The Lord's Supper

One thing about churches trying to be relevant is they give us lots to talk about.

I know of a church who updated the Lord's supper to be eating and drinking potato chips and coca-cola instead of bread and wine. What do you reckon? Is it kosher?

Personally I quite enjoy it when the Lord's supper is celebrated as an entire meal. This isn't because I'm a poor student and my favourite word is 'free' but because it feels a lot closer to the original intention.

The Coke thing just seems tacky.

Receiving the baton

The second letter we have of Paul's correspondence to Timothy is a well-mined part of the Scriptures. It has something for everyone. Apart from the bizarre fascination of reflecting on the last recorded words of someone such as Paul, there is the general dynamic of exploring an older wiser individual writing from their years of experience and offloading this wisdom to their young charge. It taps into a relational yearning of many of us as we or our parents and grandparents age.

Because the life situation Paul is in when he wrote the letter is so extreme, we tend to read the whole letter through Paul's eyes. Some of Paul's letters don't lend themselves especially well to seeking specific individual application to the reader. It is there of course, but as many letters are written to entire churches there is some extra steps to take in order to satisfy our western individualistic mindset. As this letter is written to an individual it more easily has us asking individualistic questions. But from whose vantage point should we read? The writer or the recipient? The half dozen or so sermon series I've heard have taken more of a Paul view talking about 'famous last words' and 'passing the baton'. It's not that the view from Timothy's perspective is ignored, but the scale is weighted heavily to Paul's end.

Now that's all fine. But the passing the baton angle is helpful to demonstrate the potential issues. Because of 2 Timothy 2:2 we think of this as one place that encourages us to pass on our message of Jesus to others. Who these 'others' are is dependent on the congregation. But if we read ourselves as Paul rather than as Timothy, we can miss that at times the message focuses more on receiving the baton rather than merely passing it on.

Now the ideas aren't mutually exclusive. Paul is doing the passing on thing, and he's calling Timothy to do likewise. And it is a false distinction because one of the things you receive the gospel for, is in order to pass it on. The passing is also one of the methods to protect the gospel. So it's not about receiving the baton to the exclusion of passing it on. But I just get the vibe that rhetorically we lose some punch by taking too much of a Paul's eye view and go straight to the imperative to 'pass the gospel on' and miss the step of 'what does it mean to receive the gospel?'

Just some thoughts running through my head the last few weeks. Still a bit scattered.

Bible Book in a Sentence Sunday - Ephesians

Ephesians in a sentence:

Being united with Christ unites Christians with one another, leading to a new way of life.

Okay so I admit it isn't that catchy, but is it accurate? Can you do better?

Classic Sermons

Well I feel a little guilty describing sermons from the living as 'classic', but it is generally an apt description. I was given a heap of old cassette tapes of old sermons about 12 months ago which I've gone to listen to a few times, but couldn't be bothered getting to the tape player. Rather than throw out I'm choosing to digitise.

There is a mixture of tapes from 'St Matthias Tapes' and the Katooomba Christian Convention with talks by Don Carson, Phillip Jensen and John Chapman.

So far I've listened to a few of Phillip's as they were transferring. I was shocked to notice afterwards that these talks on Ephesians were from 1982. Wow. Could have been written for today. That is one benefit of using fewer 'topical' illustrations, I guess. Plus, it really just shows the way that God's word applies to human existence and if we have that large a view of what God does through his word, then it creates a much broader intention to the message. Knowing God changes everything. And knowing this leads to what I want to call 'big' preaching.

Also I love how preaching is truth through personality. One of Chappo's talks at KCC is titled 'God speaks - what do you make of that?' Classic Chappo.

Language or Doctrine?

I'm learning two languages at Bible College: Greek and Hebrew. If I'm successful I'll be able to fumble my way through most of the Bible in the original languages (there are a few sections in Aramaic). Knowing the original languages isn't the most important thing in reading the Bible, it's humility. And our belief that God communicates himself in time through human words means that the meaning of the words is more important than the words themselves, thus we're able to translate our Scriptures into many other languages. As English speakers we are very well served by a number of excellent translations which range from kids translations (The Message) through to easy reading translations (NIV) through to the harder reading but more informative (ESV).

At college this year I've heard a couple of different attitudes from older year students towards learning languages. All students studying degrees learn Greek, whereas Hebrew is an optional subject which slowly consumes its victims.

The basic assumption is you can't learn everything, which sounds sound. So you need to decide which compromise you're going to make. If you keep up both languages then you won't be able to finish all your readings, especially doctrine reading. And so you are really answering what you want to leave college with: two biblical languages or deeper reflection on theology? Now it's never so black and white, and you will no doubt get some of both, but what are you going to major in?

