God's still in the hot seat on UK buses

English blogger, Chris Goan, posted this yesterday on the current atheist advertising campaign on UK buses. I posted on this back in October last year, when the campaign was first announced.

Chris draws a couple of interesting conclusions at the end of his post, including pointing out the unfortunate way aspects of Britain's evangelical right seem to be dealing with it - adding fuel to the atheist's fire in the process. Chris also links to an interesting story on the BBC website about a Christian bus driver who refused to drive the buses featuring the atheist'
s bill boards.

I wonder how long it will be before the same campaign is run somewhere in Australia? How would you react if it did run in your home town? Should Christian's hold the monopoly on use of the media for evangelistic purposes?

Picture nicked from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

McLaren and The "Framing Story" of Evolution

I've been devouring Brian McLaren's latest book, Everything Must Change with much fervour over the last week or so. I've just finished reading the section on "framing stories" (part 3 of the book) and suggest this is perhaps key to the "emerging" understanding of Jesus and his mission. It's also probably key to understanding why the modern church must change the way it approaches the gospel and the world in which it exists.

But, I also think the framing story's concept has something to say about one of the most influential framing stories of the last 150 years, a framing story Brian often directly and sometimes indirectly deals with in many of his books. That is the framing story of evolutionary theory.

I am a creationist. Once upon a time I would have prefixed this title with "young earth" or "biblical". More recently my understanding of the source of my identity has changed and I don't feel the need to "identify" myself in this way any more. Yet, "creationist" still describes how I understand God and his work as the cause of the universe.

A framing story exists in this view of God. In the past my understanding of this framing story was hard, dogmatic and disconnected from the gospel. Now I feel I can freely admit some of my struggle with certain aspects of the Genesis creation account, aspects that cause a few problems if viewed as historical events. I have to confess I find it more difficult to accept the talking serpent of Eden than I do Balaams talking ass (i.e. donkey not backside). However, I still struggle greatly with the concept of theistic evolution which steps well outside the conceptual order present in the creation story of Genesis 1 and 2. It talks about a God who is in control, and who presents his creation in a finished form. It gives us a picture of the "re-created" earth, so popular (and rightly so) in emerging theology.

It stands over and against the framing story of evolution.

Yet evolution is as significant a framing story in our day and age as the divinity of the Caesars was in their day. While Brian is quick to point out the way Christ's message opposed the framing story of the Roman Empire he is just as quick to accept the framing story presented by evolution.

While I have moved away from trying to build a definitive counter-theory I can say with confidence that I understand the science on both sides of the fence. Thanks to a freedom of post modernism, a freedom to question, I feel I can say the holes on the scientific creationists side of the fence are no less significant than those on the evolutionists and, at the end of the day, the difference of opinion comes down to the very framing story's employed by the debaters and discoverers themselves. At either end of the scale are extremists (maybe Dawkins and Ham?)

Yet there appears to be very little middle ground in these arguments, at a least not any middle grown that doesn't require compromise, the kind of compromise represented in Everything Must Change by the example of the Herodians and the Saducees, willing to accept aspects of the Roman Empire in order to build security for themselves. According to Brian though, Christ's way opposed this.

The framing story of evolution proclaims "survival of the fittest" yet Christ proclaims "love your neighbour as you love yourself". The framing story of evolution proclaims "blind processes and chance" while John proclaims Christ as the "creator of the world".

I began distancing myself from the creationist movement a few years ago because I started to see shortcomings in the approach and practice of those involved in it and the contrast it created with the life of Christ in the gospels - the same as the shortcomings and the contrast created by much of the modern evangelical church. However, while the details may be hotly contested and debated (but this is healthy, right?) and the science tested, the theory of evolution stands out as an inferior framing story when compared to that given to us by God in Christ. And just as Christ stands over and against the framing stories of the Middle East of the Roman period he also stands over and against the modernistic, scientific framing stories of the late 20th and early 21st century.

I think the concept of framing stories is so incredibly important in understanding and contextualising Jesus' ministry in the first century but also in contextualising and understanding his ministry in the world of the 21st century. I think, as this seems to be one of the central points of Everything Must Change, Brian would agree. Yet I think it is also something Brian may have overlooked in his acceptance of the "facts" of evolution and its place in our understanding (framing story) of the modern world - influencing everything from archeology to psychology.

Can TV Advertising Entice Non-Believers into Church?

