I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who told me this story:

I was in a prayer meeting this week with a lady who asked us to pray for her relationship with her parents. They were getting divorced after having been married for several decades. She doesn't live at home anymore. And she talked about the whole thing quite matter-of-factly. I told her that that was really sad, and the sharing of prayer points moved on to the next person.

A few days later at church, she came to me and said, “Thank you”. I asked her why. She told me that no-one else had acknowledged that it would be a painful thing, and she had found it helpful that I had.

It's a profoundly sad story in lots of ways. What must it be like to married for over half your life and then get divorced? Why do we live in a world where this woman is unable to grieve what ought to have been grieved? Ultimately, it shows the tyranny of political correctness and relativism. But before we see the tyranny, let's understand why our world thinks like this.

We live in a world that has increasingly refused to call anything bad. Divorce happens. Pornography's okay if it doesn't cause you problems. Abortion is just removing a scrap of tissue. Family is whatever you have (let's make sure we don't ‘privilege’ the nuclear family). Everything's okay.

And I want to say, that at one level, part of the motivation for this has been a good one. If divorce is associated with great stigma, then what happens when you go through it? You get ostracized by the community and end up without support when you need it most. If single motherhood is associated with moral failure, then what happens if you find yourself a single mother? Often you and your child are ostracized and left without support. So in an attempt to make sure that people aren't marginalized, we have started saying that everything is good. If you're divorced, that's good for you. If you've fallen pregnant outside of marriage, that's good for you. Our world talks like this because it wants to make life better for people.

My question is, does it really make life better?

My problem with this relativism is that it ultimately becomes oppressive. If something is good, then it shouldn't be mourned. If divorce just happens, then you shouldn't get upset about it—particularly if you're not living at home anymore.

But of course, the fact that sin so besets a relationship that divorce becomes its end is profoundly sad. It's sad for the people involved, it's sad for their friends and it's sad for their children. When a young mother is a single mother because of her failure or her boyfriend's failure, that too is a sad reality. God created families with two parents for a reason. There are good reasons for seeking a nuclear family for the growth of children wherever that is possible. What we need is a way of acknowledging that sin is real and damaging, without then leaving people with nowhere to find comfort, confess their sins and seek real help.

It seems to me that the gospel is a real answer to these problems. God doesn't say to us, “There, there. It's okay; you didn't really do anything wrong because there is no right and wrong.” He says, “Yes you have failed, and sin is terrible. That's why I sent Jesus to die for sin—to bring you forgiveness. You are my child. I love you. And I will accept you and care for you in spite of what you've done.”

Jesus offers us a way of both saying that sin is awful and that we must love each other. It's much better than the tyranny of relativism, which refuses to let us grieve what needs to be grieved. True joy isn't found in pretending nothing is wrong; true joy is found in deep forgiveness, which allows us to acknowledge wrong and to love all the same.

3 Comments »

Nicole's challenging thoughts on appreciation and approval have motivated me to finish off a little post I've had sitting in my file for several weeks. It's about the same topic, but from the opposite side—not so much the praise and approval of man, but the fear of man.

It was Proverbs 29:25 that got me thinking about it: “The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe”. This is a kind of reversal of the key theme of Proverbs: this is not the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 1:7), but the fear of man, which is the beginning of captivity and ruin.

Misplaced fear leads us into a trap. It appears to be the way of safety. We quaver before the power and threat that someone wields over us, and we back down and submit. Perhaps then they won't hurt us. But giving in to the fear enslaves us; it delivers us into their power. When we yield to the fear of man out of fear of what we might lose, we lose our trust in the very person who can and will save us—the Lord who has revealed his name to us.

Jesus also contrasts the two fears:

So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. (Matt 10:26-29).

What do we do when our fear is of man rather than God? My personal list includes:

• Avoiding conflict at almost any cost.
• Being unwilling to offer a plain and honest rebuke when it is necessary.
• Not wanting to speak up for the truth in a group or social situation because of the risk of what people might think of me.
• Being unwilling to bear people's anger for saying or doing what is true and right.
• Using email to say negative or hard things instead of talking to someone in person.
• Softening or downplaying the hard truths of the gospel because I don't want to share in its stench.
• Softening or downplaying the supernatural element of Christianity because I don't want to appear unsophisticated or simple-minded.

