I’m pretty arrogant and like arguing… but I’m not afraid to put my hand up and declare my defeat (or my surrender). I think I’ve bitten off more than I can chew taking on the brotherhood of motherhood.
I’m going to cut my losses and declare myself “wrong” on this point. Go for it mothers (and fathers) – share away…
I’ve diagnosed the underlying symptom driving my oversharing antagonism. I don’t actually care, enough, about what’s important in the lives of those people in my Facebook friends list. And the people I do really care about I have enough contact with in real life (not necessarily physically) that I am across their milestones and moments of significance.
This is possibly a failing of mine. And it’s probably, as I suggested in my last comment in that other thread it comes down to a different understanding to the purpose of Facebook (and any social networking). It’s probably my inner pragmatic arrogant male self asserting itself.
I’m still anti-oversharing, but I think I assume everyone sees Facebook as I do – a contact book for casual acquaintances mixed with genuine deep relationships.
If you’ve only got Facebook friends who you are in deep relationship with – then by all means, overshare. Just make sure your privacy settings aren’t publishing your thoughts to the world.
I don’t go to Facebook to maintain deep relationships, there are far better ways to do that. I go there to keep in touch with people, to advertise events, to plug my blog and to organise social activities.
Simone has written a defence of motherly oversharing that closely mirrors Stuss’s. Two great mothers can’t be wrong. My argument is now that they are using the wrong forum to share motherly insights and milestones.
My comment that other workers don’t get to write in depth about their jobs (in most cases) still stands. The fact that it is your job does not make it legitimate sharing fodder.
If you think I am in the circle of friends you’d like to share your intimate, innermost feelings and joys with – then by all means keep sharing. But don’t force that on me (or others).
I don’t often swear, nor am I offended by it. Simone’s latest post has some choice words in it (choice not in the New Zealand sense but in the “offensive to people who don’t like swearing” sense).
She speculatively mused on Twitter that this might offend some people. It probably will. And using such language will always do so. My thoughts on swearing are probably best expressed in list form…
Simone has brought up the old copyright chestnut again – head on over for the fun. I’ve commented a couple of times already – no doubt I’ll comment many more…
“This argument didn’t sit right then and still doesn’t now. I’m convinced that there is something different about a song. Last night I gave away a kids club that I spent weeks and weeks writing. I’m happy for people to use it however they want. Change bits. Whatever. I don’t care. (Though my fonting and layout is nice). In terms of work hours, this kids club probably cost me about $4000. No single song has cost me that much. It’s not a time thing. I don’t think it’s a selfishness thing either. But there is an all-or-nothingness about songs that there’s not about other things.”
This is a long post. Be warned.
Discussion on Simone’s blog has evolved in an interesting direction. And one I’ve been meaning to write about for some time – or at least since the “Ministry Matters” day the Walkers held a few weeks ago.
The debate about the value of secular work vs vocational ministry puzzles me.
Before I begin I want to say that I affirm the value of secular work – in most cases. So long as the job is in some way about “bringing order to creation” I see it as being of some merit. But to suggest that God is as glorified in secular work as he is in “ministry work” just seems odd.
It’s odd because I think the Bible’s pretty clear that one is more valuable than the other, that there are rewards for ministry (including anything that serves and builds up the Kingdom of God) that don’t exist for those who diligently work in their vocation.
The very fact that we get so little information about Jesus’ pre-ministry vocation in the Bible but so much about his ministry and preaching would suggest there’s a difference in value. But that’s a fairly long bow to draw…
I brought up the distinction between the two types of work in the comments on Simone’s post about rewriting song words – because I think it’s right for artists to be protective of their secular work – that which earns them their living, but I think the standard is different for those who are in ministry. I think their aim is to glorify God and serve the body of believers with their gifts.
I don’t think using gifts – for example a gift of communication – for your job is the same as using them for the spread of the kingdom. Luther and Calvin both affirm the value of secular work – and the value of using God given gifts in secular work – but you can affirm this without putting it on par with ministry.
My understanding of what both Calvin and Luther have to say about work is that it’s a valuable activity and should be tackled with gusto. They see work as a means to create or restore order – and again, I’d argue that for the Christian this is most likely to be expressed through the ministry of the gospel – whether by preaching, or teaching, or hospitality, or acts of service – than through secular work (I’m not saying this has no value – just less).
