In many ways the student world is cut off from life for the rest of the world. This difference is noticeable in everyday life. But at no point in time is it more marked than this time of year.
The exams are on again. The temptation is to shut yourself away, and study, study, study. And whilst studying is the reason us students are at university, that's not the whole picture either. Life is life - it's a whole, made up of subordinate parts. Often that means balancing saying goodbyes at the end of a year for example, coincides with needing to studying well as you approach the finish. It all comes at us at once and often we're not at liberty to decide "what can I focus on this week?" - it's dictated by your circumstances. We mustn't fall into the trap of thinking that everything else can wait for a few weeks while we focus on exams. Life goes on. And the things which sustain you in everyday life are just as important (probably more important) to keep going during stressful times as they are in normal life. Sleep. Food. Friendship. Relationship with God.
I had an exam this morning which went really well. Two more to go before I'm done. And while I'll write a short post on this blog each day, the length posts will betray the fact that I'm actually a student in the middle of exams!
It's a case of being consistent really. We can't suspend reality while a university puts on exams. We do work towards exams and make sure we're honouring God in our work, but it's important and helpful for us to remember that our work isn't Lord of all: that's Jesus.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
God Uses People
Throughout the Bible God shows His willingness to use people. In fact, He is not only willing to use people, but that is His 'only' plan!
It's easy for us to fall into the assumption that so-and-so's got it covered. It's easy for us, when thinking about ways in which we might like to serve for example, to feel overwhelmed by the number of organisations already 'doing the stuff' in that area. But we must never forget that God has and always will use people, and then the end will come.
In our individualistic culture, it is easy for Christians to pray to God expecting a miraculous intervention in their personal circumstances; in general we would prefer an answer which was just between 'me and God'. Whilst I believe this does happen, we need also to be very open to God bringing people alongside to meet our needs, in God. He often works in that way, and we need to be on the lookout for that.
If we are to experience the fullness of everything God has in our lives, I believe we need to put away individualism and be open to the Spirit of God drawing people together for good. It's not a novel thing, it's a Bible thing!
It's easy for us to fall into the assumption that so-and-so's got it covered. It's easy for us, when thinking about ways in which we might like to serve for example, to feel overwhelmed by the number of organisations already 'doing the stuff' in that area. But we must never forget that God has and always will use people, and then the end will come.
In our individualistic culture, it is easy for Christians to pray to God expecting a miraculous intervention in their personal circumstances; in general we would prefer an answer which was just between 'me and God'. Whilst I believe this does happen, we need also to be very open to God bringing people alongside to meet our needs, in God. He often works in that way, and we need to be on the lookout for that.
If we are to experience the fullness of everything God has in our lives, I believe we need to put away individualism and be open to the Spirit of God drawing people together for good. It's not a novel thing, it's a Bible thing!
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Prosperity, Anyone?
I heard of Joseph Prince because he's speaking at the Hillsong Conference this year:
"If you subtract something from your life, whether it's your money, your time, your energy, whatever it is, for Jesus, it is added back to you. Whatever you divide for His glory, it's multiplied back to you."
In one sense of course, he's right. The blessings we have in Jesus are innumerable. In eternity we shall fully realise them. Yes we may be financially blessed or otherwise along the way of this life, but we do not seek a promise from God that whatever we sacrifice will be multiplied back to us undoubtedly and immeasurably. Any blessing we have through Jesus is not dependent on how much we give financially.
But somehow I don't think that's what he's saying...
"If you subtract something from your life, whether it's your money, your time, your energy, whatever it is, for Jesus, it is added back to you. Whatever you divide for His glory, it's multiplied back to you."
In one sense of course, he's right. The blessings we have in Jesus are innumerable. In eternity we shall fully realise them. Yes we may be financially blessed or otherwise along the way of this life, but we do not seek a promise from God that whatever we sacrifice will be multiplied back to us undoubtedly and immeasurably. Any blessing we have through Jesus is not dependent on how much we give financially.
But somehow I don't think that's what he's saying...
Monday, May 28, 2007
Terry Virgo On Being Relevant
"So the church is vital in God's programme and it should be vital in every Christian's life, our experience of church life.
"It's important for us too to realise that though we're meeting in a theatre here; and we're very relaxed; and we don't have clergy and laity; and we don't have 'priest and people'; and we could look as if we're really rather novel, maybe reactionary, maybe just trying to be relevant to our generation and just do it different, maybe experiment.
"Actually, those are none of the motivations that stir us. We're happy to be here, we're happy to be relevant to our generation, we're certainly wanting to be contemporary to this generation, but our endeavour is to be as Biblical as is at all possible. We want to really take the scriptures [seriously] because we believe that's God's way of building church, that's God's way of touching our generation and fulfilling His purpopse amongst us. So yes, we may look rather different in a place like this, but we are building as far as we know how, seriously from a Biblical base. We're trying to get it right because there we believe God will bless."
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
"It's important for us too to realise that though we're meeting in a theatre here; and we're very relaxed; and we don't have clergy and laity; and we don't have 'priest and people'; and we could look as if we're really rather novel, maybe reactionary, maybe just trying to be relevant to our generation and just do it different, maybe experiment.
"Actually, those are none of the motivations that stir us. We're happy to be here, we're happy to be relevant to our generation, we're certainly wanting to be contemporary to this generation, but our endeavour is to be as Biblical as is at all possible. We want to really take the scriptures [seriously] because we believe that's God's way of building church, that's God's way of touching our generation and fulfilling His purpopse amongst us. So yes, we may look rather different in a place like this, but we are building as far as we know how, seriously from a Biblical base. We're trying to get it right because there we believe God will bless."
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Stickability
Stickability pays off. I have noticed this over the last few weeks on this blog.
Over the last two years (has it been that long?) I have been your typical blogger. Posting only when I feel like it, or when I'm engaged enough by a topic. Posting on a huge variety of topics from silly quotes, to personal news, theological viewpoints, Newfrontiers news and political comments.
When I changed the name of this blog I announced that I would be more focused in the subject matter I write about here.
Two weeks ago I thought I might give Tim Challies's blogging method a go. So I decided that rather than making blogging the thing I do when I have time, that I would try to build it into my life for a while and aim to post every day. It's not a legalistic thing, more of an experiment. Fitting writing into the coffee breaks, lunch breaks and as wind-down time at the end of the day.
So off I went on 13th May. Every day for two weeks. What's happened in that time?
I've noticed there's more stuff in my head than I realised. While I often used to post when something really engaged me, I have found in the last two weeks that even on the days when I sit down expecting to be blank, stuff just comes out.
There have been comments on nearly every post. Even one from Tim Challies (I'd like to pretend that I just took it in my stride... but no). When I look back at my posts before that, comments were few and far between. Over the last two weeks I have enjoyed interraction of the type I've not experienced here before.
I've been posted about in more places. I don't know what has prompted this. Maybe it's the consistency of writing every day. Maybe it's that posting every day means I write about things I wouldn't have done before. I'm always grateful for whoever links here (Dan Bowen often does), but most notably in the last two weeks Dave Bish (twice) and Adrian Warnock have pointed people in my direction. Part of me wonders if that would have happened had I not given this experiment a go.
I've become more aware of the people who might read this blog in a way in which I wasn't before.
All in all, having blogged every day for two weeks, traffic for May has more than doubled since April. Traffic has never been an important factor for me (I would have stopped blogging very early on had this been the case!). But as this blog grows it is nice to be aware of that, and it is an encouraging feeling.
Blogging is a hobby. I do it for enjoyment. But stickability and a bit of discipline has made it all the more enjoyable over the past few weeks.
I would recommend it to those who are interested to see how their blogs could grow: try blogging every day for a week or two and see what happens. Make sure you link around lots and be aware of who is reading, but give it a go. You might be surprised what happens.
Over the last two years (has it been that long?) I have been your typical blogger. Posting only when I feel like it, or when I'm engaged enough by a topic. Posting on a huge variety of topics from silly quotes, to personal news, theological viewpoints, Newfrontiers news and political comments.
When I changed the name of this blog I announced that I would be more focused in the subject matter I write about here.
Two weeks ago I thought I might give Tim Challies's blogging method a go. So I decided that rather than making blogging the thing I do when I have time, that I would try to build it into my life for a while and aim to post every day. It's not a legalistic thing, more of an experiment. Fitting writing into the coffee breaks, lunch breaks and as wind-down time at the end of the day.
So off I went on 13th May. Every day for two weeks. What's happened in that time?
I've noticed there's more stuff in my head than I realised. While I often used to post when something really engaged me, I have found in the last two weeks that even on the days when I sit down expecting to be blank, stuff just comes out.
There have been comments on nearly every post. Even one from Tim Challies (I'd like to pretend that I just took it in my stride... but no). When I look back at my posts before that, comments were few and far between. Over the last two weeks I have enjoyed interraction of the type I've not experienced here before.
I've been posted about in more places. I don't know what has prompted this. Maybe it's the consistency of writing every day. Maybe it's that posting every day means I write about things I wouldn't have done before. I'm always grateful for whoever links here (Dan Bowen often does), but most notably in the last two weeks Dave Bish (twice) and Adrian Warnock have pointed people in my direction. Part of me wonders if that would have happened had I not given this experiment a go.
I've become more aware of the people who might read this blog in a way in which I wasn't before.
All in all, having blogged every day for two weeks, traffic for May has more than doubled since April. Traffic has never been an important factor for me (I would have stopped blogging very early on had this been the case!). But as this blog grows it is nice to be aware of that, and it is an encouraging feeling.
Blogging is a hobby. I do it for enjoyment. But stickability and a bit of discipline has made it all the more enjoyable over the past few weeks.
I would recommend it to those who are interested to see how their blogs could grow: try blogging every day for a week or two and see what happens. Make sure you link around lots and be aware of who is reading, but give it a go. You might be surprised what happens.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Terry Virgo On The Existence Of Apostles Today
"Is this church properly founded? That's an apostolic work. Paul said in 2 Corinthians 3 'when I came to you, as a wise master builder'- the greek word gives us our word architect, someone who sees the whole plan- 'I laid a foundation.' Now there he's talking about one local church, he did his apostolic work making sure it was properly founded. So that was part for the role of apostles and that work will continue until Jesus comes, the necessity of churches being properly founded...
