Some days suburban transience really does give me the irrits.

We have been gone 6 months and on Saturday we arrived back in our street and caught up with friends and neighbours and the church community we will be leading. It was beautiful to see those people again and yet what strikes me this morning is just how much has changed in just 6 months.

While we were gone a family who were amongst our closest friends and who lived nearby left – for Spain – not to return. We didn’t know they were going when we left, but we discovered it on the trip. That made us sad, the girls especially who were very close. Good friends would not be there when we got home. While we didn’t feel their loss so much on holidays, I imagine we will now that we are home.

Two other close friends from Upstream have also decided to move on – interstate – not to return – friends we love dearly and will miss greatly from our lives and our Christian community. They won’t be replaced overnight and we feel that too. We have been friends for 25 years and those relationships are like gold.

And then there’s our street… Since we’ve been gone 4 houses have sold and yesterday we discovered that the last of our original neighbours is selling and leaving. In a street of 12 houses we have now seen over 30 families come and go in the 6 years we have been here. We have some great neighbours and we all get on well, but I sometimes wonder how long they will be around… and I suspect they may wonder the same about us.

As we wandered into church yesterday and sat quietly towards the back, we recognised many familiar faces, but were also curious to see plenty of new faces. I imagine there will be many more new faces in the year ahead as people move house and go church shopping (blech).

I don’t have any great insights on this, except to say that at times it erodes my own sense of permanence and commitment to the area, as the hope of longer term significant relationships seems quite remote – but maybe I was foolish to ever imagine that as a possibility?

And then at other times it strengthens my resolve to hang in and be some semblance of permanence and dependability in a shifting world.

Some days it just gives me the shifts…

Does it ever strike you as odd that while many churches appoint ‘pastors’ and may even call them ‘Pastor X’, they don’t do the same with apostles?…

In my own tribe we don’t have much problem with the role of pastor, teacher or even evangelist, but when it comes to prophets and apostles we seem a little less interested, maybe even averse. I can tell you many churches that have appointed ‘pastors’, but none that I know of that have intentionally appointed an apostle or a prophet.

Why would that be?..

Doesn’t it seem odd that of the 5 broad areas of gifting described in Ephesians the role of apostle and prophet are most often left out of the 21st c church?

I was discussing this with a mate recently who has gone to the dark side and joined the AOG (humour… in case you are getting offended…) where there is a very strong emphasis on the importance of the apostle in church leadership, even to the point of people calling themselves ‘apostle X’. Leaders are intentionally appointed as apostles and their role is developed to reflect that kind of gifting.

I imagine we will have a tough time really developing apostolic leaders while we continue to refer to those in church leadership as ‘pastors’. If you’re actually gifted and wired as a pastor, then the role description of ‘pastor’ fits perfectly, but if people were to call me ‘pastor’ they would inevitably end up disappointed.

I know there are plenty of ‘apostles’ in pastor’s clothing in the churches I mix amongst, but I wonder what that does to their sense of identity and to the expectations of the people they lead?

Could it be that in a consumer driven world we like to hire pastor/teachers because they care for us and look after us and teach us, while the apostle’s primary focus is on new work and beyond the congregation which doesn’t represent good value for money to the average paying customer?

I would actually find it very wanky to be called ‘Apostle Andrew’ and I am not at all arguing for the use of titles (I neither want to be called ‘rev’, ‘pastor’ etc for similar reasons) but I am concerned that in a missionary context we recognise the unique gift of the apostle and prophet to the church every bit as much as the other three.

No.

I realize that’s a short abrupt answer, but I don’t think we would struggle to hear it as much if it were framed the other way.

Try it.

Can a pastor survive as a pioneer?

No. Of course not. That’d be a silly thing to expect of a pastor!

Ok, maybe ‘survive’ is a little strong… but only a little. Certainly neither will thrive in roles that direct their best energies into tasks for which they are neither gifted nor inspired and eventually both will reach a point of either frustration or incompetence that may well see them walk away in disillusionment and /or despair.

Let’s not try and make pioneers into pastors and pastors into pioneers. The kingdom needs both to do their job and do it well, but we also need to accept that they are very different animals.

While I’m making bald statements I’ll make another, a personal one. I am a pioneer, but I am not a pastor. My friends will attest to this. I can dream up new ideas, I can inspire people to give them a go, I can even work with people to make stuff happen, but I am not very good at the ongoing nurturing and caring work that is integral to classical pastoring.

