I'm a hard man to track down

It's true. I'm like some kind of internet Christian ninja. You write stuff online and all of a sudden people want to contact you. Okay, okay, occasionally it's when I put my foot in my mouth and people want to yell at me politely, but mostly people want to ask me a question, or say something nice. The only problem is there has been no obvious way of contacting me through the blog without making a public comment on a post.

I feel a bit like that confused AFL girl the other day who was served a court notice through social media. Since I've started this blog, the following means have been used to contact me:

• Through friends of friends
• Through making a comment giving me their details
• Through a Facebook message (even though we weren't FB friends).
• Through (the potentially offensive) taking my details off an unrelated contact database
• Through contacting Moore College, who contacted me and said they couldn't give my details but I could contact this person if I wanted to.

So I've added an email link on the sidebar. To keep the crazies at bay, it is a pseudo-account. If I like you I'll respond from my real email address and we'll be one step closer to being friends in the real world.

Also, perhaps if you are a random reader of this blog, you might like to use this post as an opportunity during the festive season to say, 'Hi'. I don't generally hunger for people to comment on my posts. That just feels a bit needy. But it is also strange (but appreciated) when strangers walk up to you at conferences and say, 'I read your blog'. If I was an American preacher I would say to you anonymous reader that, 'I love you'. I don't. I could say, 'I tolerate you'. But that's not true either. I'm somewhere in the middle - glad you show up, but intrigued as to who you are, how you got here and what it feels like to stalk someone through a socially accepted method (just like Facebook).

To Justine, who told me she feels like she needs to "fess-up" to reading my blog when we ran into each other in the physical realm, there is no need to re-confess.

But to everyone who cares to drop by, thanks for reading, and have a merry Christmas, celebrating the coming of our Saviour.

Christ: the power of God and the wisdom of God

When people want to move from the wisdom literature through to the New Testament, especially when the starting point is Proverbs, there is a tendency to go straight to 1 Corinthians, where Christ is the wisdom of God. Specifically 1 Corinthians 1 explains the folly of the crucifixion is the supreme demonstration of the wisdom of God which he uses to shame the wise of this world.

This movement though has always felt lazy to me. It feels like simple word association at its extreme. It sounds logical enough that, wisdom = wisdom. And I'm not just dumping on this link, and it could be absolutely correct, but I've rarely heard it explained more than what could be summarised as, "Here's another place in the Bible that mentions the word wisdom, and guess what, it's about Jesus." Hey, if you're going to go anywhere from the OT to the NT, then Jesus is a good place/person to end up at, but still it seems to me a fairly shallow kind of surface association.

Now here is where I explain what is a better passage you could go to which demonstrates the fulfillment in Christ and the best way to apply the words of God in the wisdom literature post Christ. Except I don't have the answer as yet. With Ecclesiastes, one of my favourite passages to go to is 1 Corinthians 15:58, which in light of the resurrection claims that our labour in the Lord is not in vain. This works well into the whole examination of Ecclesiastes of life under the sun and the way that death is the great leveller.

I'm currently preparing some talks on 1 Corinthians 1-3 and hopefully I'll be in a better position by the time I've finished to comment on the rightness or wrongness of seeing the wisdom language in Corinthians as alluding to Proverbs. My gut reaction is to say it isn't. Not that I will go into this in any of the talks, nor that it necessarily discounts this movement as right. But I hope to resolve my discomfort.

Summary:

• It feels lazy simply moving from wisdom literature to 1 Corinthians 1.
• I have no better alternative as yet.
• I am sensing I still don't understand Proverbs today.

It would be remiss of me to finish without saying how surprising the wisdom of God is as demonstrated in the crucifixion of the Christ. It is hardly surprising that the wisdom of the one true, all-knowing and powerful God surprises little old me, but nevertheless it is a wonderful wonderful thing. It is a beauty that can only be appreciated from the perspective of those for whom this shame (of the cross) and the shame it brings on us (working against our wisdom and as a result of our guilt), is truly the power of God; our righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

Do you make a personal budget?

Do you budget? I've just completed mine for 2011, then emailed it off to Sarah with comments for her to peruse and adjust. We normally use the budget more as a rough guide than a strict law, but looking at the figures I think we need to be stricter this year.