"Jesus ascended on high: it doesn't say he gave some priests, he gave some clergymen - it doesn't say that, it's not in the Bible. It says he gave some apostles to make sure churches are properly founded on their identity in Christ... establishing the community, giving them a sense of identity, purpose and meaning... establishing bodies of Christ if you like, in town after town after town. Places where Jesus was manifest in phenomenal glory again and again and again. that's part of our calling as a family of churches, from generation to generation. Let's plant church after church where the presence of Christ can be known in that particular place"
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
"Jesus ascended on high: it doesn't say he gave some priests, he gave some clergymen - it doesn't say that, it's not in the Bible. It says he gave some apostles to make sure churches are properly founded on their identity in Christ... establishing the community, giving them a sense of identity, purpose and meaning... establishing bodies of Christ if you like, in town after town after town. Places where Jesus was manifest in phenomenal glory again and again and again. that's part of our calling as a family of churches, from generation to generation. Let's plant church after church where the presence of Christ can be known in that particular place"
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Terry Virgo On The Church
"The book of Ephesians probably is the one that most emphasises the place of the church. It's interesting that Jesus said to His disciples 'go and make disciples of all the nations' and the strategy they immediately took on board was to go and plant local churches. That was the way they saw that they were going to fulfil that commission to make disciples. That was the way they chose to do it.
"And so we're very much in line with that Biblical arrangement, that you go and plant churches, you go and gather people together. That's the way we fulfil the commission of the Lord Jesus to 'go and make disciples of all the nations'. It's very important then, that you're built into a local body and of course Ephesians highlights the place of the church in several ways; it talk about a temple, not of concrete or stones but of living people that are built together as a context for the presence of God. It talks about the church as a bride in Ephesians 5, that relationship of intimacy... and then it speaks of the church also by implication as an army, it says we're soldiers, we're to put on the armour, we're to fight. And then in this particular chapter in Ephesians 4 it talks of us as a body together"
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
"And so we're very much in line with that Biblical arrangement, that you go and plant churches, you go and gather people together. That's the way we fulfil the commission of the Lord Jesus to 'go and make disciples of all the nations'. It's very important then, that you're built into a local body and of course Ephesians highlights the place of the church in several ways; it talk about a temple, not of concrete or stones but of living people that are built together as a context for the presence of God. It talks about the church as a bride in Ephesians 5, that relationship of intimacy... and then it speaks of the church also by implication as an army, it says we're soldiers, we're to put on the armour, we're to fight. And then in this particular chapter in Ephesians 4 it talks of us as a body together"
This is a quote from a sermon by Terry Virgo at ChristChurch London. You can download it here.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Guy Miller On Individualism
"Every single one of you needs to be involved in the core activities that build up the church of Jesus Christ. All of you! Do you get the message? All!
"But I want you to know, 'all' has an enemy. The enemy that is tapping you on the shoulder right now is the enemy that would say:
'I don't want to do that!'
'Everyone put on the uniform and get on the boat!'
'Hang on... I don't want to look like the rest of them. I don't want to dress in a white sailors' uniform; I want to be red, more fashionable. I want to stand out in the crowd!'
"'I' is the enemy of 'all'. 'I' insists on its own way. 'I' wants its own freedom. 'I' wants to be elevated above the rest; indeed 'I' rears its ugly head every time the Word of God and the Spirit of God moves on a church. 'I' is the first person that you hear speaking to yourself and speaking to leaders: 'Who do you think you are? I've heard this before. It's not going to happen. I don't want to be a part of this! I don't believe this is going to happen' ... I, I, I...
"And this boxing match goes on in our minds; this boxing match goes on in the church.
"Individualism is destroying our nation. Individualism is destroying God's church. It is wrecking Christian lives. We encounter it every week in the world when there's a tantrum of a toddler in Sainsbury's or ASDA who wants a sweet. Whether it's the car that pushes in in front of you, whether it's the dishes that get left over at the end of the day, ... 'I' always asserts its right not to do what everybody else is doing.
"Do you know what? It's so rife in our nation it's destroyed the church. Every church is pulling in its own direction, every church is just doing its own thing. And the days of the Judges are upon us, where every did what was right in their own eyes, and it was the judgement of God on a nation.
"And how does that change? It changes when we're prepared to lose our insistence and 'my rights' in order for the greater right of God's Kingdom and God's purposes to be prevailing. It doesn't matter about my name and my reputation because if the Kingdom of God comes in power on His church, nobody will be famed but one person. The person of Jesus Christ...
"Your Dad used to give you threepence, three old pence (that's how old I am) and say 'go to the sweet shop'. I used to go to the sweet shop with threepence. I used to ask the sweet man 'what can I get for threepence?' and they used to say 'you can get a bag of sherbert... you can get some rosy apples, used can get some Dib-Dabs, some Black Jacks, some Mojos... what can I get for threepence?!
"Jesus said to me 'that's how people are coming to my church: "what can I get for an hour? What can I get for fifty quid a year? What can I get for two evenings a week?" That's not the deal, Guy! When I call a person to surrender their life to me, I want everything! You want to know how much money...? I want it all! You want to know how much time? I want it all! You want to know how much energy I want from you...? I want every single ounce of energy. And that's what I want for my church... it's my church, not yours. I don't want you to celophane-wrap gifts of the Spirit, I don't want you to produce a recipe book of sermons of pick-me-ups, of bargin basement spiritual clothing, of convenience ready-meals, easy believism, easy discipleship, easy growth, easy prayer, I want you to know if anyone would come after me... he must deny himself, he must first take up his cross daily and he must follow me'
"You see Jesus hates 'I', and loves 'all'. He loves it when we will lose our striving independence, our proud assertions, our arrogant individualism, and give ourselves to the 'all' of His Kingdom and His church.
Guy Miller is the Lead Elder at Bournemouth Family Church and oversees the Wessex Region of Newfrontiers churches in southern England.
Quoted from "All Hands On Deck" - sermon at Bournemouth Family Church, 14th January 2007
"But I want you to know, 'all' has an enemy. The enemy that is tapping you on the shoulder right now is the enemy that would say:
'I don't want to do that!'
'Everyone put on the uniform and get on the boat!'
'Hang on... I don't want to look like the rest of them. I don't want to dress in a white sailors' uniform; I want to be red, more fashionable. I want to stand out in the crowd!'
"'I' is the enemy of 'all'. 'I' insists on its own way. 'I' wants its own freedom. 'I' wants to be elevated above the rest; indeed 'I' rears its ugly head every time the Word of God and the Spirit of God moves on a church. 'I' is the first person that you hear speaking to yourself and speaking to leaders: 'Who do you think you are? I've heard this before. It's not going to happen. I don't want to be a part of this! I don't believe this is going to happen' ... I, I, I...
"And this boxing match goes on in our minds; this boxing match goes on in the church.
"Individualism is destroying our nation. Individualism is destroying God's church. It is wrecking Christian lives. We encounter it every week in the world when there's a tantrum of a toddler in Sainsbury's or ASDA who wants a sweet. Whether it's the car that pushes in in front of you, whether it's the dishes that get left over at the end of the day, ... 'I' always asserts its right not to do what everybody else is doing.
"Do you know what? It's so rife in our nation it's destroyed the church. Every church is pulling in its own direction, every church is just doing its own thing. And the days of the Judges are upon us, where every did what was right in their own eyes, and it was the judgement of God on a nation.
"And how does that change? It changes when we're prepared to lose our insistence and 'my rights' in order for the greater right of God's Kingdom and God's purposes to be prevailing. It doesn't matter about my name and my reputation because if the Kingdom of God comes in power on His church, nobody will be famed but one person. The person of Jesus Christ...
"Your Dad used to give you threepence, three old pence (that's how old I am) and say 'go to the sweet shop'. I used to go to the sweet shop with threepence. I used to ask the sweet man 'what can I get for threepence?' and they used to say 'you can get a bag of sherbert... you can get some rosy apples, used can get some Dib-Dabs, some Black Jacks, some Mojos... what can I get for threepence?!
"Jesus said to me 'that's how people are coming to my church: "what can I get for an hour? What can I get for fifty quid a year? What can I get for two evenings a week?" That's not the deal, Guy! When I call a person to surrender their life to me, I want everything! You want to know how much money...? I want it all! You want to know how much time? I want it all! You want to know how much energy I want from you...? I want every single ounce of energy. And that's what I want for my church... it's my church, not yours. I don't want you to celophane-wrap gifts of the Spirit, I don't want you to produce a recipe book of sermons of pick-me-ups, of bargin basement spiritual clothing, of convenience ready-meals, easy believism, easy discipleship, easy growth, easy prayer, I want you to know if anyone would come after me... he must deny himself, he must first take up his cross daily and he must follow me'
"You see Jesus hates 'I', and loves 'all'. He loves it when we will lose our striving independence, our proud assertions, our arrogant individualism, and give ourselves to the 'all' of His Kingdom and His church.
Guy Miller is the Lead Elder at Bournemouth Family Church and oversees the Wessex Region of Newfrontiers churches in southern England.
Quoted from "All Hands On Deck" - sermon at Bournemouth Family Church, 14th January 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
On Reaching Students 6: Excellent Parachurch
I recently discovered this article by Jonathan Carswell (youth pastor at Hamilton Road Baptist Church, Bangor). His belief is that "student-led ministry appears to be under threat ... from well-meaning gospel churches" although in reality, his is basically a many-layered objection to local churches who directly take the gospel to university campuses.
If you look at the subject which is set out in the first few paragraphs - the push for student-led ministry based on the belief that churches do not have student leadership - it is easily countered by this:
"Hello, my name is Luke. I'm a third year, full-time student at the University of Sheffield and for the last two years I have led my local church's work among students. The other day my co-worker and I passed onto the next generation of leaders, all currently students, and we ourselves received the work from students who were leading."
There. The objection based on the assumption that church-based student ministry is led by ordained people is shown to be a generalisation not worthy of blanket application; my experience of student leadership in a church is replicated all over the country.
But in reality, Jonathan Carswell's article is not so much a defence of student-led ministry as it is the usual arguments one encounters in the church/parachurch/CU debate. Constructing the issue so that it centres around the issue of student leadership is a clever move because the issue is close to students' hearts. He has here created a false dichotomy based on the assumption that CUs are always student led, and that church ministries are always not. This is simply not true. Here was a great opportunity to make a robust point about student leadership without alienating those in church-based student work. And it wasn't taken.
On these grounds one could be forgiven for not reading the rest of the article: the sweeping generalisations about CUs and church work that come out of this false assumption can potentially be discarded.
However there are a number of other assumptions he makes which I feel are worthy of attention.
First let me say this: I sense a clash of paradigms here. There are some amazing parachurch ministries out there with humble hearts and who are ready to serve, and many within the CU movement itself take that excellent attitude in my experience. But when it comes to preserving a CU, or any other man-made institution (those without a God-given right to survive, including any local church) for its own sake, I feel we move away from Biblical precedents and more into personal preferences.
Furthermore, I believe that mission is the domain of local churches, led and administered as defined by scripture. There are various helpful mechanisms around, which help the missional aims of local churches. The Mission Aviation Fellowship gets the church into places it could not otherwise impact. Wycliffe Bible Translators provide scripture in local languages. In a similar vein, CUs provide a mechanism for the church of God in any given city to gain access on campus which they would not otherwise have. So CUs, when recognising the local churches' (plural) primacy in mission to a city, can be very helpful to aid that mission.
