MYC #2 - On tongue speaking

Someone from church was chatting to me recently about her experience of speaking in tongues ('experience' it seems, is the most appropriate word to use.) A number of years ago, she had been attending a charismatic church where, despite what the Bible teaches, it was commonplace to have everyone speaking in tongues at once without interpretation. My friend saw everyone else speaking in tongues, so decided to try for herself, that is, start babbling away nonsensically. She now freely admits she didn't have the gift, nor know what she was doing, but rather was just following the crowd with her incoherent noises.

I wonder how many others there were just making noises because everyone else was?

There is a serious question this raises for me, which is provided we aren't cessationists, do we have a place within our regular meetings where if someone did have the gift of tongues and an interpreter present, or had a word of prophecy, there is liberty for that to occur? The closest thing I can think of that occurs at Unichurch is we are small enough to hear back from people about specific answers to congregational prayer. Has your church practically, even if not by conviction forbidden speaking in tongues?

MYC #1 - The unique work of the Holy Spirit

This year at MYC we are studying the person and work of the Holy Spirit. I have come across some interesting tidbits in my preparation which I will share over the coming weeks, the first of which arises not from my study of the Bible but my first ever experience of controversy regarding the Holy Spirit (I lived quite a sheltered existence at Maclean Presbyterian.)

Someone had made the comment to Danielle;

I know the Holy Spirit is on me when I'm singing to Jesus, because I get goosebumps.

Danielle's reply:

Well, I get goosebumps when I'm making out with a guy. Is that the Holy Spirit too?

Good question.

Song of Solomon

I have recently started reading Song of Solomon together with my wife in our family Bible reading time (when this time gets the priority it deserves!) 

The marriage relationship is a helpful context to read Song of Solomon. Though it is often neglected, there are many different contexts in which people read and study this unique section of Scripture. I have no doubt that many a young man with Christian parents has taken a naughty peek here and there, as an act of rebellion. I've heard of Christian's that don't read it until after they are married. Where I work, as part of their training, the staff meet one on one with our student leaders for an hour every week to pray, read the Bible and talk about how we're serving Jesus. Last year, one of the male staff was meeting up with a male student leader and in thinking through how to read the Old Testament, one of them suggested Song of Solomon. As in all situations where there is a long section of scripture to be read aloud, they decided to divide the reading between them, notably they divided between the male and female parts. After a few minutes of reading to each other in the packed uni cafe they decided another approach may be more appropriate.

Another context where Song of Solomon is rarely found is being studied in church. On this note, kudos to Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church Seattle. Never one to back down from a challenge, Driscoll relishes in teaching on controversial doctrines and sections of Scripture where others fear to tread. However, his sermon series on Song of Solomon has recently come in for some criticism. This is mainly because he has chosen to use the book as a "how-to" sex manual for Christians.

For the record, I have not listened to all of this series. One of the ministers from church told me he felt like a cold shower after listening, which still hasn't piqued my interest enough to download them. However I did get a sampling of the upcoming series when Driscoll spoke at a number of events in Australia last year. I won't go into the specifics of what he said, partly because it was to a group of men, and partly because I don't want my blog to be high on a google search of the particular activities described. The example was a colourful interpretation of a metaphor from Song of Solomon 2:3,

his fruit was sweet to my taste.

Let's just say, the activity justified by this metaphor was a stretch at best.

For the record though, I thought it may be helpful to others if I list some more of the other metaphors from chapter 2 that you could abuse for the sake of expanding the list of sanctified marriage activities.

Sustain me with raisins; refresh me with apples   - 2:5

he grazes among the lilies   - 2:16

be like a gazelle or a young stag on cleft mountains   - 2:17

It is important to celebrate the way God has created us and our bodies and marriage. It is important to not be scared of speaking of these matters in appropriate environments. But like with all parts of the Bible, it must be read carefully. Marriage is a great gift of God to be celebrated and the only context in which to enjoy 'grazing among the lilies'.

Question Time

One of the great learning experiences of my life has been the consistent presence of question time following the sermon at Cumberland Uni Church (that's Uni as in University not unitarian as someone who came from a letterbox drop misinterpreted it.) Though no doubt all confusion about our belief in God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit would have been cleared up in question time, had it not been made known earlier.

Question time has been a great way to interact with the preacher and the word of God. It's slipped off the radar of late at Uni Church but our pastor Andy Chung has graciously (as he's the one that gets grilled) reinstated it. My personal tip in question time: always ask your question on the verse or verses the preacher skipped over. That way, you'll know if they didn't know what it meant or just cut it out for time.