My gut tells me I'd rather leave with the languages. I'm a bible teacher. Studying God's word is my bread and butter, and I want to be able to do that to the best of my ability. Some of that involves the doctrinal framework from which I approach this understanding. Yet in the next breath, that same framework inevitably arises from the study of the word istelf. Knowing the languages won't make me any more godly, but it will help me to teach the Bible from the perspective of understanding the intention of the author more clearly.

At the moment I'm choosing to be naive and assume I can do everything.

Shh

Don't tell her, but I've worked out what I'm getting Sarah for Christmas - a life insurance policy for myself.

Sure, it doesn't sound that romantic but it's motivated by a desire to provide in the case of my untimely death. Though it could also be interpreted as me fearing for my life, possibly even at Sarah's hands. Hmm. Will have to think through how I sell this one to her.

My MTS trainer has a good policy with insurance (completely unintentional pun), he insures anything that would ruin him financially. Thus something like a house burning down would qualify, crashing a car would not. It sounds like wise stewardship to me. If you were trying to prooftext it with the bible, you'd probably head more towards the idea of not insuring anything and finding treasure in heaven, but all things considered it still sounds wise to me.

A question to the blokes out there: is this something you've also considered? I'm not getting a kickback from the insurance companies, but it seems like the wise thing to do. We all think we're invincible at a young age, but who knows how many days God has numbered for us? And I imagine there would be a significant financial (and emotional) adjustment Sarah would need to make if I was called home to glory. Speaking of which, it would be a great irony were I to post this and then somehow die before I actually purchased the insurance. That's it. It's on my 'to do' list for today.

Should a small group study precede or follow the sermon?

Yeah, yeah. Take back your contemptuous glare about how I'm creating a false distinction between two tasks which are doing the same thing, or how I'm too Sunday-centric, or how I'm over-emphasising structures. Take it back.

Okay, now I'm ready to ask the question quite seriously. If the small/home/cell/bible study/connect groups study the same content as the sermon on Sunday, should they follow or precede the sermon?

Some thoughts:

• I love the idea that we study the same thing for a week. I think generally it (helpfully) decreases the emphasis on the Sunday sermon, and encourages reflection on God's word.
• I also think where possible the Kids Church/Sunday School program should cover the same content as well to encourage interaction between parents and children on what they're learning.
• I much prefer people writing their own study, even if it's very broad, rather than prepared studies. Much better. It's more time consuming but also more rewarding.

If the study precedes the sermon:

• The preacher can get further opinions (from his group) on the passage before preaching, see where the passage rubs people in their everyday life, get illustration ideas. Creates a collaborative feel to the teaching.
• It can somewhat unhelpfully allow questions that are 'too hard' to be deferred until Sunday when the expert will reveal all.

If the study follows the sermon:

• I've heard of one group who follow the sermon so that there is no "official study", and people merely discuss what they learnt Sunday, questions they had, how they're putting it into practice. (This allows lots of people to be willing to have the group meet at their house without expectation of preparing a study).
• There is sense where people have already been shaped by the preachers view, and won't grapple with the passage themselves. They merely regurgitate what they heard Sunday.
• If the study follows the sermon (which hopefully teaches the heart of a passage) the temptation in the small group will be to major on the minors, and miss the big idea.

Personally I prefer small groups to precede the sermon.

Responding to atheism

This article by Phillip Jensen repays careful consideration. He examines the challenge to 'prove the existence of God' and uses this challenge to think through the  convictions of atheists. The beauty of Phillip's article is he considers the appropriate philosophical terms which frame the debate, but specifically how the consistency and emphases of the Bible shows us the framework in which to understand and respond to atheism.

The last days

The last days. What do you picture when you hear that phrase? Third Eagle? Arnold Schwartzenegger?

Paul has something else in mind in 2 Timothy 3.

People will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

Sounds a bit like today, right? But strangely the end of this description reveals these people are found not 'out there' but  rather in the body of believers.

having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

Now some take this to be talking about the times of tribulation. But Paul understands the last days to be something Timothy will face. He goes on.

Avoid such people.

Paul sees the end of days as not some time when the sun starts doing funny things and people/zombies start killing each other randomly, but as the period between Jesus first coming and his second. And just like the tagline to Arnie's movie End of Days, we are to 'Prepare'. How?

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings.