So, to get to these underlying assumptions. Firstly, the article somehow turns the excellent precedents for parachurch ministry (e.g. the serving attitude described above) on their head and assumes that churches wanting a campus presence should be "assisting the CU", not the other way around.
How absurd, when their fellow parachurch organisations such as Wycliffe don't require churches to "assist" them, nor do the Mission Aviation Fellowship or Freedom In Christ Ministries. They prefer the language of 'serving' rather than requiring assistance. I have to wonder what Jonathan Carswell thinks CUs really are, that local churches have nothing more to offer student ministry in his view than to "assist"/provide "caring, pastoral Bible teaching that only a church can provide". Carswell may not actually think the local CU shuld take precedence in all campus mission (I certainly hope he doesn't!) but it's how the article comes across.
The language of 'assistance' betrays status in student mission as Carswell sees it. For example, take two people. One is a businessman and one is his assistant. I can't imagine very many situations in which it would be appropriate for the assistant to himself ask his boss for assistance! We must remember which way round these things biblically are and not deviate from it. Excellent parachurch recognises its role as nothing less than assisting in the work of the local churches. This is a high calling indeed! If we turn it upside-down let me humbly suggest we risk missing out on God's best in mission.
No, it is the primary responsibility of the local churches in a town to decide how best to reach campuses, schools and workplaces. The effectiveness of those churches depends to an extent (probably more than I'd like to admit) on the servant attitude of relevant parachurch organisations. But if we disempower the local churches for mission by setting up alternative models of evangelism which no one else dare penetrate, I believe we stray from the Biblical pattern for mission and again let me say, we risk missing out.
Among the other assumptions this article betrays, are the following.
The existence of CUs is synonymous with a strong campus impact: "strong student ministries can unintentionally weaken the CU, and thus weaken the Christian presence on campus"
Interesting. Again, this is a statement which cannot be backed up by Bible truth. The direct link is made between strong CUs and strong campus impact. Whilst many CUs do an excellent work, because of my ecclesiology I cannot accept that if the local churches at last step up to the mark on student mission as well, that it is damaging the Christian presence on campus. Whereas we can say with confidence for example, that Paul saw fit to plant a church in a town to continue his mission to it. So we can legitimately draw the asumption that we should be planting churches as our primary method of evangelisation too. So when local churches start to take this seriously and start to meet on campus for example, is that damaging the Christian presence on campus?
CUs are not the only way. Strong local churches (I believe) are God's way, and excellent parachurch recognises that.
What is the worldview being expressed here:
"There are a growing number of CUs (including those which UCCF would class as ‘flagship’) which have found it increasingly hard because churches have competed for Christian students’ attention and commitment. Rather than assisting the CU they are detracting from it."
What is the primary concern here? It's not concern for the churches, and not even concern for mission, but more specifically, concern for the status of CUs. Is that in itself a Godly thing? The interests of a human organisation are being held over and above mission itself in my view.
The assumption here (which I find interesting) is that anyone wanting a campus impact must involve themselves with the CU or else they are damaging the Christian presence on campus. I find it odd that someone who works for a church would write such things. Wycliffe aren't staking out a claim as the only Bible translators. The Africa Inland Mission don't resist other work being done in Africa outside of their realm of control. It escapes me as to why CUs should be any different. And the shame of it is that more and more of the people I know within the CU movement wouldn't hold the 'preseve-CUs-at-all-costs' attitude which is on display here. This article is doing them an injustice.
One further assumption I'd like to comment on here before finishing off. What does the quote below tell you?
"I believe this worrying trend is neither biblically or historically God’s way."
Is the way God worked in the last century how he will work in the 21st? I don't know. But I know I wouldn't want to chance an answer that limits Him. Furthermore, I personally believe that whilst the church broadly has been in decline in our nation, towards the end of the 20th century the glow in the centre was getting brighter and brighter, and indeed still is getting brighter. There are now churches around the likes of which were not known before the 1970s. I believe we're edging closer and closer to a restored church - a church which is starting to take back on the responsibilities it has heinously neglected historically.
It's rather like our businessman falling asleep on the job. Rather than trying to wake the businessman up, the assistant helpfully starts fielding his phone calls, replying to letters: taking on the businessman's responsibilities. When the businessman begins to stir, the assistant decides he rather likes his new responsibilities and stays quiet, hoping the businessman will fall asleep again. When he doesn't, the assistant resists letting the businessman do his job again. "But I like doing those things! It's my job now! And you can't have it! It works well my way, why would you want to change it?!"
Sound familiar?
Both sides are at fault here in my view. Whose fault was it that the businessman fell asleep? But then why did the assistant decide to do it his way rather than waking the businessman up? Humbly recognising there have been mistakes allows both to then sit down and look at who should do what and why. In our situation that would involve going back to what the Bible teaches about mission.
The analogy is far from perfect, but it says something about what is happening in the church at the moment. Whilst excellent parachurch recognises this and seeks to serve and collaborate, there are those around who like it the old way - the upside-down way, clinging to the old order when in actuality I believe God is saying 'look in My Word! There is a better way!'
A new season is dawning in mission as churches everywhere are waking up to their God-given responsibilities toward the lost. This means a change in practice as the mission specialists find their field becoming crowded. It takes humility on both sides.
The good thing is I believe the shrill voices of dissent at the church 'taking over' are increasingly being replaced by the soft voice of collaboration. I hope we can see more of this collaborative spirit, with everyone involved wishing the church to be everything God would have her be. We must do, not that which makes practical sense or historical sense, but that which makes Biblical sense.
If you look at the subject which is set out in the first few paragraphs - the push for student-led ministry based on the belief that churches do not have student leadership - it is easily countered by this:
"Hello, my name is Luke. I'm a third year, full-time student at the University of Sheffield and for the last two years I have led my local church's work among students. The other day my co-worker and I passed onto the next generation of leaders, all currently students, and we ourselves received the work from students who were leading."
There. The objection based on the assumption that church-based student ministry is led by ordained people is shown to be a generalisation not worthy of blanket application; my experience of student leadership in a church is replicated all over the country.
But in reality, Jonathan Carswell's article is not so much a defence of student-led ministry as it is the usual arguments one encounters in the church/parachurch/CU debate. Constructing the issue so that it centres around the issue of student leadership is a clever move because the issue is close to students' hearts. He has here created a false dichotomy based on the assumption that CUs are always student led, and that church ministries are always not. This is simply not true. Here was a great opportunity to make a robust point about student leadership without alienating those in church-based student work. And it wasn't taken.
On these grounds one could be forgiven for not reading the rest of the article: the sweeping generalisations about CUs and church work that come out of this false assumption can potentially be discarded.
However there are a number of other assumptions he makes which I feel are worthy of attention.
First let me say this: I sense a clash of paradigms here. There are some amazing parachurch ministries out there with humble hearts and who are ready to serve, and many within the CU movement itself take that excellent attitude in my experience. But when it comes to preserving a CU, or any other man-made institution (those without a God-given right to survive, including any local church) for its own sake, I feel we move away from Biblical precedents and more into personal preferences.
Furthermore, I believe that mission is the domain of local churches, led and administered as defined by scripture. There are various helpful mechanisms around, which help the missional aims of local churches. The Mission Aviation Fellowship gets the church into places it could not otherwise impact. Wycliffe Bible Translators provide scripture in local languages. In a similar vein, CUs provide a mechanism for the church of God in any given city to gain access on campus which they would not otherwise have. So CUs, when recognising the local churches' (plural) primacy in mission to a city, can be very helpful to aid that mission.
So, to get to these underlying assumptions. Firstly, the article somehow turns the excellent precedents for parachurch ministry (e.g. the serving attitude described above) on their head and assumes that churches wanting a campus presence should be "assisting the CU", not the other way around.
How absurd, when their fellow parachurch organisations such as Wycliffe don't require churches to "assist" them, nor do the Mission Aviation Fellowship or Freedom In Christ Ministries. They prefer the language of 'serving' rather than requiring assistance. I have to wonder what Jonathan Carswell thinks CUs really are, that local churches have nothing more to offer student ministry in his view than to "assist"/provide "caring, pastoral Bible teaching that only a church can provide". Carswell may not actually think the local CU shuld take precedence in all campus mission (I certainly hope he doesn't!) but it's how the article comes across.
The language of 'assistance' betrays status in student mission as Carswell sees it. For example, take two people. One is a businessman and one is his assistant. I can't imagine very many situations in which it would be appropriate for the assistant to himself ask his boss for assistance! We must remember which way round these things biblically are and not deviate from it. Excellent parachurch recognises its role as nothing less than assisting in the work of the local churches. This is a high calling indeed! If we turn it upside-down let me humbly suggest we risk missing out on God's best in mission.
No, it is the primary responsibility of the local churches in a town to decide how best to reach campuses, schools and workplaces. The effectiveness of those churches depends to an extent (probably more than I'd like to admit) on the servant attitude of relevant parachurch organisations. But if we disempower the local churches for mission by setting up alternative models of evangelism which no one else dare penetrate, I believe we stray from the Biblical pattern for mission and again let me say, we risk missing out.
Among the other assumptions this article betrays, are the following.
The existence of CUs is synonymous with a strong campus impact: "strong student ministries can unintentionally weaken the CU, and thus weaken the Christian presence on campus"
Interesting. Again, this is a statement which cannot be backed up by Bible truth. The direct link is made between strong CUs and strong campus impact. Whilst many CUs do an excellent work, because of my ecclesiology I cannot accept that if the local churches at last step up to the mark on student mission as well, that it is damaging the Christian presence on campus. Whereas we can say with confidence for example, that Paul saw fit to plant a church in a town to continue his mission to it. So we can legitimately draw the asumption that we should be planting churches as our primary method of evangelisation too. So when local churches start to take this seriously and start to meet on campus for example, is that damaging the Christian presence on campus?
CUs are not the only way. Strong local churches (I believe) are God's way, and excellent parachurch recognises that.
What is the worldview being expressed here:
"There are a growing number of CUs (including those which UCCF would class as ‘flagship’) which have found it increasingly hard because churches have competed for Christian students’ attention and commitment. Rather than assisting the CU they are detracting from it."
What is the primary concern here? It's not concern for the churches, and not even concern for mission, but more specifically, concern for the status of CUs. Is that in itself a Godly thing? The interests of a human organisation are being held over and above mission itself in my view.
The assumption here (which I find interesting) is that anyone wanting a campus impact must involve themselves with the CU or else they are damaging the Christian presence on campus. I find it odd that someone who works for a church would write such things. Wycliffe aren't staking out a claim as the only Bible translators. The Africa Inland Mission don't resist other work being done in Africa outside of their realm of control. It escapes me as to why CUs should be any different. And the shame of it is that more and more of the people I know within the CU movement wouldn't hold the 'preseve-CUs-at-all-costs' attitude which is on display here. This article is doing them an injustice.
One further assumption I'd like to comment on here before finishing off. What does the quote below tell you?
"I believe this worrying trend is neither biblically or historically God’s way."
