Jon Rogers - Latest Comments

Re: Strengths of a Really Flat Church

jonrogersuk — Thu, 10 May 2012 07:28:17 -0000

Thanks G! You're completely right that deciding who should join and who should not is an exercise of power, one that I haven't even started to critique. I do certainly acknowledge that the church cannot operate like Valve in that sense.
However, seeing Valve as a 'walled garden' where more idealistic structures can flourish compared with the 'common land' of Church does not necessarily imply that church should copy the hierarchy of other organisations.
I'm fully prepared to admit that since the Patristic era the Church has been structured in a way that mirrored the Roman organisation of the time, but I don't accept that it is normative - especially, as Simon notes above, the NT gives almost no space to describing ideal church structures.
The placing of the individual at the centre of decision making is a reflection of our culture right now. While your critique possibly hits the mark for some who crave that freedom, the inverse can be true in a hierarchy: I'm afraid of taking personal responsibility and control of my life and my part in this community, so I out-source the power and control to someone better qualified than me (be it a 'line manager' or 'clergy').

Re: Strengths of a Really Flat Church

jonrogersuk — Thu, 10 May 2012 07:19:55 -0000

I'm not quite sure if you're using 'anarchic' in a negative sense or the descriptive (largely positive) way I am above. I think I'm suggesting that any anarchic Christian group gets there by taking the priesthood of all believers really seriously. Perhaps distributed leadership is a model that lands somewhere between proper anarchy and the 'oligarchy' of a church like ours.

Re: Strengths of a Really Flat Church

Simon Martin — Wed, 09 May 2012 14:55:45 -0000

Very interesting post, Jon. I think I might wait to make substantive comment until you've posted on the cons as well as the pros.
I've always wondered about the relationship between egalitarianism and the church, especially in the light of the NT evidence (which is pretty sparse vis-a-vis structures & models). Distributed leadership?
Some of the most anarchic groups I've been involved in (both inside & outside the church) have been nominally egalitarian/priesthood of all believers!

Re: Strengths of a Really Flat Church

Gareth Irvine — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:40:39 -0000

It sounds very appealing - especially with our contemporary dislike of authority figures. But even Valve has a process of deciding who should join them and who shouldn't - which could be seen as the strongest exercise of power within the apparently flat structure. That said, in my experience this kind of culture definitely allows creativity and entrepreneurs to thrive. But not convinced the church is supposed to be either democratic or anarchic. Either option places the choices of the individual at the centre of the decision making process, with the end goal of joining someone else's team being that it improves your salary in the end of year review. It seems to revolve more around fear of control and defining one's personal identity than freedom to follow and be part of something bigger than yourself.

Re: Ending on a Cliff-hanger

James Snapp — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:02:01 -0000

Dear Jon,

I encourage you not to just set aside verses 9-20 like that. While the text of Mark ends at 16:8 in two manuscripts from the 300's, the passage is attested by all other Greek copies (over 1,500), and it also has patristic support that is significantly earlier than the earliest manuscript of Mark 16: in the 100's, Justin Martyr, and the anonymous author of Epistula Apostolorum, and Tatian, and Irenaeus all used the passage in one way or another. (Arouns 184, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies Book 3, specifically quoted 16:19 and atttributed it to Mark. Irenaeus had visited the church in Rome and if it had not had these verses I think he would have known that.)

It looks to me like Mark was suddenly interrupted by an emergency, and the book was finished via the attachment of an already-existing summary of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances. It also looks like Mark did not intend to stop at 16:8, inasmuch as he forecasts, quite clearly, at least one post-resurrection scene in 14:28 and 16:7.

As an alternative to the idea that Mark set a puzzling trap for his readers/listeners, I would suggest that his intent was to continue Peter's remembrances of Christ, including His post-resurrection appearances. And as an alternative to the view that 99% of the Greek manuscripts, 99% of the Latin manuscripts, 99% of the Syriac manuscripts, and over 40 patristic writers from the era of the Roman Empire all used copies of Mark that contained 12 verses that God did not inspire or desire the church to use, I suggest considering that we are looking here at an instance of redaction that occurred while the text of the Gospel of Mark was still in its production-stage; this would mean that verses 9-20 should be granted the same status as the many other passages in the Bible (such as Jeremiah 52, or Proverbs 30 and 31, and many Psalms) which were not written by the main human author of a book but were nevertheless in its text by the end of its production-stage.

Yours in Christ,

James Snapp, Jr.