We prepare ourselves by one of the bible passages where the application truly is 'Read your Bible'. Now, part of the problem of the doom and gloomers who do some funky things with the Bible, is the doom and gloom becomes the lens through which they read everything. Paul gives a better way:

you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I get the sense that if more of the Bible was read through the focus of Jesus' first coming (the lens of salvation) then a lot of the problems associated with the 'end of days' would not be so big a problem. Not that Paul necessarily had the New Testament writings in mind when writing, but the salvation focus of the Scriptures is helpful.

The Scriptures do more than make us wise for salvation to trust in Jesus, as Paul goes on to say, but that framework really will prepare us for the last days in which we now live.

A stimulating sermon last Sunday.

Assessing Assessments

You would expect that the biggest lightbulb moment at Bible college would be something profound. Marvelling on the glorious transaction of the cross as the Father's anger was poured out on his Son. Perhaps something about the nature of the trinity, or seeing a biblical truth anew through knowledge of the biblical languages. No, not me. My biggest lightbulb moment came midway through first semester when I realised somehow I had managed to finish the HSC with a score in the 90s, plus fly through an applied science university degree, without ever knowing how to study. I mean, really study.

It is nothing short of God's grace (Though perhaps also a mild indictment on our education system). But I truly have never studied. In one sense, I've never needed to. My goal was either to pass an exam, or know just enough to be able to do my job. But studying God is different. Because it counts. At college I am on about knowing God better, understanding him deeper, and obeying him more fully (?fuller).

But a year down and I am on my way to learning how to study.

On a related note, people said to me at the start of the year, "You can't cram languages". As it turns out: not true. You can. And I did. And somehow it has stuck. Though I should preface that statement by saying I never tried to cram vocab. I was generally on top of learning new words, and have come to the realisation that vocab covers a multitude of sins.

One interesting byproduct of actually knowing what I'm meant to be learning is I have become hyper-critical of examinations. That is, though I was rebuked by Sarah earlier in the year for a distinct lack of graciousness when getting essay feedback, this has been replaced with a hopefully more humble and appropriate assessment of our assessments.

I overheard a lecturer responding to a student question about exams with a statement along the lines of "We know you're here to learn, and you'll do the work regardless of the assessments we set." I remember only too fondly from my early days living out of home what it was like living in fantasy land, where apparently this lecturer still resides. The principle is sound: that we're here to learn. The implication - that we will learn everything regardless - is naively misguided. Like everything in life, college is a series of compromises. To focus on one thing is inevitably at the expense of another. And so assessment is more than just an arbitrary task to fulfill some kind of irrelevant educational expectation.

Conversely, I have very quickly ascribed to another lecturer Gibbo's view - that the teaching staff communicate to students where they should spend their time based on where marks are allocated. This gem from Gibbo came in response to our Greek principal parts test. In trying to reduce the number of assessments, the Board of Studies decided to take away the 10% exam that traditionally existed to test principal parts. The only problem was, they still expected us and really wanted us to learn them. So we still had to do the work, they just didn't add the additional imperative of marks. So, as other things were due at a similar time, the percentage of students who put in the hard work of learning them, was greatly reduced on previous years who had the 10% exam. We still had the exam, but the prize (to those who scored 8/10 or above) was a piece of cake that Gibbo had baked. This long excursus has a point: Assessments aren't arbitrary, they communicate to the students where they should invest their time.

My further reflections on the Moore College examination system are really a byproduct of that definition. If the examination communicates where students are to invest their time, the method and content being examined must be in line with the goals of the particular subject.

Thus our final Hebrew exam was way too short in time. Only about 10-20% of the class finished (thankfully I was in that group, but only just). I felt that at this early stage, speed isn't a particular concern of our language learning. And there is a sense where we really should have to labour over the particulars of the language. At the point where a large proportion of the class is unable to demonstrate their knowledge, albeit knowledge that is slow, seems to be a deficiency in that test. Part of the problem is our year is the first where subjects are broken into semesters (e.g. Hebrew 1A and 1B) rather than year long subjects. And thus with the Hebrew exam they kind of cut the original two hour end of year exam in half in both time (to one hour) and in it's content. Unfortunately the parts cut out were the easier stuff (vocab) where you would usually rush through in a disproportionate amount of time to the mark value.

