What it means to have a mother.

Someone responded to this cartoon “And his Mother would probably do it” But actually the right answer is much more likely to be: “And his Mother would do it happily and she would look forward to each trip”.

In a sense Mothers are NUTS. They are willing to give all they have to see their children happy. They are willing to sacrifice themselves, go the extra mile, maybe twenty if necessary?

I wonder if it would not have been easier if God introduced Himself as the Heavenly Mother. Would it not be much easier to understand the grace and love of God if it was associated with a Mother? I know that when we talk about the gender of God that God made Man and Woman in His images. That our understanding of God is sometimes flawed because we see God predominantly as male, God is so much more!

The second thing that struck me in this cartoon was how Calvin assumed the role of his mother was to make life easier for him. Do all his dirty work and be contended with this. Where in your life would you find somebody NUTS enough to be willing to make these sacrifices for self righteous and unthankful people? I can only think of Mothers and God.

Thank God for Mothers.

How Facebook Killed the Church

Thanks to Guillaume Smit en Leonard Sweet for bringing this article to my attension.

Guillaume wrote the following on his blog(THEOLOGY, MISSION & MINISTRY: HOW FACEBOOK KILLED THE CHURCH):

I found this article thanks to a tweet from Leonard Sweet with the link. It is written by Richard Beck, Associate Professor and experimental psychologist at Abilene Christian University.He blogs at Experimental Theology. You can read the original post HERE.

There has been a great deal of hand wringing in the Christian community about the onset of Web 2.0 relationality (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, blogs, MMOGs). The concern you often hear is that "virtual" relationships are no replacement for "authentic" relationships.
No doubt this is true. But I've done some research in this area and here's my general conclusion: Facebook friends tend to be our actual friends.
No doubt, the vast majority of the people in a friend list on Facebook are strangers, acquaintances, or old school friends you haven't seen in years. But no user of Facebook is confused enough to think that she is "in relationship" with any of these people. These are just the penumbra around the core of our Facebook interactions, connecting with people we actually know and are friends with.

In short, Facebook isn't replacing real world relationality. Rather, Facebook tends to reflect our social world. For example, in a soon to be published study some ACU colleagues and I used Facebook to predict student retention at our school (i.e., which freshmen return for their sophomore year). We found that on-campus Facebook activity was significantly correlated with measures of "real world" relationality. Further, on-campus Facebook activity also predicted who would come back for their sophomore year. For example, if you had a lot of Facebook Wall Posts you felt more socially connected and were more likely to come back to ACU for a second year. Which makes sense. Who would be posting on your Wall day to day? Sure, old friends might give you a shout out from time to time on your Wall. But for the most part Wall posts come from people who you'll actually see today. Or at least this week, month or year. The point is, you know these people. Talking with them via Facebook is authentic relationality. It's staying in touch, coordinating plans, offering up encouragement, saying a prayer, working out misunderstandings, and sharing a moment.