Re: Reflecting on #TEDxWarwick

Doug Belshaw — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 03:07:44 -0000

Hi Jon, glad you enjoyed my talk! It's up on YouTube now: http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/my...

Re: Jesus had twelve “bros” – so what?

Shuvyah — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:56:36 -0000

Please read this thoughtful response to Frank Viola's "God's View of a Woman," written by a Jewish friend:

http://reviya.blogspot.com/201...

Here is an excerpt:

"After God had founded the earth, the unfathomable depths of the sea, the gigantic burning stars, sunsets, gentle breezes, puppies, tigers, trees and their fruits, man with his creative faculty, wonder, yearning, capacity to care and feel, and every other good thing in the physical world and said it was very good, then God created as his finale: Woman. In the Israelite mind, she is the crowning achievement of all of God's creative work in the first six days."

Re: Tip: Skip the LibreOffice Word Count!

KPL — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:42:18 -0000

Unfortunately, it can really screw up if you use footnotes.
Such as in an academic document with mandatory word counts
(and footnotes are not supposed be a part of the word count).
I like Libreoffice, but the word count system really
really needs a drastic overhaul.

Re: Reflecting on #TEDxWarwick

Bart van Merriënboer — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 20:16:11 -0000

Just wanted to point out that Q&A sessions and breakout sessions aren't part of the TEDx format, and are actually not even allowed by TED! We do our best to get the dialog started by presenting you with interesting and thought provoking ideas, but the debate around these ideas should be held outside TEDx. More information about the TEDx format can be found here: http://www.ted.com/pages/creat...

I'm very happy you enjoyed the event and hope to see you again next year!

Re: Does God Change, Does God Feel?

Tiffer Robinson — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:15:17 -0000

On his immutability, I find the story of Jonah to be key. On first reading, it seems that God changes his mind concerning Ninevah. He sends Jonah to declare judgement, but then he decides not to destroy them, because of their (almost silly) repentance. The text literally tells us that God repents (which should make even the open theist a little uncomfortable).

But the very reason Jonah does not want to go to Ninevah is that he knows God will relent and have mercy on them if they repent. It is precisely God's immutability, or faithfulness, that is the predication of this story.

If I tell my daughter that if she continues doing something naughty I will tell her off, and she starts to behave and so I congratulate her instead, is it me who has changed my nature, my behaviour, or her?

Communication or translation of attributes - this is an important doctrine, which is not to be underestimated. It is not simply a way of getting round the problem of God's suffering through Jesus, it is key to it. Jesus is the divine paradox. We should never, when pondering the incarnation, fall into complacency - God becoming man is an unexpected and astonishing act of Grace. And the cross: "T'is mystery all! the immortal dies!". To be able to say "God does indeed suffer, and He is indeed moved and changed - but only in and through Jesus Christ" shows how unique and glorious our saviour is.

Whereas the God of Moltmann is a God who we can expect to suffer and to come alongside his people in empathy regardless of Christ's incarnation. Christ ceases to be unique, ceases to be special, but becomes just the demonstration of God's love for us. If you follow Moltmann to where his theology has led him since "The crucified God" the cross ceases to really do anything at all, besides showing us who God is. Mission becomes more about affirming life than about preaching a gospel of God's grace as shown by the passion and resurrection of Jesus.

The best place to go for the counter argument to the one being put to you by Process Theology and the like is to be found in Thomas Weinandy "Does God Suffer", although only realistically accessible in a good theology library (although i think you can read some on google books)

I apologise for being a little polemical!

Re: Does God Change, Does God Feel?

Tiffer Robinson — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:57:20 -0000

I'm afraid I am a fairly convinced "traditionalist" on this issue, and I side with the view that has been prevalent over the past 2000 years that God is both impassible and immutable. (I wrote an essay on it at college, so it must be right).

Without going into too much detail - I don't agree that impassibility was a hellenistic philosophy wholeheartedly swallowed by the church fathers and ecumenical councils - the Church was extremely critical of what it agreed with and rejected with much reference to scripture (it was only later that the Western church became a bit obsessed with Aristotle).

I also agree with Tertullian (pre-heresy) and others that to say God is impassible is not the same as to say he does not "feel" or experience "emotion". But that, as Isaiah says "His ways are higher than our ways";

So also those
other emotions, of anger, I mean, and exasperation, we experience with no such
felicity, for felicity appertains to God alone, because of the incorruptibility
which belongs to him and to no one else. He can be angry without
(being shaken), can be annoyed without coming into peril, can be moved without
being overthrown (Tertullian)

Re: Subverting “Sinners” as a Category

Simon Martin — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:46:14 -0000

I'm glad someone else was paying attention this morning!