Or take our Old Testament 1B exam. There was a multiple choice, short answer section (worth 1/3rd of the marks). Yes, that's right. At Moore College. Multiple choice. I can hardly believe I'm typing this. The funny thing was, that was the hardest part of the test. In the essays I can get points for arguing, even if my conclusion is wrong, but there are no free marks in multiple choice. And furthermore, in an overview subject (it was the entire OT canon barring the Pentateuch which was covered in first semester), many of the multiple choice covered minutiae. For exam preparation we were told, whatever you do, don't sweat the details. It's all about big picture, know the century, know the rough political situation. And then we get a question on the Maccabean revolt, which firstly is in the intertestamental period and has limited bearing on an OT overview, and secondly IT'S A DETAIL! A quick look on wikipedia says it was 167-160 BC, which I'm pretty sure covered at least two of the answers. And like all good multiple choice questions, there was often more than one correct answer and we were supposed to answer the most correct. Which is fine, until you get a question like what is Daniel 7-12 most about? And the options are three of the possible historical applications and the fourth option is spiritual warfare. The answer is completely dependent upon your particular view of Daniel, it's composition and intention. What does spiritual warfare mean anyway? If it was composed in exile, then that spiritual warfare may well have been the rise of Cyrus (one of the historical options). But I digress.

There is a sense where fill-in-the-blank questions just aren't an adequate test for what is essentially an art (biblical interpretation). So one of the questions which I got wrong was 'According to 1 +2 Kings, after David which king receives the greatest praise?' I wrote Hezekiah, because as an open book exam I had my bible there, and I thought what better way to learn the summary of a king's reign than read the summary of the king's reign (the regnal form for those playing at home)? I compared 2 Kings 18:5 which says,

He (Hezekiah) trusted in the LORD, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him.

Now with a description like that, it didn't matter what was said about Josiah who was the other option (Solomon gets a better wrap in Chronicles and the New Testament so he was out). And this is what it says about Josiah in 2 Kings 22:2,

And he (Josiah) did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.

Now that's a pretty good description, right?  Follows in line of David, pleased God etc. It's just a pity that Hezekiah was so trusting in God before him, that there was no one like him after him, as Josiah was. Case closed: It's Hezekiah. The only hiccup is a second summary later in Josiah's reign in 2 Kings 23:25 which says,

Before him (Josiah) there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.

Well, now that makes things interesting, because all of a sudden you've got two kings 'like no other'. Obviously they're like no other using different measurements. So now you're asking what basis of the reign is being judged? Is it better to never turn away from God (Josiah) or to amidst sin turn back to him (Hezekiah)? That's still a hard question in my mind which I could argue either way. So yes, Josiah is the most right answer. I even have a soft spot for those who would answer Solomon and even anyone who said Jesus.

It sounds like I care more than I do about the 1.27% of my final result that this question was worth. I really don't care. The benefit for me was knowing what a regnal form was, and how it was a good indicator of a king's reign, knowing who these kings were and where they reigned, even when I wasn't certain of all the details. So it was successful because I learnt overview. Unfortunately this question wasn't especially testing overview. I had to write the essay outline in my head to convince myself the answer was Hezekiah (even though it wasn't). So whilst the process of answering the question adequately applied the intended course outcome, that I still got it wrong simply consolidates for me the failure of this method of examination to truly reflect the course aims. It was a section testing details in an overview subject. Yes, a detail covered in the lectures. Yes, a detail I should have known. (My gut reaction was Josiah until I read the regnal forms). But no, I don't feel these questions on the whole enabled the students to be examined on their overview knowledge of the Old Testament. In one sense it enabled us to be differentiated academically, but in an arbitrary way - dependent upon guessing correctly or who happened to remember the right date during their study which happened to come up in this section.

Alright, end rant.

I must have a big idea here somewhere.

Okay, college is great and I've learnt heaps. I think in some ways I am even moving towards the, 'Will learn for learnings sake' of that naive overheard lecturer. The lecturers are well thought through in their teaching and assessments, and most encouragingly are responsive to feedback. But personally, now that I actually want to learn, it has dramatically shaped my understanding of the assessment process and how it helps facilitate my learning.

Back to normal programming

With the seemingly non-stop sprint to the end of the exam period over, it feels good to finally be back blogging. I fell into a deep black chasm at the start of Moore College Stuvac and four days after my last exam I've finally managed to crawl out. So over the next few weeks no doubt I'll be offering some reflections on the year gone. It's hard to believe (results permitting) that I've finished a whole year at Bible college.

I feel generally exhausted, but I'm appreciative for the time off to recharge over summer. I've noticed a lot of my classmates are working jobs over the break. Sarah asked me whether I thought we should also be looking for paid work. But we don't need the money and we need time to rest. Plus, not working means we're able to help out leading a strand at the Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students' National Training Event (NTE). And I'm preaching for three weeks at my home church in Maclean for our mutual edification. So with summer college work, working up some new sermons, serving the university students and catching up with out of town family, it doesn't make sense for us to be working a job purely to have more money to waste. That's not to disparage those who work, but we have relatively few financial obligations outside our daily living expenses.

