By Tony Payne

Regular Sola Panel readers will no doubt have detected a little slowness and quietness over the past six weeks or so. We’ve been a bit light on the posting. There’s a few reasons for this, but the main is that we’ve been gearing up for a major change that will take place on Thursday, 1st September.

On that day, the new online home of The Briefing will go live. The Briefing is published by Matthias Media, the hosters and sponsors of the Sola Panel, and we are praying that the new Briefing site will turn out to be a really significant hub for Reformed-evangelical thought and discussion. We thought that the logical thing to do was to take the Sola Panel blog across to that new site. So as of next Thursday, we’ll be closing down ‘solapanel.org’ and redirecting all traffic to matthiasmedia.com/briefing.

We’re also going to change the format of the Sola Panel slightly. As of next Thursday, there will be six regular panellists: four from Aus (me, Sandy Grant, Lionel Windsor and Jean Williams), one from the US (Marty Sweeney), and one from the UK (Richard Perkins). We’ll each have our own ‘page’ or blog, on which we’ll pop things up at a pretty regular clip. We’ll interact with each other’s posts and with reader’s comments as we do now.

Other current Sola Panellists (like Mark Baddeley, Scott Newling, Gordon Cheng, Peter Bolt, etc.) will continue to contribute in the main Briefing content panel, as they are able.

So to our many readers, this is not the end, but a re-location! We still love the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation, and we still want to promote a Bible-driven passion for theology, holiness and gospel ministry. Please come and visit us at our new home: matthiasmedia.com/briefing.

By Gordon Cheng

By popular demand (two people asked), here is my next script for a culture watch spot I did with the kids at church on Sunday.

You will need two overhead visuals for this culture watch spot:

1. This YouTube video of the Toy Story 3 furnace scene. (It's in Russian, but that’s okay.)
2. A slide with these words on it: If God is for us, who can be against us? (Romans 8:31)

Here's the script:

Hi everybody, welcome to our kids' culture watch spot, where we watch something on YouTube and then we talk about the Bible.

So I found something that was really good, but unfortunately they're talking in Russian. So I’m not sure we can watch it, because you kids won't be able to work out what it's all about!

No, just kidding. We can watch it. That's fine. But I need you to help me. Because it’s in Russian, I need you to give me your best guess, what's this video about?

[Show the YouTube video of the Toy Story 3 furnace scene.]

Okay kids, who can tell me, what's it about?

[Collect answers from children.]

It's a terrible scary thing, isn't it?

It could be about dreaming that you're a toy, and getting sucked into a giant incinerator or furnace, and never coming back. It could be about the end of the world. It could be about heaven and hell. It could be about climate change, lots of people are worried about that.

But we don't need to worry if something bad is happening, because in the end Jesus is the one who rescues us and keeps us safe, even if we die.

I've got a Bible verse about that, and it's going to come up on the overhead.

[Show the Bible verse.]

If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans chapter 8 verse 31.

Do you think you'd be able to read it with me? Okay, let's read it together.

If God is for us, who can be against us? Romans chapter 8 verse 31.

That's good news for anyone who trusts Jesus, isn't it? We don't need to be scared of anything that's going to happen, because if we trust Jesus, God is for us and will be with us even if we die.

Let's pray.

Suggestions for improvement welcome. Use it if it helps you.

By Gordon Cheng

It's a Sunday as I write this, and I'm speaking on Daniel 2 and 7 later this morning at a friend's church in Lidcombe.

Daniel 2-7 is chiastic in structure; that is to say, if you have a story where the first incident is labelled A, the second incident is labelled B, the third incident is labelled C, and so on, then the overall story (if it's chiastic) follows the pattern A B C D E (and so on, depending how long your story is) and then you get to a point and go backwards until you get to E D C B A.

Sound complicated? Well, no more complicated than knitting a yarn. It's simpler when you see (or hear) an example. So here we go:

A. We had a meeting and we planned an expedition to climb Mt Everest.
B. We organized Bear Grylls to help us carry our gear.
C. We climbed Mt Everest and had lots of adventures on the way.

D. We stood on the summit and looked around!

C. We climbed back down Mt Everest and had lots of adventures on the way.
B. We thanked Bear Grylls for his help and paid him well.
A. We had a meeting and said “What a terrific expedition! What will we do next?”

You see it? A, B, C, (D) C, B, A. When you tell it like a story, it is simple and satisfying with a suitable climax right in the middle (standing on the top of Mt Everest and looking around), and each element in the build-up resolved in the later half of the account.