Is the way God worked in the last century how he will work in the 21st? I don't know. But I know I wouldn't want to chance an answer that limits Him. Furthermore, I personally believe that whilst the church broadly has been in decline in our nation, towards the end of the 20th century the glow in the centre was getting brighter and brighter, and indeed still is getting brighter. There are now churches around the likes of which were not known before the 1970s. I believe we're edging closer and closer to a restored church - a church which is starting to take back on the responsibilities it has heinously neglected historically.
It's rather like our businessman falling asleep on the job. Rather than trying to wake the businessman up, the assistant helpfully starts fielding his phone calls, replying to letters: taking on the businessman's responsibilities. When the businessman begins to stir, the assistant decides he rather likes his new responsibilities and stays quiet, hoping the businessman will fall asleep again. When he doesn't, the assistant resists letting the businessman do his job again. "But I like doing those things! It's my job now! And you can't have it! It works well my way, why would you want to change it?!"
Sound familiar?
Both sides are at fault here in my view. Whose fault was it that the businessman fell asleep? But then why did the assistant decide to do it his way rather than waking the businessman up? Humbly recognising there have been mistakes allows both to then sit down and look at who should do what and why. In our situation that would involve going back to what the Bible teaches about mission.
The analogy is far from perfect, but it says something about what is happening in the church at the moment. Whilst excellent parachurch recognises this and seeks to serve and collaborate, there are those around who like it the old way - the upside-down way, clinging to the old order when in actuality I believe God is saying 'look in My Word! There is a better way!'
A new season is dawning in mission as churches everywhere are waking up to their God-given responsibilities toward the lost. This means a change in practice as the mission specialists find their field becoming crowded. It takes humility on both sides.
The good thing is I believe the shrill voices of dissent at the church 'taking over' are increasingly being replaced by the soft voice of collaboration. I hope we can see more of this collaborative spirit, with everyone involved wishing the church to be everything God would have her be. We must do, not that which makes practical sense or historical sense, but that which makes Biblical sense.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Standing Up For Truth In The Church
It is famously asserted that whether to apply 'grace' or 'righteousness' to a pastoral situation is a false dichotomy. That is not to say that we do one or the other, but that grace and righteousness are inextricably linked. It seems to me that we need to stand up for truth in the church in a different way than we would stand up for truth in the world.
I notice today that Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual bishop in the Anglican Communion, has not been invited to the next Lambeth Conference. Obviously there is that usual fuss being made and the label 'homophobic' is being indiscriminately thrown around. But it is important that we realise that we deal with sin in believers in a different way to sin in unbelievers. Sin in the church is serious and we must deal with it. Becoming familiar with it is simply not an option. For this reason I think it is a good move on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am not talking here about our need to reach out more effectively to those in gay lifestyles (this is a real need of the evangelical church worldwide). This issue is not about how the church reaches out to these dear people, though we must have that conversation. It's about whether we allow open sin in the very structures and fabric of our church leadership.
A friend of mine once said to me that he is convinced the reason the mainline denominations are losing clout in terms of the way they are perceived in the culture is that they have become familiar with sin. Any form of sin, of which this example would be one kind.
The problem of course is how the Church of England deals with this when the world is looking on. Unfortunately it doesn't look as though they will be allowed to work out a response in private. Men and women who love 'tolerance', whatever their orientation, will be watching this unfolding story and judging Christians, hardening their hearts to the message of truth, the gospel of salvation. That is the difficulty. But it doesn't mean that we should become any more soft on sin in the church. Perhaps it means we actually need to sit down and work out how we respond to this issue in the culture, extending the hand of grace and truth to unbelievers everywhere, and at the same time being ruthless with sin in believers and leaders in the church.
Two separate battles which are being confused in the public mind. We need to make sure we can think clearly about the subject and realise it's not about 'grace vs. righteousness'. It's about a holy people who know how to extend arms of truth and love to unbelievers, whoever they are.
I notice today that Gene Robinson, a practising homosexual bishop in the Anglican Communion, has not been invited to the next Lambeth Conference. Obviously there is that usual fuss being made and the label 'homophobic' is being indiscriminately thrown around. But it is important that we realise that we deal with sin in believers in a different way to sin in unbelievers. Sin in the church is serious and we must deal with it. Becoming familiar with it is simply not an option. For this reason I think it is a good move on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I am not talking here about our need to reach out more effectively to those in gay lifestyles (this is a real need of the evangelical church worldwide). This issue is not about how the church reaches out to these dear people, though we must have that conversation. It's about whether we allow open sin in the very structures and fabric of our church leadership.
A friend of mine once said to me that he is convinced the reason the mainline denominations are losing clout in terms of the way they are perceived in the culture is that they have become familiar with sin. Any form of sin, of which this example would be one kind.
The problem of course is how the Church of England deals with this when the world is looking on. Unfortunately it doesn't look as though they will be allowed to work out a response in private. Men and women who love 'tolerance', whatever their orientation, will be watching this unfolding story and judging Christians, hardening their hearts to the message of truth, the gospel of salvation. That is the difficulty. But it doesn't mean that we should become any more soft on sin in the church. Perhaps it means we actually need to sit down and work out how we respond to this issue in the culture, extending the hand of grace and truth to unbelievers everywhere, and at the same time being ruthless with sin in believers and leaders in the church.
Two separate battles which are being confused in the public mind. We need to make sure we can think clearly about the subject and realise it's not about 'grace vs. righteousness'. It's about a holy people who know how to extend arms of truth and love to unbelievers, whoever they are.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Explaining The Debate
I keep seeing Francis Schaeffer's idea about an intellectual staircase everywhere (he wrote about it in his book The God Who Is There). For those who are not familiar with it, it says that new ideas affect culture in a certain way, and there is a process through which knowledge trickles down through society until it becomes general consensus.
I wrote recently that I think blogs are quite high up on this intellectual staircase, and I keep finding examples which would suggest that this is indeed the case. The recently re-ignited penal substitution debate (which has been well-documented here and here) is a good example. While the debate has quietened down in the blogosphere, interest among Christians is still high and on the increase.
For example yesterday for the first time, the debate was directly acknowledged in a sermon at City Church Sheffield, briefly referring to the controversy and quoting from Pierced For Our Transgressions. So things have gone quiet on the blog-front just at the moment that the questions are starting to be raised in my local church. Clearly the blogosphere was affected first, and now that leaders have had a chance to read around the subject, they are more clear to present the debate to people in a robust way.
Clearly teaching the truth about the wrath of God is highly important and I'm glad that it is being addressed in a church context (this is not something just for the theological-keenies!), but the reality is, in a congregation of intelligent, thinking adults, mentioning the debate then raises further questions for individuals.
Conversations I had over lunch made it clear to me that there is firstly, a lot of interest in making sure we're tackling the issues. Secondly, there is a lot of bewilderment as to who said what (over the Word Alive/Spring Harvest split - which I first wrote about in February) and why. There are various things I could say about that, but the interesting comment which was made to me was:
"I'm sure I could go online and find some stuff about it; I'm sure people are blogging about it for example. But I'm not interested in opinion, I want to know the facts."
I believe there is a challenge here for bloggers. We have a magnificent opportunity to serve the wider church through making issues like this easier to understand. And yet we are perceived as those with simply a lot of opinions, and perhaps with good reason. There is a challenge to value our own opinions less and less, and allow His opinion to rise more and more in our thinking and in our blogging.
There is a door open to those who blog to make a real difference in the thinking of others, but this will not happen through us expounding our own opinions. It will happen through a humble appreciation of the gospel as taught in the scripture. Let's allow that sort of thinking to trickle down the intellectual staircase and into the culture.
UPDATE: Not long after I posted this, Dave Bish posted a new statement from UCCF. I couldn't agree more with this: "Since we cannot achieve the all round clarity we desire, we do not want to look backwards any longer on this unhappy episode but press on towards the future."
I wrote recently that I think blogs are quite high up on this intellectual staircase, and I keep finding examples which would suggest that this is indeed the case. The recently re-ignited penal substitution debate (which has been well-documented here and here) is a good example. While the debate has quietened down in the blogosphere, interest among Christians is still high and on the increase.
For example yesterday for the first time, the debate was directly acknowledged in a sermon at City Church Sheffield, briefly referring to the controversy and quoting from Pierced For Our Transgressions. So things have gone quiet on the blog-front just at the moment that the questions are starting to be raised in my local church. Clearly the blogosphere was affected first, and now that leaders have had a chance to read around the subject, they are more clear to present the debate to people in a robust way.
Clearly teaching the truth about the wrath of God is highly important and I'm glad that it is being addressed in a church context (this is not something just for the theological-keenies!), but the reality is, in a congregation of intelligent, thinking adults, mentioning the debate then raises further questions for individuals.
Conversations I had over lunch made it clear to me that there is firstly, a lot of interest in making sure we're tackling the issues. Secondly, there is a lot of bewilderment as to who said what (over the Word Alive/Spring Harvest split - which I first wrote about in February) and why. There are various things I could say about that, but the interesting comment which was made to me was:
"I'm sure I could go online and find some stuff about it; I'm sure people are blogging about it for example. But I'm not interested in opinion, I want to know the facts."
I believe there is a challenge here for bloggers. We have a magnificent opportunity to serve the wider church through making issues like this easier to understand. And yet we are perceived as those with simply a lot of opinions, and perhaps with good reason. There is a challenge to value our own opinions less and less, and allow His opinion to rise more and more in our thinking and in our blogging.
There is a door open to those who blog to make a real difference in the thinking of others, but this will not happen through us expounding our own opinions. It will happen through a humble appreciation of the gospel as taught in the scripture. Let's allow that sort of thinking to trickle down the intellectual staircase and into the culture.
UPDATE: Not long after I posted this, Dave Bish posted a new statement from UCCF. I couldn't agree more with this: "Since we cannot achieve the all round clarity we desire, we do not want to look backwards any longer on this unhappy episode but press on towards the future."
Sunday, May 20, 2007
What Kind Of Ministry?
'Every-member ministry' is a phrase historcially used a great deals in such circles as Newfrontiers. It's an important subject for us to consider because it involves the very fabric of church life. Structure really isn't the issue here (though I know what sort of structure I'd advocate!), it's the heart behind it and the activity of congregations.
A brief background to the current practice I've been used to; Newfrontiers churches generally would not send developing leaders away to Bible College or the equivalent (though many existing leaders have come from that setting). Instead, a model is perpetuated whereby developing leaders are identified by existing pastors, and put on Newfrontiers courses which facilitate an ongoing direct involvement with church life at the same time as studying. In addition, once this has been completed, it is not unusual for those called more specifically to be teachers to then do some part-time studying, say at Spurgeons or somewhere similar. I know of a number of leaders who have done this. So it is not that 'every member ministry' is opposed to the existence of Bible Colleges, it would just use them in a different way, accepting that for the vast majority of pastors it would not necessarily be the best thing to be sent away into a room to study for three years, with very little time for significant output into the church.
