What's the point?

Just on that last post, one of the most successful (in terms of engagement with non-Christians) missions we did at Cumberland Campus of Sydney Uni was on Ecclesiastes with the theme, 'What's the point?'

Simple slogan, but it really got people thinking about why they do what they do.

Is religion still a private thing?

The generation of my grandparents are notoriously quiet on the matter of religion. It's up there with 'death' in terms of conversation killers. Though perhaps politics is the better equivalent. Unlike death which is to be ignored, opinions on politics - like religion - are often held with fervour but not appropriate conversation in refined company. Perhaps it is the hangover of the fierce Catholic/Protestant divide in which my grandparents were raised. While the division is still in existence theologically, it is no longer so ferocious in dividing individual families, politics and even suburbs. Whatever the case, what you believed was a 'personal' thing and not a regular topic for conversation.

My generation predominantly remains reluctant to talk about religion. Yet this reticence comes from a different place to our grandparents. In a society blurred by postmodern thought, what you believe remains a 'personal' thing, not because it's impolite conversation fodder but because what you believe is truth for you. There is no need to discuss what is clearly subjective, and equally valid.

Experience tells me that my friends don't truly reason out what they believe. So to get a bit philosophical for a moment, they still hold beliefs, but it's not a fundamentally reasoned outcome. There is no doubt this comes in part through the failure of substantial discussion with others, and so in unconscious ignorance they remain. The destruction of truth philosophically leads them to a subjective truth which they believe to be true (the postmodernism hasn't reached it's true practical endpoint of believing nothing) but the relative nature of belief means these beliefs are held unexamined.

Now this is where it gets tricky.

No doubt there are times I take my heritage for granted. And yet part of that heritage has been people explaining the reason why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe as Christians (Especially in terms of what we do it is often explained through changing rather than merely justifying what is currently done). So for example, the reason the majority of our time of gathering is spent studying the Scriptures is fairly firm in my mind both through the biblical imperative and the historical tradition on which we stand. And really as the Bible is studied, the meaning of why we do what we do, and why we believe what we believe is illuminated further. I am constantly being sharpened in my understanding.

So how can I appropriately engage with my friends about Jesus? My explanation of why I believe what I believe comes across as arrogance. Or is met with indifference. Perhaps even more bizarrely is the thought process that as I defend what I believe, it is as if I am accusing them of attacking me. Inquiries as to their beliefs are met with puzzlement over why it matters.

Is it all about finding missing bricks in their belief wall, in the hope the whole thing comes crashing down? Is it merely proclaiming the truth that will get people to engage in deeper thought.

I'm not normally this philosophical in my practice. I just find what works through trial and error and talking with others. But there's a big roadblock I'm finding here.

Ambivalence is really hard to evangelise. Angry disagreement I can counter, but failure to engage is a different beast altogether.

Were you challenged by the talk?

Tracey Gowing has done it again. Put words to something that has been sitting uncomfortably with me for quite a while.

The repeated refrain that is echoed after sermons across the evangelical world is, 'I was really challenged by the talk'.

Tracey's question was, 'We hear a lot about being challenged, but are we being changed?'

Hell under fire

If I opened someone's blog who had simply cut and pasted a sermon, I'd probably be lucky to get past the first paragraph before finding something more interesting. Yet that is exactly what I'm about to do. Well, it's more a sermonette really. For one of our subjects at Moore, a month or so back we were separated into small groups, given a passage each and the task of preparing a 10 minute talk for presentation and critique.

Thanks to the latest 9Marks eJournal, the topic of Hell has been especially prevalent in online discussion for the past couple of weeks. The passage for my ten minute talk was Mark 9:42-48, and as this is one of the numerous places Jesus mentions hell, and it's also where I took the emphasis of the sermon, I thought it might be of interest to others. Also, most preachers like seeing the way others write.

This is the result of about 2 hours worth of reflection and work after church on the night before I gave the talk, so it was well and truly open for critique and very rusty on delivery. After the feedback I realised I should have focused more on sin, which is actually quite a big omission. But anyways, here it is for those interested. No title, no outline.