Now honestly, I'm not an expert, and wouldn't have noticed that in Daniel, chapter 2 corresponds to chapter 7, chapter 3 corresponds to chapter 6 and chapter 4 corresponds to chapter 5 unless I'd read what an expert said. But once you do read it like that, it's terrific, and you realize that the centrepiece of the story is that God's kingdom overthrows arrogant and proud human empires like Nebuchadnezzar's (chapter 4) and his grandson Belshazzar (chapter 5). Of course, the true climax of Daniel is yet to come, later on in Daniel, with the resurrection of the dead and the establishing of God's eternal kingdom in Christ, but that's another story for another day.

Oh, and as a postscript, a friend agreed with me that this all sounded very clever, but were there actually any stories today that corresponded to this chiastic ‘ring’ structure? I think he was meaning to suggest that this was a theory that was possibly true, but simply too smarty-pants for its own good.

I was a bit stumped until this article in Christianity Today came to my aid. It says of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter:

Ring compositon: The whole series, as well as each book therein, conforms to the touchstones of traditional story scaffolding. Anthropologist Mary Douglas, in her book Thinking in Circles, calls it “ring composition”. She describes it as “a construction of parallelisms that must open a theme, develop it, and round it off by bringing the conclusion back to the beginning”. Bible readers might call it chiasmus.

Rowling repeatedly hits the three marks of ring writing. The Potter series and each novel have beginnings and ends that meet up. They have “centers” that both return to the question raised in the beginning and answer that question in the end. And, each book and each chapter has its mirrored image or “reverse echo” in the book or chapter on the opposite side of the story divide. “Parallelisms” define these stories.

So there you are, the most famous book of this age is chiastic, and contains chiasms within every chiasm right down to the chapter level. I admit that I haven't checked this for myself, but it's a fun little exercise for a rainy weekend. And if you get to the end of that and are keen for more chiasms, check Narnia:

I think Rowling picked up this chapter structure from her close reading of C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia and Charles Williams's seven novels, which have a similar if not identical structure.

Then back to Daniel, and the gospel of Mark!

By Sandy Grant

Last year, the Australian Parliament agreed that its Members of Parliament (MPs) should seek the views of constituents on the question of same-sex marriage.

Have you given your local MP the benefit of your view?

I urge you to respond to those set in authority over us and to share your view on the nature of marriage in a polite, well-argued way.

Below I share the letter I sent my local Member, in my capacity of Senior Minister of St Michael's Cathedral in Wollongong. I would encourage you to use your own words and the arguments you find most persuasive. You might like to be briefer than me!

At the end of my sample letter, you will find links to the articles I have found most helpful on this topic in recent times.

Dear X,

I hope you are well, and again assure you of the prayers of the people of St Michael’s for you and your fellow parliamentarians in the onerous work you do.

I understand 24th August is the date set aside for MPs to give feedback from their consultations on the issue of same-sex marriage with their constituents.

In what follows, I speak as the representative of the people of St Michael’s Anglican Cathedral. Being the Cathedral Church for the region, I also speak more broadly for many Anglican Christians in the Illawarra. As such, I would also be very glad of the opportunity to speak with you face to face about this matter. I can be contacted via the numbers mentioned below.

Firstly, I openly note that Christian views are shaped by the Bible. We accept the Bible as God’s Word to us, though we understand other Australians do not accept it as such, and respect their right to a different view. Nevertheless it is still important that our parliamentary representatives be accurately informed about what Christians believe.

In brief, I note the words of Jesus concerning marriage, recorded in the Gospel of Mark 10:6-9:

“But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Here Jesus quotes from the first pages of the first book of the Bible, Genesis, which records how God created the world. Jesus clearly understands marriage to be a heterosexual union—between one man and one woman—for life. And from the universal creation context of Genesis, this understanding applies to all humans in the world, not just Israelites, or believers.

I also note from the context of Genesis that the creation of humans as male and female and their union in marriage, is intimately linked to childbearing (to “be fruitful and multiply”, Genesis 1:28). As the Anglican Prayer Book puts it, “In marriage a new family is established in accordance with God’s purpose, so that children may be born and nurtured in secure and loving care, for their well-being and instruction, and for the good order of society, to the glory of God.”

Secondly, in speaking into the public arena, I do not expect non-Christians would automatically be persuaded by the biblical account. However I think it wise for them to hesitate before dismissing the morality of the Judea-Christian worldview, which has been such a positive force for good in our world, and is one very significant influence in shaping Australia and its laws.

However, I also argue that defining marriage as an exclusive, heterosexual union for life is good for society, based on reasons that others might accept, independently of religious commitment.

