A vision statement: Live Simply, Love Deeply

After reading Tom and Christine Sine’s “Living on Purpose” I have realised that we already have a vision statement. To Live simply and love deeply. (it appeared on our wedding invites if anyone noticed) this wasn’t a conscious let’s have a vision statement kind of thing, it just happened. What we need now is some mission statements and action plans.

For me a Vision statement is the big idea.
The mission statement is how you wish to achieve that vision in a particular context. So we’ll have a action plan for work, our relationship with each other and our relationship with others etc…
Then the action plan is how that mission will be achieved for each area.

These ideas are my own and not straight out of a purpose driven life. I can how ever thoroughly recommend the book particularly for anyone who likes the idea of doing 40 days of purpose but has a sneaking suspicion that the main purpose at the end of the 40 days will involve spending a heck of a lot more time a church.

white male hetrosexual Xn and no direction

So what does it mean to be a white male heterosexual Xn in a western country in the 21st Century.

My problem is two fold. Firstly I personally have nothing to fight for. What position of power would it be difficult for me to obtain due to my race, religion, sex or sexuality? Secondly I don’t want to take the positions of power that are on offer.

I don’t want to be a Pastor who controls a church or be part of a political party (or any other organisation) with the honorable goal of changing the party (organisation) from within. Apart from being a near impossible task do, it means that I have to believe that the organisation (or even the world) would be a whole lot better if they thought and acted more like me. Not only do I think that I am not that clever, but I want to work collectively with others.

Alas, at the moment I am one lone blogging voice, that nearly no one reads.

People who ask questions you can't answer so they can keep talking.

Well this will be a rant plain and simple so jump off the bus if you don't like where it's heading.

Have you ever had a conversation with someone when they have suddenly asked you a question that you can't answer and both of you know that you can't answer? And in any event before you even have time to answer the question they have started answering it for themselves anyway.

Some examples might be.
A politician in an interview saying “and do you know why the opposition have chosen to release there environment policy now? (small pause) It’s a cynical ploy to capitalize on blah blah blah”
It may be a preacher “and do you know why Jesus refused to answer the Pharisees? (small pause) It was because he could see into their hearts and blah blah blah”
It may be a Xn evangelist “and do you know what God is wanting to say to you right now? (small pause) He’s wanting to say ‘I love you more than blah blah blah’.”

All of these people are basically on a very long winded rant, which subconsciously they feel bad about it and hence need to interject the rant with a question, giving the illusion that they are actually having a conversation. But don’t be fooled it’s not a real question because they know we cannot answer it, it’s just a way for them to pause catch their breath and keep on talking. And THIS ERKS ME NO END!

My proposal is that when anyone does this we start responding with stupid answers:

For example…
If a politician in an interview says “and do you know why the opposition have chosen to release there environment policy now?” We could respond “Because they didn’t want to release all their policies at once and then they alphabetized them and since yesterday was education that meant today would be environment?”

If a preacher says “and do you know why Jesus refused to answer the Pharisees?” We could respond “Because Jesus wasn’t as smart as the Pharisees”

If a Xn evangelist says “and do you know what God is wanting to say to you right now? We could respond “Stop listening to this guy he sounds like a fundamentalist who wouldn’t listen you half as much as what your listening to him right now”

If the other person protests. We can say “I’m sorry, I thought you were asking me a question, but it seems like all you want me to do is not answer the question so that you can keep on talking as if my not answering has some how given you permission to just keep on talking.

Calm Blue Ocean, Calm Blue Ocean, Calm Blue Ocean, Calm Blue Ocean…

New research: Jesus is cool, church isn't

The bible society of NSW has just done Jesus all about life is to "directly confront the perceived hypocrisy of the Church one hand, and the shortcomings of humanist ideal of self-actualisation on the other." (Quote from their prospectus)

I think this is the church burying it's head in the sand about it's own hypocrisy.

Other organisations don't have the this same problem
People who think Human rights is cool, also think Amnesty International is cool.
People who think the Environment is cool, also think Green Peace is cool.
People who think feeding the 3rd world is cool, also think World Vision is cool.

Even if we were able to convince people of the shortcomings of humanist ideal of self-actualisation there is no way we can convince people that we are not hypocrites. I think it is rather like a political party trying to convince someone they are honest.

We need to look at ourselves first surely???.

"eats, shoots and leaves" style rules?

Style over substance

"Eats, shoots and leaves. A zero tolerance approach to punctuation" is such a cool name for a book on punctuation and most of us so little about it that it's easy to believe that the author is therefore the expert. (The new-yorker had some fun pointing out all the grammatical errors in the book. http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/?040628crbo_books1)

My thought though is not how could a zero tolerance approach to punctuation get published with punctuation mistakes. Rather my thought is do people care? Is it just the thought or the style that counts

In the same way that I think most Australians who don't supported Howard's Government over the children overboard affair probably don't care if it didn't really happen. Because it's the thought or the style that counts.

The question for me is that what do Xns care about in a church is it the style and the thought or the reality. Is a cool looking church (whether that's cool as in rock band up the front and flashing lights or cool as in lots of interactive multimedia things hanging around with participants wearing retro clothing) more important than what it does or what it is about theologically.

I have a feeling that perhaps some of the greatest criticisms of church are more to do with style that substance...

Mmm what to do.

What makes a church

Mmm so what makes a church? Here are my initial thoughts.

1) Learning from the Bible, other Xns (through their books, talks, music etc…), and each other. By both quietly listening and wrestling with each other over their meanings for our lives
2) Praying together for each other and for others
3) Doing acts of love and justice together
4) Sharing our lives, dreams and hopes for the future with each otherWhat makes a church
5) Meeting together regularly / frequently

Dave Andrews: Words of wisdom

It's a little off topic but as I read this I felt compelled to post it.

Spiritual Principals for Personal Survival

Be continually converted to Christ.
Constantly relate to reality through Christ.

Be accountable to one another.
Answer the hard questions as honestly as you possibly can.

Don't be responsible for everything, But be responsive to everyone.

Never react; always respond; As constructively as you can.

Don't try to do big things; Try to do little things with a lot of love.

Extend love unconditionally,But trust only conditionally.

Don't have high expectations; Have high hopes with low expectations.

Cultivate seeds of hope in the grounds of despair.

Never forget-There's no salvation without grace, and no grace without suffering.

Always remember -That strength is made perfect in weakness.

Dave Andrews