A question that came up on Sunday was in response to a statement Andy had made during the sermon

Satan is the ruler of this world.

I now think Andy was right. Andy as is often the case, was in fact always correct and the misunderstanding was with me. But because he was able to nuance his statement with the benefit of question time, Andy got sharpened in his understanding and so did the congregation. Ephesians 2:2 describes satan as the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience. Jesus describes him in John 12:31 as the ruler of this world. Satan however is not the ultimate ruler and has no true hold over Christian's who live under the rule of Jesus.

It is an important thing to get correct as we don't want an over-realised eschatology which leads to a perceived ability to attain sinless perferctionism. [TRANSLATION: Think satan is dead, therefore we can live without sin in this life.] On the other hand we don't want an under-realised esachatology (which I often associate with our US Southern Baptist friends) where somehow the battle with satan is still being fought. [TRANSLATION: Jesus didn't defeat satan on the cross, therefore we are still waiting for him to be defeated.]

We end up somewhere in the middle. No, not the fence again, but what Phillip Jensen calls a "toothless tiger." Satan is not dead, but powerless. Or as one of the wise old heads at Uni Church, Stewart Binns put it, it's similar to the way we talk about death. Though still present, it's defeated and has no sting.

You don't need to be an entrepreneur!

I am currently undergoing a ministry apprenticeship. In a nutshell, the idea is I follow around after someone in full-time ministry and get given some responsibilities and learn how to be a godly servant. However as I heard from the wise old head of MTS, Col Marshall, the great strength of MTS is also it's weakness - we reproduce ourselves. So our strengths become the strengths of those we train and our weaknesses we also pass on. Today I promised to post on new wave church-planting, so you may well be asking "what does this have to do with church planting?"

While church-planting has been going on since just after Jesus ascension, the new face of church-planting worldwide is a beloved brother, Mark Driscoll. Driscoll planted his church in Seattle by knocking on doors and walking up to people till he converted enough to start a regular gathering. He is an entrepreneur. From what I can gather an entrepreneur is someone like MacGyver who armed with nothing but a toilet roll, a traffic cone and a match, could break out of a windowless prison cell. They're resourceful, is all. They're problem-solver's. They have a "can do" attitude. And apparently, if you're not, you can't plant a church. [Consequently, they do screening tests on people looking to church-plant to see if they have the right skill-set. I reckon they should just lock potential candidates in a prison cell with a toilet roll, traffic cone and a match and see what they do.] Mark Driscoll is an entrepreneur. And therefore in replicating himself he produces more entrepreneurs. But I say you don't need to be an entrepreneur to plant a church.

The new wave entrepreneurial church-planting strategy is a good one. We do need people to pioneer new ministries. Our churches would be much more effective at reaching people if all Christian's went knocking on doors and meeting people in the streets. We need entrepreneurs. But there is still hope for those who remain in the windowless cell, having snapped the match, flushed the toilet roll in frustration and sitting forlornly wearing the traffic cone on your head. You are not without hope. I will show you a still more excellent way.

Teams. That's all, church-planting teams. I want us to be more Presbyterian in our church-planting strategy. Take the focus away from the individual and onto team-planting. That is, gathering a small group from an existing gathering of Christian's, moving into a new people group or area and planting a church. The burn-out rate will be less as the workload is shared. The effectiveness should increase as there are more hands on deck. The evangelistic effort will be across a wider cross-section of the community. Best of all, the ministry will be moved away from the personality and onto the church.

Now please don't hear me bagging out on entrepreneur's going out on their own. We need them too. But I'm sick of hearing people who aren't entrepreneurial and already in their 30's say they're past it in terms of being able to plant a church. You're not.

Ideally, both methods of church-planting end up in the same place. With a committed core group of elders in conjunction with their pastors taking responsibility for oversight of the body and direction for the church, with all members proclaiming the gospel of Jesus as Lord.

In terms of church-planting, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

An idiot's guide to denominational hierarchy

I have taken it upon myself to present 'An idiot's guide to denominational hierarchy.' For those who have not already guessed, I'm the idiot.

Particularly of interest to me are the three most popular reformed denominations in Australia. They also happen to be the ones I have had the most experience with. As I see it, there are three possible groups that exist within churches where the balance of power can lay. These are:

1. The minister (dictatorship)

2. A small group of elders (aristocracy)

3. The congregation (democracy)

I think each of the 'Big 3' tend in their congregational structure to be heavily weighted towards one of these.