To begin with, these days many people instinctively claim all discrimination is wrong. But further thought indicates that actually we discriminate all the time.

For example, on the basis of age, children are prohibited from certain activities. On the basis of gender, men cannot claim certain benefits that apply only to a mother. Someone not born in the United States is not eligible for election as their President, and so on.

In other words different situations may justify different treatment. I argue that marriage between a man and a woman is a situation different from a same-sex union, and this can justify some differing treatment in certain respects.

Whether we think our biology has come simply from evolution or by design, most people agree we would be foolish simply to ignore our biology. In particular, and allowing for the exceptions of medical technology, it still requires a woman and a man to produce children. That will (and should) remain the case for the vast majority of circumstances.

Here is an obvious and undeniable qualitative difference between a same-sex union and a heterosexual union. The former can never produce a child. The latter has that potential inherently. Here is a reason to treat such unions differently.

Most people would agree that it is still preferable for a child to be raised by a mother and a father, with the complementary strengths and natures they bring. I acknowledge that there are exceptions for various circumstances, such as single parenthood. I also admit that individual homosexual parents may prove to be very good parents. Nevertheless, our society should encourage the ideal that, wherever possible, a child ought to have a father and a mother. Here is an additional reason to privilege marriage between a man and a woman.

In fact, one might argue that the State has no business legislating in regard to a whole range of personal relationship matters (including sexual relationships, with the exception of abuse). The reason it legislates in regards to marriage is to encourage high standards in regards to the protection of children, and because the family is the building block of society.

I realise these arguments are not accepted by all people. I am aware of some of the objections to them. On request I could supply further argumentation with footnotes, but this is not the place.

I conclude by saying that the fact marriage—between a man and a woman—has been almost universally recognised across cultures and through history as existing as a special category—deserving special treatment—should cause us to pause before removing that special treatment.

Personally I think a relationships register to ensure just treatment in regards to inheritance, property rights, default powers of attorney, and so on, is an appropriate method for recognising same sex unions. However I think it should be extended towards other types of union people may wish to register, such as single brother and single sister who live together all their life, or two single women who have lived together in a non-sexual relationship for many years.

One last comment regards process. The ALP went to the last election on an unequivocal platform stating there would be no change to the definition of marriage in Australian law. Should the ALP change its platform in this matter, it should openly take any new policy to the next federal election and submit to the will of the electorate, rather than having its MPs break this clear promise by trying to alter the law beforehand in the current Parliament.

Yours sincerely,

Canon Sandy Grant
Senior Minister
St Michael’s Anglican Cathedral, Wollongong

Further reading

• The latest, very thoughtful, briefing from the Social Issues Executive of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney (to which I belong), on the topic of responding to same-sex marriage proposals, which contains links to previous briefings and other helpful articles
• A lengthier philosophical case for traditional marriage, made without religious appeal, by the editors of the National Review (a conservative American journal)
• A short and strong opinion piece against same-sex marriage, made in an Australian tabloid newspaper, without raising religious perspectives
• Australian-Canadian ethicist Margaret Somerville's article in The Australian explains why we should prioritise children's rights over those of same sex couples in this debate (ignore the headline which does not represent her article fairly and is inflammatory)
• John Piper's article on this topic, recently written in light of his US state (Minnesota) legislature’s decision to send to a referendum an amendment to make it explicit that marriage is only recognised there as being between one man and one woman

By Sandy Grant

Friends, I'm not ashamed to say I shed a tear when I opened up my computer on Thursday morning to read that John Stott had died, aged 90, and gone to be with the Lord.

When I referred to Stott in a sermon, I typically introduced him as the greatest English Christian never to become Bishop—almost certainly a blessing to the wider Christian world! His life revolved around All Souls Church, Langham Place in London, where he was first a parishioner as a child, later the curate (assistant minister), rector (senior minister) and then rector emeritus. But through writing and itinerant speaking, his ministry was global.

I never met the man, but his influence on me is incredible. I read The Cross of Christ during first year at Moore Theological College. I already knew Jesus died for me, but after reading that I understood what a many-faceted gem the atoning work of our Saviour is. I could now never forget how absolutely central it must be to our preaching and our believing.

His book on ethics and Timothy Dudley-Smith's biography, especially the first volume, also shaped me as I gained insights from the way he conducted his Christian life and his gospel ministry. The pastoral staff at St Michael's studied one of his last books, The Living Church, together, and found it full of biblical wisdom expressed with profound simplicity.

I understand from my elders that his influence on the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, which I serve, was absolutely critical in establishing ‘systematic expository preaching’ (that is, continuous explanation of Bible passages in consecutive order, Sunday by Sunday).