I mentioned during the last week that I consider output into the business world, political world, performance world etc., to all come under the umbrella of the ministry of a healthy local church. There is something weird going on if these things become strangely separate from the local church. It is not only teachers in the local church context who need oversight; we are all ministers of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) and however we are engaged for the kingdom, need oversight and accountability with brothers and sisters and leaders.
John Stott puts this so well:
"We do a great disservice to the church when we refer to the pastorate as 'the ministry'. The use of the definite article implies that we think the ordained pastorate is the only ministry there is. But 'diakonia' is a generic word for service; it lacks specificity until a descriptive adjective is added - pastoral, social, political, medical, educational and many others. We need to recover this vision of the wide diversity of ministries to which God calls His people."
I believe there is not only a Biblical mandate, but a hunger in the church today, for this type of attitude to come from church leaders. Any pastor who shows a demonstration of the value of the ministry of others is not only more appealing to his people (secondarily), but (more importantly) far more Biblical than a leader who regards himself to have reached 'the ministry' - the destination. As Stott says, even the language "the ministry" demonstrates faulty thinking on the subject.
'Every member ministry' has been asserted by various groups throughout history. Some churches I know would encourage even their pastors to prayerfully consider which other 'secular' sphere they could influence, at the same time as pastoring a church. The abolition among us of the clergy and laity divide takes various forms, and yet the challenge is that I have never yet found a large, Biblical, growing church which has been able to survive without taking on staff, for example (I wouldn't consider this to be Biblical anyway!).
So, even though groupings like Newfrontiers would not work with the clergy/laity divide as it has historically existed, it exists to a certain degree. For example, the days of prayer and fasting which happen three times a year are primarily for pastors, and also for staff of Newfrontiers churches. To a large degree the praying focuses on the work of local churches, or the projects which involve us coming together. But I think there is scope to extend our praying in these times to praying for our businessmen, politicians, teachers and many other groupings (as legitimate outworkings of a healthy local church). And if we're going to pray for them, why shouldn't those people themselves be there, praying alongside the pastors? This could be one expression of the divide between leaders and the people as it currently exists among us. I say this to point out that even those of us determined to be rid of the divide still find it difficult to implement! But we should continue pursuing it as an ideal.
Stott has here defined an ideal which has elluded many Christians throughout the centuries. How can those involved in "pastoral, social, political, medical [or] educational" ministries be given equal status and support? Let me say that in my experience in Newfrontiers churches it is often achieved. Those not involved in pastoring are given opportunities to contribute significantly to church life. Adrian Warnock would be a perfect example of this. And I personally have been greatly blessed by the opportunities I have found in City Church to be involved in leading as a student. I also think that the various different ministries of people (which might traditionally be considered 'outside' the church e.g. in business or politics) are supported.
Furthermore, I think there is a healthy regard for spiritual leadership among us as a family, which perhaps explains the existence (to some degree at least) of something resembling a clergy/laity divide (at least in terms of the prayer and fasting example above). We honour our leaders and want the best for them; prayer and fasting provides some of their support. If that is the cause of the perceived divide, I can fully support it! I want to be an exemplary follower. There was a time when I used to get frustrated with leaders who said "before you can lead, you've got to learn to follow." But now following is one of the most thrilling activities I'm called to! I love saying to my leaders "I'm with you heart and soul - consider me on board" and then following through with action.
However, I do think 'every-member ministry' is an important subject for church leaders to keep in mind. It is essential that we not only have a high view of spiritual leadership, but that we also empower people to go forward with their own giftings, and not just under their own steam, but recognising their work as a precious output of the local church.
A brief background to the current practice I've been used to; Newfrontiers churches generally would not send developing leaders away to Bible College or the equivalent (though many existing leaders have come from that setting). Instead, a model is perpetuated whereby developing leaders are identified by existing pastors, and put on Newfrontiers courses which facilitate an ongoing direct involvement with church life at the same time as studying. In addition, once this has been completed, it is not unusual for those called more specifically to be teachers to then do some part-time studying, say at Spurgeons or somewhere similar. I know of a number of leaders who have done this. So it is not that 'every member ministry' is opposed to the existence of Bible Colleges, it would just use them in a different way, accepting that for the vast majority of pastors it would not necessarily be the best thing to be sent away into a room to study for three years, with very little time for significant output into the church.
I mentioned during the last week that I consider output into the business world, political world, performance world etc., to all come under the umbrella of the ministry of a healthy local church. There is something weird going on if these things become strangely separate from the local church. It is not only teachers in the local church context who need oversight; we are all ministers of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6) and however we are engaged for the kingdom, need oversight and accountability with brothers and sisters and leaders.
John Stott puts this so well:
"We do a great disservice to the church when we refer to the pastorate as 'the ministry'. The use of the definite article implies that we think the ordained pastorate is the only ministry there is. But 'diakonia' is a generic word for service; it lacks specificity until a descriptive adjective is added - pastoral, social, political, medical, educational and many others. We need to recover this vision of the wide diversity of ministries to which God calls His people."
I believe there is not only a Biblical mandate, but a hunger in the church today, for this type of attitude to come from church leaders. Any pastor who shows a demonstration of the value of the ministry of others is not only more appealing to his people (secondarily), but (more importantly) far more Biblical than a leader who regards himself to have reached 'the ministry' - the destination. As Stott says, even the language "the ministry" demonstrates faulty thinking on the subject.
'Every member ministry' has been asserted by various groups throughout history. Some churches I know would encourage even their pastors to prayerfully consider which other 'secular' sphere they could influence, at the same time as pastoring a church. The abolition among us of the clergy and laity divide takes various forms, and yet the challenge is that I have never yet found a large, Biblical, growing church which has been able to survive without taking on staff, for example (I wouldn't consider this to be Biblical anyway!).
So, even though groupings like Newfrontiers would not work with the clergy/laity divide as it has historically existed, it exists to a certain degree. For example, the days of prayer and fasting which happen three times a year are primarily for pastors, and also for staff of Newfrontiers churches. To a large degree the praying focuses on the work of local churches, or the projects which involve us coming together. But I think there is scope to extend our praying in these times to praying for our businessmen, politicians, teachers and many other groupings (as legitimate outworkings of a healthy local church). And if we're going to pray for them, why shouldn't those people themselves be there, praying alongside the pastors? This could be one expression of the divide between leaders and the people as it currently exists among us. I say this to point out that even those of us determined to be rid of the divide still find it difficult to implement! But we should continue pursuing it as an ideal.
Stott has here defined an ideal which has elluded many Christians throughout the centuries. How can those involved in "pastoral, social, political, medical [or] educational" ministries be given equal status and support? Let me say that in my experience in Newfrontiers churches it is often achieved. Those not involved in pastoring are given opportunities to contribute significantly to church life. Adrian Warnock would be a perfect example of this. And I personally have been greatly blessed by the opportunities I have found in City Church to be involved in leading as a student. I also think that the various different ministries of people (which might traditionally be considered 'outside' the church e.g. in business or politics) are supported.
Furthermore, I think there is a healthy regard for spiritual leadership among us as a family, which perhaps explains the existence (to some degree at least) of something resembling a clergy/laity divide (at least in terms of the prayer and fasting example above). We honour our leaders and want the best for them; prayer and fasting provides some of their support. If that is the cause of the perceived divide, I can fully support it! I want to be an exemplary follower. There was a time when I used to get frustrated with leaders who said "before you can lead, you've got to learn to follow." But now following is one of the most thrilling activities I'm called to! I love saying to my leaders "I'm with you heart and soul - consider me on board" and then following through with action.
However, I do think 'every-member ministry' is an important subject for church leaders to keep in mind. It is essential that we not only have a high view of spiritual leadership, but that we also empower people to go forward with their own giftings, and not just under their own steam, but recognising their work as a precious output of the local church.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Mobilise 2006: Wayne Grudem - Together On A Mission
If there is any session from last year's Brighton conference I feel most indaequate to report on, it is this! No surprise then, that it's taken me 10 months to muster up the courage to have a go!Together On A Mission, Main Session: Wednesday Evening
The Person of Christ: God & Man in One Unique Person
To start with, the very personal nature of Dr. Grudem's being at the conference was highlighted to me from the beginning. Wayne made it clear that he had been asked to speak on a certain subject (unlike one particular speaker who approached Terry for this coming conference: "I need to speak at your conference" - graciously, Terry obliged and so that person will be there on the main stage in Brighton this summer! One way of getting in I suppose...) and his opening prayer spoke so clearly of a healthy desire for only that species of knowledge which fuels faith.
Setting out the case, Wayne first spoke about the case for the absolute humanity of Christ, then the full deity of Christ. And then, finally, on how the two fit together.
1) The humanity of Christ
a) The virgin birth shows that Jesus was born of a human mother (Matthew 1:8, 24-25)
b) Jesus had human weaknesses and limitations:
i) Jesus had a human body: he grew, he learned, he wearied, he got thirsty (Luke 2:7, 40, 52, 4:6, 19:28, 24:39, Matthew 4:2, Acts 1:11)
ii) Jesus had a human mind:
He increased in wisdom - Luke 2:52
He learned obedience - Hebrews 5:8
He did not know the day of His return - Mark 13:32
iii) Jesus had a human soul and emotions:
"Now is my soul troubled" - John 12:27, 13:21 - the word for troubled is the same used for the tossing of the sea, and Jesus said his sould felt like that.
"My soul is very sorrowful, even unto death" - Matthew 26:38
Jesus wept - John 11:35
Jesus "offered up prayers and supplications with loud cries and tears" - Hebrews 5:7 - this wasn't just 'being emotional', He genuinely felt emotion.
Jesus was tempted as we are - Hebrews 4:15, yet without sin.
Whatever trouble you are facing, if you think for a few minutes there is probably a parallel between that and the things Jesus felt.
iv) People near Jesus saw him only as a man:
They had no hint that he was God - Matthew 13:55
His brothers and sisters had no idea that he was God - John 7:5
c) Jesus was, in His full humanity, was sinless: (Luke 4:13, John 8:29, 15:10, 18:38, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22)
d) Jesus was tempted: (Hebrews 5:8, 2:18, 4:15)
How could Jesus be truly human and not sin? Were the temptations real? He resisted the temptations in His human strength alone. But could He have sinned? Probably not, because an act of sin would have been an act of the whole person, and as fully God that would not be possible. So he could not have sinned anyway, but the temptations were still real. How?
e) How could the temptations be real? The helpful illustration Dr. Grudem used was this:
"Take an example of a swimmer who crosses the English Channel. You say "He made it!"
"Well why didn't he drown?"
"Because he kept on swimming"
"Well could he have drowned?"
"Well no, there was a rescue boat going alongside him"
"So he couldn't have drowned. Well then it wasn't a real swim acorss the English Channel!"