Sarah and I have sanity money an allowance of $10/week each which we can spend on whatever we want. But if we buy gifts for each other it comes out of our allowance (which accumulates if not spent). Other things that come out of our allowance include eating out, and buying non essential food items like Coca-cola and Doritos (My mild OCD comes out when I split up our grocery bill into food, non-essential food coming from allowance, house supplies, personal supplies).

What else would you be interested to know?

It is expensive to own a car. Costs $20/wk just to get the car on the road, not including repairs or fuel. This year we spent $31/wk on gas (That's LPG, not an Americanism). Hoping to cut that to $27/wk with a bit more walking to college and a few less trips to the grocery store.

As I make it, we can meet all our financial obligations for about 29K. Seems like a lot, but there's only two of us. I am thankful to God for Centrelink Student Payments, for Fee-Help loans to cover college fees and for a paying job this year which will cover the shortfall.

Be careful what you wish for

Well it looks like my campaign to be featured on Moore College advertising has paid off. Though perhaps not in the way I imagined.

Today my bulging mailbox had two rather thick envelopes from college for Sarah and myself. Similar letters were no doubt sent to a large percentage of college supporters. Little did I know as I opened the envelope addressed to me, that I would actually find myself inside my own envelope. It was a bit of an existential crisis for a moment.

Anyways, here is me as a Christmas angel.

You're invited to hang me on your tree (between a few elves and reindeer) as well as to donate to the college.

The first step to getting on the propaganda was to have my photo taken. If you're wondering why I'm wearing a green polo shirt and a brown jumper (a killer combination), it is because of my desire to wear through some of my shirts this year by having a specific shirt I wear each day of the week. So this photo was taken on a Tuesday. It was only after the offending shot was taken that I realised my collar had been folded over too far on my right side. The designer stubble is not really 'designer' at all, but more lazy stubble. I think the combination of geek chic mismatching clothes (yet still with an air of class), the stubble and the thick-rimmed glasses pushed me out of the generic white Anglo bracket to get me on the advertising.

If you want me on your tree, I'm sure the college (with a joyful donation) would be happy to mail me out to you. And to be serious for a moment, you really should consider donating to college. Plus, apparently I've already thanked you, and I'd hate to have done that for nothing.

And whilst I'm transferring photos from my phone, check out what I found on the ground when I opened my car door in the car park last week. It was on one of those sweltering days...

Do you reckon the kid would have had a similar facial expression to Bill when they dropped him?

Excelling with money

Phillip Edney has a saying that the last parts of blokes to be converted are their right foot (driving) and their wallets. I have to agree. I have wasted a lot of money in my lifetime. My vices were CD's, movies, and fast food.

The biggest step for me in being deliberate with money was not through getting married (though I assume this is where it kicks in with most blokes), but in tracking every dollar I spend. It sounds a bit obsessive, but it really isn't that much work. I just designed an excel spreadsheet that does all the maths for me, and breaks down into what I'm spending on each item each week. Another fancy bit of the document tells me my average spend per week on each item as well as a running total and compares it to my budget.

We plan and budget to spend money on entertainment for the sake of our sanity, even though we can't afford it. That is, we were cutting into our savings this year at college, trusting that we won't be students forever and we'll have more income in 2011.

But money can rule over us in many ways. It's not just in frittering it away, or lusting after more and more stuff, it can also rule us by being too thrifty, or fretting over every cent, or refusing to spend/give money when we need to.

When I first started this tracking (as a student) it was scary embarrassing how much money I would waste. So every dollar I spend goes into my phone and is transferred that night onto the computer. By about November I'm usually sick of it and so I give myself a month or so respite from tracking every dollar. I then delete the old file and start again the next year. We have a budget which acts as a guide and keeps us accountable, but we're not chained to it. I delete the file each year because I don't want to spend my life worrying about money or comparing it year on year.

An ever present danger

It's always dangerous giving singers a microphone in church. Sure, they need it to sing, but it's often in that space either side of the actual singing that havoc can be wreaked.