We see the fruit of this method in his commentaries on many New Testament books; absolute wonders of exposition. If you see a Stott commentary, buy it! As I reflected, it occurred to me that over the years I have probably quoted John Stott in my preaching more than any other modern author. An electronic search of my sermon texts proved the point; he is not only biblical, he is quotable! Here are some of my favourites (all references to the relevant Bible Speaks Today commentary, unless otherwise noted).

On 1 Thessalonians 1:5: “We must not acquiesce in the contemporary disenchantment with words. Words matter. And the gospel has specific content. That's why it must be verbalised.” (p. 33)

On 2 Timothy 2:8-13: “…Blessing comes through pain, life through death and glory through suffering. It is an invariable law of Christian life and service. So why should we expect things to be easy for us or promise an easy time to others? … It is this principle that took Jesus Christ through a lowly birth and a shameful death to his glorious resurrection and heavenly reign. It is this principle which had brought Paul his chains and his prison cell, in order that the elect might obtain salvation and glory. It would be ridiculous, therefore, to expect our Christian life and service to cost us nothing.” (p. 65)

On Acts 20:28, on the metaphor of shepherding the flock: “I hesitate to apply the metaphor too closely and characterize the people of God as dirty, lousy or stupid! But some people are a great trial to their pastors (and vice versa). And their pastors will persevere in caring for them only if they remember how valuable they are in God's sight. They are the flock of God the Father, purchased by the precious blood of God the Son, and supervised by overseers appointed by God the Holy Spirit. If the three persons of the Trinity are thus committed to the welfare of the people, should we not be also?” (p. 329)

With regard to resisting the false teaching in Acts 20:29-31: “We are frequently told to be positive in our teaching, and never negative. But those who say this have either not read the New Testament, or, having read it, they disagree with it. For the Lord Jesus and his apostles refuted error themselves and urged us to do the same. One wonders if it is the neglect of this obligation which is the major cause of today's theological confusion. If, when false teaching arises, Christian leaders sit idly by and do nothing, or turn tail and flee, they will earn the terrible epithet [‘hired hands’ Jn 10:12] who care nothing for Christ's flock.” (pp. 328-29)

On Jesus' call for his disciples to fish for human beings: “Yet there is a strange reluctance among us to engage in personal evangelism. We sometimes sing ‘Oh for a thousand tongues to sing my dear Redeemer's praise’. But it is a useless wish. For one thing we will never have a thousand tongues. For another, if we had them, we would not know what to do with them when the one tongue we have is often silence.” (The Living Church, p. 98)

On modern church services lacking the fear of God: “The church is not always conspicuous for the profound reality of its worship. In particular, we who call ourselves ‘evangelical’ do not know much how to worship. Evangelism is our specialty, not worship. We seem to have little sense of the greatness and glory of Almighty God. We do not bow down before him in awe and wonder. Our tendency is to be cocky, flippant and proud. We take little trouble to prepare our worship services. In consequence, they are sometimes slovenly, mechanical, perfunctory and dull. At other times they are frivolous, to the point of irreverence. No wonder those seeking reality often pass us by!” (The Living Church, p. 45)

“Far from offering us flattery, the cross undermines our self-righteousness, and we can stand before it only with a bowed head and a broken spirit.” (The Cross of Christ, p. 12)

On 2 John: “Our love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened by love.” (p. 207)

Other tributes

• Mark Thompson, President Anglican Church League, Sydney
• Justin Taylor
• Sydney Anglicans
• Tim Stafford in Christianity Today (lengthier obituary)

By Scott Newling

This is the third post in this series; you can read part one, and part two.

There is a famous phrase about intergenerational dependence: that ‘we stand on the shoulders of giants’. It reminds us that whatever we have we owe to those greats before us. But let me remind you of Isaac Newton's specific use of the phrase: “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”. In other words, the upshot of standing on a giant's shoulders is that you tend to have a better view than the giant himself does. As we build sensibly on the greats of previous generations, we also have the privilege of seeing better than they.

The reformed church is always reforming. We don't stand on giants' shoulders so we can stomp on them; we stand on their shoulders because they put us there. But to extend the imagery again, while they put us on their shoulders so that we can see what they could see, the effect is of course to have been given a better view—a view that we ought not be silent about. And we pray that the next generation would so use us.

The problem is that we live in a society used to adversarial rather than collegial critique. To seek to reform what we've been given sounds like a fight rather than taking up the baton—especially if the ones passing the baton don't want to let go, don't trust us to hold it, and can't see where we may run with it because they too think reformation by definition sounds like a fight (in this case, with them). As in a relay, we pray that the previous generations will run with us a part of the way—that space in time in the race where both are running full speed and both are holding the baton. To be set on the path and to continue further down it.