Mark 9:42-48

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. 43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ 

Today, the doctrine of hell is under fire. Hell is under fire. I’m not sure if you’ve come across this, but people don’t like the idea of hell. Which… is kind of the idea. But more and more, well-meaning Christians, unable supposedly to reconcile the love of God shown in sending Jesus with the idea of eternal judgment coming from the same hands, keep minimizing the possibility that God could eternally punish. To send people to hell. Its much easier to stomach the idea of perhaps annihilation or some kind of period of judgment followed by ultimate salvation for all. But what are we to make of this? Should we care about hell? Should we give a damn about damnation?

It is to this we turn our attention today.

The context v42

Where we cut into the narrative, Jesus is addressing his disciples;

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.

You can tell immediately that we’ve kind of jumped into the middle of something that’s already going on. And we need to zoom out for a moment to get our bearings.

We’ve reached a bit of a climax in the narrative of Mark. Just prior to the exchange we’re looking at, the great secret of Jesus’ identity has been revealed. He is the long-awaited Christ. The messiah, the king of God’s kingdom. And Jesus explains that the coming of God’s kingdom will perhaps not be quite as expected. And so surrounding this passage and on into the following chapters, Jesus is fleshing out what it means that he is the Christ, and what his death and resurrection will mean for the disciples understanding of the Kingdom of God.

And todays section is really the backend of one of these discussions that began in 9:33. Basically Jesus’ followers were having a fight about which one of them was the greatest. Jesus used this dispute as an opportunity to teach his disciples. Specifically, that 9:35 those who are greatest in the kingdom are those who are ‘servant of all’. Like all good orators Jesus used props to communicate his point and so he’d grabbed himself a child and kind of plonked him in the middle of the twelve to show what it meant to care for the smallest in society.

Do you see now how Jesus is still continuing with these thoughts here in v42.

42 “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin (THE CHILD), it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. (WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A FOLLOWER)

This is what Jesus is saying. If you want to know what it means to be in the kingdom, you will serve people. You will look after the little ones. The kingdom of God is an upside down kingdom, where the greatest, are those who serve the least. We know what Jesus is saying, don’t we? For we know the outrage when the innocent are tarnished at the hands of the guilty. Its an emotional plea, but the point is there: God’s kingdom does not operate that way.

2. Jesus is clearly a master communicator. Grabbing the child to illustrate his point, turning the imagery of greatest on its head to emphasise the least. But Jesus’ wordcraft goes on. Just like it would be better to be sleeping with the fishes than to cause a child to sin, so too would it be better to and he provides a number of unpleasant amputations that would be more desirable than to miss out on the kingdom of God.

43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, 48 ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’

As a form of communication this is strong, is it not? Don’t you feel drawn in? Jesus says all these really unpleasant things, that you would never want: To cut off a hand or a foot or tear out your eye – they are actually desirable compared to sinning and going to hell. It’s a common rhetorical device, there was a comedy song about a break-up I used to have on CD where the singer said ‘I’d rather have a hundred thousand paper cuts on my face, than spend one more minute with you.’

But, you may be asking, is Jesus just exaggerating? (Or for those who just finished the HSC – using hyperbole?) When he says it would be better to cut your hand off, is he actually suggesting if people’s hands are causing them to sin, they should cut both hands off? (Which I would imagine would be easier with the first one.) But is Jesus for real? Is he being literal?

Jesus is using exaggeration. For, who is without sin? Jesus followers themselves had just been sinning in pride as they talked of who is the greatest. And how would they have gone without tongues? And yet, does he seriously mean it?

We cannot conclude anything but, Jesus means this, seriously! Jesus meant what he said. V43, It really is better to enter life crippled than with two hands go to hell. It really is 45 better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. It really is v47 better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. Jesus really means this. Literally! So while he may be exaggerating the amputations, his intention is absolutely solemn.

For what is driving this whole discussion is the horror of hell. It’s not simply pointing out the good bits, that to follow Jesus is to v45 ‘enter life’. You know, that somehow Jesus is ALL ABOUT LIFE. No, part of the rhetoric is you really don’t want to miss out on the kingdom, but this isn’t done here by comparing how GREAT the kingdom is. No, here’s some stuff that you think is horrible, but is actually to be desired compared to how bad God’s punishment is. It would be better to be crippled, blind and lame than to go to hell.