I used to be ashamed of this and felt my deficiencies regularly (and deeply) as people in the church community would tell me I was ‘unrelational’ or ‘task oriented’ always with a deprecatory tone about it. I guess telling them to ‘piss off because I am busy’ didn’t help (only joking…) but it was true. I am naturally task oriented and while I do enjoy people, I don’t get energy and joy from some of those specific pastoral activities that are required to make any community healthy. I am definitely not a ‘cups of tea’ person…

If your church is unhealthy and in a mess then I am not the bloke you want to come and help you heal thru the pain. I recognize that there are gifted godly people with these skills and passions and I am grateful for them, but I am not wired that way. However if your church is keen to explore new initiatives and wants to enter some fresh territory then I reckon I have some skills to offer you and the energy to make it work.

An obvious issue is that we call paid church leaders ‘pastors’ and naturally we then expect them to function in that way – as a caring shepherd. When a person is task oriented, fast moving and outward focused they don’t seem to fit the typical pastoral profile, but speaking as one of those people, I need to say that in my 20 years of leadership there has always been a great sense of care, love and responsibility for the people in my community. I hear Paul say that every day he feels deep concern for the churches under his care and I resonate with that, but it is less care for the specific needs of individuals and more care for the overall health and well being of the community. A pioneer/apostle will guard and protect a community theologically and they will seek ways to help the body maintain health – all big picture stuff, but they may be less involved in the minutae of people’s every day lives.

One problem, that has been discussed around the web in various places (see my previous post) over the last week is that our tendency is to expect pioneers to morph into pastors once a project is established or once a church is planted. But this is a sure way to kill both pioneer and church!

I think most pioneers can make the shift incrementally to a point, but it is not a sustainable arrangement. These days if I were leading a community I would be seeking to identify the ‘pastors’ in the community and helping them to get on with that job amongst the rest of us. Equally I’d be seeking out the other pioneers /entrepenuers to so that we should share ideas and energy.

I was just chatting this around with Mrs Backyardmissionary (who is very pastoral and nurturing) and she suggested that part of the reason we seek to convert pioneers into pastors is that we aren’t sure the project/church they have initiated will survive in their absence. A church can become unhealthily dependent on the founding leader, but ultimately that co-dependence is a failure of the leader to empower and hand over and the community to take up the responsibility.

This ‘start up’ focus of pioneers can also present problems if we see mission as long term and relational, because many pioneers do get bored easily and feel the need to move on to new ventures. I know I feel this regularly and need to ‘tame’ the wandering spirit. (I’m sure this is partly why I got married!) My own solution to this has been to make sure I am free to create and develop new ideas within the longer term setting. If I am able to have an outlet for creative ideas where I am then I am less likely to seek a whole new experience. However if I am asked to simply ‘grease the wheels’ then I will get bored in days and start vomiting soon after.

When Ephesians 4 speaks of prophets, apostles, evangelists, pastors and teachers it is a picture of the diversity of gifts required for a body to be healthy. Simply pioneers and pastors are not enough either – we need the whole lot.

Sadly the giftings of one skill set can highlight the inadequacies of the other and unless we are secure enough in ourselves then we can find ourselves trying to be omnicompetent and doing everything. A bad place to be…

So can we let pioneers be pioneers and pastors be pastors?

I think we’ll find it hard but why don’t we give it a shot?

If you would like to read a different perspective then head over to Steve’s blog where he explores how pastor and pioneer may be able to held in creative tension.

Other posts:
Mark Berry who started the conversation
Simon Cross

Quote from the Nimbin World Cup Poetry

“Why are churches so full of people who are so empty of questions”

Half of his quote is disturbingly accurate. The reticence of many Christians to ask questions and simply accept the party line is taking its toll.

As you get to know the creator may you continually discover more and more questions.

I have noticed that there is a direct inverse correlation between the thoughtfulness of what gets posted on here and the amount of physical work I do.

It seems the harder and longer the work, the less headspace I have for thinking on the more significant issues of life. The last couple of weeks of blog posts probably exemplify that!

It might seem quite obvious at first, (that we will be tired and weary) but it isn’t always that obvious to those of us who have been in paid ministry.

I know that in my own days as a pastor I would be constantly thinking thru issues of vision, strategy and implementation so that we could keep developing our church. However I was often disappointed to rock up to a church leadership team only to find that the other guys (who work ordinary jobs) hadn’t given the same issues much thought at all – if at all. In my more despairing moments it seemed that the future of our church was decided once a month on a Monday night and that in between time it was business as usual – quite literally.

