How worship orders life

In worship God gathers his people to himself as centre: ‘The Lord reigns’ (Ps. 93:1). Worship is a meeting at the centre so that our lives are centred in God and not lived eccentrically. We worship so that we live in response to and from this centre, the living God. Failure to worship consigns us to a life of spasms and jerks, at the mercy of every advertisement, every seduction, every siren. Without worship we live manipulated and manipulating lives. We move in either frightened panic or deluded lethergy as we are, in turn, alarmed by spectres and soothed by placebos. If there is no centre, there is no circumference. People who do not worship are swept into a vast restlessness, epidemic in the world, with no steady direction and no sustaining purpose.

Eugene H Peterson, Reversed Thunder, p.60

The biggest barriers to effective evangelism

The following paragraphs from Bruce Milne’s book, The Message of John, relate to the great prayer of Jesus in chapter 17 of John’s Gospel and to the mission on which he sends his people, then and now. The prayer itself is humbling and deeply challenging; Milne’s exposition is a powerful testament to that.

This mission has two hands. The ‘first hand’ is that of proclamation, the communicating to the world of the revelation of the Father in the Son, climaxed by his self-sacrifice for the world’s sin. This revelation (6) is commonly expressed in words (8), and must be shared in words so that the world may believe that the mission of Jesus is authentically the mission of the Father in him, and hence that he is the Saviour and Lord of sinners.

But the mission has a ‘second hand’. It is visible as well as verbal, relational as well as audible. The content of this ‘second hand’ is clearly stated in verse 23: May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you…have loved them even as you have loved me…The Father’s love for his Son in all its richness is persuasively reproduced in the mutual relationships of the Christian congregation! Nothing less than that is Jesus’ prayer.

This ‘second hand’ represents a dimension in evangelism which is commonly ignored or underestimated, and yet which is central to Jesus’ evangelistic strategy for his church (cf. 13:34-35). The local church is the obvious point of application. A group of Christians who are so knit together in the love of God that others can say of them, 'Look how they love each other,' is a church where the gospel will be the 'power of God for…salvation' (Rom 1:16). Evangelism is a community act. It is the proclamation of the church’s relationships as well as its convictions. The preacher is only the spokesperson of the community. The gospel proclaimed from the pulpit is either confirmed, and hence immeasurably enhanced, or it is contradicted, and hence immeasurably weakened, by the quality of the relationships in the pews. In this sense every Christian is a witness. Every time we gather together we either strengthen or weaken the evangelistic appeal of our church by the quality of our relationships with our fellow church members.

The biggest barriers to effective evangelism according to the prayer of Jesus are not so much outdated methods, or inadequate presentations of the gospel, as realities like gossip, insensitivity, negative criticism, jealousy, backbiting, an unforgiving spirit, a ‘root of bitterness’, failure to appreciate others, self-preoccupation, greed, selfishness and every other form of lovelessness. These are the squalid enemies of effective evangelism which render the gospel fruitless and send countless thousands into eternity without a Saviour. ‘The glorious gospel of the blessed God’, which is committed to our trust, is being openly contradicted and veiled by the sinful relationships within the community which is commissioned to communicate it. We need look no further to understand why the church’s impact on the community is frequently so minimal in spite of the greatness of our message. We are fighting with only one hand!

(Bruce Milne, The Message of John, IVP, pp.250,251)

'They just need the gospel.' Really?

You’ve told people the great good news about Jesus. How he died and rose again and in his death is the answer to their sin and estrangement from God. How his resurrection gives them solid hope in the face of death and how he gifts his Spirit to them that they might live a new life of godliness. Wonder of wonders, the message has been received, with great joy, despite opposition, and has resulted in changed lives - lives that are turned to God, lives of service to him and of intense longing for the return of Jesus, the one who saves from wrath.

What do these new Christians now need from you? And if you simply couldn’t stay with them any longer, what would you want to communicate to them from afar? If your answer is, 'They just need more of the gospel, on an ongoing basis', then you’ll likely find the apostle Paul frustrating and, ultimately, disappointing. Because his approach is quite different.

The above scenario is, of course, based on his experiences in Thessalonica. And his first letter to that church discloses very clearly the content of his teaching before he left and then, in absentia, via his correspondence delivered by Timothy. What we discover is quite surprising.

Paul is very clear about the message he preached to them, as is Luke in Acts 17 - Paul reasoned from the Scriptures in the synagogue, "explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead" and that ”this Jesus I am proclaiming…is the Messiah.” The mob that were incited to riot against Paul and his companions reported that they had been preaching that "there is another king, one called Jesus", that Jesus was Lord, not Caesar. Good, solid, reasoned gospel preaching that bore fruit. He also, so it seems, took pains not to exclude teaching about the return of Jesus (presumably the reason they ought to "know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night" 1 Thess. 5:2).

But what did Paul then teach these new believers, both in the few months he was with them and then during his enforced absence from them? What was his teaching strategy for their growth and maturing as new Christians? The answer of 1 Thessalonians is pretty ‘gospel-lite’.

In addition to the gospel (2:9), Paul and his team encouraged, comforted and urged them to live lives worthy of God (2:12). No doubt the comfort and encouragement were solidly gospel-based but it didn’t stop there: they urged these new believers to live lives worthy of God. They spelled-out the consequences of believing the gospel and the demands it makes. They instructed them "how to live in order to please God" (4:1).

The report that Timothy brought from his visit to Thessalonica reassured Paul about their "faith and love" (3:6). It’s quite clear from 1:2 that Paul doesn’t see ‘faith’ as simply a report on their doctrinal correctness - he views it (oh, hello James) as that which leads to, and is authenticated by, works. Their faith and love (for each other) are what tell Paul that these believers are "standing firm in the Lord" (3:8).

But Paul longs to be back there to supply what is lacking in their faith (3:10). Not being able to do that just now, this letter will have to suffice. So to what does he give his attention? He prays for them (3:11-13). He prays that their love for each other (and for everyone else) will increase and overflow; he prays that their hearts will be strengthened so that they will be blameless and holy before God. He prays for their lives to be increasingly changed and his prayer requests are not in the abstract but are asking for direct, visible change.

He also instructs them (4:1-12). He instructs them about living sexually pure lives in a confused and immoral context. He instructs them to intensify their love for each other and the wider Christian community. And he instructs them to live as model citizens, leading quiet lives, working to provide for their needs and not prying into others’ business. Basically, Paul says, this is more of the same teaching that I gave you when present with you (4:1,2). In addition, they ought to acknowledge and respond well to those in leadership in the church (5:12,13) and "strive to do what is good for each other and for everyone else" (5:15).

Do you see where his emphasis lies as he teaches these young believers? It isn’t a case of simply reiterating the gospel. In fact, he keeps the gospel basis for his exhortations to a pretty bare minimum. And don’t forget, these are people who are only months into their Christian lives. Some want to suggest - indeed, are suggesting - that all people need is the gospel and they will then live as they ought to live as Christians. Just keep ‘giving them the gospel’, opening up its treasures and its glories. No need to emphasise the actual changes of behaviour, because that will only lead to legalism (which is fast becoming the sin of all sins).

Others would modify that, somewhat, to include ethical instruction on the basis of the gospel, and rightly so. But Paul’s example in this letter is, as we’ve seen, relatively light on a gospel foundation for his ethical instruction. His basis for urging them to grow in godliness is that, unlike the Gentiles, they know God (4:5) and he has given them his Holy Spirit (4:8). The gospel foundation is most certainly there but Paul chooses not to uncover it to any great extent, with the exception of the second coming of Jesus as grounds for holy living in 5:4-11.

What isn’t lacking, and what is conspicuous by its presence, is the strong note of warning for those who refuse to walk worthily of the Lord (4:6,8). We ought, also, to notice that it wasn’t just a matter of what Paul said but, importantly, about what he did. The emphasis in this letter on imitation is super-clear, as is the familial nature of his relationship with them. Paul and his friends had set the Thessalonian Christians an example to follow (1:6; 2:9,10) and the example they set pointed this fledgling church to the Lord Jesus Christ (1:6).

Paul is so eager to get back to them (3:10) because he wants to supply what is lacking in their faith - his presence there and his example of living a gospel-changed life is an urgent need in Paul’s mind as he thinks of these young believers and longs to continue the work of a parent among them. Not just the gospel message, but concrete, detailed ethical instruction. And not just words from a distance but a personal, familial presence that models a changed life. That’s what they needed.

why Jesus wants his people to be sanctified

It seems so very obvious: Jesus wants his people to be sanctified (ie. set apart, holy). In fact, he prays for just that in his great prayer in John 17:

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. (John 17:17-19)

But what does he have in mind?

He links the setting apart, the sanctifying, of his disciples to his own act of being set apart: "for them I sanctify myself, that they may be truly sanctified". So, he made himself holy so that we too could be holy? Wasn’t he always holy anyhow?

