A popular evangelistic fad at the moment is to piggy-back on the current research into happiness. Since everyone is obsessed with being happy the general idea is that we show them how faith in Christ actually promotes happiness.
1. I like the idea of a soft apologetic, starting with a desire for personal happiness in popular culture and gently trying to turn that towards God. It is absolutely essential that Christians engage with contemporary social attitudes and research.
2. However, I've got questions about the fundamental premise of this approach. Usually it begins with a definition of happiness, with attempts to 'correct' society's defintion. Nevertheless the basic assumption is that the goal of humanity is to be happy and that Christianity is an aid to that goal.
I'm not sure about that. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said that the blessed are those who mourn. Paul talks about godly sorrow that leads to repentance in 2 Cor. 7. In other words sometimes being sad is a good thing, indeed sometimes what God wants for us.
Therefore I assume that you'd need to end up by challenging the overall assumption that God wants us to be happy all the time. (NB I'm NOT saying that God wants us to be sad all the time!) Hence instead of pointing everyone to Christ this strategy might, however unintentionally, encourage some to pursue happiness as their goal in life. Instead the gospel teaches us that true contentment and satisfaction in life is found when we pursue Christ as our goal in life.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
Introverted Church?
Here is a blog post that has been drawn to my attention about how introverts react to church.
It is a timely reminder on how our personalities affect the way we process what happens when we meet together. I particularly liked one of the comments which pointed out that extroverts tend to be good at enaging with a lot of people (but rather superficially) and introverts often are good at developing deeper relationships with a very small number of people.
This perspective is helpful because ...
1. It stops us comparing personality types. Extroverts are not more godly per se than introverts.
2. It doesn't allow personality type to become an excuse for un-Christlike behaviour. (e.g. trampling over other people's feelings or ignoring visitors.)
3. It reminds us that, in Christ's body, we need all types to function well.
It is a timely reminder on how our personalities affect the way we process what happens when we meet together. I particularly liked one of the comments which pointed out that extroverts tend to be good at enaging with a lot of people (but rather superficially) and introverts often are good at developing deeper relationships with a very small number of people.
This perspective is helpful because ...
1. It stops us comparing personality types. Extroverts are not more godly per se than introverts.
2. It doesn't allow personality type to become an excuse for un-Christlike behaviour. (e.g. trampling over other people's feelings or ignoring visitors.)
3. It reminds us that, in Christ's body, we need all types to function well.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Test of Maturity
Went to a great MTS training day today with Tim and Gus.
Worth the entry fee alone was this from Marcus Reeves, "a maturing person is easily edified... if you've reached the stage when you'll only listen to Driscoll at his best, then you're already in deep trouble."
Ouch.
Even at the end of a long and humid day that hit me right between the eyes.
Worth the entry fee alone was this from Marcus Reeves, "a maturing person is easily edified... if you've reached the stage when you'll only listen to Driscoll at his best, then you're already in deep trouble."
Ouch.
Even at the end of a long and humid day that hit me right between the eyes.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
How to wreck your church in three weeks
The thing about blogging I've noticed is that everybody copies everybody else's stuff. So I came across this great post today. I read it on someone's blog but noticed that he had got it from someone else's and finally that he had taken it from a third party. So let's just go for the source! It's originally from Christ Is Deeper Still.
How to wreck your church in three weeks
Week One: Walk into church today and think about how long you’ve been a member, how much you’ve sacrificed, how under-appreciated you are. Take note of every way you’re dissatisfied with your church now. Take note of every person who displeases you.
Meet for coffee this week with another member and “share your heart.” Discuss how your church is changing, how you are being left out. Ask your friend who else in the church has “concerns.” Agree together that you must “pray about it.”
Week Two: Send an email to a few other “concerned” members. Inform them that a groundswell of grievance is surfacing in your church. Problems have gone unaddressed for too long. Ask them to keep the matter to themselves “for the sake of the body.”
As complaints come in, form them into a petition to demand an accounting from the leaders of the church. Circulate the petition quietly. Gathering support will be easy. Even happy members can be used if you appeal to their sense of fairness – that your side deserves a hearing. Be sure to proceed in a way that conforms to your church constitution, so that your petition is procedurally correct.