Over at my friend Mike's blog there was a recent discussionabout why Millennials (also known as Generation Y) are leaving the church. His question was, why are they leaving? Most of the answers took aim at the church. Churches are too shallow, hypocritical, judgmental, or political. Many surveys have shown these attitudes to be widespread among Millennials. Consider the Barna research summarized in the book unChristian. Young Christians and non-Christians tend to feel that the church is "unChristian." Too antihomosexual. Too hypocritical. Too political. Too judgmental. That's how young people see "the church." And it's hard to blame them.
But my argument at Mike's blog was that the church has always been this way. Is the church of 2010 much different from the church of the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, or '90s? I don't think so. So, yes, the church is screwed up. Always has been. The church has been a depressing constant over the generations. So the change isn't with the church. The change is with the Millennials. If so, in what way and how has this change related to the church?
The most obvious change is in mobile and Web 2.0 connectivity. Generation X didn't have cell phones. Nor did they have Facebook or text messaging. And you can't tell me that Millennials see the church any differently than Generation X saw it. Look to the right at cell phone subscriptions plotted by decade. Most have Generation X as birth dates between 1961 to 1981. Which has Gen X as college students in the years 1979 to 1999. As you can see, most Gen X'ers didn't have cellphones. And based on the sociological evidence Gen X was much more cynical and anti-establishment when compared to the Millennials. So you can't tell me Gen X'ers didn't see the church as judgmental, hypocritical, or sold-out. They did.
So what happened? Why didn't Gen X leave the church while the Millennials are leaving in droves?
The difference between Generations X and Y isn't in their views of the church. It's about those cellphones. It's about relationships and connectivity. Most Gen X'ers didn't have cell phones, text messaging or Facebook. These things were creeping in during their college years but the explosive onset of mobile devices and social computing had yet to truly take off.
So why has mobile social computing affected church attendance? Well, if church has always been kind of lame and irritating why did people go in the first place? Easy, social relationships. Church has always been about social affiliation. You met your friends, discussed your week, talked football, shared information about good schools, talked local politics, got the scoop, and made social plans ("Let's get together for dinner this week!"). Even if you hated church you could feel lonely without it. Particularly with the loss of "third places" in America.
But Millennials are in a different social situation. They don't need physical locations for social affiliation. They can make dinner plans via text, cell phone call or Facebook. In short, the thing that kept young people going to church, despite their irritations, has been effectively replaced. You don't need to go to church to stay connected or in touch. You have an iPhone.
Sure, Millennials will report that the "reason" they are leaving the church is due to its perceived hypocrisy or shallowness. My argument is that while this might be the proximate cause the more distal cause is social computing. Already connected Millennials have the luxury to kick the church to the curb. This is the position of strength that other generations did not have. We fussed about the church but, at the end of the day, you went to stay connected. For us, church was Facebook!
The pushback here will be that all this Millennial social computing, all this Facebooking, isn't real, authentic relationship. I'd disagree with that assessment. It goes to the point I made earlier: Most of our Facebook interactions are with people we know, love, and are in daily contact with. Facebook isn't replacing "real" relationships with "virtual" relationships. It's simply connecting us to our real friends. And if you can do this without getting up early on Sunday morning why go to church? Particularly if the church is hypocritical and shallow? Why mess with it?
Why are Millennials leaving the church? It's simple. Mobile social computing has replaced the main draw of the traditional church: Social connection and affiliation.
Basically, Facebook killed the church. May it Rest in Peace.

Wie wil jy wees?

Ek het die voorreg om met baie gesinne te werk. By te wees as ouers met en oor hulle kinders praat. Om dan self met hierdie jongmense te gesels en te hoor hoe hulle oor hulle self dink. Een van die dinge wat my bly opval is mense se drome vir hulle kinders en hoe kinders eners begin droom.

Ons wil almal die beste vir ons kinders hê. Ons droom dat hulle eendag gelukkig sal wees, ‘n goeie werk sal hê, gelukkig getroud sal wees(met iemand van die ANDER geslag). Dat hulle SUKSESVOL sal wees.

As ons saam met ons kinders huiswerk doen is dit wat ons vir hulle herbevestig. “Jy moet jou huiswerk doen anders gaan jy nie eendag Universiteit toe kan gaan nie en gaan jy nie ‘n goeie werk kan kry nie.”

Ons bevestig dit as hulle aan sport deelneem. “KILLER INSTINCT! Geen genade!” Ons bevestig dit na hulle prestasies ontvang het. “Ek kan dit nie glo nie, dit is onregverdig. Jy moes die eerste plek gekry het! Toemaar volgende keer!” So kan ons aangaan met voorbeelde.

Wat ons eintlik kommunikeer is: Dit is belangrik watter prestasies en verwagtinge jy kry en aan voldoen in die lewe. Wie moet jy word? Die persoon wat al hierdie goed doen en dit dan GOED doen! Daarom sit ons met soveel mense wat leeg is, alhoewel hulle gereken word in die top 10% van die Wêreld bevolking. Dit waarna hulle streef is leeg.

Wat wil ek hê moet my seuns word?

• Manne wat genade uitleef
• Manne wat respek het vir hulle self, ander en die natuur
• Manne wat ander mense en hulle behoeftes raaksien
• Manne wat eerlik is
• Manne wat nederig is
• Manne wat lewe met vreugde en passie
• Manne wat hulle gawes geniet
• Manne wat vir GOD lief is!