I have met a genuine fear in some ‘youngers’ about speaking up. They love and respect their elders so much that it would seem a critique and a ‘fight’, a parting or separation of ways, to dare critique their elders. That's a myth of churchmanship promoted by the model of religious writing endorsed by secluar media: everything is a confrontation, division, and fight. But we know better. We know that we strive together for the truth, we know that we each seek to safeguard the gospel, even if we disagree for the moment on how. And we listen to one another.

We need to move beyond an adversarial model of critiquing, and even of worrying that the newspapers will call our model of critiquing divisive no matter what we do. We need to embrace a model where we seek to push higher together, to bring one another closer to the knowledge of God. It would be a shame if those who have taught our particular generation so faithfully thought of this growth to maturity as betrayal and so silenced us (exasperated us); it would be a shame if we thought of it as betrayal and so failed to speak, or only spoke in the ashes of conflict and the dishonouring of our elders. But the greatest shame of all would be if we failed to speak simply because we were afraid.

By Sandy Grant

I was asked for recommendations for resources that would encourage parents to read the Bible with their kids, especially in the six-to-ten-year-old age range. I can think of several, most of which my family has tried.

1. Bible Bites, from Youthworks. This would work best for families which have never read the Bible together before, and are not so familiar with the Bible. A bit too basic for kids like mine, who have had daily Bible reading for years, attend SRE, and Sunday School twice on Sunday!

2. Table Talk, from the Good Book Company (a bit like a UK version of Matthias Media). Family Bible reading notes, in undated three-month blocks, for ages seven to ten (but okay a little either side).

The link below takes you to the first in the series, but search their website for “Table Talk” and you'll get the rest. In parallel with Table Talk, Good Book Company also produce XTB personal Bible reading notes for kids in the same age group.

We have found these very helpful for family devotions, and our kids really enjoyed the personal Bible reading notes.

3. For a change of pace, try reading a couple of pages of Bruce Ware's book Big Truths for Young Hearts. It's especially good for church kids who have become really familiar with most of the famous Bible stories, because it comes at the Bible from a doctrinal angle, rather than narratorial. I blogged about how it worked for our family (you can also see links to three previous ideas I shared for strengthening families in this article).

4. Another change of pace was to do Short Steps for Long Gains (Family Edition), by Simon and Kathy Manchester. Simon was an assistant minister at my church, and is now senior minister at St Thomas' North Sydney. This little booklet has family devotions on 26 topics of the Bible, one for each letter of the alphabet, springboarding off just a couple of verses.

5. Here's a new resource I am going to try with our kids: Long Story Short: Ten-Minute Devotions to Draw Your Family to God. It is recommended by some American Christian leaders I respect. You can download a sample section of the book. It looks quite promising to me, although our kids are almost all out of the age range we are discussing. You can read Justin Taylor's blog about it.

6. However, the most basic method we have used is just to read the Bible without any aids (except what's in our heads from our own reading and study of God's Word). You can do this as a family, or one-on-one with individual kids. It works well to get each kids to bring their own copy of the Bible to the table. We would all take turns reading the chapter (or half chapter) aloud. Karyn and I would think up questions or discussion points (sometimes using the Briefing Bible reading notes for hints).

Obviously you all need to use the same version. We found NIrV (New International Readers Version) or CEV was good in infants, and then moved to NIV with primary aged kids, although our kids are all good readers. The kids seemed to love ticking off each book of the Bible we completed in the contents page of their own Bible. The aim is eventually to have read every book of the Bible with them (or to have gotten them to read it on their own, as they get older).

I shared some advice from a slightly older Christian leader (and good friend of the Chins), Dave Martin, in my blog post ‘Read the Word with your kids’.

One other thing: you need to encourage your kids to read more broadly if you want them to read the Bible, as well as for their own educational development. Even if you are not a good reader, read to your young children! Persevere at it. Ask others for tips about what helps with kids for whom it doesn't come easily or naturally.

I know a parent who really does not enjoy reading much themselves, and finds it slow going. But they made a point of reading to their kids when young every day, and making the time to take them to the library every week or so, and their kids have turned out to be excellent readers.

Lastly, I strongly recommend Matthias Media's Daily Reading Bible booklets, for your own personal Bible reading. In each book, there's about 60 undated days worth of personal Bible reading with a couple of questions and pointers for thought, plus a prayer suggestion. Why would you expect your kids to do it, if you are not doing it yourself?