Re: Samsung Galaxy S II and Banshee

Ajarmc — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:52:27 -0000

Thanks for awesome post... unfortuntely, i have issue.... I am getting the below mentioned error :(

"Error initialising camera: -60: Could not lock the device"

Re: Jesus had twelve “bros” – so what?

jonrogersuk — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:22:53 -0000

Piper points our the importance of men in the Bible but misses out entirely the how important women are - that's the definition of an unbalanced argument. He then goes on to make the mistake of thinking that because it's so in the Bible that it should be so in all Christianity, missing the direction of the Biblical narrative. Think about it, the early church was made up mainly Jews and included many slaves, but that's not how it _has_ to be for all of history.

I'm not sure to what extent God gives different roles to genders any more than society does. God gives roles to individuals, each to use the gifts they have in the context of community.

I'm not sure how exactly you understand the roles of elder and deacon - there are lots of ways of understanding them. What I do gather is that you believe there are some roles that, to put it crudely, your genitalia may exclude you from. I don't think that the y-chromosome encodes a gene for spiritual leadership - it's a spiritual gift that is given by God, not selectively by gender.

The passage you allude to in Ephesians 5 is a whole different game, deserving of much more than a comment after a blog post. What if you read 'head of' not as 'has authority over' but 'is the origin of' (think 'headwaters' rather than 'head of the school'). It all looks a bit more enculturated now.

Re: Jesus had twelve “bros” – so what?

Alan Cartwright — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 13:20:22 -0000

I don't like Piper's comment that Christianity has a masculine feel, but I'm not sure there's anything else he says there that's wrong. He points out the prominence of men in God's plan, which is true. He didn't deny that God frequently used women just as prominently either, that's not so much the issue is it?

To my mind the root of the problem is that most people can't tell the difference between equal importance and identical roles. God gives equal importance; God assigns different roles.One side is shouting that God isn't treating all equally; the other is either insisting that He is, or that they shouldn't be.

If it's worth anything I agree that the elders of a church should be men, but the deacons can be women and men. I also agree that the man should be the head of the family. But the most important detail is how Christianity defines leadership - it is service. The elders are to serve the church; the husband is to serve the wife. And the example is Jesus' service in John 13, in His life, and on the cross.

Re: How I sync Android and Ubuntu Music and Photos – wirelessly!

anake — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:42:17 -0000

good work man, cheers for writing it up

Re: Jesus had twelve “bros” – so what?

Simon Martin — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:13:44 -0000

Thanks for your thoughtful reflections, Jon.I don't want to steal any thunder from you (or others) but, to a certain extent, what goes around comes around. I recall rehearsing almost identical points & arguments 10-15 years ago with (a) friends in ministry in the UK, and (b) US colleagues in our mission organisation in Africa. At that point both Dick France & Gordon Fee were 'on hand' to give some useful exegetical weight to arguments.The ground of the debate has moved on (and Mark Driscoll rushes in wjere even John Piper fears to tread!), but the substantive arguments haven't changed.I have always thought that the biblical narative cheerfully and frequently turned itself on its head by the inclusion of counter-examples, exceptions and plain story. It is almost as if God is saying, "Guys, you cannot be so foolish as to think that I'm simply maintaining the staus quo, can you?" This happens from the very start where the creation account(s) undermine the received ANE narratives of Enuma Elish & En-Lil, all the way up to the end of Revelation where there are some significant disavowals of "traditional" Jewish apocalyptic.In a word God both undermines & trumps culture.
Simon

Re: Review: Evangelism in the Inventive Age by Doug Pagitt

Simon Martin — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 11:29:41 -0000

Yes ... I'm definitely going to get it!

Re: A Year in Essays: Wisdom, Semester 1

jonrogersuk — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 10:59:52 -0000

Thanks for the encouragement! I found the link between appreciating the God of creation and the wisdom books (and Psalms) very interesting, one that I would have found fascinating to explore - but word counts and titles are out of my control! Ecclesiastes in particular, and parts of Job really do resonate strongly with postmodern ideas about the limits to knowledge and the questioning of purpose and meaning that is endemic in these doubt-filled years of economic uncertainty. I think we forget that for most of the people who lived in 'biblical times', life was at least as tough and hard to understand as it is for us at the worst of times, maybe even more difficult. Questioning is, I feel, a vital part of faith, not the opposite to it - not that you'd think it listening to some Christians and Atheists! Appreciating that even the greatest human brain cannot possible take everything in, learning not to fear uncertainty but to worship is at the heart of postmodern faith. You might find some more insights on this in the essay I'm putting up on Monday!