Hierdie lys gaan nie oor iets wat hulle moet word eendag nie. Dit gaan nie oor prestasies wat hulle eendag moet bereik nie. Dit gaan oor wie hulle IS en gaan WEES. Te lank in my lewe het ek onder die wan indruk geleef dat dinge wat ek doen en bereik maak dat ek belangriker is en meer aanvaarbaar is vir God. Tog kom ek agter dit gaan vir God oor wie ek IS. God wat met my wil tyd spandeer. God wat dink dat ek spesiaal is. Jes 43:4 “Omdat jy vir My kostelik is, omdat Ek jou hoog ag en liefhet...”

Hoe verander ek dan die manier hoe ek met my kinders omgaan. Die taal wat ek gebruik as ek met hulle praat. Hoe gereeld bevestig ek dit aan hulle dat ek hulle onvoorwaardelik liefhet. Hoe gereeld doen ek simpel dinge saam met hulle net omdat.

Ek gaan vir die volgende maand probeer om al die energie wat ek gewoonlik gebruik om seker te maak dat hulle uitdraai soos die samelewing verwag te herkanaliseer. Ek gaan probeer om te fokus op die belangrike dinge, om hulle lief te hê, om die waardes wat vir God belangrik is te demonstreer. Ek gaan ook probeer om dit nie te oen in die vorm van morele lessies wat maar net weer gemik is daarop om hulle iewers iets te laat bereik nie. Ek gaan probeer om hulle al hoe meer te leer om ook te leef in die hier en nou voor God. Om nou reeds genoeg te wees. Nee daar gaan ek alweer. Om nou reeds te besef dat hulle goed genoeg IS.

Ek gaan met hulle praat oor dit wat God ons maak. Dit is egter moeilik want dit is nie soos ek grootgeword het nie. My grootste droom was nie om elke dag te leef met: liefde, vreugde, vrede, geduld, vriendelikheid, goedhartigheid, getrouheid, ²³nederigheid en selfbeheersing.^[1] Ek hoop as ek dit genoeg vir my kinders vertel dat dit my droom vir hulle is, en iets hiervan probeer leef dat dit ook die droom van hulle lewens sal word.

---

^[1]Die Bybel : Nuwe Vertaling. 1998, c1983 (Ga 5:22). Cape Town, South Africa: Bybelgenootskap van Suid-Afrika.

Om Missionaal Kerk te wees - Eenvoudig

Hierdie is ‘n baie eenvoudige manier om te verduidelik wat dit beteken om Misionaal kerk te wees.
Eight patterns of missional faithfulness, I cannot remember where I got this,  maybe you know, I would love to know.
Pattern 1, Missional Vocation. The congregation is discovering together the missional vocation of the community. It is beginning to redefine “success” and “vitality” in terms of faithfulness to God’s calling and sending. It is seeking to discern God’s specific missional vocation (“charisms” – gifts) for the entire community and for all of its members.
Pattern 2, Biblical Formation and Discipleship. The missional church is a community in which all members are involved in learning what it means to be disciples of Jesus. The bible is normative in this church’s life. Biblical formation and discipling are essential for the congregation.
Pattern 3, Taking Risks as a Contrast Community. The missional church is learning to take risks for the sake of the gospel. It understands itself as different from the world because of its participation in the life, death and resurrection of its Lord. It is raising questions, often threatening ones, about the church’s cultural captivity, and it is grappling with the ethical and structural implications of its missional vocation. It is learning to deal with internal and external resistance.
Pattern 4, Practices That Demonstrate God’s Intent for the World. The pattern of the church’s life as community is a demonstration of what God intends for the life of the whole world. The practices of the church embody mutual care, reconciliation, loving accountability, and hospitality. A missional church is indicated by how Christians behave toward one another.
Pattern 5, Worship as Public Witness. Worship is the central act by which the community celebrates with joy and thanksgiving both God’s presence and God’s promised future. Flowing out of its worship, the community has a vital public witness.
Pattern 6, Dependence on the Holy Spirit. The missional community confesses its dependence upon the Holy Spirit, shown in particular in its practices of corporate prayer.
Pattern 7, Pointing Toward the Reign of God. The missional church understands its calling as witness to the gospel of the in-breaking reign of God, and strives to be an instrument, agent, and sign of that reign. As it makes its witness through its identity, activity, and communication, it is keenly aware of the provisional character of all that it is and does. It points towards the reign of God that God will certainly bring about, but knows that its own response is incomplete, and that its own conversion is a continuing necessity.
Pattern 8, Missional Authority. The Holy Spirit gives the missional church a community a community of persons who, in a variety of ways and with a diversity of functional roles and titles, together practice the missional authority that cultivates within the community the discernment of missional vocation and is intentional about the practices that embed that vocation in the community’s life. Source: “Treasure in Clay Jars – Patterns in Missional Faithfulness” from the Gospel and Our Culture Network (Eerdmans, 2004):

