordan. It seems that a certain church had an extra $25000. They had to decide what to do with it. In that same town half of the residents did not have running water. They decided to build a revolving fountain on their church lawn. "I was thirsty and ye built me a revolving fountain."
If you look at Jordan Cooper's site he has a picture of a 193 million dollar Roman Catholic building. Jordan Cooper wonders what 193 million dollars could do for the poor in L.A.. If the site of such a building does not sicken you than I guess nothing else will. I ask you this question. Has Jesus or Paul asked us to build any building (Let alone $193,000,000 structures) to house us. Did Jesus instruct us to feed the hungry, visit the prisoner, shelter the homeless the orphan, care for the widow. You know the answer. Then why have we turned it around? Why does 80-95% of our money go into these very things........ and very little to the poor.
Now there is a teaching that Jesus gave that answers the question to radical giving. He was talking to the rich man about selling his possessions. the rich man couldn't do it. The disciples asked a startling question. We have left all and followed. What do we get. Jesus said, "He who has done that will receive many brothers and sisters and lands and farms and animals and cars and houses in this life and the world to come." This was not a teaching on prosperity gospel but on community. This is how we live in a more radical manner. Our trust is not in people nor community but in the living God Himself. But God gives us community to help and sustain and encourage us.
Finally If the church does not begin to see itself as a community of faith, a community, family and continues in it's institutional ways we will continue to focus in on the minors like church buildings and will continue to ignore the widow, the orhan...........
Tom Sine: The earl believers did not view church as somewhere you go to once a week. It was a living breathing community that met from house to house, breaking bread, felowshipping all centered in the worship of the living Christ.
A quote from one of my articles: God creates a community of people that love, serve and worship him, but man always creates an institution for us to serve.
20020905
20020904
Oh! My poor Japanese friends! I don't like Winnipeg winters, but I am not sure that Japanese summers are any better. Hope you Nagoya friends have got a good air conditioner (or a garden, according to the article).
20020903
I rode home from SK today with Joe, a friend of mine who thinks good thoughts and would do well to have a blog but is basically computer-illiterate (or maybe computer-disinterested). He is living in community with some friends who are working their way out of their addictions. It's an inspiring thing.
Anyway, we were conversing and it is cool how dialogue can be so revelatory. We were struggling through some of the tough sayings of Jesus, noting how often he encouraged people to not save their money, but instead to give it away where there is need. We were getting into how the idea of tithing seems to be somewhat of a western convenience, because from what one can gather from Christ, his paradigm was more along the lines of "give away whatever you don't need". However, such an idea is pretty contrary to our "sound financial planning" culture, but this is where the epiphany occurred.
From what we could tell, you can go two routes with your "investments". One reinforces our separate and lonely individualism, while the other builds community and advances the kingdom. One route is to take care of yourself, and make sure you have enough money stored away to keep yourself comfortable and safe. On the other hand, you could take the risk to give where there is need, and trust that God will take care of you, even when your pockets are empty. Even without a supernatural provision of God, generosity can open up a natural "safety-net" whereby generosity begets generosity. Our example was a friend of ours who has been very generous to many around him. We were in strong agreement that were he ever to find himself penniless, we would be selling stuff to make sure he was provided for. He has made his "investment" in us, and, in the economy of God, it's true what Jesus said, if you give you will receive.
It's interesting how the first option relies on independence, while the second requires interdependence. If you choose what is behind curtain number two, you have to be okay with not only giving, but receiving charity as well, and I am rarely certain which is easier. But in these acts of interdependence, Jesus works on us. The former works on our greed, the latter on our pride.
Bedtime...
Anyway, we were conversing and it is cool how dialogue can be so revelatory. We were struggling through some of the tough sayings of Jesus, noting how often he encouraged people to not save their money, but instead to give it away where there is need. We were getting into how the idea of tithing seems to be somewhat of a western convenience, because from what one can gather from Christ, his paradigm was more along the lines of "give away whatever you don't need". However, such an idea is pretty contrary to our "sound financial planning" culture, but this is where the epiphany occurred.
From what we could tell, you can go two routes with your "investments". One reinforces our separate and lonely individualism, while the other builds community and advances the kingdom. One route is to take care of yourself, and make sure you have enough money stored away to keep yourself comfortable and safe. On the other hand, you could take the risk to give where there is need, and trust that God will take care of you, even when your pockets are empty. Even without a supernatural provision of God, generosity can open up a natural "safety-net" whereby generosity begets generosity. Our example was a friend of ours who has been very generous to many around him. We were in strong agreement that were he ever to find himself penniless, we would be selling stuff to make sure he was provided for. He has made his "investment" in us, and, in the economy of God, it's true what Jesus said, if you give you will receive.
It's interesting how the first option relies on independence, while the second requires interdependence. If you choose what is behind curtain number two, you have to be okay with not only giving, but receiving charity as well, and I am rarely certain which is easier. But in these acts of interdependence, Jesus works on us. The former works on our greed, the latter on our pride.
Bedtime...
Alan Creech is reaping the comments from a post on church leadership. Some good discussion to check out.
By the way, I like Alan Creech...
...and I've never even met him.
By the way, I like Alan Creech...
...and I've never even met him.
Well, it's over, and I'd say the first tour was a success. All the concerts went really well and we came home with money in our pockets, even with the van breaking down. Tomorrow I should get to writing some nasty emails to Canadian Tire, as well as some thankful ones to a number of other people. And I will also start working on firming up the B.C. tour for late September. This music business seems to be 80% business and 20% music, but everyone tells me to get used to it. One lead that looks good is TAXI. They are an A&R agency who, apparently, are good at getting songs heard by the right people. From what I have heard it is legit, but of course there is a catch, a $500 yearly membership. But when I can get it together, I think it would be a good investment. Heard anything about them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)