The words Jesus describes hell with are not pleasant. It is to be avoided at all costs. It is the place where one is ‘thrown’ (v45) which hints at the idea of deliberate judgment which is expanded elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is the place of unquenchable fire, which hints at the ongoing nature of it, which also is expanded upon elsewhere. But Jesus point here is not to give a nice, tight description of hell. It’s not to show off his rhetorical flourishes as a great public speaker. Jesus wants his followers to avoid this place like the plague. Jesus’ greatest desire is that this description acts as a deterrent, and that people would be spared the judgment of God.

You see, this is what Jesus was on about: saving sinners from hell. He had already told them as the Christ he was to suffer and die and after three days, rise again. Jesus was so concerned that his people would avoid hell, that he went there himself on their behalf. And it must be added my behalf, and yours too, if you have trusted in Jesus death and resurrection on your behalf.

And so Jesus plans are so much greater than simply to settle petty squabbles amongst the disciples about who is the greatest. And I’m sure he hoped they would be above that too. Which is why v 49-50 talk again about how the disciples should relate to one another in the kingdom of God. It’s picking up and resolving that strand of thought that began with the fight about who was the greatest. But thankfully, Jesus also mentioned there they are meant to be like salt, and as whoever broke up the passages either had no idea themselves or assumed we wouldn’t know what Jesus was talking about, conveniently left them out of my section to cover today. But it’s the full circle, you see?

Who’s greatest in the kingdom? The one who is the least. But make sure you are that one who is the last, the servant of all, the one who sees themselves as NOTHING, before God. For that is how you enter, and avoid the eternal punishment of hell.

Do we need to bring back the fire and brimstone preachers? Turn or burn? That kind of thing? I’m not sure we can say that as a direct outworking of this passage, per se. But we certainly can’t discount it. And I know personally I must repent of some of the ridicule, which I tend to give this caricature. There is a particular unbalanced nature to this type of preaching. But am I any better to have the temptation perhaps not to deny the reality of hell, but to downplay it, or ignore it. Have we gone too far away from hell-fire preaching? Would Jonathon Edwards even get a hearing in most churches in Australia with his sermon titled, ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’?

So, we are back where we began. Hell under fire. I can really sympathise with those who wish to downplay hell. It’s a frightening thought. It’s a frightening concept. And yet in one sense these people completely get it. That’s exactly how Jesus saw it. A horrible place to be avoided. Don’t you get it? It’s meant to frighten us! It’s meant to bring us to our knees before God wanting him to spare us.

And yet though they completely get it, on another level, those who think on hell and God’s eternal judgment and the unquenchable fire and think, ‘It just can’t be so.’ At that time they completely miss the point. It’s meant to bring us to our knees not to imagine punishment away, or rationalize hell to nothingness. But rather to be broken and fearful but trusting in the one who was the Christ who suffered and died and rose again on the third day, that we might never taste the eternal punishment of God.

Wasting your life blogging?

Okay, so we all know blogging isn't a waste of time. But like most things, there is such a phenomenon as 'too much of a good thing'. For those GTD enthusiasts out there in blogland, like you, I am always on the lookout for ways to streamline my data input.

So here's a couple of developments to my productivity I've made during my college holidays.

Disencumbered Email
I disencumber emails twice a day - at the start and towards the end. I was going to say I "check emails" but this is an unhelpful term.  I only sit down to do email if I have time to both read and action upon the emails. My goal each time I log in is to log out with zero emails. That's right, zero emails. I go to bed with no emails in my in-box and a clear mind. I don't care if Gmail gives me 8GB of data, I want that page bare.

Sure, you say, but I might need the information from some of those emails. If that is the case, then you need to put that information in a better place. Most of the few emails I need info from end up in my calendar, in my phone notes (e.g.@Shops), or in a new word document in a project folder (let the GTD reader understand).

The only tag/folder I have in my email account - other than Inbox and Bin - is Awaiting reply, which I tag as I send. As the response to sent emails come into the inbox, they then get deleted and thus out of the awaiting reply folder.

Once the inbox is at zero, I find it helpful to log out of Google as, out of habit I often click on Gmail during the day while I'm meant to be working, and this stops it from opening immediately, and slaps me back into vigilance.

The hardest part of this process is getting the email to zero. The other difficult part is keeping it there.