"Well, of course it was because he didn't use the resuce boat!... He swam in the strength of his own physical nature.""
"...But in the strength of [Jesus'] human nature alone, through dependence on God and through obedience as we should do, he faced the temptations and he faced them to the end without giving in."
f) Why was Jesus full humanity necessary?
-We needed someone to represent us, therefore, in order to be so, he must be 100% human
-He is our substitute sacrifice; in order to be so, he must be human
-It allows him to be an example for us (1 Corinthians 15:42-44)
-It means he can be our sympathetic high priest, to sympathise with our weaknesses
-It allows him to be our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)
-It means that God's original plan, for a man to rule over creation, can be fulfilled
If you give up the true humanity of Jesus, you give up all of the above!
g) Jesus will be a man forever (Acts 1:11)
2) The deity of Christ
a) Direct spiritul claims
i) The word God (theos) used of Christ (John 1:1, 20:28, Romans 9:5, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, 2 Peter 1)
ii) The word Lord (kyrios) used of Christ. The Greek word is used 6,814 times for God in the Old Testament. The exact same word is used 200 times in the New Testament of Jesus.
iii) Other strong claims to His deity (Hebrews 1:2-3) the EXACT IMPRINT of the Father
b) Evidence that Jesus possessed attributes of deity (Matt 18:20, 28:20, Hebrews 7:16)
c) Conclusion: Christ is fully divine (Colossians 1:19, 2:9)
d) Is the doctrine of the incarnation 'unintelligible' today?
The response of some sceptics is "this doesn't make sense!" Of course it doesn't - there are no other examples! This is necessarily outside our ability to understand.
e) Why was His deity necessary?
-Only someone who was truly God could be the mediator
-Only a true deity could bear a penalty - you give it up, you give up salvation
-To reveal God to us
-Without it we cannot know God!
3) The incarnation: deity and humanity
How can any one person be fully God and fully man in one unique person?
Incorrect theories:
i) Apollinarianism
-That Jesus had a human body only
-His mind and spirit were divine
It's like meeting Mickey Mouse at Disney World!
The problem is that our minds and spirits too, need salvation.
The church rejected it.
ii) Nestorianism
-Two distinct persons in one unique body
It's like a pantomime horse! Or Gollum from Lord of the Rings.
The problem is that the gospels present Jesus as "I" not "we".
iii) Monophysitism (Eutychianism)
-Human nature absorbed into the divine nature
Like a drop of ink in water.
-Result is something entirely new.
The problem is that both humanity and deity are lost! He would be something in between.
The church rejected monophysitism.
The idea of a 'kenosis' based on Philippians 2, emptying himself of divinity when He came to earth is very similar to this heresy. To accept it is to forfeit the game without entering the field - battles were fought against it!
The solution to the controversy:
Chalcedonian Creed (451 AD)
The creed is affirmed by Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant teachers since 451.
We read it together, and it was at this moment in the session when I started to tangibly feel the presence of the Holy Spirit:
"We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us."
One nature does some things that the other nature does not do:
-Human nature ascended to heaven, but His divine nature is with us always
-Jesus was thirty years old, but also eternally existed
-Jesus was weak and tired and yet "carrying along all things by the word of his power" (Hebrews 1:3)
-His human nature dies, His divine nature did not
Anything that either nature does, the person of Christ does.
After a few joking comments about the amount of information, and an assertion of its importance, Wayne concluded:
"This Jesus, whom we worshipped a few minutes ago - this Jesus whom we worship is truly God and truly man and will be both God and man forever. The more I think about this, the more I am convinced that this is the most astounding miracle in the universe. Philippians 2:9 says God has highly exalted Him and bestowed on Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven, and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Let me ask you: whom would you rather have as Lord and master? No one else is worthy. Is there anyone else whom you would rather trust with your whole life forever than this one who is both God and man? Can you trust Him? Can you trust this magnificent Saviour with your whole life and with every part of your life forever? Trust Him, trust Him, trust Him now. He is man like you and He is God, omnipotent and eternal. And let me ask you this: who is more worthy of worship than Jesus who is both God and man? Jesus is worthy of our worship, together with worship of the Father and the Holy Spirit, Jesus who became a man like us is worthy of our worship forever; He is worthy, He is worthy, He is worthy. Glory to you Lord Jesus Christ, You are our Saviour and You are our God forever, and we worship You, we exalt You. Hallelujah, Lord Jesus, Amen."
The resulting time of singing in worship to God was one of the most profound for me of the entire conference. We sung 'The Power of the Cross' and celebrated this Jesus. The clarity of the truth being pronounced had not only affected the people gathered, it was clearly affectine Dr. Grudem himself as he brought the session to an end. Here was mighty theology, robust truth with a purpose; not simply engaging our minds but the entire person as our spirits and emotions were moved to worship Him as we closed. I still consider this to be a mightily encouraging talk, and whenever I have an hour to spare, there is nothing like the discipline of following it as Wayne builds through the scriptures to the awesome reality of a true man who is fully God reigning over the earth forever.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Remaining Focused
Focus is a valuable thing to foster. Throughout the Bible we see many of the Holy-Spirit-inspired writers taking up the theme of focus.
Psalm 119:15 says: "I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways."
2 Corinthians 4:17-18 says: "For this slight momentary afflication is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are seen are transient."
Hebrews 12:1-2 says: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."
In each of these passages we see an example or encouragement to be focused. We are clearly to be focused on God at all times.
But there is also the principle which parents teach their children, demonstrated so clearly here: delayed gratification. Why did Jesus endure the cross? Because of "the joy that was set before him". So Jesus had taken the reward which He knew was on its way, and used that to motivate his endurance and perseverance.
Clearly the most important application of this for us is that we take the joy and reward of heaven and eternity with God to motivate us here on earth. Out of an appreciation of grace, knowing that our place in heaven in secure, being motivated and focused on that which Jesus has called us to. For me right now, that is to study on a mission. And that's about it. Which is annoying sometimes.
For example next week is the next gathering of pastors and leaders for the family of churches I belong to, to pray and fast. I imagine it's going to be a hugely inspiring event. It's now in Peterborough rather than Derby and Rob Rufus is going to be there (if you don't know much about Rob Rufus, I suggest you click here to hear one of his sessions at Together On A Mission 06). I was keen to go!
But wouldn't you know it, I have unmissable course-related things on both of those days (unusual for the exam period which we are about to enter!). It seems as though I'm being taught a lesson about remaining focused. It would be very possible for me to use any number of arguments to God about why I should go (I've probably used all of them!). But I cannot get away from the fact that I'm called to this course, for this time. And in three weeks I'm free to pursue such things in Southampton. But until then, He's brought me to this place for this time. And I must commit to that. Instead, I'll be content to read the blog Sarah D has promised to write about it, and receive from my fellow Southamptoners after the event.
So the principle Jesus modelled of delayed gratification is important here. Not just in the sense that after my course is over, I can be free to go to such things. But also the fact that even if I never got to go again, my hunger for God which drives me to such events will be completely satisfied in an eternity with Him. Our hope is in our future alongside Him in the new holy city. This helps us to remain focused here on earth. The words of this song moved me greatly at a prayer meeting on Sunday night, and reflect so well the nature of this future hope:
"When in that bright and beautiful city,
There I will see your glories untold,
And I will be like You, my wonderful Saviour,
I will sing praise while ages unfold"
J M Harris (1867-1934) Adpt. words & new music by Andy Bromley Copyright (c) 2005 Thankyou Music
Are there things you need to remain focused on? Often it's easy to justify abandoning the things God has called you to using arguments which go along the lines of "but surely God, you'll be more glorified if I do this..." We need to understand what God has called us to. We don't need to understand why, but we can have confidence in a glorious future with Him.
UPDATE: Sarah D has prepared the way for her Prayer & Fasting postings here.
Psalm 119:15 says: "I will meditate on your precepts and fix my eyes on your ways."
2 Corinthians 4:17-18 says: "For this slight momentary afflication is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are seen are transient."
Hebrews 12:1-2 says: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God."
In each of these passages we see an example or encouragement to be focused. We are clearly to be focused on God at all times.
But there is also the principle which parents teach their children, demonstrated so clearly here: delayed gratification. Why did Jesus endure the cross? Because of "the joy that was set before him". So Jesus had taken the reward which He knew was on its way, and used that to motivate his endurance and perseverance.
Clearly the most important application of this for us is that we take the joy and reward of heaven and eternity with God to motivate us here on earth. Out of an appreciation of grace, knowing that our place in heaven in secure, being motivated and focused on that which Jesus has called us to. For me right now, that is to study on a mission. And that's about it. Which is annoying sometimes.
For example next week is the next gathering of pastors and leaders for the family of churches I belong to, to pray and fast. I imagine it's going to be a hugely inspiring event. It's now in Peterborough rather than Derby and Rob Rufus is going to be there (if you don't know much about Rob Rufus, I suggest you click here to hear one of his sessions at Together On A Mission 06). I was keen to go!
But wouldn't you know it, I have unmissable course-related things on both of those days (unusual for the exam period which we are about to enter!). It seems as though I'm being taught a lesson about remaining focused. It would be very possible for me to use any number of arguments to God about why I should go (I've probably used all of them!). But I cannot get away from the fact that I'm called to this course, for this time. And in three weeks I'm free to pursue such things in Southampton. But until then, He's brought me to this place for this time. And I must commit to that. Instead, I'll be content to read the blog Sarah D has promised to write about it, and receive from my fellow Southamptoners after the event.
So the principle Jesus modelled of delayed gratification is important here. Not just in the sense that after my course is over, I can be free to go to such things. But also the fact that even if I never got to go again, my hunger for God which drives me to such events will be completely satisfied in an eternity with Him. Our hope is in our future alongside Him in the new holy city. This helps us to remain focused here on earth. The words of this song moved me greatly at a prayer meeting on Sunday night, and reflect so well the nature of this future hope:
"When in that bright and beautiful city,
There I will see your glories untold,
And I will be like You, my wonderful Saviour,
I will sing praise while ages unfold"
J M Harris (1867-1934) Adpt. words & new music by Andy Bromley Copyright (c) 2005 Thankyou Music
Are there things you need to remain focused on? Often it's easy to justify abandoning the things God has called you to using arguments which go along the lines of "but surely God, you'll be more glorified if I do this..." We need to understand what God has called us to. We don't need to understand why, but we can have confidence in a glorious future with Him.
UPDATE: Sarah D has prepared the way for her Prayer & Fasting postings here.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Blogging & Books
If you blog, there's a high chance you love to write.
I know that blogging has enabled me to find far much more pleasure in writing than I ever thought possible. I feel I truly have the writing bug.
Tim Challies is writing an engaging series about blogging over on his blog. It is truly a sign of the infancy of blogging as a medium that people all over are writing about blogging. Even blogging about blogging. Perhaps one day we'll stop talking about blogging so much (we don't any longer have regular comment about television as a medium!) and just use it as a form of communication.