By Scott Newling

This is the second post in this series; you can read the first post, Unassuming generations.

It can be very tempting as an elder (in whatever context: family, school, youth group, church, denomination, organization, committee, etc.) to just do things yourself; you're more experienced, more capabable, and can get things done quicker. And as time goes on and you keep doing things yourself for those very reasons, those reasons become self-perpetuating: you are more and more experienced than anyone else will ever be because they are never given a go.

The problem with this habit is that when the time comes for us to depart the role, no-one can inherit it because no one is capable. That is, the way our ministry has been conducted over time has been done in such a way that the ministry will go through tumoil as the change of generation occurs. Either the ministry itself will collapse because it has been built entirely around ourselve (and there have been some well-publicized churches and movements in recent times that have acknowledged a contentment with this reality), or the ministry will suffer lag as someone completely inexperienced to the role seeks to take the reigns without any prior help. I've seen that happen before too, and it's ugly.

One of the first things I was blessed to be taught in ministry was this: train people up so that you begin to work yourself out of your role as soon as you get there. Sometimes people won't understand it (they'll want to know why the youth minister spends most of his time training and replacing himself with other leaders rather than doing the up-front stuff himself all the time), sometimes people will think little of you (“He keeps spending his time helping others to preach rather than preach himself”). Most of the time you'll potentially find it frustrating (“I could have preached/led/run that far better than they did”). And, like getting ‘help’ from your toddlers, the activity could take twice as long with a less than professional result.

But the result is not just the multiplication of ministry (an idea we are perhaps familiar with), but the preservation of ministry across the years.

In other words, we want to teach ourselves to step aside so others can have a go. Stepping aside doesn't mean stepping out: we stay there and mentor personally and individually those we are training. We give them preaching slots when we're there, not when we're on holidays. We get them onto the committee with us and give them wisdom afterwards over coffee.

We also step aside so others can step up under our care. We don't get people to step in (“You can do it only because I can't be there to do it myself, because I'm on holidays”), we teach people to step up.

Permit me to illustrate this by making a two-sided appeal, that I guess has emerged from my own experiences as I've thought about intergenerational ministry (whether the ‘generation’ of a few years at youth group, or a few decades in denominational work).

First, to those of us being ministered to in any given context: don't equate certain activities with the ministry position. For example, the senior minister's role is not to preach each week, but to safeguard the ministry of the word and prayer. Now that may mean he preaches most regularly, but it doesn't mean he has to preach exclusively or even most often. Does the youth minister need to be of a certain mould (e.g. good at ‘youth talks’) to be a good youth minister? The good youth minister continually trains up others in a high-turnover ministry where a generation is six years at best. The reason I make this appeal is because the minister needs to be freed from certain pressures from his flock about how a ministry is to be run in order to have the flexibility to develop the ministry across generations and certainly beyond his own generation.

Second, to those in positions of eldership: don't equate your eldership with a particular role, or an institutional office. You don't need to hold a certain role in church, be on certain committees, or even be employed by your denomination to be an elder to others within the denomination. Eldership is about relationships, not institutions, and mentoring is personal, not institutional. Rather than preach every week, run every Bible study (am I guilty of this one!), run every committee or speak at every conference or camp (if that's you), find and train others to do it instead. Be a mentor to others, and get them to step up within the youth group, church committee, or denomination, and give wisdom and insight behind the scenes. Put other people on the committees and share your wisdom with them outside of the meetings. Spend the time with your upcoming preachers and get them preaching under your tutelage. Once again, I make the appeal so that we all learn to work out our core business in such a way that the preservation of ministry across generations is presevered. 'Dominate til I die' -type models (forgive the crassness) have little longevity to them, especially since they're predicated in part on a secret expectation that God won't take my life in an instant. I could die tomorrow; so I don't leave generational transition until tomorrow: I do it today.

Replace yourself, don't perpetuate yourself. Step aside so others can step up. Otherwise, when you step out others will have to step in, and it'll be everything you feared in the first place (when those fears kept you there instead of them) and more.

By Tony Payne

Sandy Grant is a man of integrity.

Back in the early days of Sola Panel, I wrote a post about the fad of Christians supporting the fair trade coffee movement, in which I basically suggested that while the sentiment of wanting to help poor third-world coffee growers was noble, trying to do it by a centralized price-fixing mechanism would probably do more harm than good.

There was, as you might imagine, a pretty lively debate in the comments, and Sandy was one of the Sola Panelists who politely begged to differ with my perspective. (And he was indeed polite.)