Increasing Blog Love by Decreasing Blog Love
The second development I've made is prioritising blogs. Sorry, dear reader (many of whose blogs I read), but I have given you all a value and ranked you accordingly. I'm loathe to share this next productivity step as it may mean less traffic to some people's blogs, but here goes anyway.

I'm a Google Reader user. RSS all the way in this household. Consequently, it's very easy to just add a bunch of blogs of people who I know, and anyone who comments semi-regularly here. However, the large amount of blogs means oftentimes I just go and purge a whole heap of you (in a moment of being overwhelmed). Usually I then feel guilty/out of the loop, and add you again. It's a recurring cycle.

But rather than delete the blogs that only update occasionally, or that interest me less than others, instead I've created a Weekly folder in Google Reader.

Those 12 blogs that are my daily fix, I have left in the regular sidebar, so I can see them all without scrolling down. The remainder are placed in the "Weekly" folder and I check them once a week, usually on a Friday. At this point there's usually well over 100 unread posts (though they don't clog up my vision as the folder is contracted and the number just slowly rises).

So as I empty my email each morning and afternoon, I also read the '12 chosen ones' (or 'saints' if you will), and ensure they are also at zero. On the weekly check I scan all the accumulated posts and open in a tab any I'm interested in further. The remainder are 'marked as read' and I gradually read through and comment on the open tabs.

I have taken a partial screenshot of my Reader sidebar so you can see what I mean, though I have blurred out the names of all the 'saints' (except for Sarah) so as not to offend anyone. But it's best to assume that you are one of the chosen 12.

This arrangement allows me to read and comment on blogs that I otherwise would delete. Thus by decreasing blog love (ranking) I am actually increasing blog love (reading rather than deletion).

Have you got any productivity tips?

Bear Grylls

Bear Grylls interviewed in the Herald. He became a Christian through the Alpha course many years ago.

As for faith, Grylls is an enthusiastic Christian. "Faith is a big part of my life," he says easily. "A real backbone. It's easy not to care when everything's going well, but there are not many atheists in the death zone of Everest."

He and his children say prayers together at night. But even with divine inter vention, would he encourage them if they wanted the same sort of life he's had? Grylls looks sheepish.

"They're my kids," he laughs. "They can do anything they want ... just not dangerous things! No, I hope they'll have far more sensible jobs. My job's a great job for me, but I really don't want them to ... I'm so covered in scars and injuries, and I've been really lucky."....

..."I do believe that life is short and you've got to live it boldly. But it's also precious and you've got to be careful. And kids are so reckless. Like Jesse - I found him yesterday, abseiling with a rope round his body, about 12 feet down the cliff. And I said, 'Stop! You've just wrapped this around your chest, it's not strong enough. What are you doing? What's your back-up plan?'

"I really drum that into them ... They watch me on TV doing this stuff, but I say to them, 'Papa always has a back-up plan. If that vine breaks, I always have a handhold. If I hadn't had back-up plans, I would have died a long time ago.' And they do get it." He laughs again. "Well, they sort of get it. Of course, now they've started saying that their back-up plan is Jesus."

LegaLISTic

Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced Biblical genealogies are extremely important and often overlooked. But Sarah asked this morning if we were just being legalistic as we sat there over breakfast reading lists of obscure names from Nehemiah. It wasn't a genealogy, but a series of different rolls. But to be honest, the names meant absolutely nothing to me.

It grates against me to skip the names. It goes against my understanding of the way God's word works, and it's just bad practice. But I know why I don't skip these lists, but I'm not sure I know why I do read them. Oftentimes, there are incidental descriptions of people, or throwbacks to significant Jewish leaders or to God's promises to individuals, and the roles of the people (e.g. Priests, singers) within the nation are also important. But why don't I just skim-read the names and read the interesting bits?

My gut says as I read these names I should be feeling gratitude at the faithfulness of God in restoring this remnant to the city as promised. But I get that from the story of Nehemiah, not the roll call. Do these names simply serve as incidental background material to demonstrate this remnant has returned, and that God is faithful?

6 days a week

Alastair Bain sparked some interesting conversation over on his blog with this comment:

So I'm still in Sydney. And I'm hearing more of the "if you're in full time paid ministry and you aren't working 6 days a week then you're lazy" mantra. They talk of the creation mandate.

