<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drifting onto the rocks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.movements.net/2005/11/02/drifting-onto-the-rocks.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.movements.net/2005/11/02/drifting-onto-the-rocks.html</link>
	<description>The companion website to the new book by Steve Addison</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 03:33:46 +1100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lionfish</title>
		<link>http://www.movements.net/2005/11/02/drifting-onto-the-rocks.html/comment-page-1#comment-235</link>
		<dc:creator>Lionfish</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Nov 2005 04:03:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.steveaddison.net/?p=153#comment-235</guid>
		<description>Why is this so? Why can&#039;t a Church handle success as we define it - affluence, influence or (political) power well? Is it because we have ill-defined the definition of a &quot;successful church&quot;? 

The Jews were waiting on a powerful, influential strong messiah when Jesus came - but his ministry was just the oppositte...meek, weak, his influence rejected by those in power, humble and lead to his own demise and death. 

Could it be that the local congregational Pastor who spend his time visiting nursing homes, counselling, doing funerals and spending time with mourning families, doing scripture lessons in the loacal school etc - could still be closer to Jesus than the well remmunerated megachurch pastor who is mixing with the politicians and has a television ministry?

I don&#039;t want to sound negative - but these are just questions on my mind. Are we supposed to be successful, or authentic. Upwardly mobile and influential, or downwardly mobile and incarnational. Is the Church that gravitates towards success and the successful - being faithful to its calling?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is this so? Why can&#8217;t a Church handle success as we define it &#8211; affluence, influence or (political) power well? Is it because we have ill-defined the definition of a &#8220;successful church&#8221;? </p>
<p>The Jews were waiting on a powerful, influential strong messiah when Jesus came &#8211; but his ministry was just the oppositte&#8230;meek, weak, his influence rejected by those in power, humble and lead to his own demise and death. </p>
<p>Could it be that the local congregational Pastor who spend his time visiting nursing homes, counselling, doing funerals and spending time with mourning families, doing scripture lessons in the loacal school etc &#8211; could still be closer to Jesus than the well remmunerated megachurch pastor who is mixing with the politicians and has a television ministry?</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t want to sound negative &#8211; but these are just questions on my mind. Are we supposed to be successful, or authentic. Upwardly mobile and influential, or downwardly mobile and incarnational. Is the Church that gravitates towards success and the successful &#8211; being faithful to its calling?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