At NTE, with the experienced and godly selection of band members, this wasn't going to be an issue. But there was this corker, which was prayed over the closing bars of a song whilst we were still standing.

.. and we pray that we will stand in God's power. Amen (Amen). Please sit.

Fail.

Biting at the hand that feedbacks you

Giving feedback to people is a dangerous task. My problem is this is only a recent revelation. I've always been happy to give anyone feedback if I thought I had a helpful contribution. I didn't care if they were older, younger, more or less experienced, male or female - if someone deserved thanks or praise I would offer it, and just as surely if I had constructive comments I would offer them also.

The reason I had no qualms in offering my opinion was in my mind there was nothing personal behind the comments. I just thought I could help and so I would say my piece. So for example in our Moore College orientation we had the most boring half hour of my life as the lady from the library walked us through (in a lecture format) a few of the aspects of the library service. At the end she asked if anyone had ideas for information to include or ways of doing that presentation differently then to let her know. So I did. My suggestion was to use all the same information but do it as if she was researching an essay. So start by having an old essay question that she puts to us and get us to think what we would search, what kinds of materials we would be looking for, and use that as a means of demonstrating the capabilities of the searches and actually walk us through the structures she had but utilising the essay example.

When my mates asked me what I was talking to her about afterwards, and I told them, they said I was arrogant. Now apart from telling them to go jump, I was quite dumbfounded. In my mind there wasn't a hint of arrogance. She asked, I offered and the end product for next year might be improved. I didn't look down on her, think anything less of her or more of myself. I just thought I could help.

Now I can see how people might think it was arrogance: because I'm assuming I have something to offer. And no one likes to be told what to do. Yet to be honest, the whole concept of being accused of arrogance for daring to give someone feedback just shocks me. I feel like I'm giving feedback in love, and for their and my benefit. The process of giving feedback sharpens me even more than them because I realise mistakes I make as well or ways they are teaching me.

It's hard not to be precious over something we put our heart into. And it is this protectiveness and ownership that makes it hard to receive comment on. As we invest ourself into the presentation or event, we then take everything personally and live or die by the response. But at some level it is great if we can detach ourselves to step back from the thing we have done or created in order to hear what people say. I'm not even sure I'm that great at receiving feedback either. But something is wrong where any attempt to improve or suggest ways of improvement is seen as arrogance.

In response to this, some people and workplaces (and even ministry teams) I've seen choose to say nothing. That way at least there is the appearance of unity and cohesion. Others still do it, whilst being particularly guarded. That is they don't give feedback over email. Better in person or at least over the phone. I see the wisdom in this. Others like myself go with the love sandwich (love at the start, improvements in the middle, love at the end). But again it seems to me that the pride comes not from the feedbacker but more often the person receiving the feedback.

My other principle for those receiving feedback (including to myself) is to give people the benefit of the doubt. Few people start out trying to discourage you or cut you down. In fact, amongst the Christian community it's usually just the opposite: to build you up. But this building up is not in the American sense of irrational praise, but it is speaking the truth in order to benefit you.

And the other thing is, if a friend is telling you something critical at some level they are putting the friendship on the line. Because there is every chance you will take it the wrong way. So to say something negative is to take a risk that it could be taken the wrong way. There's no obvious danger in just giving empty praise. I realise people have been hurt before which makes this whole thing difficult, but all too often I see people having a hard reaction to critical feedback. We need to receive feedback softly.

As a side note, every time I have considered quitting blogging it has been when I have offered critical analysis on another person or event online. There is wisdom in asking whether or not a blog is the appropriate forum to do that. But inevitably when there have been issues it has been from people who either don't read blogs generally (and don't understand the medium) and/or aren't regular readers of my blog. I hope that most people that have read my blog for a long period of time don't see arrogance behind my reflections, but see searching analysis that is more often directed at myself than others.

Vacation Assignment

It's an oxymoron, isn't it? Either way they still need to be done, and I'm convinced they are beneficial for my learning.

My pre-2nd year vacation assignments are:

• Greek translation
• Hebrew translation
• Calvin readings

Also, is vacation an Americanism? It feels like something you would perhaps do on the pavement/sidewalk then throw some trash in the can after eating some cantaloupe on the way to your apartment.