There is an answer to all the problems that arise from the fear of men—from seeking their good opinion and avoiding their scorn, ridicule and persecution. It is not greater self-esteem, but a better and greater fear—the fear of him who holds all things in his hands—even the sparrow that falls to the ground.

When are you tempted to fall into the snare that is the fear of man?

1 Comment »

This weeks blast from the past raises the issue of what models we look to as Christians. Enjoy.

Who are our models?

Who should Christians be looking to as models or examples of the Christian way of life? The following section provides a Bible search on the subject of modelling and imitation. You might like to work through it in a study group.

1. God

God himself—especially in the love and forgiveness shown to us through his Son—is the model for our relationships. We are told directly to be imitators of God:

Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Eph 5:1-2)

2. Christ:

As Jesus announced the Kingdom of God, he called disciples to follow him. Jesus' call is fundamentally an unattractive one, since he demands a denial of oneself to take up the cross of suffering. Even the closest of family loyalties must not precede the loyalty to Christ (Matt 10:37-39); possessions can be a threat to following Christ, and therefore a threat to one's very soul (Matt 16:24-28).

Christ's disciples follow his word as a sheep responds to the voice of the shepherd (In 10:27). The disciple also follows the example of the Master, especially in service of each other:

Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. (John 13:14-15)

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)

Jesus expressed to his disciples something of his philosophy of teaching. He recognised that the teacher's role includes the training of another to be like the teacher. This role is inescapable; it is to some degree inevitable that where the teacher goes, the student will follow:

He also told them this parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.” Luke 6:39-40

The parable highlights the fact that a teacher is not just an informer, but a life-shaper, leading the student into success or failure, even life or death.

Christ provided the ultimate example of this sort of leadership. Peter finally came to understand the importance of Christ's example to the church (see 1 Peter 2:21)

The verses which follow spell out the details of Christ's example: sinless, without deceit, not returning insults, making no threats, entrusting himself to God, dying in our place, wounded for our healing. Not only is the Cross an atonement for sins, it is also our supreme motivation for faith and endurance in the face of oppressive powers.

In summary, Christ is our example of suffering and service.

3. Paul

Jesus anticipated that others would follow the disciples as they followed him and learned to fish for men (Matt 4: 19). It is not surprising, therefore, that Paul called upon the churches to follow him as he followed the example of Christ. Christ is the ultimate example of forfeiting one's own good for the salvation of others—an example which Paul put into practice:

For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Cor 10:33-11:1)

The chain of imitation continued through Paul's ‘apprentices’. The implication of the following passages is that Timothy was so like Paul that, in having Timothy present, the Corinthians were reminded of Paul's approach to Christian living:

Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. (1 Cor 4:16-17)

You [Timothy], however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, persecutions, sufferings-what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. (2 Tim 3:10-11)

Indeed, Paul's life and teaching were transparent, he could urge his example upon the Thessalonians (see 2 Thess 3:6-10) and the Philippians (see Phil 3: 17; 4:9).

4. Leaders

Paul's ‘apprentices’ are commanded to be models of what they teach. Timothy is instructed to

Command and teach these things. Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech; in life, in love, in faith and in purity...

Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely... (1 Tim 4:11-16)

Similarly, for Titus, his teaching is to be shown by example in order to confound opponents:

In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned. (Titus 2:7-8)

Here is a marvellous profile of the Christian leader. The leader demonstrates by persevering in the faith the proper response to the word he speaks. Christian leaders demonstrate faith in action (see Heb 13:7).

5. All Christians

It is not only leaders but all believers who are to be examples to others. The Thessalonians demonstrated the ‘chain of modelling’ which is to occur among Christians:

You became imitators of us and of the Lord; in spite of severe suffering, you welcomed the message with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. (1 Thess 1:6-7; see also 2:14)

Those who are in danger of falling away are called to imitate the faith and patience of others (Heb 6: 12).

Discussion questions

1. Relate some specific incidents where you have grown as a Christian through both the teaching and life of a leader.
2. What implications of this article do you need to think through for training leaders in your church?
3. Can you ask others to imitate your way of life? Why or why not?
4. Do your teachers call upon you to follow their way of life? Why or why not?
5. Should you offer yourself as an apprentice to your leaders?
6. Should you invite someone to be your ministry apprentice for their training?

Read the full article online.

Add Comment »

The regular ‘money spot’ can be one of the most awkward and divisive moments in the life of a church. The time comes for the person responsible to update the church on its financial health, and in most cases, to urge an increase in giving to meet the shortfall. That update begins to increase in frequency as the urgency of the situation intensifies.