Now flash forward: if you were Sandy, and you happened to come across some evidence that cast significant doubt on the effectiveness of the fair trade movement, what would you do? Ignore it? Bury it? Or email it to the guy who you were disagreeing with and say, “Maybe you were right all along”?

Needless to say, being the kind of man he is, Sandy did the latter. He sent me this link, which argues that the fair trade movement is a well-meaning failure.

Now I am not nearly as godly as Sandy, which is obvious by the subtle ‘I told you so’ manner that has already begun to creep into this post.

But I have often reflected back on that first post, and one or two similar posts since, and wondered whether I managed to communicate what I was trying to say.

I think it was this: biblically-driven agreement about desirable ends or goals in our world does not entail agreement about means, methods and proximate goals. Christians should expect to agree about the former, but extend freedom to one another in differing about the latter, because means, methods and strategies are complex, difficult, and largely a matter of situational wisdom.

Thus, we might all want the best for third-world farmers, but differ on how to go about this (for practical and wisdom reasons). We also may want the best for indigenous health and welfare, the best for the global environment, the best for refugees, the best for educating our children, and so on. But we may very well disagree on the best means of getting there.

Generally speaking, the kinds of solutions offered to these various secular problems will fall into two camps: a collectivist, centralizing, bigger-government solution, or an individualist, market-based, smaller-government solution (usually labelled as left-leaning and right-leaning respectively). So the fair trade movement is a left-leaning response to the problem of third-world farmers; a right-leaning response might be to offer micro-credit loans to allow the farmers to diversify into what the market has decided are more lucrative crops. Likewise, a left-leaning response to education is for the government to run it, and to organize our tax system accordingly; a right-leaning response is for individuals and private corporations to take more responsibility for education, and to structure the tax system accordingly.

Both left-leaning and right-leaning approaches have things going for them, and express truths about the human condition; both have weaknesses and can lead to harm and even disaster. And we usually favour one approach or the other more out of family background, educational culture and social peer pressure than out of a deeply thought-out analysis of the issues.

Now my point is not that we should adopt one approach over the other—in fact, we may find that one sort of approach works better for some issues, and the other approach for other issues (e.g. even the most right-leaning person would normally agree that the defence of the nation ought to be handled by the the state).

No, my real point is Christian freedom. We need to extend to one another the liberty to make these pragmatic judgements as best we can. This means that we should not declare the ‘Christian’ position to be pro-fair trade, or pro-private education, or pro-unionized labour, or pro-anything that is a pragmatic matter of left-leaning vs. right-leaning. We shouldn't tie our views on these matters to the gospel, to our churches, or to our preaching, as if to believe the gospel or be part of our church means that you should support fair trade or any other particular cause or policy.

And as for the higher moral ground—let us leave it occupied by Christ.

By Scott Newling

There is a model of ‘intergenerational theological decline’ that has been doing the rounds of late, and perhaps you may have heard it: the first generation wins or establishes the gospel in their context, the next generation assumes the gospel, and the third generation loses the gospel.

As an historian, I have no major problem with the model (typology) per se, although I think it tends to get used unhelpfully. When it is used descriptively it has a degree of aptness for some Christian institutions in history—particularly (but not exclusively) those of a non- or inter-denominational nature (i.e., those predicated on leaving aside certain theological distinctives in order to maintain partnership in another activity, such as a Christian aid organization rather than a teaching ministry). As such, the model can serve as a good warning against complacency.

Nevertheless, I have several objections to what the model hides from view, and unless we come to grips with these other ‘unassuming’ generational realities, then we really do run the risk of perpetuating the model.

Particularly, the model is entirely too neat and static in its presentation of a ‘generation’. It fails to account for: what a generation may do over time (i.e., the first generation may itself become ‘complacent’); what one generation may inherit from another generation; and especially what a generation will do to another generation to come.

In thinking about generations and responsibility in the Bible, certain intergenerational realities emerge:

1. Each generation is responsible for their own sins. God will punish my parents' generation for their sins and me for mine.
2. While I am responsible for my sin, not my forebears, the consequences of my forebears' sins are mine to deal with, and the actions of one generation can last for generations—for good and for ill (the sexual revolution is perhaps the most tangible evidence of this in recent times).
3. Looking the other way, while my children are responsible for their own sins, I share in that responsibility if I lead them into sin—in fact, it'd be better for me to have a millstone tied around my neck before I do that.

Already I hope you can see how the model falls down by not taking into account of the fact that while the third generation may indeed ‘lose it’, the seeds for such corruption may well have been planted by the former generations.