Nah mate, in this country we take holidays. And we walk on the footpath, throw rubbish in a bin, eat rockmelon and live in a unit.

I hereby repent of my subconscious dislike of systematic theology

I think I have a subconscious hate of systematic theology. Or perhaps it's best described as a leaning against. No, I haven't started my summer reading of Calvin yet (that begins tomorrow), I just happened to come to this realisation last night during that great time of reflection known as 'doing the washing up'.

I understand that systematic theology arises naturally from God's revelation. It is a true, right and necessary exercise for Christians to engage in. Systematic theology clarifies our understanding of God, and thus allows us to know him better, and to understand the way he has revealed himself, how we are made right with him through Jesus, as well as enabling us to live wisely under God. So I'm not anti-systematics. But I think I still have a disposition against it which I have only just become aware of.

The reason for this stance is I associate systematic theology with bad bible reading/teaching. Or perhaps bad isn't the most appropriate word, maybe more like unsound bible reading. That is, those who are strong on systematics often know their bible really well but don't read their bible well. So they see a word during bible study or when preparing a sermon and off they go. What they tend to say on this tangent is invariably sound biblical truth. On the other hand, perhaps because of these wild flights, they rarely exegete the passage well. The meaning of the word or concept within its context takes a back seat to them downloading their understood dictionary entry on the matter at hand.

One of the strengths in Mark Driscoll's preaching (which surprises many people considering his popularity) is his systematic theology. I was going to say MD made systematic theology cool again, but MD seems to make everything cool. What he has done is highlighted a felt deficiency in much modern preaching reagrding systematic theology (at least in my circles). You see, the bread and butter I was raised on was sound exegesis. Start with the passage. Actually my most repeated phrase in bible study is 'Where did you get that in the passage?' Now to be fair I don't ever want to change this aspect of my biblical understanding. I want to start small and build out from there. But the question is, do I ever get that far out from the details to see the systematic elements? I believe I don't. Or at least I haven't traditionally. The sound approach of biblical exegesis and making sure I understood the passage correctly has given me that emphasis, to the extreme that I realise now I have neglected the systematics to a large degree.

Back to Driscoll, because of his relatively sound systematic approach, he has gained a rightful esteem amongst evangelicals. But personally most of his exegesis is rarely as sound. Oftentimes it is simply useless in teaching the best method of reading the bible. At the Engage Conference a few years back everyone was saying, "Imagine having to follow MD into the pulpit?" But then when he spoke on the Sunday morning and was followed by Don Carson we all realised we'd had fairy floss for the entree.  I love the guy as a brother in Christ, but I don't want people to replicate his teaching on the finer points of how to read the Bible. I mean, he always gets back to Jesus which is great. But I'm not sure if following his method you could start with the Bible and get back to such a sound systematic framework. Whereas an emphasis on what's in front of you on the page would be more likely to achieve this.

So what I anticipate over the next few years at college is my viewpoint and understanding of systematic theology to exponentially increase. The key thing post-college will be to show how the systematic theology comes to bear in the lives of individuals. And how to incorporate the more deliberate understanding of the framework I am reading the Bible from (I realise I must have a framework now which is largely intuitive but without much awareness), and how to show the way an individual section of the Bible both leads to and is sharpened by the systematic framework to which it relates.

The problem is I think most preachers (if I can narrow it down to that for now) don't have a platform from which they are able to do both. A congregation accustomed to detailed exegesis will generally be unwilling to accept further reflection time because the exegesis can be tiring to listen to in its extreme. On the other hand, those accustomed to stronger systematic emphasis tend to be less interested in the details of the passage, are less likely to read their bibles accompanying the talk and fade quickly on detailed examination of the actual text.

But it takes time to give an adequate exegetical basis to demonstrate both how to read a passage correctly to get to the truth in it, but also to show how the text leads to the systematic conclusions, and vice versa. Few preachers have the ability or desire to do both. But I think it is something to aim towards. Because an emphasis too far in either direction will have very real implications for the health of a congregation, their ability to feed themselves from God's word, and their ability to articulate their faith.

We all tend to lean to one extreme. I'm just realising I need to gravitate a bit more the other way.