What tends to happen is that the people who are already giving generously either

1. find ways to give even more generously or
2. get fed up with being asked to give more and react negatively.

All the while, there is a significant proportion of the congregation who are giving little, if anything. (Note: ‘little’ means ‘an insignificant proportion of our capacity’; see Luke 21:1-4.) What we need to do is not only thank those who are already giving generously, but strongly challenge those who are not.

Here is a script for how you might do this:

In a moment, I will talk briefly about how we're tracking financially as a church. But before I do that, I would like to acknowledge that there are at least three groups of people here. Those three groups need to respond in different ways to what I am about to say.

1. First of all, there are many here who have carefully considered their financial obligations and capacity in regards to supporting the ministry of the gospel here at [insert name of your church] and beyond. You have worked out what it means for you to be generous in your present situation. You have prayerfully considered your giving, and you have acted. If that's you, then here's what I want you to do for the next two minutes. I want you to ignore everything I am about to say. This doesn't concern you. You're already doing your bit. Thank you.
2. Secondly, there are some here who are visiting our church, or who have not yet made up their minds that this will be their home church. Similarly, please ignore what I am about to say. You are our guest this morning/evening.
3. But there is a third group. You regularly participate in the life of our church, and gain spiritual and relational benefits from the ministries here. BUT ... you either don't contribute anything financially, or you give in an irregular, insignificant and unreflective way. You enjoy the benefits of a ministry, but you rely on the person in the next row to pay for it. To put it in a straightforward Australian way, you're ‘bludging’ off the rest of us. It's our best guess that this third group represents more than half of all those here this morning/evening. What I want you to do now as you listen to what I am about to say is feel guilty: feel guilty in such a way that you repent, confess your sin to God, and commit to obeying God in this area of money.

There could be no objection to making an announcement like this virtually every Sunday of the year. There is simply no reason for anyone to complain. The first group can't get offended by an announcement that they have been explicitly told to ignore. The second group is being educated that if they do commit to this church, then the expectation is that they ought to give thoughtfully and generously. The third group can't complain; they need to believe the gospel and respond to the generosity of God in repentance and faith.

20 Comments »

All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way.

So wrote GF Handel in the second chorus of Part II of his great oratorio Messiah. Keen readers may have spotted that this is not an original thought; Handel drew on Isaiah 53:4-6. In fact, Messiah is fundamentally a musical Bible study on the saving work of Jesus, and it is often performed at Easter, so get along if you can. (Here's a performance for Sydney readers.)

At a recent rehearsal for another Messiah performance, the “All we like sheep have gone astray” chorus was being practised, and the conductor remarked that she thought Handel probably inserted this line as a joke to make fun of the British aristocracy.

One of the violinists suggested that this was most likely not the case, and, in fact, the ‘joke’ line was a direct quote from Isaiah, which presented the fundamental need about why the Messiah needed to come in the first place! The conductor refused the suggestion and instead asked the orchestra to play in a light-hearted, joking manner.

This is yet another example of why we need to keep doing everything we can to raise the level of biblical literacy and gospel awareness in our communities.

1 Comment »

In my post a little while ago about Driscoll's New Calvinism, I noted that I had some more things to say about the current catchphrase ‘cultural engagement’. Given that the spur to write about cultural engagement came from Driscoll's post, it might be reasonable to assume that my beef is with him. So I guess I want to say at the start that my comments about this aren't directed particularly at Driscoll at all; it was just that he happened to use a phrase that, I admit, I find a little unhelpful. It's a line that everyone everywhere seems to be using. And apparently it's good if you do it and bad if you don't, but what I want to know is what on earth does it mean?

It's a phrase that is made up of two words that say so much, they're in danger of communicating nothing. Take this definition of culture from dictionary.com: “the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another”. Is culture what anybody anywhere does? Is it what cool people do—what particular groups within society do? Is it anything that they do, or is it only worthwhile things? Are pornography, the theatre, eating ice-cream, car racing, beer drinking, dwarf tossing, swimming, hanging upside down off the local playground equipment, and talking over a latte all examples of culture? The significance of these questions, if it's not already emerging (pardon the pun), will be seen shortly.

But let's move on to engagement. I can get engaged to my future wife, engage in nuclear warfare (and, yes, it is unfortunate that these two things are side by side), engage third gear, engage the services of a house cleaner, and engage just about anything I jolly well like.