The last few weeks have been quite full on with both retic and forge work and I have often come home at night quite exhausted. My body is weary and because of that it is hard to get my brain into gear. I know the same is true for those who engage significantly with people or use their brain in their work.

‘Coming home’ is a chance to unwind and relax. More serious pursuits are over for the day and its ‘family time’ or ‘rest time’. I don’t think that’s unreasonable either.

And yet for those of us committed to the local community and to our churches, the evening is the time we have available to catch up with others or to have those (sometimes) necessary meetings.

As I listen to pastors frustrated with their congregations as to their ‘lack of commitment’ part of me agrees… and then another part of me says ‘you’ve got to be kidding! Live their life for a week and then see how you go…’

My mate Steve McAlpine is currently working a full time job while he seeks to plant a new household congregation, and is also pondering the challenges I have been writing about.

If we expect too much of people we leave them feeling overwhelmed and like failures. If we expect too little then the absence of challenge leaves people growing stale and ‘fat’.

I think it would be interesting to hear from both pastors and full time workers as to how they manage this delicate balance – given that work and church/community involvement are only two components of life. Let’s add in staying physically fit, catching up with friends, extended family, recreation… the list goes on doesn’t it?

Is this a tension you are aware of and chewing thru. If so what are you learning?

I had another email this week from the BUWA asking the question ‘how is your church influencing the community it is a part of?’ The results are to collated and used at the next Baptist assembly.

I was pondering how to answer this, and then I asked Danelle…

“By living in it and being part of it.”

I love the way she can simplify stuff to such a ‘duh’ response!

But its a great answer because there are plenty of churches where the majority of members actually live outside the local community. As Simon Holt says its like ‘owning a house you only visit on weekends’. The people in the town know you don’t belong there and your investment is much less than theirs. When you ‘buy in’ then you send a whole different message.

So my question is – how would you answer that?modigliani download

I have been reflecting on a conversation in a recent post…

In response to this post, Matt, Harry & I had a short conversation regarding the nature of incarnational mission and the place of ‘radical hospitality’ within it. I would like to spend a bit more time on it because I believe it an important issue and I’d like to hear how others would approach things.

To give some context, in regard to how we interact locally, part of my post said:

I must admit I am wary of having my neighbours so much a part of my life that they feel free to drop in at any time and stay for as long as they like. There is a part of me that warms to the thought of such connected lives, but then a part of me that also values the privacy of my home and the ability to confidently retreat.

Having seen the way some neighbours can come and never leave I have probably swayed to a safer position. In some ways this is out of kilter with what I hope to see develop and yet if I am to survive in this setting for the long term then it is just common sense.

I should be careful to add that we are not reclusive and have quite an open home, but I do like to have space to retreat within my home.

Matt responded:

I’m not sure this is, as you say, “common sense”, well not in a vulnerable, reciprocal, welcoming the stranger, kind of way.

And went on to describe his own position as “mi casa et su casa” or my house is your house, certainly a bold and radical way to live in a community.

He asked:

“I wonder if there has to be some sort of reckless abandonment, a “letting go” of those safe perimeters, if we are to truly connect with our neighbours on an equal, reciprocal level, rather than us occupying the position of “saviour” and them the position of “lost” – not words we would necessarily use, but i wonder if self-protection reveals we still hold to a “we will save the world mentality”.”

Great question!

We had some discussion about our different approaches and Harry chipped in as well by suggesting that ‘radical hospitality’ may be beyond the capacity of the average nuclear family and that the local church maybe ought to be function as this kind of community.

For the purpose of the conversation let’s define ‘radical hospitality’ as “mi casa et su casa” because that is certainly a stretch for most of us. It means people are welcome any time and we are always open to having guests in our home, whether they be the ‘good friend’ kind or the ‘homeless recently out of prison’ kind (with obvious precautions taken to cater for kids).

Part of my own reticence to adopt Matt’s position comes simply from my natural introversion. While I like people and function well in groups, I do find that I tire when I am around large groups for a long period of time. For that matter I get tired around small groups too and just need ’space’. It took me a while to realise this about myself and I would sometimes go home tired and grumpy from a party and not know why. Now I just leave early! On the DISC profile I am a ‘DIC’ (no surprises hey?…) The reasonably high ‘I’ is my people orientation. And it stays high so long as I am not stressed or overloaded. Part of my own learning has been how to avoid putting myself in places where I get overloaded with work or people because in those situations I get short, terse and task oriented. Not pretty.