The model also fails to account for historical distinctives in why a decline in the gospel occurred in any one particular generation; it doesn't encourage self-reflection and the wisdom that is to be gained from learning specific historical circumstances.

To give an acutely relevant example, we keep hearing that ‘generation X’ is the unassuming generation (i.e., in gospel terms, we'll be the generation that assumes the gospel because of our unassuming nature). But why is this? Isn't it because the baby boomers have so dominated western activity post-WWII that they didn't know how to let go, how to move aside from ‘power’ and mentor the next generation instead (Peter Bolt has made some helpful reflections on this in the Australian Church Record)? The model of ‘generational decline’ doesn't allow for this specific intergenerational perception, and of one generation's responsibility in what another generation is now responsible to deal with. But hear me clearly: the point is not to apportion blame, but instead the point is to know my situation better and learn the lesson (because I'll inflict things on the next generation too). As I learn the specifics of the historical lesson, I then learn wisdom for my ministry: ministry now, ministry in the future, and ministry now for the sake of the future (e.g. perhaps not to dominate the pulpit every week, but give the next generation of preachers a safe context to grow as preachers as I mentor them).

Let me give another contemporary example. In the contexts where I tend to hear this model being used, it is generally used by my generational forebears who see themselves as having won the gospel in their context and me as the generation that is going to assume it. Now please don't mistake me: the struggles that my forebears engaged in to bequeath me with what I have were momentous, mostly hidden (i.e. we don't know about them because they don't parade it), and of vital benefit for my generation. And I praise God for it. Nevertheless, two things strike me as outrageous about this use of the model.

First, so many times in the last decade when I have tried not assume my theology, but let it drive my practice, I get a smile from my generational forebears and we move on without interaction. For instance, I see reams of business model and psychological literature imported into church practice without any thought about its long-term impact on ecclesiology and theological robustness in church. That is, the people that tell me I'm in the assuming generation are doing the assuming for me! This is evident in what the former generation has bequeathed to me in ecclesiology in my own context: not much Bible in church, not much prayer in church, rarely a confession, certainly no Lord's Prayer or creeds, and a Zwinglian view of the sacraments (if any view at all). I live now in a church world devoid of theological depth and devoid of theological safeguards (but big on ‘community’, whatever that is). I find it difficult in that light to be then told that I am going to assume the gospel in my context. The model, used in this fashion, blinds both generations about what is really going on. I'm now responsible for what I've inherited, of course, and not for a minute do I wish to promote a victim mentality, but my point is that the model of decline doesn't teach me to perceive intergenerational consequences. And so I run the danger of perpetuating them myself on my children.

Second, and contrastingly, I see in conversation many in my generation who are thoughtful thinkers, who want to respect the good things our forebears did—and let's praise God for it, blessing as well as cursing flows across generations, and what blessings have we received from previous generations!—who nevertheless see the seeds of destruction in what we have inherited too, and want to regain what was lost by the generation that ‘won’ it. People who in their own local contexts fight the good fight day by day, only to be told at conferences that actually they assume it, rather than be mentored (i.e. personally, pastorally, individually) by their elders. Used in this way, it hides the responsibility of one generation to own their mistakes and help the next generation to address them. I find it useful for someone to show me the model, but I find it less than useful for a generational forebear to think they've done their job by telling me only this. We need wisdom - and that comes personally, privately, pastorally, and over a period of time.

In other words, the generation before me won some things, assumed others, and lost others. My generation, in the context of that milieu, will also win, assume and lose other things. And I need to learn the historical specifics so as not to perpetuate mistakes myself, and to adopt a long-term view of the week-by-week ministry I conduct. For example, if each week I choose not to say the creeds, when will I ever? After a decade, will my children ever have heard a creed? Can I be content with conducting a week-by-week ministry that cuts my children off from 2000 years of Christian orthodoxy (never mind the week-by-week benefits of saying the creeds)?

Rather than being fatalistic or reductionistic with the model of decline, perhaps our time would be better spent in prayerful reflection asking these questions instead:

1. In what ways am I in danger of assuming or losing the gospel in my context?
2. What have I inherited from my forebears that will reap fruit if I cultivate it, or reap destruction unless I repent of it?
3. What do my actions over the course of years mean will be sown for the generation to come, and how can I change what I do now in order to prevent it?

It's with these questions that we'll become the unassuming generation: that is, the generation that strives to question every practice in light of the preservation of gospel across the years.

In future posts, I hope to pick up on several things that I've touched on here:

• Stepping aside (not out) so others can step up (not in)
• We stand on the shoulders of giants
• Sowing and reaping: adopting a long-term view of ministry
• Craving for wisdom