But I've never heard these guys say that if a lawyer or teacher or carpenter or carpet layer doesn't work 6 days a week then she's lazy. But it would follow wouldn't it?

I'm really just recording this so that I have my own record, but to fill you in, my first comment was:

It's interesting, isn't it. The revealed pattern is 6 days work, 1 day rest. Surely it's a sign of our affluence that in our country we only work five days.

But the expectation of most churches is that people work 5 days in their job and give a day to serving at church. So this is a lot of the reasoning behind ministers I know working 6 days.

Would it be godly to have an attitude that you 'rest as much as you need to, in order to work as well as you can?' I have a feeling that would lead more people to work 7 days than 4.

Stu fired back with this helpful comment:

The problem is the "revealed" pattern isn't easily relatable to the modern working life.

1 day rest in the OT didn't mean a day off vocational work in order to mow the lawns, help out round the house, cook tea and play with the kids, it meant absolutely no work!

Christians in vocational ministry ought to be exemplars of both balance between domestic work (eg. helping bath the kids) and vocational work, and balance between work and play.

Sadly, it seems to me, many ministers are so absorbed by one particular type of work they end up sacrificing their families and themselves, and not in a good way, but a wholly unproductive way.

Well, Stu certainly got me thinking.

The problem is the "revealed" pattern isn't easily relatable to the modern working life.

1 day rest in the OT didn't mean a day off vocational work in order to mow the lawns, help out round the house, cook tea and play with the kids, it meant absolutely no work!

Is it really so unrelatable? As soon as we start talking about what constitutes work, we're asking the wrong questions, aren't we? Rest is rest. God says rest, so rest. Whatever feels like work is work. God says take a day off, so take a day off. Sure, accuse me of ignorance and idealism, but it all seems pretty straightforward in my mind.

Christians in vocational ministry ought to be exemplars of both balance between domestic work (eg. helping bath the kids) and vocational work, and balance between work and play.

I agree, but to join this discussion re:family/work balance to taking a day off is not necessarily needed.

Either way, personally I think balance is the wrong word. I long held the view that family was my first ministry, which was a healthy corrective. But this is also fundamentally flawed. My first obligation, and as a family our first obligation is not to each other but to serving God. That will mean I'm not neglectful of Sarah, and also that she will take priority oftentimes over serving the wider body of Christ, but not always.

But of course this all revolves around the particular temperament of your wife and family. I am blessed with a wife who is happy to bash me around the ears if I'm not caring for her, but is also happy to sacrifice her own needs for others.

Even last night, Sarah wanted to head straight home after church, but I ended up in an important discussion with a guy who was having a hard time. Even though we'd discussed leaving straight away, as Sarah came towards me with the "I'm ready to go" look in her eyes, a simple subtle shake of my head to say, "Don't come over now" was met with another subtle nod, and she went and caught up with someone else for a while. No bitterness on the way home, we just spoke about how best to care for the guy I was talking to.

Heresy comes before orthodoxy

My church history textbook examines the common claim that 'heresy comes before orthodoxy'. That is, the imposition of the truth in a narrow spectrum is imposed only in the light of a diversity of perspectives. The sister statement to this idea is that 'Evangelicals are defined by reaction'.

These claims to reaction being the prominent factor behind orthodoxy is at one level insightful. There is a sense where disagreement invokes sharpening. Specifically with evangelicals that we see something wrong and do the opposite, oftentimes guided by doing things differently rather than doing things correctly.

Yet at another level this claim fails to recognise that somewhere back there is the truth. That the truth to which evangelicals are seeking to submit themselves did not essentially evolve. Nor was it the exercise of those in power exerting influence, or even of authenticating that which was most widely accepted.

No, at all points the claim to orthodoxy goes back to a clearly perceived level of agreement about Jesus which was accepted from the apostolic age. All which has developed in our understanding is firmly grounded in that initial revelation.

In other words, orthodoxy came first.

Another win for the haters

I'm not neurotic. Okay, maybe a little bit. But I've just been a bit jittery of late.