I want to be really careful how I write this as I am aware it could possibly illicit an emotional response, but, given my experiences over the past couple of weeks I really feel I have to say something.

I received a letter in the mail yesterday from an organisation calling itself "Jesus all about life" (JAAL for short). It wasn't the first time I had received something from them. I have been the recipient of unsolicited emails from them for a few months now.

JAAL are running a sophisticate, national church marketing program with the goal of engaging the "unchurched" community in church run activities. The crux of the campaign is a series of television advertisements which will be broadcast in W.A. throughout the month of October.

Churches can register to participate in JAAL for $100. Registration ensures any prospective seekers responding to the TV advertising will be directed to the JAAL participating church closest to them, and also includes a JAAL pack participants pack which has a DVD evangelism course and ideas for running "special" JAAL events.

Now the whole thing is pretty standard, attractional/evangelical church fair. It's based around the "build it and they will come" philosophy of church growth. Nothing new or terribly thrilling in all of that.

Some of the adverts (you can view them on the JAAL website) are ok in their content and all are professionally produced. And, according to the information on the site, it seems the JAAL crew have put a fair bit of time and effort into researching Australian's attitude towards the church and Christianity. So, while the JAAL project is obviously a genuine, well intended effort at raising the profile of Jesus Christ in the general community and getting new people into the church, I predict the real results are going to fall way short of the expected outcomes. In this sense it looks and sounds like so many other recent attempts at faith marketing that, when critically assessed, have all fallen flat - the recent push by Churches of Christ to get an intelligent design video to every secondary school student in Australia, Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven" campaign and Nicky Gumbel's Alpha, to name a few.

What really grabbed me about JAAL, and perhaps what is ultimately the difference between this campaign and most of the others, is the overall cost of the campaign. Until receiving yesterday's letter I hadn't given much thought to how the JAAL team were going to get their adverts onto the box. I guess I assumed they would be aired for free like the (cringe-worthy) Christian Television Association announcements of the 80s and 90s - used as fillers in the early hours of the morning and during kids after-school programming. But that's not the case at all. JAAL is a prime-time, hit 'em in the face, campaign. And as such, the JAAL team are requiring a minimum financial commitment just shy of the $500,000 dollar mark (that's half a million dollars if you are having trouble counting all those zeros!).

When I read this my attitude towards the project changed from mild amusement to irritated frustration. I find it incredible that after 15 years (at least) of failed church marketing programs and projects, the JAAL crew can justify raising and spending this kind of money on something that, given the track record of all the others before it, is unlikely to produce anything that even remotely resembles value for money. Especially at a time when the community services sector is chronically underfunded and underserviced.

This is particularly irritating to me at this time because the successful youth drug and alcohol program I have been managing for the last 3 and a half years has just shut down due to lack of funding. And mine isn't the only one.

It makes me wonder how much could be achieved for the kingdom if the same amount of time and effort put into this project were put into encouraging the church to participate in and provide funding for community based programs that actually transform live - and have track records to prove it! Half a mil would have kept Kick Start (my program) running for another 3 or 4 years. Yet the track record of the church when it comes to these kinds of things is abismal. They simply aren't interested.

I wonder if, when the hoohaa fades away and the dust settles and churches begin to take down and pack away their "Jesus All About Life" banners and coffee mugs if anything really will change? Or will it simply be a matter of time until another genuine group of well meaning Christians come along with another expensive way of "guaranteeing" bums on church seats?

What do you think?

Science and the Bible - Part 2

Post moderns face the same problem in rejecting dogmatic proclamations of biblical truth as in accepting modern scientific explanations for the origin and continuation of the universe and all it contains.

If post modern Christians would apply they same level of scepticism to scientific hypotheses, such as the big bang and neo-Darwinian evolution (not to mention pop-sci-fi such as string theory), as they apply to the historical text of the Bible, their arguments would, at the very least, show some consistency. Hopefully enabling them to see more clearly the way in which the cultural ideals which resulted in fundamentalism in Christianity in the first place have also contributed greatly to fundamentalism in cosmological science.

In reality creationist beliefs (even those accepting of a cosmologically young earth) regarding the origin and continuation of the universe and the life which exists within it do not have to pose a problem for post-modern Christians. Rather the focus of their attention should remain on the over emphasis placed on these views as core tenets of the Christian faith and the out-moded approaches to apologetics that seem to be advocated by those who specialise in modernist apologetical models as a whole.