Overt glorification will always win out over intrinsic glorification – both in value and effect.
Full time ministry is a special calling – with special responsibilities, special rewards and special consequences for doing the wrong thing.
There’s also a hierachy within the context of ministry (where preaching and teaching is considered more valuable than other gifts – see below for the passage this idea comes from).
Let me back up my thinking with some Bible verses (which I’ll copy directly from my comment on Simone’s blog…). Obviously the “Great Comission” means that “making disciples” is the fundamental priority of all Christians. And lets face it – nobody is converted without some input from the word of God.Actions alone aren’t enough. They are important though.
1 Corinthians 3 is where I’d be drawing most of my thinking from with regards to the greater heavenly valuation of ministry.
Verse 8 implies a reward directly linked to ministry.
8 The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor.
Verse 9 implies that Paul is specifically talking about ministry…
9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
Verses 10 through 15 seem to be linking the heavenly outcomes for those in ministry with the quality (not quite the word I’m looking for) of their work…
“10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.”
I contend this isn’t talking about the vocational cleaning of toilets – though that be done well and to God’s glory.
I don’t think you can form a doctrine of work solely from the exhortation in Colossians 3:17…
“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
Then 1 Timothy 5 suggests gospel workers are worthy of double honour…
“17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” 19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”
Then you’d have to consider Ephesians 4 – which suggests acts of service are a gift, but I don’t think it equates exercising them in the secular context with exercising them in order to serve the body of believers…
“11 It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12 to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
And finally, 1 Corinthians 12. The whole chapter is relevant. It starts off by establishing that while gifts are different they all come from God – but then the chapter only really deals with gifts that serve the body – again, not equating secular work with serving the body of believers.
“4 There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. 6 There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.” And the last few verses seem to establish a hierachy – and exhort us to desire the “greater gifts”… “28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts.”
That’s my thinking anyway. And I’ve spent enough time on this. I have work to do.
An interesting discussion has been occurring over at Simone’s blog after a Sola Panel post raised her song writing hackles. It all started from a discussion about amending lyrics to make them more theologically palatable.
In my mind it’s a discussion on the “open source” nature of ministry material masquerading as a copyright debate. There’s a useful document on churches and copyright here (PDF).
I sympathise with Simone’s artistic position – as a graduate of the Creative Industries faculty at QUT I can do little else. But I don’t think our understanding of things created as ministry tools should be shaped by our understanding of “secular copyright”.
Bach famously signed off his compositions with a Latin acronym SDG (the phrase Sola Deo Gloria – meaning to the glory of God alone). His understanding was that his creative works belonged to God. At least that’s my understanding of his understanding.
If, as Simone argues, words (and music) belong to the songwriter alone – then there are some broad ethical considerations to make. Her argument opens up, in my mind, an ethical can of worms when it comes to reappropriating and retuning old hymns. It’s legal – because they are “public domain” but just because it’s legal doesn’t make it ethically right. If a song is a possession then it’s odd to argue that its intangible nature makes it somehow different from a material thing. A dead person’s belongings remain with their estate in perpetuity – and yet we’re happy to tinker with their no doubt prized works.
My thinking – and indeed my “preference” – is for a “creative commons” approach to ministry. There are now almost 30 comments on the thread on Simone’s blog – and the majority are from me. It’s an interesting (in my mind) issue to think through. And I’m glad it has been raised.
Even going down the “Copyright” path opens up avenues where I’d suggest congregations should be free to change things. If ministry is essentially working as God’s employees (1 Corinthians 3:9) then our employer owns the copyright for works we produce – so his word should change the content. If a song is theologically wrong, but can be easily redeemed – then I say redeem it.
I don’t know why artistic endeavours are placed on some pedestal over and above exercising other God given gifts. I sympathise. I consider myself a “creative” person. But I don’t see why writing words that glorify God in song is different to writing a recipe that glorifies God through hospitality – and you don’t see chefs jumping up and down when someone tinkers with their ingredients.
I used an argument based on writing media releases too – in the comments – which I quite liked. So I’ll reproduce it.