If you'll allow me just a little self-reflection, a few months ago I deleted every tag I had on this blog that related to individuals. I didn't want to appear that I was offering comment and judgment on individual people, because that has never been the vibe of this blog, and it would be unfair to perpetuate that view of individual criticism. Every negative issue I've ever had with blogging, and just about every time Sarah has suggested that I should perhaps give it away, has come when non-regular readers to this blog have stumbled upon something I've said, drawn conclusions (usually that I'm a negative and hypercritcal person), and thus left with a negative opinion of me.

Christian circles are ridiculously incestuous, and once a reputation has started to grow, it can be extremely hazardous for fellowship.

So last night I deleted almost all of my tags. Now for most of you, this won't make a scrap of difference, but just know I've been spooked. Tags are usually navigated by visitors. Click on a tag that you have a particularly strong opinion on, see where I stand, and make your judgment. Yet this approach has absolutely no understanding of the regular tone of my reflections. I've become so concerned with people taking things I've said out of the regular context of this blog, that I've now forced them (by removing the tags) to read my posts within a broader context.

I began and continue to blog as a means of self-reflection. That's why I called my blog Izaac thinks aloud. I was an activist type of guy who never paused for a moment to reflect on what I was doing and learning and if I should be doing things differently. Having had this deficiency brought to my attention by my co-workers, I decided to build reflection into my schedule. Any comment I make on individuals or organisations is almost always reflective of some deficiency, some way of thinking that is unnatural to me, and what comes out on the blog represents my attempt at analysing the events of my life in order to be a better servant of Jesus.

Don't take this as me backing away from anything I've said (though to be sure there's things I would say and do differently, and probably things I've changed my mind on). Also, I don't plan on changing too much about the way I do things here as it is after all my blog.

There's something a bit sad about it, but I've been frightened of the way my words can be used against me to present a caricature of who I am. This is a win for the haters.

Just so you know...

I consider giving up blogging at least twice a week.

Lightbulb moment at Moore

A common question I've been getting lately is how I've found first year at Moore College.

The most prominent thought I've had is just how basic everything has been. It's been challenging at times, encouraging, rebuking, and yet extremely consistent with all I have been previously taught. This works in me a great thankfulness for the excellent Christian instruction which I have received before College.

Basically, there's been few lightbulb moments. In this regard, it is a firm stamp of approval on the College's success. There was a time where Peter Bolt's narrative approach to Mark would have been groundbreaking. There was a time where Biblical Theology would have been a transforming influence on students understanding the whole Bible. That time is not today. We were taught by those who were changed by these approaches. There remains good reason for keeping first year as generally introductory, and it certainly has allowed me to keep my languages under control, and get back into study (read: realising I've never really studied in my life). But I guess in answer to the question 'How have I found it?' I have to say, 'Reassuring'.

I'm not sure what I expected from Bible College exams, but I think I was hoping for open book - open Bible, that is. I kind of assumed you'd get a Bible to use. Our first exam biblical theology we were supplied a Bible. So I then guessed I'd continue to get one, until I began to freak out when I read my syllabus again and found that for our three hour doctrine exam we weren't to be given a Bible. Oh well, it's a good thing we all know doctrine isn't based on the Bible.

It's fine to get through a doctrine and even a biblical theology exam without a Bible, but I kind of assumed I'd get one for New Testament. It's one thing to remember a couple of proof texts across the Bible, but when depth of knowledge is needed for an exam which only covers Ephesians and 1 Peter, I thought we'd get a Bible for sure. No. Freak out again.

However I was reassured by comments from Con Campbell (there's a rumour going around that he likes to be called Const, which just makes me think 'Constipated'). Con provided a real lightbulb moment for me. It was so simple, but it just got me. Know the book.

Simple, right? Know the book.

Con said, we just need to know it, to understand the movement, to grasp the thought process of the author, to get into his mindframe. That way we will know more than an outline, or some key verses but we'll be able to navigate the whole letter. This is what allows us to move thematically across the letter as well as framing each section within the wider context. Be the letter.

I think this is why so much of my study of the Bible just goes in my head and straight back out again. I am good on the details for a little while, but I haven't hooked it onto the wider movement of the writing. It's kind of why having now preached Micah twice I feel like I'm now starting to understand it and probably finally ready to preach it.