Danelle is quite the opposite. She loves people, enjoys parties and would rather have endless drop ins all day. She gets tired after a while, but its a looong while. So in our house we have had to strike a balance, and I think we’ve done ok.

The question that I am chewing on is how does the openness of our home affect the way we do mission here in Brighton. There’s no question that our work is relational and long term, so knowing how to approach that in a healthy way is vital to our sustainability and effectiveness.

I have moved a long way in my own ‘hospitableness’, but I will never be Danelle. I wonder if stretching myself in this area is good discipline, or if it actually being untrue to the person I am? Is it more genuine to just let my friends know that I am introvert who enjoys their company, but needs to get away, or should I look at pushing thru this and learning how to live in a different way, while still being who I am?

I imagine all of us in similar missionary ventures are faced with the same issue in some shape or form, so I’d really value your reflections and interactions on this one.

Jarrod McKenna’s Wednesday’s with Gandhi:

 “When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall — think of it, always.” -Mohandas Gandhi

I’m off to Indonesia this Friday (forgive me my carbon debts) to the Historic Peace Church Gathering on behalf of AAANZ and Quakers (It will be a bunch of very respectable, intelegent and impressive people from around the world… and this dreadlocked kid from Perth!).  So this will be my last ‘Wednesday with Gandhi’ for the year.  It’s funny I set out to write about a bunch of stuff that I didn’t get round to but I trust the Spirit will take what I have done and use it to invite and inspire people to know in deeper ways for themselves this Jesus that Gandhi said was the greatest practitioner of nonviolence in history, central to his revolution in India, and the one through whom, I believe, God’s dream for creation has broken into history.

I thought I’d end by letting you in on a little of the life of our community. Us Peace Tree mob can say with our hero Dorothy Day “We have learned that the only solution is love and that love comes with community.” As a community we seek to ‘serve in silence’ and not make a big deal of what we do but since the gang fights and the subsequent killing in the street behind ours was so public and made the news overseas, we thought we’d let our light shine in the hope that it doesn’t glorify us but the God who is transforming our world not through force but through a love seen fully in Jesus.

As Eastern Orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware writes (I love this quote);

“The Cross, understood as victory, sets before us the paradox of love’s omnipotence.  Dostoevsky comes near to the true meaning of Christ’s victory in some statements which he puts into the mouth of Starets Zosmia:

“At some thoughts a man stands perplexed, above all at the sight of human sin, and he wonders whether to combat it by force or by humble love. Always decide: “I will combat it by humble love.” If you resolve on that once and for all, you can conquer the whole world.  Loving humility is a terrible force: it is the strongest of all things, and there is nothing else like it.” “

We witnessed something of this humble love and healing on Saturday with our ‘Peace and Pizza’ event in response to the gang killing in our streets. As Nick Cave might put it “God was in the house” (well… garden). The family of the 18 year old kid who was killed bravely join us as well as many indigenous people and white fellas like me. We had yummy wood fired pizzas, great music, and Maori, Noogar and Wajalla (as well as  people from Malaysia, Iran, Indonesia, Kenya and elsewhere) came together for a time of silence to honour the life of John[ston] the young man who was killed and tree planting and prayer for an end to violence in our neighbourhood and our world. Thanks for all who have supported us Peace Tree crew over this time. Please keep the families involved, and our neighbourhood in your prayers. 

These photos were taken by our good friend and brother Tom Day who is an amazing photographer now in Perth. (his website is worth bookmarking: http://www.thomasdayphotography.com/ )

 the guy with the dog in this photo is classic :)

Prayer with the family that have lost their loved one on our streets.

 …love.

This was one of the most moving parts of the day when Noogar elders, parents and children helped to plant a tree to honour the life of a Maori boy killed by a Noogar gang.  It was truly beautiful and touched the family and the community gathered deeply.

 …love.

Youth Worker, Community gardener, co-chaplain at Hampton High and Peace Tree brother Josh Hobby, helps plant the tree with one of the family members.

 …love.

…love.

Thanks to all who have journeyed with me and Gandhi this year. I can still be found at http://paceebene.org/blog/jarrod-mckenna. Thanks more so to all who don’t put out PR releases but quietly go about living the decision “I will combat it by humble love.”   
You inspire me to know Christ more, to walk in the resurrection more. You witness to the reality that in Jesus love has won… and not even violence’s ultimate threat of death can stop resurrection power.