1. Anglican

2. Presbyterian

3. Baptist

Each one is equally problematic. Each one's strength is also it's weakness. For the Anglican rector is almost impossible to get rid of - which gives him the freedom to make tough but gospel-minded decisions free from fear of being kicked out. Yet the rector who is doing nothing or preaching heresy is equally secure in his job. The Pressie minister has to work hard at corporately making decisions with the Session, yet a man of action can be swallowed up in committee meeting after committee meeting. A Baptist minister is least secure in his job, and can be booted with relative ease. This means should preaching repentance that leads to salvation be not to the liking of the mob, they can get rid of him. Though a heretic can be booted with ease.

Yet these distinctions are also artificial. Churches I have been a part of that are on about reaching out with the saving gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, have pretty much equal support from each of these groups of influence. Partly this is because if there's an imbalance churches tend to either split or people leave. But mainly this is due to the strength of humility of all present. I see Anglican ministers who seek the guidance and support of a select group of elders and Presbyterian Session's who in fellowship give a generous amount of leash. The Baptists are again more problematic. It only really works well if the congregation is mature and gospel minded and so is the minister.

Why is this important? Tomorrow I'll be posting on new wave church-planting strategy. We're far too Anglican in how we talk about it, and should be more Presbyterian. Though strangely I've seen the Anglicans church-planting like Presbyterians, and Presbyterians church-planting like Anglicans. Confused? All will be explained tomorrow.

How to read the Bible.

Last night Sarah and I attended a newcomers dinner at church which we helped organise. After a great night of sharing our history, vision, inviting others to join with us in Jesus' work and hearing personal stories the floor was opened for questions. You could probably guess the regular hotbed topics that were raised - baptism, musical style and expression, and also the role of speaking in tongues.

Specifically, the question on tongues and the Holy Spirit was:

In Acts, when people received the Holy Spirit they spoke in tongues. Shouldn't this always be the case?

Our pastor, Andy Chung helpfully pointed us to Ephesians 1:13

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him (Jesus) were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit

Andy explained that while the gift of tongues continues, the experience of the believers in Acts was for a specific purpose in salvation history. Instead we are to associate receiving the Holy Spirit with believing the gospel of the Lord Jesus, that is, becoming Christian.

How would you expect our newcomer to respond to that? Especially considering his experience of church and teaching elsewhere has contradicted this?

Well, I can't argue with that. I can see it there in the Bible. If that's what the Bible says, then that's how it is.

And that, my friends, is how you read the Bible.

Tithing vs generosity

LEAD BALLOON #1

My minister Andy Chung was doing the right thing last night and talking briefly to our congregation about the biblical basis for giving. At one point Andy said,

In the Old Testament, the people of God were required to tithe, that is, give a tenth of their earnings to God. In the New Testament, people are not commanded to tithe but instead to be generous. But tithing is a helpful guide as Christian's think about giving.

Andy is generally more pastorally sensitive than me. (In discussing how to change the culture of everyone sitting in the same seat every week; Andy's solution: gently encourage the elders to take the initiative and sit elsewhere. My solution: Turn the pews ninety degrees and create a series of semi-circles so everyone had to move.) We balance each other out well. But Andy's words on giving were certainly Biblical and like his nature, gentle. Yet I would probably go further. Call me ignorant, but I can't see how somehow the command to tithe being replaced by generosity could somehow mean giving less than ten percent. Surely we in Australia are the rich. Some people explain the price of housing in their area means they couldn't possibly even tithe, because they are being gospel-minded and reaching Vaucluse for Christ. I see fewer people willing to reach Penrith for Christ. 

I'm not advocating moving away from giving a percentage of our earnings. It's a great way to give regularly and remain accountable. But even giving a percentage should not limit our generosity. I feel the mention of tithing as a helpful guide may in effect put a limit in people's mind on their giving. But as in most things, Andy's pastoral leaning is generally more effective than my 'create a stir and hope the dust settles in a better place than it began' mindset.

I have been considering a sub-headline for IzaacTA and one possibility is "Shamelessly plundering the ideas of the wise." I am all for stealing someone's thoughts if they have better ones than my own. One such example is a friend of mine in ministry who was telling me how he thinks about giving with his small children. They each get $2 pocket money each week. $1 goes into savings, 60 cents to spend and 40 cents goes to church. This was to encourage them to be financially responsible as well as training their mindset away from tithing towards generosity.

Perhaps I am moving too much away from freedom into law. We must remember that God loves a cheerful giver not one who gives under compulsion, regardless of how much. But I still wonder how generosity could somehow be less than a tenth.

Opposites attract

I've been completing MYC data entry for the past 6 hours and havn't been to bed. So what better way to spend another 20 minutes before hitting the hay just before the sun rises than posting some reflection on alcohol which came out of a discussion at MTS training on Thursday.

