Perhaps we’ve lost sight of that?

All this thinking about “future back” throws an interesting light on the activity of the prophets, and how different their thinking might be to ours. What if their frame wasn’t the same as ours?

This is the currency that drives best sellers like Tim LaHaye. This is about God’s rule being linked to our escape – not about God’s rule being realised through us.




While there are many go-getters and entrepreneurs in the world, and in many walks of life, we can’t claim to see the same energy and forward-embracing stance in the church at large. On the contrary, conservatism and the status quo as defences against the riskiness of change are the routine stance.

The way we think and act is governed not so much by our “emotions” as our “emotioning” – the energies and passions we direct ourselves toward, or that draw us forward.

Paul was clearly living by the second frame. After all, he was the first clear exponent in the history of thought to say that because of Gods work in creation and in Jesus, history has a start and an end, and change is full of potential. This is one of the features of Christian thinking. It originates with Paul. The greek and roman traditions knew of no such thing. For them change was a threat to order, a corruption of the pure. Somehow the history and practice of Christian churches have ended up reflecting a whole lot more of that position, not what Paul saw was the heritage we have because of Jesus.

I’ll write more on this, because Edwin Judge, Australians world pre-eminent ancient historian lists this as one of the core distinctive of Christianity – what Christianity bought to the table of humanity that had neven been tasted before….





The way I was raised to think of the “good news” of Jesus Christ was in terms of fixing up an old problem (for me, Satan and Adam) – not in terms of bringing in God’s Kingdom

I lived with that mindset (“rescue the perishing”, “gotta get saved”) – and its sociology (retreat from the world, restrict your voice, and the paradoxical silencing of Christian voices in the real world) for longer than I care to remember. I don’t wanna live that conversation any more.

I recently listened to a professor of English describe the theory behind the way he structured his curriculum for some units in rhetoric. As he drove back into his own rationale, he found his resting place in a declaration of fallibilism – that all knowledge is provisional, partial, and temporary. From there he provided a rationale for why he needed to teach students how to construct written arguments – because ultimately that is all there is.
I found myself agreeing almost completely with his arguments. But I choose to find at the roots a radical fideism, not a radical fallibilism. What he described I find perfectly acceptable and congruent with the experience of one whose nature is characterised in the Genesis stories as a creature, not the maker.

What is my project?
My personal experience and observations of others faith journeys, has shown me that many believers experience a sadness in their present experience of church. I hope to address and be a catalyst for change towards a more positive expression and experience of faith.

What is my goal?
My major hope is that change will occur by providing the opportunity for ongoing conversation about personal faith between believers.
By entering into conversation about our experiences, we are sharing our understanding of the world around us, ouselves, and what we value – opening up greater possibilities for change.

Who am I talking to?
My agenda is to cultivate the church. Cultivating the church may mean working with individuals, couples, small group, parachurch movements, or Churches. And any or all of these may in fact feed health to the Churches. But my approach will be to find new ways of exploring and delving into faith, via the simple, age-old, underestimated yet transformational means of conversation.