What would Jesus Do if Invited to a Gay Wedding? – John Shore

Omdat ons so besig is met Sonde is dit die ding waarop ons altyd eerste fokus. Dit is die manier hoe ons grootgemaak is. Daarom is ons eerste gedagte dat ons die Sonde moet aanspreek. As ons in die eerste plek so besig was met God se liefde, sou ons eerste gedagte sekerlik gewees het om God se liefde te verkondig. Hierdie artikel het my persoonlik weer laat dink

I've recently been invited to a couple of gay weddings. So -- what with being Christian and all -- I asked myself the famous question, "What would Jesus do?" (Which I don't too often ask myself, actually, since Jesus could, for instance, raise people from the dead and turn water into wine, whereas I can barely drag myself out of bed in the morning and/or turn water into coffee. Safe to say lots of His options are none of mine.)

Wondering what Jesus would do naturally enough led me to the New Testament. And therein I found these quotes:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices -- mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law -- justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel." (Matthew 23:23-24); and

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." (Matthew 23:13); and,

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." (Matthew 23:15); and, last but hardly least:

"Love your neighbor as yourself," [said Jesus]. "There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:31)

When I next went looking for anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says anything -- and I mean anything -- about homosexuality, I learned that Jesus spent about as much time talking about gays and/or lesbians as I spend talking about button collecting and/or sea horses: none. Of course, it's entirely possible that Jesus did say crucial things about homosexuality, but that when he did (curse the luck!) no one around him just then happened to have handy an ostrich feather, sappy stick, or whatever it was they used for pens back then. Which would make sense, actually. If you've spent any time at all reading the New Testament, you know that Jesus' disciples weren't exactly Johnnies-on-the-spot. They were just normal, everyday guys.

Kind of the whole point! Jesus most surely did love him some everyday people.

Throughout the New Testament, the only kind of people with whom Jesus consistently took frightful exception were the very "teachers of the law and Pharisees" we see him dressing down in the passages above. One thing that often gets lost in our considerations of Jesus is the degree to which he is exactly the wrong person to piss off. And you don't have to spend a lot of time in the New Testament before you understand that the only kind of people who seem to ever truly anger him are those who put religious dogma above what he most stood for, which was God's compassionate will.

Around Jesus you can whine, lie, shift your loyalties, be late, be greedy, be too ambitious, be stupid, be a coward, be a hypochondriac, constantly complain, fall asleep at every wrong moment -- you can do nothing right, and it won't in the slightest way seem to offend him. But you put dogma ahead of empathy? You transmogrify God's law into a justification for denying God's grace?

Then ... yikes, man. Then you've got yourself a problem no one wants.

 

I'm not exactly sure how we came to so often consider Jesus-formerly-known-as-The-Carpenter as a kind of a soft, dreamy, namby-pamby sort. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!) But it's hard to believe it was from the accounts of Jesus we have in the Gospels. That's just not the guy on those pages.

Jesus is scary when he's riled. And the only people who rile him are those who, in His name,set themselves up as sanctimonious judgers of others.

I think I better go to the weddings of my gay friends. I'm almost scared not to. In some of his parables Jesus wasn't exactly fortune-cookie clear, but he didn't even almost waffle about his "Love your neighbor as yourself." He very explicitly declared that the "first and greatest commandment."

If there's any wiggle room there, I just don't see it.

So I'll attend my gay friends' weddings, and I'll do so in the exact same spirit I'd expect them to
attend a similar function of mine. And if it happens that in the course of either of their weddings or receptions I find myself wondering if I'm doing the right thing, I'll be sure to remember the first miracle of Jesus' recorded in the Bible. It's when he turned water into wine. At a wedding.