Grace and peace of the new world breaking in be with you,

Jarrod

Jarrod McKenna’s Wednesday’s with Gandhi:

“Today I rebel against orthodox Christianity, as I am convinced that it has distorted the message of Jesus.  He was an Asiatic whose message was delivered through many media, and when it had the backing of a Roman emperor it became an imperialist faith as it remains to this day.”

-Mohandas Gandhi, (May 30, 1936) from “Mohandas Gandhi: Essential Writings” by John Dear, p. 79

I’d like to start this post not just with a quote from Gandhi, but a quote from 3 others:

Quote 1.

“Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt.”

Quote 2.

“Anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and the executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job.”

Quote 3.

“If what I’m saying about the centrality of Calvary-looking love is right, we need a major paradigm shift on how we view orthodoxy – which in turn should effect who we see as the “heroes” of orthodoxy.”

If the words of this last quote were written and acted on in the 16^th century the writer could expect a second baptism of the involuntary variety where you never come up for air again.  These aren’t the words of some dreadlocked, kingdom-fuelled, commune starting, dumpster diving, fringe-dwelling, freegan, (eco)activist, permaculturalist wanta-be  (but thanks for reading my posts anyway ) but of Charismatic-Evangelical megachurch pastor, and theologian, Dr. Gregory Boyd.

So what his problem?

Well… quote 1 and 2 were written in the 16^th century.  Not by some crazed peasants fuelled by a violent feudal variety of liberation theology on some crazed apocalyptic crack (but enough about Münster). Rather from the two men that many evangelicals consider the golden boys of the Reformation:

• Quote 1: John Calvin (after the execution of Servetus for preaching a non-Trinitarian understanding of God )
• Quote 2: Martin Luther (in a pamphlet one historian described as “boldly encouraging the slaughter of peasants” who held agendas other than that of the Elector of Saxony)

Now Dr. Boyd and I aren’t arguing for a reactionary “they sinned so I’m going to discount their whole work”. There are too much faults in my own life to be able to even want to argue something like that (!!) and there is also too much richness in the work of these brilliant men. On that logic we also have to discount the work of Dr. Martin Luther King, John H. Yoder, Gandhi and… well… everyone except Jesus! That kind of dismissive approach shows little spiritual maturity and a lack of hard work in coming to terms with, and removing the logs from, our own eyes in our own contexts.

So from a deep desire to first remove our own logs and then assist the church in doing likewise, this recovering sinner would like to raise some questions regarding the bench marks for orthodoxy. Why is it that the litmus test for orthodoxy for many evangelicals has been frozen in the 16^th century in the thought of brilliant men who never the less had theologies that made it possible to disobey Christ’s commands to put away the sword, love our neighbour and even enemies like God has loved us (ie. not drowning, beheading or burning those who disagree with us). In particular questions about the bench mark of “orthodoxy” being systems of theology which fail to preach Christ crucified in ways that keep Christ central for atonement AND discipleship.  That have found approaches to preaching Christ crucified in ways that have failed to bear fruits that look like the church refusing to crucify others!! That have failed to continue reforming to an extent that we no longer perpetuate a history of Christianity that looks like the patterns of this world and nothing like the Christ who rejects the sword and goes the way of the cross trusting only in the faithfulness and sovereignty of a God who hears the cry of those in captivity.

Pastor Boyd suggests 16^th century magisterial reformer John Calvin of the “worst heresy imaginable” in killing those who were in error. Greg’s argument:

I wonder if one of the biggest heresies in the church today is a clever trick where by we keep the centrality of the cross in our understanding of atonement yet have created systems where the cross-shaped love of Jesus is not central to how we understand issues of power, of how we get things done, how we do conflict, how we relate to enemies, our way of being in the world (ie. following Jesus or “discipleship”). And I wonder how any theological system which is blind to this can be considered fully “orthodox”. For surely right belief leads to right practice?  And maybe it’s not until we start to practice what Christ commands of us that we can start to understand our belief. For doctrines (not a popular word but important none the less) such as the Trinity aren’t just boxes to tick but profound realities of who God is to be expressed in our lives.  So it seems that not just Servetus but Calvin was also in error regarding how he understood the Trinity because it didn’t express itself in refusing to kill his enemy because of the kenotic, self giving love, love that is seen in the Holy Trinity.