Week Three: When the growing moral fervour, ill-defined but powerful, reaches critical mass, confront the elders with your demands. Inform them of all the woundedness in the church, which leaves you with no choice but to put your petition forward. Inform them that, for the sake of reconciliation, the concerns of the body must be satisfied.
Whatever happens from this point on, you have won. You have changed the subject in your church from gospel advance to your own grievances. To some degree, you will get your way. Your church will need three or four years for recovery. But at any future time, you can do it all again. It only takes three weeks.
Just one question. Even if you are being wronged, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)
I've only got one other question to add - how come it takes a full three weeks? I'm sure it would be easy to get it down to two!?
How to wreck your church in three weeks
Week One: Walk into church today and think about how long you’ve been a member, how much you’ve sacrificed, how under-appreciated you are. Take note of every way you’re dissatisfied with your church now. Take note of every person who displeases you.
Meet for coffee this week with another member and “share your heart.” Discuss how your church is changing, how you are being left out. Ask your friend who else in the church has “concerns.” Agree together that you must “pray about it.”
Week Two: Send an email to a few other “concerned” members. Inform them that a groundswell of grievance is surfacing in your church. Problems have gone unaddressed for too long. Ask them to keep the matter to themselves “for the sake of the body.”
As complaints come in, form them into a petition to demand an accounting from the leaders of the church. Circulate the petition quietly. Gathering support will be easy. Even happy members can be used if you appeal to their sense of fairness – that your side deserves a hearing. Be sure to proceed in a way that conforms to your church constitution, so that your petition is procedurally correct.
Week Three: When the growing moral fervour, ill-defined but powerful, reaches critical mass, confront the elders with your demands. Inform them of all the woundedness in the church, which leaves you with no choice but to put your petition forward. Inform them that, for the sake of reconciliation, the concerns of the body must be satisfied.
Whatever happens from this point on, you have won. You have changed the subject in your church from gospel advance to your own grievances. To some degree, you will get your way. Your church will need three or four years for recovery. But at any future time, you can do it all again. It only takes three weeks.
Just one question. Even if you are being wronged, “Why not rather suffer wrong?” (1 Corinthians 6:7)
I've only got one other question to add - how come it takes a full three weeks? I'm sure it would be easy to get it down to two!?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Joseph's Son on Podcast?
On Sunday morning we were looking at Luke 4 and I was struck by these few verses in particular:
One applications springs to mind about internet sermons. Everbody thought Jesus' sermons were great, apart from his own hometown. They did at first, but then it began to sink in who was speaking - Joseph's son, you know, the carpenter's boy.
I listen to podcast sermons all the time (I'm listening to one by Alister Begg at the moment!?) so I think they can be a really useful resource. However, the reaction Jesus gets in Luke 4 shows why they are becoming so popular.
Here's some thoughts from Luke 4:
1. This is all about Jesus right? Perhaps I'm just jealous that people only google 'smuts' for all the wrong reasons.
2. There is distance involved. In Nazareth they loved what Jesus had said all over Galilee. So too it is great to listen to Matt Chandler (or whoever) giving to the Village Church (or wherever) right between the eyes. Scripture is testimony itself to the fact that we can be challenged by overhearing God's messenger speaking to someone else. Nevertheless in listening to a sermon via the internet extra distance has been placed between speaker and hearer. It is so much easier to listen to X preaching to them, than to listen to my Pastor preaching to me.
3. It is less personal. It is easier to take a challenge from someone you don't know and will never meet. For a start it tends to stay in the abstract. Secondly, I'm totally in charge in how I apply the sermon to my life. The speaker has no come back to me. He can't point out that I've completely ignored the main theme of the passage. It is one thing when Mark Driscoll looks all of Seattle in the eye and gives a clear call to commitment and service. It is quite another when your Pastor asks you to teach in Kids' church.
4. It can encourage a cult of celebrity. This can happen in large churches as well as with the internet. I noticed this a bit in Scotland where roughly a thousand people would turn up on a Sunday morning. Even in Cheltenham I discovered that some wouldn't bother coming when I wasn't preaching ... or was that when I was preaching? When the sheer size of the number of people listening produces too much distance between preacher and listener it is very easy to put the preacher on a pedestal.