What I'm trying to avoid is the kind of superficial understanding of the text which leads to fairy floss teaching. Where we simply dig around long enough to get the main idea. This is unsustainable if we are to continue to learn from and be changed by the text before we seek to teach and apply it to others. I want to dwell in the mind of God.

Know the book.

Moore College Open Day

If you're interested in Full-time, Part-time or External Study to be better equipped for ministry and mission, come along to the 2010 Moore College Open Day, Saturday September 25.

The day starts with morning tea at 10am and continues through to 2:30pm. BBQ lunch included (hey we don't just attract non-Christians with free food!)

A great chance to see the college first-hand.

Here is another advertisement that I wasn't invited to be part of:

Despite what the video may suggest, we also welcome non-Mac students. You know, Jew and Gentile, Male and Female, Slave and Free, Mac and PC.

On any other day...

While I'm on sermons, I was mightily encouraged by a talk I heard on Colossians this morning. As the section at the end of Col 1:1-14 starts getting into the outworking of salvation as we 'live a life worthy', the temptation is to move into works based salvation, or at the very least forget the ongoing unmerited nature of the rescue whilst we focus on the one way I need to act differently once I leave church. This temptation was avoided by couching and prefacing the entire discussion in the context of thanksgiving. How thankfulness is the starting point because of the undeserving essence of the deliverance. How good to remember this, when we are constantly on the lookout for 'real application'.

A brilliant illustration also cropped up about the trapped minors in Chile, needing to rely completely on their rescuers. Which in the extremity of the situation is already insightful. But get this: The next line (moving us back into the language of Colossians 1:12), was "Their rescue will transfer them from the darkness and into the light". On any other day of the year, such a Dad joke just wouldn't pass muster. But on Father's Day, it was entirely appropriate.

An interesting theory was also put forward that the 'bearing fruit in every good work' of Col 1:10 was an echo of creation in Genesis. This would then also offer more reasons behind the 'image' language that follows in the remainder of the chapter. Yet seeing as though Paul has already used the phrase 'bearing fruit and growing' as a general description of the progress of the gospel, I'm not convinced Paul is necessary calling creation to mind with the phrase. But it is worth further thought.

Tangent:
As a married bloke without kids, I was asked by a friend how I found Father's Day at church today. In a word, patronising. For some reason the image of two Christians at the Supermarket with shopping trolleys is popping in my mind. You know the moment where you come around the corner and only just avoid a collision, but in the real world someone usually gives way, and the other proceeds. And yet in my mind, the two Christian's (knowing perhaps that the last will be first) are trapped in an eternal humility stand-off with neither willing to proceed before the other. That kind of frustrating thing, where you know the intention is noble but the practice lacks something in application. That's how I felt today. Well meaning Christians have understood that these celebrations can be sadness for some. Just like Mother's Day can causes pain for many, for those whose mother's have died, for single women, for those unable to have children, for those who have lost a child. And so well-meaning Christians tend to turn it into a 'Woman's Day'. That's what happened today. All men were invited to participate in everything. It was sweet, but patronising.

One thing done well was the reminder in the kids spot that God is our Father and that whether we know our Dad or not, whether we live with him or not, whether he is a good Dad or not, we can celebrate Father's Day because we have our heavenly Father who we can call Dad, and who loves us.

But as for just making Father's Day a 'Man's Day', I think it's taking it too far. There's being insensitive  and then there's offending those who are sensitive. Sure, avoid being insensitive, but the second is inevitable, so don't try and defeat it. Our society has the celebration, so let's celebrate and honour our Dad's. Just make sure we pray for all those for whom this is a time of sadness. Acknowledge the sadness, pray for us, mention it a couple of times on the way if necessary. But please, I repeat, please never ever make us stand up with all the Dad's. Then hopefully we'll avoid the situation like today where despite the call for all blokes to stand, the guy behind me remained because he knew it was Father's Day, but those well-meaning ladies surrounding him kept egging him on 'Do you have kids?', 'Stand-up deary', 'It's for all the men', 'It doesn't matter that it's Father's Day'.

Allegory is alive and well

After listening to Mumford & Sons on the long drive from Sydney to Tamworth, I was in the M's on my iPod and keen for random sermon time. So Mark Driscoll it was. Sarah was just about to fall to sleep, but became so fascinated by the approach to Nehemiah that she sat bolt upright beside me, and listened in.