So is cultural engagement having any sort of relationship with anything that any other human being does?

Now, before you all get upset about me being a grumpy old man riding my high horse, or get annoyed at me because I have failed to engage, let me tell you why I think it's important.

Firstly, unless we can talk meaningfully about what it actually means to be culturally engaged, it becomes a weasel word that allows you to call some people in and some people out. Cultural engagement is, I think, a description of a vibe. And while I think that there's a time to describe a vibe, I think, in this case, it's ultimately unhelpful. For example, if I don't like your vibe, I say that you're not culturally engaged, and that's the end of the argument.

A second issue, though, relates to the question of culture and the idea of redeeming culture (which seems to me to be why everybody wants to engage culture in the first place). The assumption is that this culture thing is something inherently valuable that needs to be preserved. But if culture is just the actions of human beings, then the Bible leads me to suspect that culture requires not so much preservation as repenting of. If we take the Bible's teaching on human depravity seriously and give any weight to Romans 14:23, then we will conclude that our culture is essentially anti-God.

Now, at this point, we need to be a little careful, so let me slow down a bit and explain what I do mean and what I don't mean. My last statement enters onto some essentially difficult ground because of the nature of ethics. It seems to me that, according to the Scriptures, the evaluation of any action by any human being involves at least two areas of inquiry: an assessment of the action in and of itself, and an assessment of the motivations involved in the action. For example, I might decide to help the proverbial little old lady across the road. The action gets a tick. I might help her every day because I am hoping to get to know her well because she is a rich little old lady who will be dropping off the perch sometime soon. The action is, all of a sudden, less noble. Of course, while it is possible the action in itself and the motivation involved can be detached like this, they do also work together much of the time. And so my evil intentions will often issue forth evil doings. (Yours will too, by the way!)

The problem with all of this is, of course, that we then have a problem with evaluating culture. Some of what we do culturally is, when viewed from the perspective of the action in itself, morally neutral. For example, drinking coffee is relatively morally neutral (although, of course, the economic conditions of the labourers who produced it isn't, so let's assume for the moment that you grew the coffee in your own backyard and did it fertilizer-free, thus lessening your environmental impact). However, as someone in rebellion against God, even your coffee drinking is tainted by your rebellious anti-God stance: everything that does not proceed from faith is sin. Now, we quite wisely don't want to go around telling people that their coffee drinking is inherently sinful because the nuances required to understand what you are and aren't saying are too difficult to communicate easily. However, there's another issue involved: because the life of the person in rebellion against God flows out of their essentially rebellious heart, they will (to a greater or lesser extent) keep creating culture that is anti-God. And so we end up in a conundrum: do we point out the essentially antisocial and anti-God reality that is consumerism? Or do we say that shopping is neutral? After all, you've got to wear clothes. (I'm pretty sure, at least, there's a biblical imperative in there somewhere.)

What all of this essentially means is that culture—our actions as human beings—can be viewed from one angle as neutral (neither good nor bad). But when viewed from the perspective of our motives, even what is neutral is essentially anti-God. And because our motives and our actions line up eventually, our tendency as a society will be to keep heading in that direction (even though it might be possible to isolate any bit of it and describe it as ‘neutral’). So when we talk about redeeming culture, what exactly do we mean? Do we mean that we destroy culture? For example, I presume that the goal of the Christian isn't to make Christian porn; it is to make a world in which there is no market for porn at all. The gospel doesn't redeem that culture; it just destroys it. Or do we mean taking the kind of morally neutral culture (like my friends who play soccer together on Saturday) and getting them to play Christian soccer (whatever that is)?

The problem, it seems to me, is that in talking about engaging and redeeming culture, we are talking about the fundamentally wrong thing. Culture isn't a thing in and of itself; it's the outpouring of human hearts. What needs redeeming is not the culture, but the hearts of my non-Christian family and friends. So I take it that when we talk about being engaged in culture, what we really mean is that we need to be knowing and loving the people around about us, living faithfully for Christ and sharing Jesus with them. But phrased like that, the issues become slightly different.

The phrase “culturally engaged” can (and, it seems to me in various contexts, does) mean almost anything. So for some people, it means Christians should adopt their left (or occasionally right) wing political views, or that Christians should watch certain kinds of movies, or that Christians should be more involved with world aid organizations, or that Christians should ... I'm sure you can fill in your own blanks. But nearly all of these things lie on the periphery of what Jesus thinks is important (if you can call being totally outside of the circle on the periphery). Jesus isn't asking us to engage or redeem culture; he's asking us to love God and love the people around us enough to live like Jesus and share the truth about him. God wants to redeem people, not culture, by the death of his Son.