However, in a small or medium sized local church the preacher is close enough to touch - you get to know him week in and week out. All his faults and weaknesses. He's just like you really. Suddenly he's not so impressive. Why bother listening to him? He's just Joseph's son.
That's not to say that those things must happen when you listen on line. Just things to be watch out for.
“All spoke well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his lips.” "Isn't this Joseph's son?" they asked.” Jesus said to them, "Surely you will quote this proverb to me: 'Physician, heal yourself! Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum. "I tell you the truth," he continued, "no prophet is accepted in his hometown.'" (Luke 4: 22-24)
One applications springs to mind about internet sermons. Everbody thought Jesus' sermons were great, apart from his own hometown. They did at first, but then it began to sink in who was speaking - Joseph's son, you know, the carpenter's boy.
I listen to podcast sermons all the time (I'm listening to one by Alister Begg at the moment!?) so I think they can be a really useful resource. However, the reaction Jesus gets in Luke 4 shows why they are becoming so popular.
Here's some thoughts from Luke 4:
1. This is all about Jesus right? Perhaps I'm just jealous that people only google 'smuts' for all the wrong reasons.
2. There is distance involved. In Nazareth they loved what Jesus had said all over Galilee. So too it is great to listen to Matt Chandler (or whoever) giving to the Village Church (or wherever) right between the eyes. Scripture is testimony itself to the fact that we can be challenged by overhearing God's messenger speaking to someone else. Nevertheless in listening to a sermon via the internet extra distance has been placed between speaker and hearer. It is so much easier to listen to X preaching to them, than to listen to my Pastor preaching to me.
3. It is less personal. It is easier to take a challenge from someone you don't know and will never meet. For a start it tends to stay in the abstract. Secondly, I'm totally in charge in how I apply the sermon to my life. The speaker has no come back to me. He can't point out that I've completely ignored the main theme of the passage. It is one thing when Mark Driscoll looks all of Seattle in the eye and gives a clear call to commitment and service. It is quite another when your Pastor asks you to teach in Kids' church.
4. It can encourage a cult of celebrity. This can happen in large churches as well as with the internet. I noticed this a bit in Scotland where roughly a thousand people would turn up on a Sunday morning. Even in Cheltenham I discovered that some wouldn't bother coming when I wasn't preaching ... or was that when I was preaching? When the sheer size of the number of people listening produces too much distance between preacher and listener it is very easy to put the preacher on a pedestal.
However, in a small or medium sized local church the preacher is close enough to touch - you get to know him week in and week out. All his faults and weaknesses. He's just like you really. Suddenly he's not so impressive. Why bother listening to him? He's just Joseph's son.
That's not to say that those things must happen when you listen on line. Just things to be watch out for.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Making the most of Holidays
Here's something that we thought about on Sunday morning ...
Everyone looks forwards to their holidays – but have you ever thought about how to get the most out of them? God has made us physical, emotional and spiritual beings and so we need physical, emotional and spiritual refreshment. Clearly the balance will look different if you go alone and will also vary depending on who goes with you, but the principles remain the same.
It is tempting to view holidays as the time to let all routine slip - we think we owe ourselves time to be lazy? I even remember one Baptist Minister telling me that he left his bible at home when he went on holiday! I don't get this approach - we manage to factor in time to eat and sleep on holiday, why don't we plan the rest of our time with the same care? I'm not talking about some kind of facist regime timetable that runs in bondage to the clock. Of course there is room for spontaneity and flexibility. Nevertheless you will get so much more rest and refreshment from your hols if you spend time planning them beforehand.
Here are some suggestions of things to take / preparations to make:
- Swimmers / walking shoes (to exercise your body)
- a good book to read (to exercise your mind)
- THE good book to read (a different Bible reading scheme?) As a Dad I think it is especially important to encourage my family to grow spiritually. Holidays are not a rest from Christian discipleship.
- Some sermons on CD / MP3 for the journey
- details of church services where you are going. A holiday is not a break from church (imagine what that would communicate to your children or friends about how important church is to you.) Instead holiday is a great opportunity to encourage another Christian fellowship and also to be stimulated by a different congregation. The internet is great for this. In a matter of minutes you can find out the time and location of a good church near to where you are staying.
- details of what’s on in the area … we try to do a mixture of things - e.g. beach / museums / walks etc. so that everyone gets to do something they like and are stimulated by.