I've been reflecting a bit lately on the idea of rest. I've found myself using the categories of productivity to qualify and quantify my 'rest'. That is, I have found myself asking how much I need, what makes something restful, is a particular activity (e.g. blogging) to be counted as rest? In one sense, rest can only be defined in relation to work. But it's more than the absence of work. And I don't think I rest merely in order to recharge to do more work. I think rest is a state rather than an action.

Anyways, this is my 'clearing out the cobwebs' blogpost.

It feels good to be back.

Best investment ever

$30 from Moore books.

The Youth Group Principle

Your favourite movie is probably inappropriate. The problem is, you don't think it is. Until you play it for your youth group. It happened for me with Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I squirmed with every expletive, gradually sliding lower and lower into my beanbag.

Other examples I've heard of;

• Back to the Future (Surely everything from the 80's is innocuous)
• Seven (Seriously, what was he thinking?)
• Zoolander (You forgot what happened at the end of the party)

Have you ever accidentally discovered the 'Youth Group Principle'?

Nice body

In Greek, the word 'soma' primarily means 'body'. Now because this idea of a body is given a metaphorical application to the diversity in the assembly of God, it can become a name for a group of Christians. You might say they are a 'body of believers', which works on both the level of collective noun as well as the descriptiony thingo.

You wouldn't know it to look at me, but I actually know some cool people. I myself am not a cool person, but I know some and can usually spot one a mile off. Believe it or not, I even know some cool people who are Christian. Mostly, they're baptists. But the few I know who aren't baptists go to Soma Church in Macquarie. Because the people I know who go there are cool, I assume everyone else that meets with them must also be cool.

This past week Soma Church has been on my mind a lot, as I've been studying Greek in preparation for the relatively tame Greek exam I had today (I'm tipping a distinction average for the class). The reason I've been thinking about Soma is because one of our base words for learning the Greek noun system is soma (σωμα), so it comes up quite a bit.

Unfortunately for the Soma Church crew, the word has a similar semantic range to the word 'body' in English. That is, our dictionary definition is:

σωμα: body, corpse.

It's cool to name your Christian gathering after the 'body' metaphor of the New Testament. It's slightly less cool to name it 'corpse'. Though incidentally, that also is an accurate way to describe some church groups.

Tips for Greek translation

The people around Jesus are amazing.

Note to self: If translating the early parts of Mark's gospel and Jesus is the one being healed, it's time to start again.

Assumptions

My default position is to assume people aren't Christians. I remember this attitude began forming for me years ago when a friend and I were talking about the musician Ben Harper. My friend said, 'I'm pretty sure he's a Christian'. Having just read a Rolling Stone article where Harper expressed a fairly clear pluralistic mindset I asked why she thought that. It was because Harper's album 'Diamonds on the Inside' was draped in Christian overtones with songs such as, 'Picture of Jesus', 'Amen Omen' and 'Blessed to be a Witness'. That said, the album also has a song called, 'Touch from your Lust'.

I'm sympathetic with the view that, if someone is a follower of Jesus or not is ultimately between them and Jesus. But if our desire is to present everyone mature in Christ there is benefit in understanding to the best of our knowledge where people stand with God. I'm not talking about celebrities, and let's face it, the whole American Christian thing is fluid at the best of times, but about those for whom we come into contact with.

Of course there are tell-tale signs that someone may not understand the gospel. For example if a peron identifies primarily with a denomination rather than as Christian (e.g. I'm Anglican) then I'm likely to try and ask some leading questions to try and understand what exactly it is they believe.

And if someone walks in to our church gathering I always assume they are not a Christian. What's the worst that could happen? If they don't trust in Jesus death and resurrection for their sin I might get a chance to explain the gospel to them. If they are a Christian, they'll appreciate being reminded of the gospel again, and that I was loving enough to make sure.

Some downsides to this 'assume nothing' approach is that I think this makes me less likely to work with people and denominational groups that I don't know. Which is a problem, I think.

I really need to get off my computer

It's stuvac at Moore College.

I'm taking a break from Greek study to begin looking over my Old Testament notes.

Question to Sarah:

When you're reading through the notes, do you read all the links?

Sarah:

The links? The links? What are you talking about? Do you live in the real world or computer-land? They're called bible references. And yes, some of them are really important.