The post-modern Christian therefore must avoid all temptation to play the man and must stick to playing the ball – the ball being the questionable mode of apologetic operation, and not the origin belief of the individuals pursuing it.

Science and the Bible

What's the problem with this quote?

---

In our experience, anti-evolution materials that do not use the Bible are overall much less effective. This is because the conflict is not over scientific facts fundamentally, but over the presuppositions that determine how we interpret those facts. The Bible provides the correct presuppositions about the past, enabling us to understand the scientific data correctly. If a person doesn’t accept the Bible as being inerrant revealed truth from God, then, since all beliefs about the past are equally impervious to scientific proof, there is no imperative for them to relinquish their evolutionary beliefs, even though biblical creation explains the bulk of the scientific evidence more plausibly.

---

Gary Bates, Creation Ministries International

Missional Apologetics

Apologetics is a topic that has interested me for quite some time. I have dabbled quite extensively with different forms of apologetical approaches, both on the web and in the real world. Most of them have revolved around a fairly traditional, "the Bible is fact and I can prove it" kind of approach, that also involved tackling dissenters head on. And, to be perfectly honest, with a few totally amazing exceptions, the results have been pretty miserable.

I stumbled upon some stuff John Smulo wrote about missional apologetics a couple of months back and posted on it here. I felt like a bit of a light went on when I read it. I was struggling with assimilating apologetics with the missional/incarnational approach, without actually realising I was already involved in missional apologetics. Again, relationship and trust are the key, things that I was very aware were missing from many of the other apologetical approaches I had taken.

Anyway - I really just wanted to point you in the direction of John's new Missional Apologetics website. There's not much there yet but I think this is an area that is increasingly important to talk about (along with missional evangelism - I sense the line between evangelism, apologetics and discipleship is very blurred when viewed from a missional perspective), and John's work on a Missional Apologetic Manifesto is fantastic. I introduced it to the leadership of my fellowship at our weekly prayer time this morning. Didn't get a chance to run through it but I am looking forward to hearing what they have to say.

Ok, Ok, Check it out - http://www.missionalapologetics.com

It's not the Word but the Meaning that Matters?

Following on from yesterday's post on words and the way they are understood (or misunderstood) in different contexts, Shannon posted this comment:

While I think that many "Christian" terms can alienate people, I also believe that traditional Christian language must be, to some capacity, preserved. I think in any discussion with a non-believer when we use words like, saved, born-again and such it becomes our responsibility to teach them what these terms mean and represent.

I agree with Shannon - and obviously it is important, if we are to understand each other and are able to communicate with others in a meaningful way, we have to have our own vocabulary. Spiritual/theological words are important. But I think there is something even more important - and that is the meaning behind these words. And in many instances this is something on which even many Christians can't agree.

What is "salvation"? Is it something Jesus does for us on His own or is it something we have a hand in? Does "Spirit Filled" mean a life controlled and governed by the Holy Spirit or does it mean the ability to speak in tongues and exercise other charismatic gifts? And I could go on.

So is it really the words or phrases alone that hold all the importance, or is meaning (and taking it one step further) context also an important part of the deal? How do we get around the clear differences of opinion that exist within the church over the meaning of theological words? How can we communicate meaning to non-believers when we can't even agree on meaning ourselves?

Missional Apologetics - Not Just Sprouting Facts About Science and the Bible

I am almost embarrassed to say it. Until not-all-that-long-ago my basis for apologetics was arguments for biblical truth based predominantly around science, and more directly, how the Bible and science were completely compatible.

While my views on creation, the universe etc. may not have changed, my status as a bona fide 'creation scientist' may soon be under review. You see, over the past couple of years I have been starting to feel uncomfortable about my previous, narrow approach, to introducing people to Jesus. While generally, and when compared to some, I think I was a soft-touch in this area, I do know that I have, at least on a couple of occasions, been guilty of arguing my point of view to the detriment of the kingdom - and, unfortunately, without too many opportunities for apologies. Needless to say, I haven't seen my victims since!

So - now confession time is finished - I was interested to read John Smulo's list entitled Apologetic Insights. It seems that much of the same "emerging" themes seem present in this list. In a missional sense, even apologetics is conducted relationally.

So here's his post - I think it is a good, thought provoking starting place for the topic of missional apologetics.

FOOTNOTE: To those who care - I am still a convinced creationist - Don't want anyone to lose any sleep! :)