I'm really enjoying Tim's series - he's told us his story, brought us up-to-date on the history of blogging, right up to where the blogosphere is today. He engages with some useful issues including how it works when the 'laity' are more successful bloggers than the 'clergy'. He's even given us an insight into how his soon-to-be-released book came out of his blogging.
And that's what I'm really interested in at the moment. What's catching my attention is how people are starting to write books, having gained writing experience through blogging. Some are even turning their blogs into a book it would seem. Here are a few examples.
On September 1st, 2006 Tim Challies announced that he had made a proposal to write a book to Crossway, which had been accepted. Entitled 'The Discipline of Discernment', it seems Mr. Challies achieved that rare thing: an accepted book proposal, having written no books in the past. This is quite an achievement, and I'm looking forward to reading his book!
Last week, having submitted my blog address to a new blog catalog which caught my eye, I noticed that the button I was required to put on my blog read: "Turn your blog into a book". I followed the link and found Ann McIndoo's website. Ann has apparently helped many bloggers turn their blogs into a self-published book. I'm not sure I like the idea as much as writing freely on a subject of you choice, which is the deal Tim got!
Today, I notice that the well-known story of Anya Peters, the homeless lady whose book is about to be released, has hit the BBC again. Writing on a blog known as Wandering Scribe, Anya was profiled by the New York Times, and then noticed by the BBC. HarperCollins approached her with a book deal, and the book has now been published.
If Tim Challies' writing is coming from a wealth of knowledge and understanding, Anya Peters' book is at the other end of the spectrum. It's been written out of the pain she has personally experienced. And by the looks of it, it's not an easy thing to be that personal in a published work.
So it looks like the journey from blog to book can take many forms. I do wonder how many more bloggers we will see taking the extra opportunities their blog gives them. As for me, a book based on my blog would turn out schizophrenic at best.
But if a blog's content is coherent enough to be made into a book, or to provide the opportunity for its author to write a book, it strikes me as even more reason to blog consistently. Books reach places blogs cannot and vice versa. It would seem silly to pass up the opportunity if it was there. So, well done to Anya Peters and Tim Challies. And let's sit back and see how many more bloggers will get the opportunity to write a book!
UPDATE: Tim has now finished his series on blogging. The final post of the series can be found here.
I know that blogging has enabled me to find far much more pleasure in writing than I ever thought possible. I feel I truly have the writing bug.
Tim Challies is writing an engaging series about blogging over on his blog. It is truly a sign of the infancy of blogging as a medium that people all over are writing about blogging. Even blogging about blogging. Perhaps one day we'll stop talking about blogging so much (we don't any longer have regular comment about television as a medium!) and just use it as a form of communication.
I'm really enjoying Tim's series - he's told us his story, brought us up-to-date on the history of blogging, right up to where the blogosphere is today. He engages with some useful issues including how it works when the 'laity' are more successful bloggers than the 'clergy'. He's even given us an insight into how his soon-to-be-released book came out of his blogging.
And that's what I'm really interested in at the moment. What's catching my attention is how people are starting to write books, having gained writing experience through blogging. Some are even turning their blogs into a book it would seem. Here are a few examples.
On September 1st, 2006 Tim Challies announced that he had made a proposal to write a book to Crossway, which had been accepted. Entitled 'The Discipline of Discernment', it seems Mr. Challies achieved that rare thing: an accepted book proposal, having written no books in the past. This is quite an achievement, and I'm looking forward to reading his book!
Last week, having submitted my blog address to a new blog catalog which caught my eye, I noticed that the button I was required to put on my blog read: "Turn your blog into a book". I followed the link and found Ann McIndoo's website. Ann has apparently helped many bloggers turn their blogs into a self-published book. I'm not sure I like the idea as much as writing freely on a subject of you choice, which is the deal Tim got!
Today, I notice that the well-known story of Anya Peters, the homeless lady whose book is about to be released, has hit the BBC again. Writing on a blog known as Wandering Scribe, Anya was profiled by the New York Times, and then noticed by the BBC. HarperCollins approached her with a book deal, and the book has now been published.
If Tim Challies' writing is coming from a wealth of knowledge and understanding, Anya Peters' book is at the other end of the spectrum. It's been written out of the pain she has personally experienced. And by the looks of it, it's not an easy thing to be that personal in a published work.
So it looks like the journey from blog to book can take many forms. I do wonder how many more bloggers we will see taking the extra opportunities their blog gives them. As for me, a book based on my blog would turn out schizophrenic at best.
But if a blog's content is coherent enough to be made into a book, or to provide the opportunity for its author to write a book, it strikes me as even more reason to blog consistently. Books reach places blogs cannot and vice versa. It would seem silly to pass up the opportunity if it was there. So, well done to Anya Peters and Tim Challies. And let's sit back and see how many more bloggers will get the opportunity to write a book!
UPDATE: Tim has now finished his series on blogging. The final post of the series can be found here.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Reading On A Mission
"Never stop reading." A few years ago a friend of mine walked through the office door clutching a WHSmith bag obviously full of books, and uttered those words. Why? That was the parting advice given to him by Greg Haslam.
Always be reading. Keep yourself immersed in the scriptures, but always be engaging with all kinds of books, spiritual and secular. Always have at least one book on the go. My friend's bag in this case contained two 'secular' novels. But I know for a fact they also immerse themselves in books which explore the things of God.
I once heard the advice that if you always have one book of a certain genre on the go, whenever you're in the mood for a novel, you've got one to pick up. When a commentary will hit the spot, you're already partway through one. And it works with reading through the Bible too. I heard of someone who uses six ribbons in their Bible to mark where they are in the history books, somewhere in Psalms or Proverbs, somewhere in the prophets, gospels, epistles etc. It seems like good advice to me because it means you never stop reading.
I read this morning that free books are to be given to secondary schools across the country in order to encourage children, boys in particular, to read. It strikes me as a good aim, because many young men have to re-discipline themselves to read later in life, because they weren't taught to love reading at a young age. I've met some Christian men my own age who have given up completely; they've no anticipation that they will ever need to read again.
The words of John Stott (in the context of a comment on Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching") come to mind: "We note that those new Spirit-filled converts were not enjoying a mystical experience that led them to neglect their intellect, despise theology, or stop thinking. On the contrary, they concentrated on receiving instruction. I do not hesitate to say that anti-intellectualism and the fullness of the Spirit are mutually incompatible. For who is the Spirit? Jesus called him "the Spirit of truth," so that wherever he is at work, truth matters."
So then, we must keep on reading, not out of a legalistic sense of duty to expand our minds, or out of a prideful want to know more than so-and-so. But a love for Christ compels us to continually engage our minds. We keep on reading because it fuels our faith. Of course we mustn't over-intellectualise the gospel and in so doing fail to realise its power. But it strikes me that, in terms of young children, and boys in particular, we are more in danger of going the other way. The Christian life is a battle for the mind, and we must equip ourselves for the battle in some way. Otherwise our minds lie totally unguarded.
I recognise in close friends the tell-tell signs that they have never stopped reading. Their writing benefits. Their minds benefit. I myself lost interest in reading to an extent during my teenage years. I did read the occasional thing, but I see in friends who never stopped, a wealth and intellectual strength I'm still catching up with. Not that that makes me a second class Christian, but that I long to be in a place where my mind is more and more robust, thinking right, therefore doing right.
The challenge is how you build it into an already-busy life. As a student, I will read tremendously throughout vacation times, but during term-time will read nothing. Obviously, engaging in daily Bible reading continues. But because I'm not on a reading-intensive course, reading completely stops most of the time I'm in Sheffield. This adds an extra dimension to studying on a mission. How do we remain good students of life, the culture and God, whilst also an academic student?
Bloggers currently engaging with books:
Dave Bish and Velvet Elvis
Gareth Russell and Overcoming Sin & Temptation
Tim Challies always has good book reviews
So does Mark Heath
And finally, Underlined Bits, a demonstration of just how much some of the above actually read!
Always be reading. Keep yourself immersed in the scriptures, but always be engaging with all kinds of books, spiritual and secular. Always have at least one book on the go. My friend's bag in this case contained two 'secular' novels. But I know for a fact they also immerse themselves in books which explore the things of God.
I once heard the advice that if you always have one book of a certain genre on the go, whenever you're in the mood for a novel, you've got one to pick up. When a commentary will hit the spot, you're already partway through one. And it works with reading through the Bible too. I heard of someone who uses six ribbons in their Bible to mark where they are in the history books, somewhere in Psalms or Proverbs, somewhere in the prophets, gospels, epistles etc. It seems like good advice to me because it means you never stop reading.
I read this morning that free books are to be given to secondary schools across the country in order to encourage children, boys in particular, to read. It strikes me as a good aim, because many young men have to re-discipline themselves to read later in life, because they weren't taught to love reading at a young age. I've met some Christian men my own age who have given up completely; they've no anticipation that they will ever need to read again.
The words of John Stott (in the context of a comment on Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching") come to mind: "We note that those new Spirit-filled converts were not enjoying a mystical experience that led them to neglect their intellect, despise theology, or stop thinking. On the contrary, they concentrated on receiving instruction. I do not hesitate to say that anti-intellectualism and the fullness of the Spirit are mutually incompatible. For who is the Spirit? Jesus called him "the Spirit of truth," so that wherever he is at work, truth matters."
So then, we must keep on reading, not out of a legalistic sense of duty to expand our minds, or out of a prideful want to know more than so-and-so. But a love for Christ compels us to continually engage our minds. We keep on reading because it fuels our faith. Of course we mustn't over-intellectualise the gospel and in so doing fail to realise its power. But it strikes me that, in terms of young children, and boys in particular, we are more in danger of going the other way. The Christian life is a battle for the mind, and we must equip ourselves for the battle in some way. Otherwise our minds lie totally unguarded.
I recognise in close friends the tell-tell signs that they have never stopped reading. Their writing benefits. Their minds benefit. I myself lost interest in reading to an extent during my teenage years. I did read the occasional thing, but I see in friends who never stopped, a wealth and intellectual strength I'm still catching up with. Not that that makes me a second class Christian, but that I long to be in a place where my mind is more and more robust, thinking right, therefore doing right.
The challenge is how you build it into an already-busy life. As a student, I will read tremendously throughout vacation times, but during term-time will read nothing. Obviously, engaging in daily Bible reading continues. But because I'm not on a reading-intensive course, reading completely stops most of the time I'm in Sheffield. This adds an extra dimension to studying on a mission. How do we remain good students of life, the culture and God, whilst also an academic student?
Bloggers currently engaging with books:
Dave Bish and Velvet Elvis
Gareth Russell and Overcoming Sin & Temptation
Tim Challies always has good book reviews
So does Mark Heath
And finally, Underlined Bits, a demonstration of just how much some of the above actually read!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Making A Difference
Making a difference is a big concern of my generation. My parents regularly comment that the drive for economic success just isn't present in my generation the same way it was manifested in theirs. Many of my friends, now looking for a future after university, simply aren't buying into the whole graduate recruitment world. Instead they're looking to spend time volunteering/travelling/both, for example. They want to make a difference. Money just isn't enough.