“I write Media Releases for a living. I agonise over every word because they’re often of a political nature or important to get right. It’s important that they communicate a truth. Just as it’s important that your songs communicate a truth about God.
I get angry if they’re misconstrued and used out of context.
But if they’re being used appropriately to communicate my organisation’s point but my words are not used verbatim (except the bits in direct quotes) then I rejoice. Because they have achieved their purpose.”
If I wrote a song – and learned people were changing it in a way I did not approve of – I’d defend my original position but I don’t think I’d die in a ditch over it.
Simone now has 19 posts (including a post that essentially amounted to her reposting my Sizzler toast recipe…)
Ben has 26 posts. All of them original.
I have 50. I’m going away for the long weekend though – so I suspect the others to put on a bit of a lead (remembering that I’m now on 0 after knocking over the 50 post handicap).
I’ve just checked out the competition in this little blog off, and I’m quietly confident. Well, loudly confident if the truth be told.
Simone: 9 posts
Ben: 14 posts
Me: 28 posts (29 including this one)
Do check out the competition – and as far as the rules are concerned I’m on -22. They get a 50 post head start.
Simone, Ben, myself and others have entered into some sort of blog off. The rules have already been rigged so that I can’t win. But I plan to anyway.
Here’s how they’re sticking it to the man (me) with the rules… but feel free to enter…
Thankfully, I can’t see this actually harming the quality of the things I post.
Simone has been putting together some poetry 2.0 – bringing commenters together and uniting them in rhyme. I got some lines in the finished product…
Actually, and six years later I’m loathe to admit it, Poetry.com did send me emails telling me what a wonderful poet I was and wanting to include my work in a very special compilation of poetry*… you can see my poems here. Please feel free to ignore the badness of “Pariah”, it was written in a particular context where it was vaguely funny. The rest, they stand the test of time, in that they haven’t improved over time.
* I am aware that everybody who puts a poem on this site gets this offer, I’m also aware that despite the claims of Readers’ Digest I have not won $75,000.
Anonymous comments aren’t much fun for anyone. Unless they’re loaded with unintentionally funny vitriol. I can almost imagine how much fun this comment on Simone’s blog would have been to write. It’s from an old post of hers critiquing a Christian rewrite of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah (which for those of you who are culturally arrogant is the same as Jeff Buckley’s Hallelujah and the one on the Shrek Soundtrack). You can hear the Christian rewrite here. You can read the comment in its original context here. And you can indulge in a little bit of voyeurism by checking out Simone’s husband Andrew’s public but thoughtful disagreement with his wife on whether lacking cultural sophistication is sinful here.
Here’s the anonymous comment. Beautiful.
Ok, first of all, you do not know the first thing of what ‘christian’ means if you ever put it in quotes. so dont do it again.
second of all, if someone says “i just want,” you have no idea if that is true or not; just because you are selfish does not mean that everyone is.
lastly, there is no right or wrong in how you listen to music. i mean, that is the stupidest thing ive ever heard! why would there be music if poems would do? i am a recording artist and song composer, so i should know.
You can now be my “friend” here via Friend connect (unless you’re a subscriber then you’ll have to actually physically visit my blog) or see if this link works.
I only really added this friend connect thing to see if it made a difference when valuing my blog. Largely because Chris’ blog is worth over $5 million and mine’s only worth $500 and I want to figure out what made the difference. Also, it’s made by Google – so it must be good right?
The valuation thing took off after Simone posted it – and most people seem to be worth much more than me, though mine is worth slightly more than hers. It seems to be based on weird factors. I think advertising space is one of them – but I’m not going to sell out with adwords here just to boost my blog’s fictional value.
There’s a lot of chatter around the Australian evangelical blogosphere (that’s a pretty narrow field really) about a future church planting movement in Australia.
Some people are over in the US with Mark Driscoll and other renowned church planters right now. And they’re blogging up a storm. Most of the posts are buzzing with fanboyism. They’re chock full of quotable quotes, photo ops, video interviews and summaries from talks given at conferences. It’s no doubt very exciting for those caught up in the movement.
Some people are not so excited. I won’t link to the post because I’m not sure how long it’s going to stay up. Simone has a post on the matter here.