Despite it now being 5:20am on a Saturday morning let me state for the record I am not under the influence of, nor have I consumed any alcoholic beverages this evening. It's been at least a month since my last beer.

Let me begin with a line I learned from Phillip Edney.

Evangelicals always do the opposite.

It's true. Evangelical history has been dominated more by reaction than proaction (or whatever the opposite of reaction is.) Bible-believers see something being done wrong or at least smells a bit fishy, and they do the opposite. Usually it's worked out for the best. However at times the proper and appropriate reaction doesn't necessarily lead to a Biblical position. For example, many evangelicals see people speaking incorrectly on money through the prosperity gospel and choose to not speak about money. The proper response would be of course to speak about money correctly.

I believe many Christian's that I love and respect unfortunately do the same thing in regards to their thinking about alcohol. We see it being abused horribly (and it is a HUGE issue) and rightly react but end up in a position that is untenable. The weight of debate is thrown so far onto the negative that we lose alcohol as a God-given gift to man. Of course those who hold the negative position, bound by scripture, usually preface their statements with the Psalm 104 reference or indeed conclude with it. But I can't help but feel that it's a token gesture rather than any specific conviction they have deep within their souls. I would liken it to the reformed view of speaking in tongues - we can't forbid it, and say if done rightly we would allow it, but I can't think of any situations in most churches I've been a part of would allow for this. 

Should we as Bible-believing Christians say

"Alcohol is bad. And I'd be happy if no Christian ever drank again, because I think it would solve a lot of problems."

These were the words that came from the mouth of one of the men I respect the most and pushes me most in my understanding of theology! And I've no doubt it comes from a heart that longs to serve Jesus and from a right reaction against abuse of alcohol, but ends up somewhere I'm just not comfortable.

Perhaps it's more accurate to describe evangelicals as hugging the extremes. The conservatism of the 50's and 60's has been replaced by many with an extreme view of Christian liberty, which at some point forgets love and the freedom they have to be servants of others. These libertarians (of which I sadly see myself at times) stubbornly insist upon their rights, ending up no better than those that abuse learning styles.

All I'm asking is that we pause to think before putting any rules in place that would exclude Jesus from our fellowship. That's all, really. I'm against any rules that would discourage Jesus from performing a miracle if he were at our party and we undercatered. But similarly those not particularly fond of boundaries should pause before demanding I have the freedom to do whatever I jolly well like, thankyou very much.

There's got to be somewhere in the middle, right? Some would call it the fence. I'm going to call it the nuanced Biblical position which can only arise from careful study of the word. It will never arise from quick application. And it will certainly never arise from reaction alone.

On application

I had the great pleasure of learning from Archie Poulos over the weekend on the topic of 'God, ministry and emotions.' He made an interesting throwaway comment during question time that has got me thinking on the place of application in the sermon.

The problem with only applying at the end of the sermon is that people don't want to hear the reason for change, they only want to know what they have to do. If we only apply at the end, then all people hear is "blah, blah, blah, now do this."

Underlying Archie's observation is (I think) that all theology is applied and inherently practical, that we should point these out as we go along, and in crafting a sermon beware what is implied through the method. A similar point is made by Gordon Cheng in his article on sexual immorality in Corinth here.

Competitions

About two months ago on the advice of my sister who had won some sweet concert tickets through online comps I decided I'd enter some myself. I spent about three hours on my day off clicking anything that said 'win'. However the buzz soon wore off and no prizes were forthcoming. That is until the sight of the postman unsuccessfully trying to jam something into my mail box brought me from my house yesterday afternoon.

Congratulations!! As a Disney Kids Zone Member, you are one of five winners of the Beverly Hills Chihuahua Competition held on the Disney DVD website. Enclosed is your special prize and we hope your new DVD brings you and your family many hours of magical entertainment.

In the flurry of mouse clicks I cannot remember entering this competition. But I guess you gotta be in it to win it. So please excuse me, I have many hours of magical entertainment awaiting me.

IzaacTA now catering for visual learners.

I never thought I'd be party to such nonsense but apparently my blog posts now need to include pictures for the visual learners.

This was definitely an oversight on my behalf. I will endeavour in future to find an appropriate picture for all posts. I am still waiting for the reflectors to get back to me with their thoughts. Hmm, that's an interesting thought... do reflectors ever post comments?

Young men

I am a young Christian man. Young Christian men speed when driving and waste their money. This has led me to conclude that the last parts of a young man to be converted are his wallet and his right foot.

Jesus comforting words

I led a Bible study last night on Luke 11:37-12:12. Jesus words in Luke 12:6-7 reminded me of the 'daily devotions' I used to hear when I listened to the local Christian radio station (I have since repented).

Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God. Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.

I can almost hear it now, "And remember when you are down today that you are worth more than many sparrows to God." Of course, gentle Jesus meek and mild would be less likely to utter the words immediately preceding these:

I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!

   - Luke 12:4-5

"What's the worst they can do? They can only kill you." What comforting words from Jesus.

Now, I would also appreciate help on the sparrow-trade in first century Palestine. Why would you be purchasing a pair of sparrows? Did people keep pets? Surely the nutritional value is not sufficient for them to be a food source. Thoughts?

iPastor

Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Seattle is  a good Christian brother. But sometimes good Christian brothers get it wrong. Including beaming a video of a sermon in to satellite campuses all around the world. I am still undecided about the proper response. My friend Gordon Cheng has an interesting perspective.

Putting him up on a video most weeks may be a little like having a woman preacher; theologically and biblically questionable but a darn sight better than a live preacher preaching heresy.

The plan of global domination involves a local pastor who preaches 10 or so weeks of the year and pushes play the other 42 weeks. I heard one person quip:

When Driscoll talks of the need to screen planters (for their suitability), perhaps he means to plant screeners.

But all jokes aside it is an amazing development. Having heard the gospel-centred preaching from Driscoll I am certain his desire comes from a good place. My thoughts which I've presented elsewhere are that the greatest loss in beaming in our iPastor is we are unable to see their life and doctrine matching up. The benefit of proximity allows us to witness if they practice what they preach. This is seen in smaller congregations with your traditional flesh-pastor (though I have reservations about this description). Yet even if (God forbid!) our churches grow and we don't have a deep personal relationship with the Bible teacher we still see them as a husband and father, the car they drive, the type of person they are drawn to speak with after church, we meet with people they do have a personal relationship with, we see the respect of congregation members, we meet people converted through their personal ministry. In short, we see not just their doctrine, but their life as well.

Prayer and tetris

Confession time. I recently had to give up one of my great loves: Tetris. It was becoming all consuming. Whenever I would close my eyes to sleep, or more specifically to pray, I would begin formulating a game of tetris in my mind. I was dreaming of tetris when I slept (and that straight line would just never come.) In the end, my options were to give up sleeping and prayer or tetris. I went with the latter.

Learning Styles

BEGIN RANT.

I am not a fan of learning styles. The seemingly endless discussion of learning styles has been going on in Christian circles since I arrived at uni back in 2003. Are you a reflector, a theorist, an activist or a pragmatist? Do you learn kinesthetically, visually, by writing or auditorily? It really gets my goat. 

Now, that's actually not the full picture as learning styles are a really helpful tool in making sure as a teacher you tailor your communication to be as effective as possible. There's nothing worse than putting forward information only to be speaking a different language to the hearers. What I loathe so much is that learning styles have become a right. They have gone from the domain of the information giver choosing to communicate through different methods, to an audience member insisting that one must cater to their learning style. I have previously, in a bible study group been stopped mid-question to rephrase because "No, that question just isn't working for my learning style. Can you put it another way?" I hadn't even finished the question! 

Part of the problem is that I'm a so-called 'activist'. Which means whenever I vent my spleen regarding learning styles I'm told "Oh, that's such an activist thing to say." How can you argue with that kind of logic? 

I say enough is enough. There is great benefit in catering for different learning styles, but there's also a limit. Jesus didn't stop halfway through the sermon on the mount and hand out play-dough so the kinesthetic learners could mould his words into the relevant object.

All I desire is that discussion of learning styles be limited to training workshops, rather than a continuous distraction during every meeting of my life. It's unfortunate to see 'that's just my learning style' used as an excuse for sin. It's an insistence upon my right above all others. Perhaps it would be better if we could use our learning style as an opportunity to serve others. A chance to put others needs before our own. An opportunity to deny ourselves for the sake of others.

Thankfully for every person who abuses learning styles, I have seen also those who lovingly deny their rights, often leaving their comfort zone for the benefit of others. Reflectors who think out loud for the sake of others in the group. Theorists who act without reason. Pragmatists who let the theorists dot the i's and cross the t's. Activists who stay till the end of the meeting. Now that is the way of love. 

END RANT

And away we go...

Well I've finally made it into the blogosphere. Therefore, I hereby retract any snide remarks about bloggers that have previously exited my mouth. I want to be the first to point out the title is a misnomer. But my other thought was "Izaac becomes a reflector" which would have given too much kudos to those who wish to continue with endless ruminations on learning styles (a future blog post). So 'Izaac thinks aloud' it is.