I don't know about you, but many of the Christians I know have given their lives over to making a difference. For many of us that means throwing ourselves into the life of our local church (or even starting a new church). In addition, some people will be in the realms of politics, performance or business from where they can make a difference.
For me, my primary outlet of service in seeking to make a difference is the local church. But my imagination is often caught by these other things (which I think are all demonstrations of a healthy church engaging competently with society - they all come under the banner of 'the church' if you like), and I pursue them, to an extent.
For example, while I was on my year out (doing FP Impact), I felt challenged to join a political party. So I did. And I make an effort to engage with this were I can. The business world caught my eye, so I'm having a go at starting a business.
Another way of making a difference is always in front of me with my degree: good design. Whilst I don't always appreciate the 'we-can-save-the-world-through-architecture' attitude many architects demonstrate (one prominent personality firmly believed that the options for any society are "architecture or revolution"), I believe that good design has a great deal of potential to change the world for good, having been through my course. I was moved (yes, moved) in a lecture a few months back. The social problems caused by certain social housing initiatives (monstrosities) in the city of Sheffield, were contrasted with my lecturer's experience of visiting a better social housing project. The second was not spectacular (in fact to this day, the monstrosities receive far more attention and affection than the better example we were shown), but the character of the place was totally different.
The pensioner lady my lecturer spoke to at this second evelopment said "I've lived in social housing all my life. But I want to live here until I die." I don't think I had realised the impact good design can have on people until that point. Until then, it had felt self-indulgent to claim that your discipline could make a difference. But now I believe it can.
Cold hard evidence from thorough-going research shows that good social housing design reduces crime. Good hospital design reduces seclusion treatment by 70%.
How does this equate with my beliefs as a Christian? Well, I believe that valuing people is a kingdom principle. When designing, people, not profit, should be the motive. And so I believe that good design is shown to genuinely make a difference because, without architects themselves necessarily knowing it, when they design well, they are designing to kingdom principles.
Isn't it amazing that the gospel of the kingdom infiltrates all of life? What a comfort, for it means that wherever you are in the world, you can make a difference to the lives of those around you, and so demonstrate the wisdom of God, bringing Him glory.
I don't know about you, but many of the Christians I know have given their lives over to making a difference. For many of us that means throwing ourselves into the life of our local church (or even starting a new church). In addition, some people will be in the realms of politics, performance or business from where they can make a difference.
For me, my primary outlet of service in seeking to make a difference is the local church. But my imagination is often caught by these other things (which I think are all demonstrations of a healthy church engaging competently with society - they all come under the banner of 'the church' if you like), and I pursue them, to an extent.
For example, while I was on my year out (doing FP Impact), I felt challenged to join a political party. So I did. And I make an effort to engage with this were I can. The business world caught my eye, so I'm having a go at starting a business.
Another way of making a difference is always in front of me with my degree: good design. Whilst I don't always appreciate the 'we-can-save-the-world-through-architecture' attitude many architects demonstrate (one prominent personality firmly believed that the options for any society are "architecture or revolution"), I believe that good design has a great deal of potential to change the world for good, having been through my course. I was moved (yes, moved) in a lecture a few months back. The social problems caused by certain social housing initiatives (monstrosities) in the city of Sheffield, were contrasted with my lecturer's experience of visiting a better social housing project. The second was not spectacular (in fact to this day, the monstrosities receive far more attention and affection than the better example we were shown), but the character of the place was totally different.
The pensioner lady my lecturer spoke to at this second evelopment said "I've lived in social housing all my life. But I want to live here until I die." I don't think I had realised the impact good design can have on people until that point. Until then, it had felt self-indulgent to claim that your discipline could make a difference. But now I believe it can.
Cold hard evidence from thorough-going research shows that good social housing design reduces crime. Good hospital design reduces seclusion treatment by 70%.
How does this equate with my beliefs as a Christian? Well, I believe that valuing people is a kingdom principle. When designing, people, not profit, should be the motive. And so I believe that good design is shown to genuinely make a difference because, without architects themselves necessarily knowing it, when they design well, they are designing to kingdom principles.
Isn't it amazing that the gospel of the kingdom infiltrates all of life? What a comfort, for it means that wherever you are in the world, you can make a difference to the lives of those around you, and so demonstrate the wisdom of God, bringing Him glory.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Studying On A Mission
There has always been huge potential for 'movements' to come out of the student world. It has happened in history and will happen again. High profile political and religious movements which have gained particular ground among students, are scattered throughout history.
The fact that students are fertile ground for a radical message has been recognised over time, and whilst I often hear the local Socialists (of which there are many in Sheffield) lamenting the lack of the 'student movement' in left-wing politics, I believe students are still receptive to new ideals, political or otherwise. This would include a receptivity to the message of Jesus, and the true gospel. And various groups have caught onto this.
Over recent decades UCCF for example, have been faithfully inputing into the student scene across the country. They have helped raise up the leaders of the next generation in the church in the United Kingdom and bring teaching to thousands of students, partly through their Word Alive conference (and now, New Word Alive). (I always intended to write a series of posts about the many strengths of UCCF, to balance out other things I have written on this blog, which I would still assert. I still intend to do this, though I don't know when).
More recently there have been the fast-growing conferences like Mobilise, hosted by Newfrontiers and Momentum, provided by Soul Survivor. The aim of each of these student conferences would unashamedly be to bring students into the vision and values of the wider organisations, to help equip students to be a part of the wider mission. These are fantastic resources for the church, and whilst we might all have our personal favourites, it is clear that many organisations are making use of the fact that students are fertile ground when it comes to an ideological message.
But what about the actual studying? Not to suggest that any of the organisations mentioned above would discourage students from their studies; but when they carry a message so thrilling and an ideology so engaging that my degree frankly looks boring, my question has often been "how can I get enthusiastic about my degree?"
I think I'm noticing this again, having spent much of my last three years at City Church serving in one way or another (firstly through Kidz Klub, and in the last two years by serving on the student team). Now, I have handed over all responsibilities. And what am I left with? My degree. It would seem that being able to engage through service with an amazing mission actually gave me impetus for my degree, without necessarily the time to do it.
Conversely, now I have the extra time without the active engagement in the 'stuff'. I'm going to embrace it because it's a season (short-lived at only four weeks long) that God has given me. But it will take a degree of adjustment (no pun intended) to get used to the only things I have on my to-do list being degree-related.
In case you hadn't picked it up, the mission of the church thrills me. It's the stuff I think about in the empty moments. And until now, that has been easily translated into "I've got this to do for the student work" or "I've got an object lesson to prepare for Kidz Klub". How you engage with your studies whilst on a mission was a question easily answered for me before: "I'm involved in such and such..." Serving satisfied that insatiable God-given desire within to be on a mission.
So what do you do when that's not there? Well, I'm not suffering an identity crisis. Let's just throw that in for starters. I know my identity is in Christ, and am confident in His plan for my life. But the question is, how can I best use these four weeks? The few things I'm thinking are firstly, drawing closer to God. Secondly, learning to glorify him through my degree, rather than despite it (there are finals to sit after all). Thirdly, investing in the people around me.
These are things I was definitely aiming to do before, but in the lull between 'projects' and 'responsibility', I think these will be the ageless, timeless, God-filled things I'm to focus on.
This morning I was reading Isaiah 6 in which Isaiah sees the glory of God, responds appropriately, is cleansed to draw near and is then sent out to bear the message. The Bible puts these things together. Let's not separate them. Nevertheless, in a season where active involvement in the mission is not the path in front of you (I stress this should never be the norm!), we can still engage with this mission. I intend to!
The fact that students are fertile ground for a radical message has been recognised over time, and whilst I often hear the local Socialists (of which there are many in Sheffield) lamenting the lack of the 'student movement' in left-wing politics, I believe students are still receptive to new ideals, political or otherwise. This would include a receptivity to the message of Jesus, and the true gospel. And various groups have caught onto this.
Over recent decades UCCF for example, have been faithfully inputing into the student scene across the country. They have helped raise up the leaders of the next generation in the church in the United Kingdom and bring teaching to thousands of students, partly through their Word Alive conference (and now, New Word Alive). (I always intended to write a series of posts about the many strengths of UCCF, to balance out other things I have written on this blog, which I would still assert. I still intend to do this, though I don't know when).
More recently there have been the fast-growing conferences like Mobilise, hosted by Newfrontiers and Momentum, provided by Soul Survivor. The aim of each of these student conferences would unashamedly be to bring students into the vision and values of the wider organisations, to help equip students to be a part of the wider mission. These are fantastic resources for the church, and whilst we might all have our personal favourites, it is clear that many organisations are making use of the fact that students are fertile ground when it comes to an ideological message.
But what about the actual studying? Not to suggest that any of the organisations mentioned above would discourage students from their studies; but when they carry a message so thrilling and an ideology so engaging that my degree frankly looks boring, my question has often been "how can I get enthusiastic about my degree?"
I think I'm noticing this again, having spent much of my last three years at City Church serving in one way or another (firstly through Kidz Klub, and in the last two years by serving on the student team). Now, I have handed over all responsibilities. And what am I left with? My degree. It would seem that being able to engage through service with an amazing mission actually gave me impetus for my degree, without necessarily the time to do it.
Conversely, now I have the extra time without the active engagement in the 'stuff'. I'm going to embrace it because it's a season (short-lived at only four weeks long) that God has given me. But it will take a degree of adjustment (no pun intended) to get used to the only things I have on my to-do list being degree-related.
In case you hadn't picked it up, the mission of the church thrills me. It's the stuff I think about in the empty moments. And until now, that has been easily translated into "I've got this to do for the student work" or "I've got an object lesson to prepare for Kidz Klub". How you engage with your studies whilst on a mission was a question easily answered for me before: "I'm involved in such and such..." Serving satisfied that insatiable God-given desire within to be on a mission.
So what do you do when that's not there? Well, I'm not suffering an identity crisis. Let's just throw that in for starters. I know my identity is in Christ, and am confident in His plan for my life. But the question is, how can I best use these four weeks? The few things I'm thinking are firstly, drawing closer to God. Secondly, learning to glorify him through my degree, rather than despite it (there are finals to sit after all). Thirdly, investing in the people around me.
These are things I was definitely aiming to do before, but in the lull between 'projects' and 'responsibility', I think these will be the ageless, timeless, God-filled things I'm to focus on.
This morning I was reading Isaiah 6 in which Isaiah sees the glory of God, responds appropriately, is cleansed to draw near and is then sent out to bear the message. The Bible puts these things together. Let's not separate them. Nevertheless, in a season where active involvement in the mission is not the path in front of you (I stress this should never be the norm!), we can still engage with this mission. I intend to!