Church planting is exciting. Sure. It’s great to be pursuing new avenues to preach the gospel to people. It’s something I’d like to do one day myself. Maybe. But it has to be said that it takes a special character to persevere with someone else’s work and not go off breaking new ground. I’d say it’s more challenging for a minister of a church to take on an established eldership or church governance structure.
These new fangled church planters have some compelling arguments but they’re often built with some sort of naive view of the nature of ministry in mind. Mars Hill, Mark Driscoll’s church is in my mind a case in point. Pull Mark Driscoll out and things change dramatically. There doesn’t seem to be a great succession plan in place if your preaching pastor preaches to multiple locations via a satellite link. The model they propose works so long as ministers don’t parish hop (which they do) and as long as the church can provide for their own staff members from within their numbers (which they can’t always). When there’s a vacancy in an Australian church an outsider has to come in and take over. That’s the way it works – particularly when there are more vacancies than candidates to fill them.
I’m also not sold on the idea that all the good church stuff happens in cities. Which is a key theory behind a lot of Mark Driscoll’s strategies in particular. So I’m reserved in my exuberance when it comes to responding to the news that Australia is going to have a network of church planting being supported by the Acts 29 movement.
The rest of this post is a comment I posted on Simone’s blog where she was less than enthused by the personality cult (my words not hers) surrounding super church planters like Driscoll… you may already have read it. A few of these statements address the particulars of that post.
While I appreciate Mark Driscoll and love him for his passionate teaching and church growth strategies – if you can call them that – I don’t think his is an easily reproducible style.
I would say the church planters who are running these conferences were not only not going to these church planting conferences – but were not even following a church planting recipe.
I don’t set out to be Gordon Ramsay in the kitchen, and I’m not going to set out to be Mark Driscoll in church planting. I think the beauty of being both a celebrity chef and a church planter is that you work with the ingredients you’re given – and in most cases the ministry you forge (or the food you make) works best when it reflects your unique personality and not a cheap imitation of a trailblazer.
These guys all seem to be wanting to be trailblazers by following someone. And that seems contradictory.
I enjoy a good argument. So much so that I’m able to completely distance myself from the ramifications of taking a particular side in an argument just to see it continue. I am sure other people find this frustrating. Actually, I know for a fact that some people do.
In my mind it’s only when arguing through an issue that you’re truly able to shape your thinking on something – at least that’s how it works for me.
Arguing a point brings clarity to my position because it lets me consider the criticisms of my position and understand the applications of holding to a particular idea. Other people might not approach this the same way.
Sometimes I find myself reading things that I know will frustrate me for the sheer purpose of entering into an argument – or I’ll bait an issue to create an argument out of it. I’m sure this is also annoying.
Simone made an interesting point the other day:
“Today I’ve been bored, so bored that I was visiting blogs that annoy me on purpose so that I would get annoyed. Because its more fun to be annoyed than bored.”
I wonder how many people do this. I know I spend a lot of time reading things written by people I disagree with. Probably more time than I spend reading things by people I agree with. And I know too that my hits go up dramatically if I write something controversial that you, my readers, disagree with.
So now I’m left wondering – should I write things I know will get a bite? It seems people want to bite, and it gives me the opportunity to argue. Or should I write things that there will be consensus on and not actually challenge anyone or anything. I like the first option. Your thoughts?
The danger is that if I go down this path there’s a real chance people will be offended – or caught up in an argument in an emotional sense – if I happen to attack one of their sacred cows. And that’s never really my intention in an argument. Unless I’m arguing about something that I think is a black and white issue, which, for example, climate change and charitable giving is not.
Also – Frustration is the name of a pretty cool card game. You should check it out.
Simone often says the link is the ultimate blog love language. And I like her blog. I especially like commenting specifically when she’s tried to be vague about a situation I’m familiar with. This particular post questions why people blog. I put my answer there.
It went something like this:
“I blog for a few reasons – to track and log my thoughts, because I think the internet is full of crazy things that need documenting, and because I want space for my rants.
Oh, and sometimes it’s because I think I actually have something useful to say – often that’s either about PR or coffee.
My blog has an incredibly broad scope though – sometimes I think I should narrow it and have different blogs for different topics.”
So commenters – why do you blog? And if you don’t why don’t you? Do you think my scope isn’t clearly defined enough? I do have 16 categories.