I know that there are people out there who mean something like loving people and bringing Christ to them when they talk about engaging and redeeming culture. But I think that the term is hopelessly confused. It will be clearer for everyone if we just use the biblical language. So let's use the biblical terms, shall we? Let's love our neighbours enough to know and serve them, and seek every opportunity to share the good news of Jesus.

27 Comments »

I am on study leave at the moment—a lovely privilege of being a lecturer at Moore College—‘time out’ from the normal routine in order to enable all kinds of extra thought and reflection, which is always refreshing and productive. I talk to friends who don't have such a privilege, and they are immediately envious and immediately see the value of it.

But even though I am permitted to let all ‘duties’ go, I couldn't miss the college graduation. It is always a wonderful time to celebrate the achievements of a generation of students that are about to be launched on the world.

And it really is ‘the world’. Every year our graduates seem to find a new corner of this huge globe to take the gospel to. Mission. Mission. Mission. Mission is such a feature of Moore College. Always has been; always will be. And knowing that we are sending such a fine group of new ministers into the Lord's harvest field is always a real buzz—well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord's work.

And there's such a range of people and results—the immense flexibility that is possible in the college programme: one year, three, four; diplomas (Youth, Mission, Ministry) or degrees (BTh, BD). And this is even before we talk about the internal flexibility once you start: help for those who struggle, a push to those who don't, electives at the right time in the programme, and so on. Flexibility. But still, the same good product. Our graduates are well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord's work.

And such testimony from the interviews at Graduation! Such personal engagement with God's word. This isn't easy because God's word keeps shaping you, and that ain't easy. But it's something to thank God for. The constant exposure of God's word through being able to take time out for sustained reflection; God's word hits you in those kind of circumstances.

Full-time study. Or, for those for whom a full-time load is best done half-time, a half-time full-time load, if you know what I mean. But there is something about being full-time—taking the time out to be confronted by, exposed to, deeply immersed in the sustained, constant, ever-present word of God through classes and interaction with peers and faculty. This is powerful medicine with powerful effects. And the results are clear: graduates who are well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord's work.

If you think about it, it is clear and obvious. I am provided study leave to allow greater thought and reflection. But part-time study is always, well, part-time. Shortcuts are always shortcuts. How could we possibly hope to get the best kind of ministers of the gospel that we can if we are not prepared to give them ‘time out’—to have the devastating grace of constant ever-present exposure to God's word?

I have been alarmed at recent suggestions from certain visitors from overseas that ministers either don't need theological training (leave that one to another day!) or that they can get their theological training ‘on the run’, so to speak. All kinds of things are said to justify this claim, but none of them are worth listening to.

But (they respond) they have such an important ministry! (What, God can't do without them??). And they are only young once! (What, and God can only use the young—and ignorant?). But they need to keep anchored in the church! (What, and that doesn't happen during theological training where they are exposed to the life of the church across the centuries, and they mix with hundreds of other Christians all day every day, from every kind and size of church you could imagine?). But they can't readjust their life to go full-time to theological college! (What, they want to avoid the sustained, provocative shaping that constant full-time exposure to God's word demonstrably has on people, allowing their so important ‘ministry’ to distract them from this work of God in their life?). And on it goes.

Probably the worst objection is the claim that full-time theological education is a thing of the past, not the present. You can detect the smell of sulphur all over that one! This idolatry of the new has been around since the 60s, at least, but surely that is ‘so yesterday’. Haven't we grown up a bit since then?

Ah, graduation! A high point of my year. What a wonderful thing it is to listen to these young men and women who know the benefits firsthand of a flexible, mission-centred, full-time theological education—young men and women who are being launched into the world, well-taught, thoughtful, personally changed by the experience of college, and fired up for their new venture in the Lord's work!

Why would you want to change that wonderful inheritance from the Lord that has worked well in the past, that is still working well and that will certainly keep on working well into the future? You would have to be brain dead, perhaps? But that is probably a rude thing to say, so I withdraw the remark. Certainly, better reasons than I have heard will need to be advanced before I am convinced that full-time theological education needs to be ditched from ministerial training.

20 Comments »