Okay, so it's not quite allegory, but did you know Nehemiah was an urban church planter? Neither did I.

Mark Driscoll, from here;

As we're dealing with urban ministry, I think one of the greatest but most overlooked examples is Nehemiah. Everyone likes to read him as a leadership manual, but he's really an urban ministry guy so all of his his leadership principles are in-particularly applicable to urban ministry and urban church planting, because in my opinion Nehemiah was planting a church for the purpose of transforming the city of Jerusalem.

Considering MD's huge focus on Christology, his lack of biblical theology in this sermon really surprised me. He started to go there...

What I love about Nehemiah is that it's about a city. It's a about a very important city, it's about the city from which the gospel of Jesus was to ring out to the nations of the earth. You remember early on in the book of Acts Jesus actually said that the gospel was to ring out from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, to the ends of the earth. And so Jersualem was incredibly important in God's economy and plan, that Jerusalem was to be headquarters for world mission, evangelisation and church-planting. And as you all know it is not accidental but actually providential, that God would chose a major urban city at which to begin the ministry of the news of Jesus spreading out to the world. Well, the problem in the city of Jerusalem is that it was in no way ready for the coming of Jesus, and was not set up in such a way that it could be an exemplary city for the other cities of the world, that it could be an outpost through which communication of the gospel could flow. And so God's going to call this man Nehemiah to go to work in the city of Jerusalem for the purpose of planting a church there.

This is where it ends. The following 49 minutes reads Nehemiah as a church-planting manual. Keep a diary like Nehemiah, do research, align yourself with supporters, appoint administrators, don't be surprised by enemies like Sanballat and Tobiah (a.k.a. bloggers) etc.

I'm still a bit flabbergasted by the whole thing. It's not as if the illustrations weren't valid, but there was really no placing the story within the wider biblical narrative for any extended period of time.

The above quote continues...

And so God's going to call this man Nehemiah to go to work in the city of Jerusalem for the purpose of planting a church there. If you're a dispensationalist, it is a church that he is planting. And he is planting a church there, for the purpose of seeing the renewal of the entire city, which had fallen into disrepair.

As I said above, the approach to the Bible just really took me aback. I don't think I've heard MD on the OT before. He fails to distinguish if Nehemiah is descriptive or prescriptive. There was lots of good wisdom in there for church-planters, but not a lot of insight into reading Nehemiah.

Happy Birthday Sarah

25 things I love about my wife
1. That we laugh together all the time.
2. That you agree with me when I label your hair as 'mousy-brown'
3. That you find joy in simple things such as a cup of tea in the morning.
4. That you fall asleep 5 minutes into every roadtrip (allowing me free rein on the iPod)
5. That you wear flat shoes and that you dress modestly for others, and ask what I think.
6. That you are coming 2nd in the Moore College Rugby League Tipping Competition, and its not a fluke.
7. That you love cooking more than eating.
8. That you encourage me to take leadership.
9. That you care more about what people say about me than I do.
10. That you blog.
11. That you want to spend all our holidays with family.
12. That you are maturing in Christ, and I can see your growth.
13. That you don't let me get away with only giving you half my attention.
14. That you can rebuke me by telling me things like, "You're starting to treat me like one of your mates".
15. That you always remember significant things going on in other people's lives and ask them about it.
16. That you were number 12 in the world at Fruit Ninja.
17. That you are both frugal and yet not afraid to spend money if we need to.
18. That you knit things and make craft just to give away.
19. That you don't complain about your life.
20. That you tell me when I've stopped praying with you, and that I need to 'man-up'.
21. That you love God's people, even when it's hard.
22. That you get on with my family, even when I don't.
23. That you are organised.
24. That you get upset when you hear bad Bible teaching.
25. That you said you'd love me until Christ returns or we are parted by death.

So Happy Birthday wifey. I love remembering the things I appreciate about you, but mostly because it reminds me again that our marriage is based not upon each others abilities or personality, which God may choose to take away at any time, but that we made our promises to each other. I bless God for giving you to me, if only for this lifetime.

Now, enough with the soppiness. I'm about to gag.