Re: A Year in Essays: Wisdom, Semester 1

Alan Cartwright — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:14:13 -0000

Thanks for your effort and generosity in making these essays available Jon. I really enjoyed reading that. I'd be interested to see how the view of wisdom in the Pentateuch and through the OT as a whole would look if one lessened the idea of redaction - I for one regard the JEDP theory as the over-translation of literary boundary markers, and I would not regard the role of 'final redactors' with quite so much weight. (I'm still more conservative than scholar!) I imagine if anything it would make your conclusions stronger, with the consistent themes of wisdom showing even more clearly across authors and generations.

The real highlight to my mind that makes this so much more than just an interesting read was the penultimate paragraph. Have you come across "Who Made God?" by Edgar Andrews? He takes the premise of God as his starting point and evaluates his own world view and that of modern science, philosophy and society by it. I wonder if you could make the ideas in that paragraph more prominent somehow, as they would certainly have encouraged me to read the essay, and I hope it will inspire me to use wisdom far more in general ministry. It lifts the thoughts and themes of the essay far above an academic work to something with vast potential in ministry and evangelism.
(You've at least convinced me to definitely take next years wisdom module at WEST!)

Re: A Year in Essays: Wisdom, Semester 1

Simon Martin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 09:06:42 -0000

Thanks for this, Jon. I've donwloaded and will read at leisure.
Simon

Re: Does God Change, Does God Feel?

Alan Cartwright — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:11:24 -0000

These are indeed the problems when we try and define anything about God. I share that reservation and I'd say it's exactly why this is so hard. God's emotions cannot be fundamentally different to ours, but it doesn't seem possible that they can be entirely the same. I wonder if it as simple as concluding that because of this, change cannot be part of the definition of emotion, only an aspect of how we experience it.

Re: A Year in Essays: Semester 1 Overview

Simon Martin — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 09:49:47 -0000

And eventually the dissertation, too, I hope, Jon?

Re: Does God Change, Does God Feel?

Gareth Irvine — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:35:29 -0000

So i asked my lecturers about that one, to which he replied "Ah, well now you're on to something there, that's a very interesting question!" to which I've never really had the time to think any more about.
If yes, then you're into Open Theism, where the future is to a degree up for grabs, but sounds bit unorthodox perhaps?
If no, then does human activity have any meaningful impact on the eternal trajectory of creation if God's identity is inextricably tied up through covenant with us?
Hmmm...

Re: Does God Change, Does God Feel?

Mark Lambert — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:08:11 -0000

You're definitely right about Scripture Jon, the very essence of Israel means "struggles with God" (Genesis 32:28) and I often think about my own journey in the context of this passage in Scripture. I can't help but feel God likes someone who will argue with Him. Take Abraham's argument with God over the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah. Scripture scholars and have written a lot about this passage. Some call it the first instance of intercessory prayer. Some suggest the point is to demonstrate that God always acts justly. Some point out that the purpose of the dialogue was not to change God’s mind but to help Abraham grow in his understanding of God.

Now I believe God's providence is absolutely unchangeable in every way. Since God is the Cause of things through His intellect (together with His will), and since it must be that the exemplar of every one of His effects pre-exists in Him, it is necessary that the exemplar of the order of things to their end pre-exist in the divine mind. This exemplar of things ordered to their end is, properly speaking, providence. Thus everything, insofar as it is, is immediately subject to God's providence. This, of course, includes all free human acts performed by human beings. Also, since God's providence is one with the divine essence, which is absolutely unchangeable in every respect, it follows that God's providence must itself be unchangeable in every respect.The will is an active principle which is not determined to one thing, but rather has an indifference towards many things, God moves it in such a way that it is not determined of necessity to one thing, but such that its motion remains contingent and not necessary, except in those things to which it is moved naturally. In other words, divine providence is so
all-comprehensive that it not only extends to those things that come about in the created order, but also to the way or the mode in which they come about. Thus, as regards our human acts, not only the acts themselves, but also the very freedom with which they are done is included under the all-comprehensive scope of God's unchangeable providence. How mysterious and wonderful this truly is.