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.