I think the emphasis here works in a slightly different direction. Jesus set himself apart for the doing of God’s will, that he might redeem and reconcile people to God. And he expressly states here that just as he had been sent into the world by the Father on that mission and had responded by sanctifying himself, so too he is sending his disciples into the world.

He is then, it seems, praying that his people would be set apart for God in order that they might be enabled and equipped to fulfil their calling to go into all the world with the good news. Set apart and sent out; that’s us.

Notice the crucial role played by God’s Word in this. Scripture is meant to make us more like Jesus, not simply in terms of what we usually think of as holiness (integrity of character, purity of mind and so forth), but, crucially, our becoming more like Jesus in our commitment to, and sacrificial outworking of, the great mission of God.

If Jesus prayed for that, it would be good if we did too.

corporate identity and moral formation

Paul is concerned not with the virtue or happiness of the individual, but with the corporate identity of his communities as the basis for moral formation.

James W Thompson, Moral Formation According to Paul, p.53

the deal that God didn't make and cannot keep

Psalm 44 expresses deep agony. The nation is in turmoil and, seemingly, a sitting duck for its enemies. They not only feel weak, they are weak, desperately so. And they are gloated over with great glee.

It hadn’t always been like this. In times past, things had been far more positive, far more expansive and assured. Looking back from the rusting present, they were the golden days, shiny and inviolable.

And the writer of Psalm 44 knows where the blame lies. The fault can be laid, fairly and squarely, at the door of the God to whom they belong - the living God, the God of all the earth; the unconquerable, all-powerful God of covenant faithfulness. And right now, this God is playing dead, acting deaf and covering his eyes to their harsh reality. In a devastating charge, he is accused of having sold his people for a pittance and been none the richer for it.

What galls the writer is that this would be understandable if they had acted treacherously towards him, but they hadn’t. They had been faithful to the covenant; they had kept their part of the bargain - and he had reneged on his (cf. Leviticus 26:3-8). And so he must be roused, awoken to their plight, stirred to take his own vocation seriously. Wasn’t it he who said they would be his people and he their God? Then it’s time to make good on that commitment.

Those are serious charges against a God whose character is supposedly marked to the core by faithfulness and integrity. But this is a deal that he did not make and cannot keep.

The apostle Paul quotes from this psalm in Romans 8:36 as he rehearses the security he and his colleagues - along with all Christians - know in Jesus, even in the face of profound suffering. They are not spared the suffering - in fact, they’re like sheep ready to be slaughtered; nevertheless, "in all these things" they are more than conquerors in Jesus.

The experience of God’s people, as much in the Old Testament as in the New, would be traced along the arc of suffering for the sake of God’s purposes in the world. That would, of course, be uniquely exemplified by the Messiah; yet, whilst not replicating his atoning work, his people would nevertheless share in bearing his marks upon their bodies and fill up his sufferings (Gal 6:17; Col 1:24).

The (gospel) mystery of the anguish of Psalm 44 is that, if it wasn’t discipline for sin, then it must have a sanctifying - that is, a missional - dimension to it. The work of God progresses in the world not through sweeping all his enemies away in military victory but by the triumph of love over evil, even in the face of slaughter.

The context of Paul’s use of Psalm 44 in Romans 8 reminds us, too, that such suffering has a demonic aspect to it. Just as the nations raged in Psalm 44, just as Jesus was confronted and opposed by evil, so Paul and his companions knew the reality of such a struggle. It simply will not be otherwise.

And yet, still, in the face of such malevolence, "nothing can separate from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord". Nothing will prevent the whole cosmos being flooded by the light of his glory, as the waters cover the sea, even when the daily reality is that his people ”are considered as sheep to be slaughtered”.

The truth is, he hadn’t forsaken his people; he hadn’t refused to keep the bargain they believed he had made with them. There never was a promise of seamless victories over all hardship and all enemies. Rather, their experience would presage the coming of the Messiah whose sufferings would be for a world of sin. And those who suffer with him will have the Spirit of glory and of God resting upon them as he leads them in the greater security of his love.

The serpent would strike their heel - but in the Messiah, they would crush his head, through the gospel of the God of peace (Romans 16:20).

Two reflections in the light of the above:

i. Some prayer for revival can sound like a refusal to embrace suffering as a means by which the gospel will advance. That sounds dreadfully harsh, I know, but I believe it can be true. The impetus for such praying is the diminution of the church’s standing in the nation and the rise of secularism and other powers. And the answer, the only answer, it is suggested, is the ‘sweeping away’ of all such through a mighty revival. That sounds very much akin to the pleas of Psalm 44 but is sorely lacking the gospel refraction that psalm is given in Romans 8.

ii. Are we not in danger of giving a casual and careless response to the terrible sufferings of God’s people in the world, given that this is, seemingly, how it’s always going to be? And is that danger not increased through the relative ease in which many of us live? Indeed we are and indeed it is - but it need not do so. Whilst recognising the mysterious role of suffering in gospel progress and that to be God’s people inevitably means being caught up into the sufferings of the Messiah, it is still fully right to cry with the martyrs beneath the altar in Revelation, "How long, O Lord, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth…?" A lesser response, a failure to weep with those who weep, would be unconscionable.

the church of the fainthearted and feeble

Ray Ortlund chooses a great quote from Martin Luther as one of his favourites:

“May a merciful God preserve me from a Christian Church in which everyone is a saint!  I want to be and remain in the church and little flock of the fainthearted, the feeble and the ailing, who feel and recognize the wretchedness of their sins, who sigh and cry to God incessantly for comfort and help, who believe in the forgiveness of sins.”

Luther’s Works (St. Louis, 1957), XXII:55.

give your emotions and heart to Christ, not to problems

In handling a difficult issue concerning personal relationships and misunderstanding, Jack Miller wrote the following to a friend (emphasis mine):

I am grieved by this whole matter, very deeply, but I also forgive you and them from the bottom of my heart. But with this letter I now put it out of my mind. I suggest you do the same. Sometimes the world is a most imperfect place. It will take a while before you or I perfect it, and that includes the church. So keep your perspective. Be willing to wait as you work. Watch your emotions and heart. Give them to Christ and not to problems. Let’s keep praising Him and get our own work done.

The Heart of a Servant Leader p.190

witnesses, not stargazers

There was something fundamentally anomalous about their gazing up into the sky when they had been commissioned to go to the end of the earth. It was the earth not the sky which was to be their preoccupation. Their calling was to be witnesses, not stargazers. The vision they were to cultivate was not upwards in nostalgia to the heaven which had received Jesus, but outwards in compassion to a lost world which needed him. It is the same for us. Curiosity about heaven and its occupants, speculation about prophecy and its fulfilment, an obsession with ‘times and seasons’ - these are aberrations which distract us from our God-given mission. Christ will come personally, visibly, gloriously. Of that we have been assured. Other details can wait. Meanwhile, we have work to do in the power of the Spirit.

(John Stott, The Message of Acts, Bible Speaks Today, IVP 1990)

does cheap online video trump text?

Does Cheap Online Video Trump Text?

This makes for interesting reading, especially for those who see themselves as ‘people of the Book’ (who may, in fact, be ‘people of the Story’).

getting your joy from the right things

Do you get your joy from the right things? Jesus’ disciples rejoiced that he was absent from them. Look at Luke 24:52 - after he was taken from them, hidden from them, no longer physically present, no longer within reach and completely out of sight, they went back to Jerusalem "with great joy".

Of course, their joy wasn’t rooted in his absence but in what that absence meant: he had ascended into heaven as the Priest whose sacrifice for sin had been effective and whose blessing would remain on them; he had ascended as the King over all who would govern all things for the sake of his people and for his purposes of grace for the world. That’s why they rejoiced at his absence.

Is your joy rooted in those realities or are you looking to find joy in certain experiences of the nearness of God - something that can be felt, something unusual? Those experiences may come or they may not. But their absence does not invalidate the larger realities of the ascended Lord Jesus Christ whose blessing was, is and remains on his people. That’s where joy can be securely rooted.

Jesus' hands outstretched

He stretched out His hands on the cross, that He might embrace the ends of the world; for this Golgotha is the very centre of the earth. (Cyril of Jerusalem)

quoted in Mike Bird’s Evangelical Theology

quick to reply or mull things over?

I recently read CS Lewis’ book, Letters to Malcolm (Chiefly on Prayer). I’d highly recommend it. It’s a series of letters to a friend (I presume they’re real letters) albeit without the replies in between. That form is what I want to highlight here.

The book was written in the good old days of snail mail and the letters seemingly passed between them on a weekly basis. Of course, almost no-one does that today, it’s just so passé in this world of apps and social media. But something has been lost in the process: the time and space to mull things over. To chew over not only what’s been said to me but what I want to say in response, so that my own thinking has time to mature and be self-corrected.

Replies can be written, responses penned and posted, almost instantly - as though the case someone has made is instantly and fully understood, such that it needs no time to percolate its meaning. But some things need that time. Or maybe it’s that I need space to mull over how and why I’m reacting as I am to what I’ve read: is it simply a matter of plain fact or are there things going on in my heart and mind that I need to become aware of and account for? It might be helpful to talk to someone about the issues raised - a friend, a colleague - before penning the pungent rejoinder.

But here’s the rub: if proper, responsible time is taken to mull things over, the moment to post a reply will be gone; the conversation will have moved on and something else will be making headlines. If the rush to judgement is born of folly, so, too, the dash to comment, to be the first in line with a quip.

Perhaps it’s better to mull things over and miss the commenting boat than to board it with a forged ticket? I think James might add his ‘Amen’ to that (James 1:19).

keller on augustine on prayer

Keller on Augustine on Prayer

Are Christians prone to over-compensate for cultural “losses”?

Are Christians prone to over-compensate for cultural “losses”?

Are we (Christian leaders) sometimes over-reacting to current cultural issues in ways that actually hurt our churches?

why you hate work

Why You Hate Work

Employees are vastly more satisfied and productive, it turns out, when four of their core needs are met: physical, through opportunities to regularly renew and recharge at work; emotional, by feeling valued and appreciated for their contributions; mental, when they have the opportunity to focus in an absorbed way on their most important tasks and define when and where they get their work done; and spiritual, by doing more of what they do best and enjoy most, and by feeling connected to a higher purpose at work.

Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

Ben Witherington: Was Lazarus the Beloved Disciple?

Outlandish suggestion? Maybe; maybe not. Worth a read I’d say.

what, are we blind too?

It strikes me that it’s worth asking whether the following claim can also be applied to our own cultural context:

…the greatest missiological challenge the American church faces is not, say, the Islamic world but rather the lack of critical contextualization of the gospel in much of American cultural and political life.

Vinoth Ramachandra, Globalization, Nationalism and Religious Resurgence, in Globalizing Theology: Belief and Practice in an Era of World Christianity (ed Ott & Netland)

Ignoring Herod

Commenting on Jesus’ lack of interaction with Herod and his ways, Eugene Peterson notes that,

Jesus ignored the world of power and accomplishment that was brilliantly on display all around him. He chose to work on the margins of society, with unimportant people, giving particular attention to the weak, the disturbed, the powerless. (The Jesus Way, p.204)

There’s something to chew on.

Some thoughts on time in hospital

It’s only been a day and a night but I thought it might be worthwhile jotting a few thoughts down on some of the things I’ve noticed and can learn from for ministry and for life:

i. People have not just been professional (which they have, and that’s important) but kind and caring too.

ii. I have been carefully listened to, with deliberate attention. And that gives a real sense of dignity and worth

iii. People have smiled, even when my oddball sense of humour has left them slightly perplexed. We’re human beings together and that feels good.

iv. My needle phobia has been treated sympathetically and without any sense of ‘you big baby’ (which may well be true!). I’ve been handled simply as the person I am, and to be taken seriously as such.

v. A simple cup of tea matters a great deal!

Of course there have been variations to the above, very insignificantly, but the positives have been very noticeable and I’m thankful not just to benefit from them but, I hope, to learn from them too.

Forgive, then confront

In Mark 11:25, Jesus says that if you are praying, and you realise that you have something against someone, you must forgive him or her right there. Does that mean you should not confront the person? No, you should, since Jesus in Matthew 18 - as well as Paul in Galatians 6 and elsewhere - tells Christians that if someone wrongs them, they should go to the person and discuss their sin. Wait, we say. The Bible says we are supposed to forgive people and then go and confront them? Yes! The reason we are surprised by this is almost always because we confront people who have wronged us as a way of paying them back. By telling them off, we are actually getting revenge. They made us feel bad and now we are going to make them feel bad, too. But this is absolutely deadly. The person you are confronting knows you are doing payback, and he or she will either be devastated or infuriated - or both. You are not really telling the truth for their sake; you are telling it for your sake, and the fruit of that will be grief, bitterness, and despair.

Jesus gives us the solution. He says that Christians, knowing that they live only by the forgiving grace of God, must do the work of forgiving wrongdoers in their hearts and then go to confront them. If you do that, the confrontation will be so different.

Tim & Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage, p.164

Presentation Zen: 10 Tips on how to think like a designer

Presentation Zen: 10 Tips on how to think like a designer

This would make a great alternative discussion-starter about preaching/ministry at your next team/fraternal meeting…

Why the Smart Reading Device of the Future May Be … Paper

Why the Smart Reading Device of the Future May Be … Paper | Science | WIRED

Why do traditional paper books remain so popular, especially for deep, immersive reading? Are some people simply too stubborn and nostalgic to adapt to new technologies? Perhaps it’s because paper books are themselves a highly sophisticated technology, one that’s uniquely good at stimulating focus and concentration.

CS Lewis on 'the next world' looming large

But…if that other world is once admitted, how can it, except by sensual or bustling pre-occupations, be kept in the background of our minds? How can the “rest of Christianity” - what is this “rest”? - be disentangled from it? How can we untwine this idea, if once admitted, from our present experience, in which, even before we believed, so many things at least looked like “bright shoots of everlastingness”?

Letters to Malcolm (Chiefly on Prayer), page 120

What game is your church playing?

Seth Godin has written a stirring piece, The short game, the long game and the infinite game. It’s worth a read and then thinking about how it might apply to church life and ministry:

The short game: characterised by an events-driven mentality, solely focussed on getting people in through the turnstiles. Apply inordinate pressure for quick responses. Sees unchurched people simply as fodder.

The long game: more focussed on building meaningful relationships, gaining trust and establishing credibility. Living visibly good lives in the community and creating/taking opportunities to tell the gospel, with a view to reaching others for Christ.

The infinite game: much like the long game, in essence, but without any sense that all this is simply to impress unbelievers with the gospel and a gospel-changed life. Doing good because good is…good. Establishing trust because trust is foundational for stability. Sharing the gospel because it is loving to do so, not because gospel success is everything.

The interface of the long and infinite games is intriguing. The differences between them might seem slight but, although subtle, they go deep. In the infinite game, holiness is an end in itself, not the means to one. Joy in the Lord is simply a fruit of the Spirit, not a requisite for evangelism. Loving community is reflective of the life of God himself, not just another strategy to authenticate verbal witness.

What game is your church playing?

You need your own story

Some people’s experience of Jesus is very striking. A woman by a well is told everything about her life by a stranger who is Jesus. On account of that, others in her town then also believe in him (John 4:39). It’s a wonderful outcome, but it isn’t ideal.

Far better if their faith is located more directly and personally in Jesus; far more secure. And that is, in fact, what happens:

he stayed two more days. And because of his words many more became believers. The said to the woman, ‘We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world.’ (John 4:40,41)

Your story of Jesus’ way in your life may indeed be memorable. Tell it to others, but always urge them to go beyond your story to the great Author himself. Your testimony may encourage them to believe but it cannot sustain their faith. They need Jesus.

(This feeds into a larger discussion about ‘signs’ in John’s Gospel but that discussion is for another time)

How your vulnerability can help others

Some days you come across interesting articles from pretty disparate sources that cover similar ground but from different starting points. Here’s a couple of pieces that showed up in my Feedly feed today:

i. Phil Monroe talking about if/when/how counsellors should talk about themselves to those they’re looking to help. Citing some recent research, he concludes (with appropriate caveats) that "when a client perceives great affinity/similarity with a counselor, they rate that counselor higher. Also, when a counselor reveals something difficult or painful (a vulnerability?), it makes them more human to their clients."

ii. Michael Simmons writing on the HBR blog about how expressed vulnerability creates connection, has this takeaway: "if we share the ups and downs of our human experience in the right way in the right context, we build deeper connections."

(nb: don’t pass-over the early part of Michael’s article, where he speaks of the challenge when someone close to us outperforms us in a task that is relevant to us. Worth thinking about it in the light of Barnabas encouraging Saul in Acts)

When self-knowledge becomes slop-over

…we are greatly indebted to [the Freudians]. The did expose the cowardly evasions of really useful self-knowledge which we had all been practising from the beginning of the world. But there is also a merely morbid and fidgety curiosity about one’s self - the slop-over from modern psychology - which surely does no good? The unfinished picture would so like to jump off the easel and have a look at itself! And analysis doesn’t cure that. we all know people who have undergone it and seem to have made themselves a lifelong subject of research ever since.

CS Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, p.34

Just: wow - Eugene Peterson on Abraham, faith and sacrifice

Eugene Peterson has this to say about Abraham’s life of faith that led into the test/call to sacrifice his son. They are among the most searching, most solemn and most compelling paragraphs I have read in a long while:

But “faith” is not commonly used in that hard-travelling way. More often it is cliched into a feeling or fantasy or disposition - a kind of wish upwards, an inclination indistinguishable from a whim and easily dissipated by a gust of wind or the distraction of a pretty face.

And so the way of faith requires repeated testing so that we can discern whether we are dealing with the living God or some fantasy or illusion we have cooked up in a mulligan stew of lust and anger, envy and sloth, pride and greed. The testing of faith involves continuous honing, re-orienting, re-adjustment, timely rescues from self-deceit, gracious deliverances from the devil’s illusions. The test is conducted by means of sacrifice, sacrifice that in Abraham’s life of faith has its fullest exposition in the Binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah

Sacrifice exposes spiritual fantasy as a masquerade of faith. Sacrifice scraps any illusion, no matter how pious, that is spun by the devil. Sacrifice plucks out the avaricious eye. Sacrifice lops off the grasping hand. Sacrifice is a readiness to interrupt whatever we are doing and build an altar, bind whatever we happen to be carrying with us at the moment, place it on the altar, and see what God wills to do with it.

Abraham was a veteran in the sacrifice business. After leaving Ur and Haran his first named activity consisted in building altars at which sacrifices were made. Shechem, Bethel and Hebron are named. Each altar became a place of prayer: “Is this the way God commanded and promised, or is this a version of the command and promise that I have customised to my convenience?” At each altar he learned a little more, acquired a deeper discernment, a sharper insight into God’s command and promise in contrast to his innate wilfulness and indulgence but also in contrast to the anti-faith world of Ur with its imposing ziggurat. Altars built at many a crossroads, a life of repeated sacrifices, each sacrifice an act of discernment, separating the chaff of illusion from the wheat of promise.

The spare reticence of the narration invites a participating imagination - all that leaving, over and over. Habits of relinquishment became deeply ingrained in Abraham. They become deeply ingrained by in us as we read. Leaving Ur and Haran, leaving Shechem and Bethel, leaving Egypt and Gerar, leaving Beersheba. Leaving, leaving, leaving. But every leaving was also a lightening of self, a futher cleansing of the toxins of acquisition. A life of getting was slowly but surely replaced by a life of receiving - receiving the promises, receiving the covenants, receiving the three strangers, receiving Isaac, receiving circumcision, receiving a ram in the thicket - being transformed into a life that abandons self-sovereignty and embraces God-sovereignty. Abraham did that for a hundred years: “sacrifice/Is slow as a funeral procession/In rush-hour traffic, the sort of word/Other words pass, honking..”

In the process of leaving behind, Abraham became more, gradually but certainly realising that relinquishment is prerequisite to fulfilment, that letting go of a cramped self-will opened up to an expansive God-willed life. Faith.

When we travel the way of Abraham this happens: the word “sacrifice” is gradually transformed from a sour whine of resentment to a robust embrace of affirmation. Every time Abraham left one place, the road lengthened and the landscape widened. Mount Moriah would provide him his largest experience of God. On Mount Moriah Abraham was empty enough of Abraham to take in salvation whole. Faith.

Just: wow. From The Jesus Way, pages 49.50.

Religion: not just a department

CS Lewis on 3 dangers when agreeing that religion is not just a department of life:

the truth that religion as a department has really no right to exist can be misunderstood. Some will conclude that this illegitimate department ought to be abolished. Others will think, coming nearer to the truth, that it ought to cease to be departmental by being extended to the whole of life, but will misinterpret this. They will think it means that more and more of our secular transactions should be “opened with prayer”, that a wearisomely explicit pietism should infect our talk, that there should be no more cakes and ale. A third sort, well aware that God still rules a very small part of their lives, and that “a departmental religion” is no good, may despair. It would have to be carefully explained to them that to be “still only a part” is not the same as being a permanent department. In all of us God “still” holds only a part. (Letters to Malcolm, p.31)

The second danger is, it seems to me, a very present one as we enter what some have called post-Christendom. And dangerous it is, since it rests content with a nominal faith, baptised through accommodation, that deflects suffering with Jesus, outside the camp.

The third is seldom far away for those with over-sensitive consciences, of which there seem to be significant numbers within reformed churches. That  fact in itself ought to give us pause for thought.

Seth Godin shoots down the use of bullet points

Seth Godin shoots down the use of bullet points

Bullets do not save time. Memos save time. Presentations aren’t about the most concise exposition of facts, they are about changing minds.

God doesn't do encores

Some really wise advice from CS Lewis on wanting to re-live the blessings of your earlier Christian experience:

Many religious people lament that the first fervours of their conversion have died away. They think - sometimes rightly, but not, I believe, always - that their sins account for this. They may even try by pitiful efforts of will to revive what now seem to have been the golden days. But were those fervours - the operative word is those - ever intended to last?

It would be rash to say that there is any prayer which God never grants. But the strongest candidate is the prayer we might express in the single word encore. And how should the Infinite repeat Himself? All space and time are too little for Him to utter Himself in them once.

And the joke, or tragedy, of it all is that these golden moments in the past, which are so tormenting if we erect them into a norm, are entirely nourishing, wholesome, and enchanting if we are content to accept them for what they are, for memories. Properly bedded down in a past which we do not miserably try to conjure back, they will send up exquisite growths. Leave the bulbs alone, and the new flowers will come up. Grub them up and hope, by fondling and sniffing, to get last year’s blooms, and you will get nothing. “Unless a seed die…”

(Letters to Malcolm - Chiefly on Prayer; p.26f)

Protect Your Church in One Simple Step

Protect Your Church in One Simple Step

What is progress? (CS Lewis)

What is progress? (CS Lewis)

What is genuine progress? CS Lewis offers an answer…

Taking Notes by Hand Benefits Recall

Taking Notes by Hand Benefits Recall

Dust off your notebooks and pens. A new study finds laptops make note-taking so easy it’s actually ineffective.

Is your church embarrassing?

My parents and younger sister were coming to visit me during my first term at college. A friend asked if I would be taking them into lunch with me. When I said ‘no’ he asked me, with a grin, “What’s the matter? Are you ashamed of your family?”

Maybe I was, a little. And perhaps I was slightly defensive of them. Either way, my friend had a point. And I still remember it all these years later (over 32 years later, to be exact).

Tony Morgan suggests in his article, 10 symptoms of an inwardly-focussed Church, that one reason Christians might not invite others to church is that, "your services and ministries are not designed to reach people outside the church". Allow me to be a little more blunt than Tony: some of us probably feel somewhat embarrassed by the church. After all, the singing is often flat, the music group sometimes malfunctions, the sermons don’t always hit the spot, some of our ways seem quaint, the building is old and, not to put too fine a point on it, some of our folks are ever so slightly …. odd. The pastor included.

And, so, we maintain that we’d be much more likely to invite our friends and colleagues along if we could be confident that, every week, the sermon would be powerful and engaging, the singing inspiring and the whole atmosphere welcoming and affirming. Since we don’t have that confidence, we’re reluctant to invite others. We would - honest - if the church was different.

Out of our family context, I probably was rather embarrassed by my family. After all, Dad could be over-friendly and Mam could (in her insecurity) say the most alarming things. But in their own home, their idiosyncrasies were lessened, simply because my friends would know without a shadow of a doubt that Dad was warm and funny and that Mam was caring and deeply interested in them. We didn’t live in a fashionable house; Mam aspired to more but had to make do with what we had. But what we had, and what friends discovered, was a caring home, in which Mam would gladly feed them - her cooking wan’t cordon bleu but we were well-fed all the same. And that’s what they remembered longest; the idiosyncrasies faded, the warmth remained.

The ever-helpful Emma Scrivener wrote recently of the church, encouraging us to ‘love the one you’re with’. Her article concluded with these challenging words:

If Jesus wasn’t too good for ‘local church’ then we’re not either. Of course there are things that can be improved: and it’s good to talk these through. But there’s a big difference between running something down and strengthening it from within. Our churches don’t need our wishlists, they need our willingness to plug in and serve.

The church will always have a slightly odd feel to it - how could it be otherwise when it is make-up of such a disparate group of needy people? It will struggle to feel cutting-edge. But what we can offer is genuine warmth for others and the steady, if unspectacular, ministry of God’s Word - the Word that can nourish and bring to salvation.

At the end of the day, there’s nothing embarrassing in that.

ready to forgive?

The perspective of Joseph on his sufferings at the hands of his brothers is quite stunning. When he reveals himself to them they are (to paraphrase slightly) gobsmacked. And terrified. But Joseph immediately says to them,

"Do not be distressed and do not be angry with yourselves for selling me here, because it was to save lives that God sent me ahead of you." (Gen. 45:5)

And, again, a moment or two later, he affirms,

"God sent me ahead of you to preserve a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So, then, it was not you who sent me here, but God." (Gen. 45:7-8)

Long years of suffering had the power to foster a bitterness that would make his heart an acrid, barren place, Instead, Joseph displays a breathtaking grasp of God’s sovereign ways and demonstrates a humble willingness to embrace God’s purposes through his suffering and, so, to embrace his brothers in forgiving grace. It is his readiness to forgive that carves out for his brothers an opportunity to demonstrate repentance and so to receive that forgiveness.

There are real lessons here for all who have suffered at the hands of others (and who hasn’t?). Lessons learned not in a moment but forged over long years in the crucible.

And this whole scene leads us, of course and with great power, to see afresh the glory of the submission and humility of our Lord Jesus on the cross. How deeply and joyously glad we can be for his words, "Father, forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing." And then to pray, ‘Make me, too, O Lord, a channel of your peace.’

Good design & Christian character

Yves Béhar (he of the Jawbone headset) makes a very powerful and, as it turns out, biblically-suggestive point in this talk. It opens with a graphic that tellingly says, "Don’t put your ideas on a pedestal; put them into action." He then asserts during his talk that "Good design accelerates the adoption of new ideas." That seems to be essentially the same thing that Paul said in his letter to Titus way back when, as he urges him to

in every way…make the teaching about God our Saviour attractive (Titus 2:10)

The Christian faith was then - and is today - a ‘new idea’ to most people. What would compel them to take it seriously, to see its merits and, perhaps, to personally embrace it? Hearing its claims and, crucially, seeing it put into action.

Preachers: Behar also goes on to say that "If you want to prove that an idea has merit, don’t write a book about it - go out and test it." Writing about or preaching the truth has to be in concert with genuinely (albeit imperfectly) living the truth or it will lack any real power. Now there’s a sobering thought.

Letter To A Stranger

Letter To A Stranger

Emma Scrivener shares a letter she received. It’s one that all pastors and church members ought to read and reflect on.

a review of Driven to Despair - Perfectionism and Ministry

a review of Driven to Despair - Perfectionism and Ministry

There are several fallacies that attend book-buying and reading. Among them are the suggestions that the best books to read are written by the most well-known authors (often, Christian scholars and pastors) and that the most helpful books are not short in length (that is, they’re pretty lengthy, which makes them exhaustive and, too often, exhausting). This short book by Alan E. Craddock (nope, I don’t know him either - no offence, Alan) explodes those myths.

Not only that, this is a book on a vital, overlooked aspect of pastoral ministry, in its fullest sense. It deserves to have a wide readership. It will help many more people than simply those who read it.

So what’s it about and how does it set-out to deal with its topic? Craddock’s aim is “to provide a psychologically and theologically grounded basis for thinking deeply about perfectionism and for practical recommendations to be founded on this.” (p.14) He identifies what could be “loosely called unhealthy and healthy perfectionism” and brings to bear on the subject his familiarity and fluency in both psychology and theology. He also has his feet firmly tied to the ground. You’ll find much in here that can be applied into a variety of pastoral situations, not least raising children.

This book is such a helpful blend of psychological insight, theological wisdom and practical common-sense. It will help a wide range of people, not only those engaged in ministry (its target readership). It would help those who aren’t dealing with perfectionism in their own life, both in terms of helping others but also for insights it will still yield about themselves. Unlike some books, this one does not trade in dramatic claims; it doesn’t overplay its significance, nor is it a vehicle from promoting its author. It simply wants to be helpful to others - and it is.

Are there any flies in its ointment? Of course there are gaps - I might have appreciated more on the importance of positional sanctification, for example; no book is perfect after all. But I’m still giving it a five-star rating.

(My copy of the book was kindly provided for review purposes by Alban Books, who did not ask for a positive review in return)

Brief review of J I Packer's 'Finishing Our Course with Joy'

Brief review of J I Packer's 'Finishing Our Course with Joy'

Residents of Poor Nations Have a Greater Sense of Meaning in Life Than Residents of Wealthy Nations

Residents of Poor Nations Have a Greater Sense of Meaning in Life Than Residents of Wealthy Nations

And the reason given is: religion. Although just an abstract of a fuller report, this nevertheless makes for interesting reading.

Reality & change

The Holy Spirit’s ministry is to take truths about Jesus and make them clear to our minds and real to our hearts - so real that they console and empower and change us at our very centre.

Tim Keller, The Meaning of Marriage, p.51

The proper significance of 'seventy' in Luke 10

Luke tells of Jesus sending out the 72 on mission (Lk. 10:1ff). Or maybe he sends out 70 - there are variations in the manuscript evidence. So which is it? And does is it have any importance anyway?

Commentators generally affirm that there's a link in Jesus’ sending of 70/72 to the table of the nations in Genesis 10 and that the intent is to show the universal scope of Jesus’ mission. If you follow the Hebrew text, there are 70 nations in Genesis 10; the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament, has 72 nations. So that might account for the difference in the manuscripts of Luke.

But let’s add something else into the mix. When Jacob and sons went down to Egypt at the time of the famine and Joseph’s governorship there, the Hebrew text tells us that 70 people went down; the LXX suggests the number was 75 (you might know that Stephen uses that number in his speech in Acts 7:15, showing his familiarity with the LXX account perhaps).

Is there any connection here? I think there might be. Israel are chosen for the sake of the world - the use of 70 in the Hebrew text of Genesis for both the numbering of the nations AND the numbering of Jacob’s family has a certain resonance, reminding of Israel’s representative role as disclosed to Abram in Genesis 12.

And, for me, that connection becomes significant in choosing which textual variant to opt for in Luke 1. ‘Seventy’ recalls Israel’s travels into Egypt which, in turn, had recalled the nations of Genesis 10.

Which means the point about Jesus’ mission being universal in scope is not simply validated by reference to Genesis 10. He also sums-up and fulfils the role of Israel and embeds that in sending out 70 disciples.

The era of Facebook is an anomaly

The era of Facebook is an anomaly

If you think about technology and how it interfaces with society and its impact then you’ll find this a fascinating interview from The Verge (it’s about more than just Facebook, btw).

So, whose faith failed?

When Israel in the wilderness sent 12 leaders to spy out the promised land, two brought back a favourable report; ten did not. The upshot was that Israel refused to try to enter the land and incurred God’s wrath. So who was to blame? Whose faith had failed?

Clearly, the 10 who talked up the issues involved with entering the land and making it their own:

But the men who had gone up with him said, “We can’t attack those people; they are stronger than we are.” And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them. (Numbers 13:31ff)

Leaders within the church have a solemn duty both to exercise faith and to encourage faith in others. It is so easy to discourage, to dampen and to damage. And it is no refuge to say ‘I’m a natural pessimist and it’s just how I am’; unbelief needs to be named for what it is.

But the complementary account in Deuteronomy shows that the people as a whole were also at fault for listening to the bad report and refusing to act on the advice of Joshua and Caleb, for failing to believe God:

But you were unwilling to go up; you rebelled against the command of the LORD your God. You grumbled in your tents and said, “The LORD hates us; so he brought us out of Egypt to deliver us into the hands of the Amorites to destroy us. Where can we go? Our brothers have made our hearts melt in fear. They say, ‘The people are stronger and taller than we are; the cities are large, with walls up to the sky. We even saw the Anakites there.’ " (Deuteronomy 1:26ff)

Interestingly, it had been their idea in the first place to send the spies, a suggestion that Moses recognised as God-given (cf. Dt. 1:22f & Num 13:1). But, sadly, that doesn’t guarantee a faithful response.

The community needs to evaluate what it hears and follow advice that is both wise and faithful. It’s clearly a case of both/and here.

The Four Keys to Being a Trusted Leader (John Dame - Harvard Business Review)

The Four Keys to Being a Trusted Leader (John Dame - Harvard Business Review)

This is fascinating; it so clearly brings to mind the example and character of Jesus - and how that should be seen in those who serve him and his church.

the end of evening fear

In the cool of the day, the LORD God walked in the garden and the man and his wife hid in fear from him (Genesis 3:8-10). Sin had spoiled the world and death would follow in its wake.

In John 20:19ff, it is again evening and again there is fear. This time it’s fear of man, not the Lord. A fear that the same fate will befall the disciples that had consumed Jesus, their beloved Master.

And then he’s there, among them, speaking words of peace. He shows them his hands and his side, the evidence of his slaughter at the hands of his enemies. And their response to such a sight, to the devastating display of the horrors of death and the mauling meted out by sin and evil? They are overjoyed because the one they see, the one whose ruptured side and battered hands are in full view, is the LORD.

Far from denying his lordship, these marks are the crown he wears, the vindication of his reign, the symbols of victory.

And the reason why evening fear - all fear - can be banished forever.

Pastor/Preacher

The preacher needs to be pastor, that he may preach to real men. The pastor must be preacher, that he may keep the dignity of his work alive. The preacher, who is not a pastor, grows remote. The pastor, who is not a preacher, grows petty.

Phillips Brooks, quoted in Stott’s The Preacher’s Portrait, p.72

How to encourage the church

The incident of Peter preaching to the Roman centurion, Cornelius, is a prime example of the gospel being received by Gentiles in the book of Acts (chapters 10-11). But Acts 11:19-26 was probably just as significant for the gospel’s spread to them:

Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen travelled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the Word to no one but the Jews only.

But some of them were men from Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they had come to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists, preaching the Lord Jesus.

Then news of these things came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent out Barnabas to go as far as Antioch. When he came and had seen the grace of God, he was glad, and encouraged them all that with purpose of heart they should continue with the Lord. For he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.

Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul. And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

(All this may well have begun before Peter’s encounter with Cornelius.)

It is very interesting that this Acts 11 gospel expansion to Gentiles was not an organised mission, but took place naturally as the church scattered following the death of Stephen.

In Acts, missionaries are sent out by churches and often seem to work to a discernible pattern. But that needs to be set alongside what we see here: numbers of believers telling the good news as they were scattered from Jerusalem and looked to settle elsewhere.

The responsibility and privilege of reaching out to others is not the preserve of pastors, evangelists and missionaries; it belongs to the whole church and we each have a responsibility to take it to heart.

These early believers shared the gospel naturally, as they travelled, set up home and worked. And there is nothing in the text to suggest that this was somehow unusual and not the norm.

It is, of course, right and good that churches and mission agencies partner in sending out gospel workers. It would be a betrayal of the Lord’s commission not to do so. But our responsibility is not simply to initiate ministries; it is also to be sensitive to and ‘catch up with’ what the Lord is already doing, in what we might think of as spontaneous, ‘unplanned’ ways. That was the reality faced here by the church in Jerusalem.

But that leads to an interesting question. As the gospel spread among the Gentiles, how would the church in Jerusalem react? When Philip preached in Samaria in Acts 8, Peter and John were sent to authenticate the new work, to give it the apostolic imprimatur.

It seems that the church in Jerusalem and its leaders felt the need to assess and approve this gospel expansion. Given that in Acts 11 fully-fledged Gentiles are now being reached with the gospel, how will they react? Will it be with suspicion and a desire to control what is going on there?

What they did was send Barnabas to them. This time they sent one man, not two. And the man they sent wasn’t an apostle; he was a native of Cyprus, as were many of these new believers. He was a man of exceptional spirit, warm and encouraging. This wasn’t control and suspicion, but contribution and support for this young church.

The contribution made by Barnabas was not to impose forms and structures on this fledgling church, but to encourage them to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts — a deeply pastoral concern that would have significant consequences for gospel witness (it was in Antioch that followers of Jesus were first called ‘Christians’, people of the Messiah).

The church at Jerusalem had the privilege of being the ‘original of the species’; the apostles were the authentic witnesses to the Lord Jesus and his gospel. But that didn’t mean they must thereafter control everything that happens to spread the gospel.

It is the Lord Jesus who directs the mission; we are his co-workers. So instead of sending people to check out this new development, they instead chose to send a man who would cheer on those involved in it.

Sending Barnabas to Antioch was perhaps the greatest thing the church at Jerusalem ever did for their brothers and sisters there. He was an outstanding example of a Christian and what a gospel worker should be.

He wasn’t jealous of their work, nor did he want to take it over. He rejoiced in the work and encouraged them to keep going and remain true to the Lord. His concern was not sectarian (to make them Jews), but to strengthen their Christian life and witness.

And this humble man was ready to acknowledge that he didn’t have all the gifts necessary to help this church. So he went on a long, 200-mile round-trip to bring Saul to join him in the work.

He recognised the Lord’s calling of Saul (Paul) and the gifts he’d been given. What a great encouragement to Saul that must have been! And, in God’s providence, this almost incidental action had immense strategic significance for the whole progress of the gospel — it was from Antioch that Barnabas and Saul were sent out by the church into further mission.

This short account in Acts 11 is long on significance. God is at work, outside and before our (proper) plans for outreach. Fledgling churches need appropriate encouragement more than they need the approval of others. And actions that seem incidental and slight can have the most far-reaching consequences for gospel advance.

(This article first appeared in slightly modified form in Evangelical Times, January 2014)

Sharing the burden

Hey, minister guy - find it hard sometimes, doing what you’re doing? Wish there could be others to help you out? You wouldn’t be the first. Go have a look at Numbers 11:16ff. Moses says out-loud what you’ve probably said in your heart: "What have I done to displease you [God)] that you have put the burden of these people on me?"

The LORD’s answer? ‘OK, here’s 70 elders to help you out - I’ll put my Spirit in them, too.’ And he does - even the two who remained back in the camp start prophesying. You can’t stop this God doing what he said he’ll do. The burden gets shared around.

But then maybe, just maybe, your fickle heart begins to think, ‘So there’s even more complexity to handle - a group of leaders to relate to, including those who won’t obey the Lord’s orders. Brilliant.’

So when you read Moses going on to say "I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets", you think ‘Whoah! Way too much trouble! Keep calm, Moses, these days will pass. Order will prevail.’

Well, tough. It’s already happened:

"I will pour out my Spirit on all people…and they will prophesy." (Acts 2:17f)

The blessing - and the calling - of testifying to the grace of God, of displaying his life and declaring his praises is not the professional preserve of the (sometimes grumpy) minister. God’s life in God’s people is far bigger and ‘control’ is not the name of the game.

Elemental Preaching | Leadership Journal

Elemental Preaching | Leadership Journal

This is a very thoughtful, helpful piece on preaching. Worth a long, slow read.

So, what is ministry all about?

If you were asked the question, how would you answer? Here’s what Paul wrote to Timothy on the subject:

1 Timothy
command certain people not to teach false doctrines etc (1:3)
fight the battle well (1:18)
hold onto faith and a good conscience (1:19)
point-out wrong teaching (4:6)
avoid old wives tales and godless myths (4:7)
train yourself to be godly (4:7)
set an example in speech, conduct, love, faith, purity (4:12)
the public reading of scripture (4:13)
not neglecting his gift (of teaching?) (4:14)
be diligent & give yourself to these things, so your progress is visible (4:15)
watch your life and doctrine closely & persevere in them (4:16)
don’t rebuke an older man but exhort as though your father (5:1)
treat younger men as brothers (5:1)
treat older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with purity (5:2)
proper recognition to widows who are really in need (5:3)
no partiality or favouritism (5:22)
not hasty in laying on of hands (5:23)
look after yourself physically (drink a little wine) (5:23)
flee greed and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance & gentleness (6:11)
fight the good fight of faith (6:12)
take hold of eternal life (6:12)
command the rich to put their trust in God (6:17)
guard what is entrusted to your care (6:20)
turn from godless chatter (6:20)


2 Timothy
fan into flame the gift of God (1:6)
don’t be ashamed but join in suffering for Christ (1:8)
keep the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love (1:13)
guard the good deposit entrusted to you (1:14)
be strong in grace (2:1)
entrust teaching to those who can train others too (2:2)
suffer like a good soldier of Christ Jesus (2:3)
reflect on what Paul is saying re. focussing on pleasing God (2:7)
remember Jesus Christ (2:8)
remind God’s people of ‘these things’ (2:14)
warn them not to quarrel (2:14)
present yourself to God as one who handles the word of truth correctly (2:15)
avoid godless chatter; it leads to ungodliness (2:16)
flee the evil desires of youth (2:22)
pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace (2:22)
have nothing to do with stupid arguments (2:23)
don’t quarrel or be resentful but be kind to all (2:24)
gently instruct opponents (2:25)
have nothing to do with professing Christians who live ungodly lives (3:5)
continue in what you’ve learned & become convinced of - don’t fall away (3:14)
preach the word, in season and out (4:2)
correct, rebuke, encourage - with great patience and care (4:2)
keep your head in all situations (4:5)
endure hardship (4:5)
do the work of an evangelist (4:5)
discharge all the duties of your ministry (4:5)
be supportive of others (4:9)
be on your guard against those who harm the gospel (4:15)

Sleep preserves and enhances unpleasant emotional memories

Sleep preserves and enhances unpleasant emotional memories

A recent study by sleep researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst is the first to suggest that a person’s emotional response after witnessing an unsettling picture or traumatic event is greatly reduced if the person stays awake afterward, and that sleep strongly ‘protects’ the negative …

No wonder God says to us, “do not let the sun go down while you are still angry”.

a competent minister?

Maybe your ambition is to be described in somewhat more glowing terms than ‘a competent minister’. But that’s Paul’s claim for himself and his companions (2 Cor. 3:4-6). I wonder what comes to mind when you think of that phrase: someone who can preach an ok sermon, has a good bedside manner for hospital visiting and feels at ease with young people? ‘Yes, he’s a competent minister.’

I think Paul might be claiming something different and something more. He speaks about them being made competent (notice the source of the competency) "as ministers of a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

There is a real need for those who handle God’s Word to know how to handle the transition from old to new covenant and what that means for those called to live as followers of Jesus. It isn’t a sermonising skill - far from it; it is broader and deeper. It’s being able to navigate waters of interpretation and application that honour Christ and the Spirit, that breathes life and vitality and newness, that addresses life in the Spirit in the here and now.

That doesn’t mean it’s about how you handle the charismatic issue (that would be a shallow conclusion), but how we promote and cultivate and teach a life that is built on the reality that "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom. 10:4) and that radiates the glory of the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:12ff).

Perhaps your prayer - like mine - is to be made competent, knowing how demanding the task is and not claiming anything special for ourselves.

how to kill your mission

In this interview, John Dickson was asked about how to effectively engage the broader culture. His remarks, although pertaining to Australian society, have much to say to the needs of the church in the UK: 

What advice do you have for church leaders in America about how to engage the broader culture effectively?  I think the very first thing is to do is adopt a stance of mission instead of admonition toward the world. Here’s an example. In the Australian context, there are church leaders who remember the glory days when about 20 percent of the nation went to church. They look at how Australia is secularized today, and their stance toward the world is basically admonition, the way you would talk to a backsliding Christian. How dare you slide away? How dare you legislate against Christian morality? I call that the admonition paradigm.
What’s wrong with this approach?  I reckon that’s how you kill your mission, because if you speak with a sense of entitlement, you won’t be flexible, you won’t be humble, and you won’t take hits and just bear it. You’ll want to strike back. And people will think you’re arrogant. Quite rightly, probably.

What do you recommend instead?  When you move out of admonition into mission, you realize Australia is no longer Jerusalem; it’s Athens. Then you instantly adopt a humbler approach to non-Christians. You don’t expect them to live Christian lives if they don’t confess Christ. You don’t expect Parliament to pass Christian-specific laws. But as a leader, you try to persuade the nation with winsomeness, with gentleness and respect, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3:15.

A Messy Environment Makes It Harder for You to Focus on a Task

A Messy Environment Makes It Harder for You to Focus on a Task - Andrew O'€™Connell - Harvard Business Review

In an experiment, people who sat by a messy desk that was scattered with papers felt more frustrated and weary and took nearly 10% longer to answer questions in a colour-and-word-matching task, in compa…

OK, I guess it’s time to clear-up in here….

It's all about Jesus - sometimes

There’s been a really healthy return to emphasising the centrality of Jesus in the whole of Christian experience and as the focus of all the scriptures. Preachers are often encouraged to (rightly) ask the Christological questions and then make the Christological connections in our preaching. Quite so. But is it possible to have too much of a good thing? Sometimes, yes.

Here’s what I mean: preparing to preach this weekend on Luke 22:39-65, the first scene (vv.39-46) is Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. What more natural passage for a focus on the Messiah and his sufferings on our behalf? What clearer opportunity could there be to dig deep into his person and work? But look at what Luke does here: the incident begins and ends (call it an inclusio if you’re posh) with Jesus urging his disciples to pray that they would not fall into temptation (verses 40 & 46).

Luke’s account of the agonies of Jesus here is quite sparing, more so than the other gospel writers. Using the words of Jesus he foregrounds the disciples’ need to learn from what is happening here. This scene is deliberately written-up in such a way that our focus is drawn to the disciples’ (and our) propensity to fall into temptation and our need to pray earnestly in the light of that.

Now, of course, our help in such circumstances is only and ever found in Jesus - preaching on this passage without emphasising that would be hope-less. And to preach it without a proper reverence for the Suffering Saviour would be distinctly odd - and cold. But to preach it with Jesus as examplar would not be wrong-headed or misguided; it would, rather, be following the signposts in the passage itself.

It would be a real shame if, in our desire to honour Jesus, we failed to properly notice what he was so keen to underline.

When you imagine something does your brain think you see it?

When you imagine something does your brain think you see it?

What is the difference between imagination and reality? Sometimes, not that much. The February 2014 edition of the Monitor on Psychology (v. 45:2, p. 18) lists a brief note about a study published …

I’m linking to this article for a couple of reasons: firstly, it’s both interesting and helpful; secondly, Phil Monroe’s blog is consistently that and worth adding to your list of blogreads.

Praying to keep a gospel focus

Mark 1:35-39 is a great lesson in quiet time maintenance: get up early, far away from other people and pray. Except it isn’t. It’s much deeper, more significant, than that. Those are things you or I might find helpful but they’re scarcely determinative - and certainly not the point of this passage.

So what is the point? Jesus goes out to a solitary place - a wilderness place. Guess what? He’s been to that kind of place fairly recently in this chapter - flip back to verses 12,13 and you’ll find him in a similar place. What’s going on back there? The testing of Jesus.

Mark doesn’t give us as full an account of that testing as Matthew and Luke do; he simply notes that it took place and that Jesus was in the company of wild animals and angels came and ministered to him there.

Fast forward to verses 35-39. Jesus chooses to rise very early and go out to pray in a wilderness place. Why? Maybe for this reason: the night before, he healed and delivered scores of people - the whole town had gathered at the door. And when the disciples eventually find him on this morning they give him the (hardly surprising) news that everyone is looking for him.

They love him - he’s a great guy to have around! They no doubt want this first-century Superman to stay with them a long time. Who wouldn’t? And Jesus tells his disciples that he’s not going to stay, that he’s instead going on to the other towns and villages, because he has to preach the gospel there too.

The response of the townspeople is a powerful temptation for Jesus, akin to the presence of wild beasts in the wilderness. Everyone likes to be popular; the pull of a crowd is subtle and subversive - and will eat you for breakfast. And so Jesus gets up early (before breakfast) to pray, in order that he might resist the temptation to settle for being popular and being needed and, instead, to maintain his focus on what really matters: taking the gospel to those who have yet to hear it.

In so doing, he shows us that prayer is more than simply making request of God. There is an aspect of prayer that is about aligning ourselves with, and committing ourselves to, the will of God and the gospel of God in which that will is most powerfully expressed. A later scene in the gospels, where the wilderness is replaced by a garden, confirms that: 'not my will but yours be done'.

Jesus knew he needed to pray to resist temptation and to maintain focus on what matters most. He needed to pray in order to see the issues clearly and to enter into the struggle to make the choice that would honour his Father and drive his mission forward.

I guess we do, too.

More Reflection, Less Action

More Reflection, Less Action

"we too often view the opposite of ‘doing’ as ‘not doing’ and then demonise inaction. In fact, good judgement grows out of reflection, and reflection requires the sort of quiet time that gets crowded out by the next demand.

Tony Schwartz is always worth reading, but this article is one of his very best. 

a hundredfold: the patriarchal blessing?

Isaac inherited God’s promises to Abraham. In Genesis 26:12 we’re told that he planted crops and in that same year "reaped a hundredfold because Yahweh blessed him”.

When Jesus spoke of the fruitfulness of his word in people’s lives, he spoke of it multiplying thirty, sixty or even a hundred times.

Maybe he had in mind God’s blessing of the patriarchs and his promises to them, which were now coming true through his transforming word?

You cannot stockpile grace

Disciples cannot stockpile…grace and strength beforehand but must learn from Jesus’ own example of prayer on the Mount of Olives that they are dependent on God from hour to hour. When they become aware of that, they will be more likely to pray than to talk big and be less likely to swoon in a crisis.

David Garland commenting on Luke 22:24-38 in his ZECNT commentary

What the mirror tells you (The gospel in James 1:22-25)

What does James have in mind when he speaks about looking in the mirror (James 1:23)? Is he wanting us to see our sins and to come away from the mirror humbled and deflated?

In verse 22 James urges his readers to not simply listen to the word but to do what it says. He then says (v.23) that the person who doesn’t do what the word says is like the person who looks into the mirror and forgets what he sees (v.24). He’s saying that what they saw in the mirror is not repeated and worked-out in obedience to the word.

In verse 25, James then correlates 'looking into the mirror' with 'looking intently into the perfect law that gives freedom'. It seems to follow that looking into the perfect law of liberty/looking into the mirror is about seeing something other than just our own sinfulness - it is, after all, about gazing intently at liberty. I suggest that it’s seeing Jesus, the one who fulfils the law and brings it to its intended outcome, the one who has perfected it; and it’s seeing who and what you are in union with him.

No doubt we will see our imperfections, which are many and complex. But we will see them atoned for; we will see them as antithetical to who we now are in Christ. And in that liberty, we will go into the world not forgetting who we are and, thus, being equipped for keeping the words God has spoken to us.

(preliminary thoughts for a sermon to be preached Tuesday 11th Feb 2014)

The cult of overwork

The cult of overwork

"The perplexing thing about the cult of overwork is that, as we’ve known for a while, long hours diminish both productivity and quality."

And Jesus said, Come apart and rest awhile….

Are you called to be omnicompetent?

Moses is directed by the LORD to make a tabernacle and all its furnishings, exactly like the pattern he would be shown (Exodus 25:9). That tabernacle would be furnished with an ark, a table, a lampstand, an altar for burnt offerings, another for burning incense, And the whole structure was to be covered with elaborate curtains. Every piece had  to be made exactly as he would be shown. In addition to wood, metal and fine perfumes for those items, he was also to provide clothes for the priests to perform their duties and anointing oil to set them apart with.

Moses, a shepherd by trade, is to oversee this great work. How must he have felt? These were areas far outside his comfort zone, requiring multiple competencies - woodwork, metalwork, perfumery, needlework and design. How would he be able to handle all that?

Welcome, Exodus 31:1-11 "I have chosen Bezalel…and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with wisdom, with understanding, with knowledge and with all kinds of skills…(and) I have appointed Oholiab…to help him."

Notice the pronouns in use there - the LORD himself would provide all that was needed, personnel included. The work of God is never about one person. No servant of the church is ever called to be all and to do all. In the church of Jesus Christ, every believer is given the Spirit of God "for the good of all" (1 Corinthians 12:7).

That distribution of gifts and abilities is something to cultivate and to celebrate, with huge relief.

And along with it - and without which the project would simply have never got off the ground - was this: after Moses addressed them and told them of what the Lord had called for, "everyone who was willing and whose heart moved them came and brought and offering to the LORD for the work on the tent of meeting." (Exodus 35:21)

A people stirred by the call of God responded to the opportunity to give themselves to him and his work, to resource those tasked with detailed works. It’s about the whole body.

The Unbusy Pastor (Eugene Peterson)

The Unbusy Pastor (Eugene Peterson)

The word ‘busy’ is the symptom not of commitment but of betrayal

"If I vainly crowd my day with conspicuous activity or let others fill my day with imperious demands, I don’t have time to do my proper work, the work to which I have been called. How can I lead people into the quiet place beside the still waters if I am in perpetual motion? How can I persuade a person to live by faith and not by works if I have to juggle my schedule constantly to make everything fit into place?" (Eugene Peterson)

An article well worth reading, and not just by pastors.

"Our friend...has died" On how NOT to illustrate a sermon

It has to go down as the sermon illustration with the most potential to get me into huge trouble. I spent all that afternoon going over it and making sure I could use it with a straight face and laughing out loud at the prospect of doing so.

I was preaching on Paul’s words in Colossians 2:20ff, on the Christian as having died with Christ and having been raised with him. We had sung a few songs, prayed and read the Bible. It was now time for the sermon. I began with these words:

"As we come to look at this passage, I have some serious news to share with you tonight: our dear friend John Smith* has died."

(*name changed for obvious reasons)

There was an audible gasp in church - John was sat there in our midst, alive and, seemingly, well. I then went on to say, after a short pause,

"That’s what our text tells us - and it says the same is true for every one who is a Christian…."

We were then going on to think about what that meant and its implications for us.

Trouble was, John had arrived reasonably late to the service and had been unseen by many of the not-very-large congregation. The gasp had that quality of "But he seemed well enough this morning - what on earth has happened? Oh, his poor family, they must be in terrible shock…" and other such thoughts that race through your mind at breakneck speed when faced with such news, in those time-is-standing-still moments.

I can vividly recall the horrified look on the face of one of the said gaspers - she seemed as though she might have a coronary at any moment. I think it was then that I realised the illustration could have done with tweaking slightly. The irony of causing a death by announcing a fake one was rather lost on me in the elation of having accomplished the feat of saying it all without the slightest hint of a smirk (the time spent in front of the mirror that afternoon had been worth it). But it has rather haunted me since.

What did John himself think? He found it a very positive experience, albeit initially somewhat perplexing. He looked up at me with a kind of 'hey, what - really?!?' expression on his face. I half expected him to start taking his own pulse and pinching his wife to see if all around him was real.

But it affirmed for him, in a distinct and memorable way, the wonderful and shocking truth that, yes, the person who is ‘in Christ’ has actually - really and truly - died with Christ, that his death counts for ours and that we shall never have to experience separation from God on account of our sins. And, more, that we are raised with him - really, truly and now - in newness of life.

What a great reality! What a wonderful text. What a……..sermon illustration (fill in the blank as you see fit).

On Sunday Services as Prophetic Statements

Tim Challies has stirred the pot on the subject of Sunday evening services and many have expressed their appreciation and agreement. I’m guessing that there are others who don’t share his viewpoint, nor accept his arguments, who have kept their heads down - you can’t enter every debate after all.

I’m not arguing with his approach, but would simply observe that it’s rather anecdotal (which has a place in discussion, of course) and therefore open to significant pushback. What I want to ask is if there is a line of reasoning that could yield the same overall conclusion yet with more biblical engagement? I think there is.

It seems to me that the pattern of the early church has something to say to us. I don’t believe it necessarily has the force of biblical prescription, but I do think their practice is worthy of deeper reflection. They didn’t do what they did for nothing, after all.

It would appear from the biblical account that churches in the New Testament met on the first day of the week (see, for example, Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor 16:2). But at what time of day did they do so and why did they choose that day? Let’s take those in order.

An extra-biblical reference to their practice (Pliny’s letter to the Emperor Trajan, in the early 2nd century AD) speaks of them being

“accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food—but ordinary and innocent food.”

So, at least part of the early church (churches in Turkey) met early in the morning, presumably early enough for those who were slaves to still be ‘at work’ in good time. They also seem to have met later in the day, which would accord with the references in the New Testament to churches sharing in ‘the Lord’s Supper’, a term that can only refer to a meal towards twilight.

Their pattern is interesting to observe. But it becomes something more than that when we consider their reasons for doing so. What made them opt to do it this way?

I’d suggest their choice was not driven by pragmatism nor convenience - they didn’t choose the first day of the week because that was an accepted rest day in their society and would do nicely for them as well. Nor would I subscribe to the notion that they had transposed the Sabbath onto the first day of the week (I can’t see the evidence for that in the New Testament). So what reason could they have had?

I think the clue is in the repeated use of 'the first day of the week' to refer to the day on which they gathered together. When John opens his resurrection narrative in John 20 with the seemingly-small detail that it was "early on the first day of the week", it is not difficult in the light of how his gospel opened ('In the beginning…') to see a reference to the new creation that Jesus had inaugurated by his triumph over death. Meeting together on the first day of the week would be a potent and prophetic declaration by the early church of that reality - that the light of a new day had dawned with liberating power, that a new creation had begun to be birthed.

It becomes possible, in the light of this creation/new creation motif, to see that a gathering of the church both morning and evening could be viewed as reflecting the creation narrative of Genesis 1 & 2 ('and there was evening and there was morning…'). However, the absence of explicit biblical injunction for the pattern should allow for a degree of sympathetic and pastoral flexibility in the matter.

In this way, Challies’ point about an evening service being counter-cultural might take on greater weight. Churches gathering at both ends of the day would not be about pragmatism, nor a matter of biblical prescription but, rather, a deliberate and prophetic statement to a culture of death that there is life in the Saviour, celebrating and proclaiming hope in a world of despair and witnessing to the coming of a new creation in which God is all and is in all.

Of course, merely having a pattern that proclaims those realities is not enough if our gatherings fail to reflect such newness and hope, or if those responses are not also evident throughout the week. The form is not a formula. But it may well be that such a pattern becomes a real tonic for ourselves and a great service to the world around us.

The verse that Satan did not dare to quote

When assaulting Jesus with temptations, Satan quoted from Psalm 91,

He will command his angels concerning you
to guard you in all your ways;
they will lift you up in their hands
so that you will not strike your foot
against a stone. (v.12)

I wonder why he didn’t go on to remind Jesus of the very next verse in that psalm?

You will tread upon the lion and the cobra;
you will trample the great lion and the serpent. (v.13)

Coward.

How a failure was recovered

He was a deserter; a failure. And the cause of a sharp disagreement between two Christian workers, one of them his uncle. So sharp in fact that they no longer worked together, despite years of supportive service (Acts 15:36ff).

Later on, the one who had objected to his continued presence on the team, speaks of him in very warm terms. Paul says that he has proved himself to be a valuable colleague in gospel work; "he is helpful to me in my ministry" (2 Tim 4:11).

So how did the change come about? How was this fallible young man recovered? Who was it that mentored him into being a faithful gospel servant?

Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus. (Acts 15:39)

Presumably, the one who didn’t give up on him.