- rest for the cook? If one person usually cooks the meals how can we give them a holiday from that too?
Any other ideas / comments?
Everyone looks forwards to their holidays – but have you ever thought about how to get the most out of them? God has made us physical, emotional and spiritual beings and so we need physical, emotional and spiritual refreshment. Clearly the balance will look different if you go alone and will also vary depending on who goes with you, but the principles remain the same.
It is tempting to view holidays as the time to let all routine slip - we think we owe ourselves time to be lazy? I even remember one Baptist Minister telling me that he left his bible at home when he went on holiday! I don't get this approach - we manage to factor in time to eat and sleep on holiday, why don't we plan the rest of our time with the same care? I'm not talking about some kind of facist regime timetable that runs in bondage to the clock. Of course there is room for spontaneity and flexibility. Nevertheless you will get so much more rest and refreshment from your hols if you spend time planning them beforehand.
Here are some suggestions of things to take / preparations to make:
- Swimmers / walking shoes (to exercise your body)
- a good book to read (to exercise your mind)
- THE good book to read (a different Bible reading scheme?) As a Dad I think it is especially important to encourage my family to grow spiritually. Holidays are not a rest from Christian discipleship.
- Some sermons on CD / MP3 for the journey
- details of church services where you are going. A holiday is not a break from church (imagine what that would communicate to your children or friends about how important church is to you.) Instead holiday is a great opportunity to encourage another Christian fellowship and also to be stimulated by a different congregation. The internet is great for this. In a matter of minutes you can find out the time and location of a good church near to where you are staying.
- details of what’s on in the area … we try to do a mixture of things - e.g. beach / museums / walks etc. so that everyone gets to do something they like and are stimulated by.
- rest for the cook? If one person usually cooks the meals how can we give them a holiday from that too?
Any other ideas / comments?
Monday, December 7, 2009
Did Luke get Christmas wrong?
I've been chewing this over for a while now as I prepare to look at Luke 2 over Christmas
Luke 2: 1-2
I'm sure we all know some of the problems with this - e.g. King Herod (cf. Luke 1: 5 and Matthew 1-2) died before Quirnius was governor. Richard Dawkins takes great delight in highlighting them in The God Delusion.
In my mind there are three questions:
1. What is the correct translation of verse 2? Especially of 'prote' (= first above) - is it possible to translate it 'before Quirnius was governor'? Or is that merely an attempt to harmonise the gospel accounts with history?
(Herod died in 4BC, the census that was finalised under Quirnius happened 6/7 AD.)
2. What do we think is the most likely historical reconstruction of what happened? And in doing that, how do we weigh up conflicting accounts? With things like censi (is that the plural of census or a martial arts expert?) sometimes taking decades to complete are we reading a modern notion of history back into the text?
3. How does this all fit with Luke's introductory appeal to Theophilus? If Luke has got it all wrong then doesn't that seriously undermine his claim to have investigated eye-witness accounts?
This is not merely academic to me. At the moment my first point from Luke 2 is going to be - Jesus is a real person because he had a birth certificate. That comes from the text but I want to be able to preach that with confidence and integrity.
In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.)
Luke 2: 1-2
I'm sure we all know some of the problems with this - e.g. King Herod (cf. Luke 1: 5 and Matthew 1-2) died before Quirnius was governor. Richard Dawkins takes great delight in highlighting them in The God Delusion.
In my mind there are three questions:
1. What is the correct translation of verse 2? Especially of 'prote' (= first above) - is it possible to translate it 'before Quirnius was governor'? Or is that merely an attempt to harmonise the gospel accounts with history?
(Herod died in 4BC, the census that was finalised under Quirnius happened 6/7 AD.)
2. What do we think is the most likely historical reconstruction of what happened? And in doing that, how do we weigh up conflicting accounts? With things like censi (is that the plural of census or a martial arts expert?) sometimes taking decades to complete are we reading a modern notion of history back into the text?
3. How does this all fit with Luke's introductory appeal to Theophilus? If Luke has got it all wrong then doesn't that seriously undermine his claim to have investigated eye-witness accounts?
This is not merely academic to me. At the moment my first point from Luke 2 is going to be - Jesus is a real person because he had a birth certificate. That comes from the text but I want to be able to preach that with confidence and integrity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