I recently wrote to our blogging mate Andrew Jones (aka tall skinny kiwi) regarding discussions of the Reformation:

Mate I was thinking the reformation conversation seems very ‘Magisterial-centric’ (did I just invest a word?). I don’t understand why we let Calvin or Luther set the bar for “orthodoxy”. What about the radical wing of the reformation that insisted orthodoxy lay in the witness of the early church and were therefore willing to die but not kill for Christ? I feel embarrassed that the conversation gets so nasty. While we don’t kill our brothers and sisters today over difference (in doctrine… we might still kill them in difference of nationality if asked by our nations in war) we still don’t think loving each other means not attacking each other. Why is that? What about Jesus’ Lordship in this area? If we really think each others in error should there not be tears in prayer for one another not ‘virtual burnings’. I think the church is still in need of a savour who rejects violence, and I think we have one in Jesus. Surely these conversations can be opportunities to for the church to journey deeper in the process of sanctification, of ‘divination’ as the Orthodox have put it, in become more Christ-like. If we can’t love our sisters and brother well how are we going to love our enemies?

Today there is a direct correlation between the theology of these 16^th century magisterial reformers and evangelical leaders in the U.S. like James Dobson and Don Carson who actively oppose other evangelical leaders in actions like the ‘Evangelical Climate Initiative’ to prophetically confront the biggest ecological disaster in human history.  This is the same group that reject much of the work of who I think is one of the most promising thinkers on a ‘Jesus shaped orthodoxy’, N.T. Wright. They do this on the basis that his scholarship challenges some of the ways the Magisterial Reformers have taught us to read the Bible in light of their argy-bargy in the 16^th century. And while gifted communicators Mark Driscol are able to use these Reformers to critique some of the stuff that passes for Christianity today such as the “success, self help and saved by rapture” nonsense, until we can let Christ be central to our critique we will not recover the dynamic faith and faithfulness of the early church which challenges the practice of these reformers (and our) comfort with violence.

But I’m not holding Gandhi up as a theological alternative. Gandhi was far from Christian orthodoxy in his beliefs and though I think conversation with his life is incredibly fruitful for discussing the log in our eye as westerners who claim to follow Christ, I have never held him up as providing a theological framework for deepening ourselves in the biblical narrative. Yet the “orthodoxy” which Gandhi rejected I think is no orthodoxy at all. An orthodoxy with an “imperialist faith”, that plays the chaplain to the kingdoms of this world that crucified our Lord is not “orthodox’’ (lit. “Right believe”) but a dangerous heresy. (for those interested here’s a link I put to a short 2min interview with Dr. Cornel West on this subject and photos of our Peace Tree ‘commun(e)ity’ and our initial response to the recent gang killing on our streets). 

So this plea for a Jesus-shaped orthodoxy will not be found in out arguing each other but out living (out witnessing! ) each other. We remember the only way we can deepen in orthodoxy is by prayerfully seeking to do so in a way that reflects the way of Christ, after the likeness of the mutual love of the Triune God who is fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. In the love we see in the cross and the power we see in the Resurrection. We must learn to engage in ways where we deepen our journey of discipleship. Where we become more aware of our own desperate need for God’s transforming grace that lead us on the exodus journey out of our own captivity to the cycles of domination that can never witness to what God has started in Jesus, the kingdom of God.

ABC’s Radio National did an interview with me and others on parts of the Reformation traditions which insisted that following Christ means living Christ-like lives where we drop our weapons that we may pick up our cross: Here’s the link if interested

and an article on the “emerging peace church movement” and an orthodoxy in keeping with the witness of the early church: click here

Wess Daniels is sharp, articulate, intelligent, prayerful and looks like Brett from the Kiwi comedy duo “Flight of the Concords”.  If you’re a fan of getting ‘feeds’ from blogs, Wess’ gathering in light is one that doesn’t disappoint.

He’s recent post on leadership, payed roles and pastoral gifts is thought provoking:

“We also need to come to terms with the fact that alternative leadership can only be exercised within a Christian community that sees itself as an alternative community of faith (see part two of my series). In other words if you have a church full of passive recipients then they will need a CEO model of church to maintain that status quo faith… Alternative leadership and alternative communities go hand in hand.”   

 for more on why Wess thinks “We Can’t Build A Mega-Church On Jesus’ Leadership Model” click here:

http://gatheringinlight.com/2007/11/12/an-emerging-profession-sharing-power-in-a-flattened-world/

 P.S.

why we’re on the subject of look alikes does anybody else think these two look alike?

 :)

(John feel free to find a doubleganger for me )

P.P.S.

I think this is Wess dancing in this photo: