Friday, June 30, 2006

Shaping Fellow Followers of Christ


What does it mean to "theologically train lay people for public life and vocation" according to Keller.

  • In 'Christendom' you can afford to train people just in prayer, Bible study, evangelism-private world skills--because they are not facing radically non-Christian values in their public life--where they work, in their neighborhood, etc.

  • In a 'missional' church, the laity needs theological education to 'think Christianly' about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness. They need to know: a) what cultural practices are common grace and to be embraced, b) what practices are antithetical to the gospel and must be rejected, c) what practices can be adapted/revised.

  • In a 'missional' situation, lay people renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocations must be lifted up as real 'kingdom work' and ministry along with the traditional ministry of the Word.

  • Finally, Christians will have to use the gospel to demonstrate true, Biblical love and 'tolerance' in "the public square" toward those with whom we deeply differ. This tolerance should equal or exceed that which opposing views show toward Christians. The charge of intolerance is perhaps the main 'defeater' of the gospel in the non-Christian west.

Thursday, June 29, 2006

The Transformation of their Myths


What does it mean to "enter and re-tell the culture's stories with the gospel" according to Keller?

  • In "Christendom" it is possible to simply exhort Christianized people to "do what they know they should." There is little or no real engagement, listening, or persuasion. It is more a matter of exhortation (and often, heavy reliance on guilt.) In a missional church preaching and communication should always assume the presence of skeptical people, and should engage their stories, not simply talk about "old times."

  • To "enter" means to show sympathy toward and deep acquaintance with the literature, music, theater, etc. of the existing culture's hopes, dreams, 'heroic' narratives, fears.

  • * The older culture's story was--to be a good person, a good father/mother, son/daughter, to live a decent, merciful, good life.

    * Now the culture's story is-- a) to be free and self-created and authentic (theme of freedom from oppression), and b) to make the world safe for everyone else to be the same (theme of inclusion of the 'other'; justice).

  • To "re-tell" means to show how only in Christ can we have freedom without slavery and embracing of the 'other' without injustice.

Vulgar Languages...


What does "discourse in the vernacular" look like according to Keller?


  • In 'Christendom' there is little difference between the language inside and outside of the church. Documents of the early U.S. Congress, for example, are riddled with allusions to and references from the Bible. Biblical technical terms are well-known inside and outside. In a missional church, however, terms must be explained.

  • The missional church avoids 'tribal' language, stylized prayer language, unnecessary evangelical pious 'jargon', and archaic language that seeks to set a 'spritual tone.'

  • The missional church avoids 'we-them' language, disdainful jokes that mock people of different politics and beliefs, and dismissive, disrespectful comments about those who differ with us

  • The missional church avoids sentimental, pompous, 'inspirational' talk . Instead we engage the culture with gentle, self-deprecating but joyful irony the gospel creates. Humility + joy = gospel irony and realism.

  • The missional church avoids ever talking as if non-believing people are not present. If you speak and discourse as if your whole neighborhood is present (not just scattered Christians), eventually more and more of your neighborhood will find their way in or be invited.

  • Unless all of the above is the outflow of a truly humble-bold gospel-changed heart, it is all just 'marketing' and 'spin.'

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

What is a Missional Church?


The Elements of a Missional Church
5 awesome characteristics of churches committed to the mission of God as outlined by Tim Keller.

  1. Discourse in the vernacular

  2. Enter and re-tell the culture’s stories with the gospel

  3. Theologically train lay people for public life and vocation

  4. Create Christian community which is counter-cultural and counter-intuitive

  5. Practice Christian unity as much as possible on the local level


My prayer is that I will intentionally plant missional churches - points of light in a dark world.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

What Can Religion Get Me?


Get thee to a nunnery
20 June 2006 An Article from Couldn't Help Noticing

The ABC will be filming a new reality TV series in August called The Abbey. Modelled after the BBC's The Monastery, in which five men went to live in Worth Abbey in West Sussex for 40 days and 40 nights, The Abbey will focus on the experiences of five women who will forsake the world to go live in rural Australia with an order of nuns for 33 days, one day for each year of Christ's life. They are expected to participate in the community by doing things like getting up at 4 am, praying and meditating, working on the farm, making handicrafts and taking vows of silence. (The latter, I am sure, will make very interesting television!) Each woman will be assigned a Sister who will be her spiritual mentor. Any questions or issues can be discussed with this Sister.

But what is the point of it all? Will the women be voted out of the abbey, one by one, week by week, based on how competently they say Hail Marys? Is there a million dollar prize or a nice car at stake? No, says the ABC, “[T]his is not a game show or competition. The reward is the unique experience” (source). Volunteers don't have to be Christian or even vaguely religious; they just have to be willing to “put their beliefs and lifestyle to the test” and be open to “another very different way of life”—a simpler way of life—one without mobile phones, television or the internet.

Such an approach betrays a consumerist mindset: it's about what religion can give me. In this case, it's the thrill ride—some sort of higher undefined spirituality brought on by mild asceticism—an alternative to the frenetic pace of modern life. It's about experience, not relationship; the journey, not the destination. It's certainly not about acquainting oneself with one's creator and judge.

‘Reality’ TV? You be the judge.

Noticed by Karen at 10:53 AM

Monday, June 26, 2006

Sad Example of Catnip Addiction

Looking out For #1 - Part II


Looking out for #1 - Part II
7 June 2006 Article from Couldn't Help Noticing

"The below mentioned article struck me in another way. I’ve often wondered about people who lose their faith because of a tragedy. People always have serious questions about God and the meaning of suffering when they are confronted with an awful event such as Hurricane Katrina. There is nothing unusual or even wrong with that kind of questioning. It becomes dangerous when such a person persists in what is an explicitly selfish line of thinking.

The woman in the article said that she lost her faith in God because of the devastation caused by Katrina. Being a resident of New Orleans at that time, she witnessed all of it personally. But, in our age of information, we’ve all had ample enough information about any tragedy to question God and potentially lose our faith. Why wouldn’t seeing the devastation from the Tsunami cause her to lose her faith? Why wouldn’t reading about Auschwitz in her history classes cause her to lose her faith? It seems that her loss of faith isn’t so much about trusting a God that could let this happen as it is about trusting a God who could let this happen to her.

I’ve dealt with similar issues when people suffering an unexpected loss of a loved one. I had one such person begin to question God’s fairness in allowing “bad people to live but good people to die young.” This is a natural response to such an event; but the questioning continued to the point where this person was seriously considering giving up believing in a fair and just God. So, in a loving way, I had to point out to that she had to witness many similarly unfair happenings in her life – through friends, news, history, etc. Why was it this event that caused her to think this way? It was because the unfairness hit closer to home than it ever had before.

Both types of situations provide genuine opportunity to bring people back to the person of Jesus Christ. He is the only one who provided a cure for selfishness and a demonstration of absolute selflessness."

Noticed by Marty at 10:22 AM

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Reality Check

I am sure that you have seen those cheesy optimistic motivational posters. Yep, those are the ones. Well someone was finally brave enough to make some posters that reflect reality. Lets be honest...

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Looking Out For #1


Looking Out for #1
6 June 2006 AD

When I check my e-mail, there are always links to news articles on the side of the page. One such link caught my attention – “She’s lost her faith – he’s mad”.

The article was one of those write-in question therapy columns. A young lady living in New Orleans lost her faith after the devastation from Hurricane Katrina. She is dating a young man who is troubled by the fact that she doesn’t share his faith in the Lord. So, she sought help from this “expert” on love and relationships.

Some of the advice given wasn’t bad. However, I couldn’t help noticing one of the recommendations:

“Look out for number one: It may not be a very Christian concept, but right now you need to do whatever it takes to feel hopeful about life in general. Don’t invest time or emotion in people who don’t make you feel good. This doesn’t mean the only people you can hang out with should constantly feed your ego, but you should be getting something (confidence, security, benevolence) from the interaction.”

Of course, this advice doesn’t surprise me. What does surprise me is how open the “expert” was in pointing out that her advice wasn’t Christian. It is rare that someone will openly admit something like that.

However, what troubled me the most was how much I fail to live up to my own judgment. It was so easy for me to spot that sentence: “Don’t invest time or emotion in people who don’t make you feel good”. I was so quick to realize how this is the antithesis of Christian love. Christian love is about giving and sacrificing for the sake of another, just as Christ did for us, no matter what is given in return. Yet, as I thought about my circle of friends and acquaintances, I realized that I do not act differently than the advice I was so quick to condemn.

Luke 6:32, 35 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them … But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.”

Noticed by Marty at 09:41 AM

(Yes, that is a picture of a young George Michael.)

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Equipping Women

Equipping women
30 May 2006 Article from Couldn't Help Noticing

During a lunch break at the recent EQUIP conference, where my colleague John Sammut and I were running the bookstall, we nipped into the closest coffee shop for some sustenance. John knew the owner of the coffee shop and went over to say hello.

The owner of the coffee shop, who was not a Christian, asked John why he was at Darling Harbour, and John explained that there was a big convention of Christian women just next door.

“Oh that explains it then!” says the owner.

“What do you mean?”, says John.

“I was wondering why all our customers were so nice this morning. And that explains it.”

“You can really notice a difference?”

“Sure,” says the owner, “last weekend there was a convention and the people were just horrible.”

“Who was at the other convention?”

“Real estate agents.”

Praise God that the godliness of the women saints at Darling Harbour on Saturday can bear such testimony to the grace of God in this way.

Noticed by Ian at 10:21 AM

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Dying to be thin


When I am dead, with the insurance paid,
You'll look down at me and you'll grin.
You'll say, "well, the boy tried, and he suffered and died,
But don't he look good when he's thin?

By Shel Silverstein, one of my favorite poets!

Worn out


We just made it back from a twelve day journey visiting churches with a few visits to family thrown in. It gave us a better idea of our options, and I was encouraged. I am very excited about growing God's church through church planting. However, I will need to pray for God's leading.

I preached on the 11th. The Lord gave me an unusual lucidness and unction. I am very thankful.

We are trying to rest now. (My wife had to go back to work this morning. So much for her getting to rest!)

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Spouse Endorsed What?



A New Solution to an Old Problem
18 May 2006 Article from Couldn't Help Noticing

A little while ago, there was an article in ESPN The Magazine that millions of American men would have ripped out to show their wives. Most of these men don’t normally think that their wives are interested in an article from one of the most popular sports magazines in America. Yet, one article in the recent edition will catch the eye of both sexes. I can imagine the scene now, as if taken directly from a sitcom. The beer-bellied man shoving the pages at his wife saying, “See! She understands! Why can’t you be more open-minded?”

The reference is to the marriage arrangement of NBA basketball star Andrei Kirilenko and his wife Masha Lopatova. Masha, a pop music star in her home country Russia, discloses her angst at Andrei’s numerous road games and superstar status: “Male athletes in this country [USA] are extremely attractive. They get chased by women. It’s hard to resist. It’s the way men are by nature.”

So, she came up with what she calls “Andrei’s allowance”. According to the article’s writer, “Once a year he can have sex with another woman. One night. No affairs, no divided loyalty. She can live with that. It was her idea, offered as a gift.” How is it that she can live with that? “When I’m aware and I let him do it, it’s not cheating,” Masha says.

What is Andrei’s response? The article is about his fit into his conservative coach’s offensive system, so the following response may be a double entendre, “If something is not allowed you, you want to get it, if it is allowed to you, you will not need it.”

Of course, men all over the country will think this is great logic. Unfortunately, this is a most absurd justification for infidelity. The irony is that Masha proclaims her knowledge of man’s nature but then completely falls prey to naïveté on the same subject. Does she really think that if Andrei accepts her “gift” and acts upon it that there will be no divided loyalty? That it would be only one time? Further, if she knew that tonight was the night that Andrei was accepting her “gift”, how much will she be able to “live with it” as she sits at home reading a nice bedtime story to their young child?

Hopefully, our imaginary beer-bellied friend will have a wife who will see through this charade. Unfortunately, Andrei and Masha are ever so real. As Tony Payne and Phillip Jensen say in Pure Sex, “Sexual immorality, such as adultery, is profoundly destructive. And when a society has abandoned itself to it, as ours has, the effects are disastrous.” The effects are clearly seen in Andrei and Masha’s relationship and the millions of men who may think that this couple is on to something.

Noticed by Marty at 10:15 AM

Where are the women priests?


Where are all the women priests?
24 May 2006 Article from Couldn't Help Noticing

When the women’s ordination debate was in full swing (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) a panoply of arguments was put forward as to why we should all get on board, do the right thing and ordain women as priests/presbyters. We were told that our witness to an unbelieving world would never be effective until we removed the stumbling block of excluding women from leadership. And we were told that the ‘evangelical’ case for women’s ordination had been made, and that many evangelicals were willing to get with the programme, presumably to the shame of those recalcitrants (like this author) who remained utterly unconvinced.

As the ever-perceptive John Richardson points out in a recent issue of ‘New Directions’, neither of these contentions have proved true. More than a decade after the ‘women’s ordination wars’, the vast majority of women priests in the Anglican church in the UK are liberal, and none of them are running large churches:

“Excluding cathedrals, there are about 160 Anglican churches with ‘Usual Sunday Attendances’ in excess of 350. The majority are growing, many of them are evangelical, and all the senior ministers of these churches are male. When pastoral push comes to shove, it seems that congregations instinctively congregate around male leadership.

“If, as we have been told, most evangelicals have no problem with the ordination of women, we should expect this picture to change, so that the proportion of women running larger churches corresponds to the proportion of clergy who are women. However, whilst women are found in every ‘senior’ position from dean to archdeacon, and will soon be bishops, they have yet to be found running big churches, evangelical or otherwise.”

Judging by the tiny numbers of evangelical women being ordained, it seems that evangelicals as a whole are actually not convinced at all about women’s ordination. Those who are convinced congregate almost entirely in the liberal wing, and the churches that they run are hardly being overrun by grateful atheists willing at last to embrace the gospel now that a woman is in charge.

The liberal churches, in which the vast majority of women priests serve, continue to decline, while the evangelical arm of the denomination, in which there are very few women priests, continues to be the only sector showing any growth.

Noticed by Tony at 01:03 PM

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Life According to B.B.


The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures by Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921)

The following is a portion of a short essay originally published in the Westminster Teacher, September 1889. The electronic edition of this article was scanned and edited by Shane Rosenthal for Reformation Ink. It is in the public domain and may be freely copied and distributed.

"Let it be observed that the proof of the authority of the Scriptures does not rest on a previous proof of their inspiration. Even an uninspired law is law. But when inspiration has once been shown to be fact, it comes mightily to the reinforcement of their authority. God speaks to us now, in Scripture, not only mediately through his representatives, but directly through the Scriptures themselves as his inspired word. The Scriptures thus become the crystalization of God’s authoritative will. We will not say that Christianity might not have been founded and propagated and preserved without inspired writings or even without any written embodiment of the authoritative apostolic teaching. Wherever Christ is known through whatever means, there is Christianity, and men may hear and believe and be saved. But God has caused his grace to abound to us in that he not only published redemption through Christ in the world, but gave this preachment authoritative expression through the apostles, and fixed it with infallible trustworthiness in his inspired word. Thus in every age God speaks directly to every Christian heart, and gives us abounding safety to our feet and divine security to our souls. And thus, instead of a mere record of a revelation given in the past, we have the ever-living word of God; instead of a mere tradition however guarded, we have what we have all learned to call in a unique sense 'the Scriptures'."

Monday, June 05, 2006

Deep Thoughts


Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy Saturday Night Live

Friday, June 02, 2006

Wright Is Wrong



The Wright stuff - An Article by Couldn't Help Noticing

Noticed by Tony at 09:50 AM on 1 June 2006 AD

I have always been told that Bishop N. T. (Tom) Wright of New Perspective fame is a very gifted speaker. Judging by his performance on a recent Aussie sojourn, one can only agree. Not only does he communicate his ideas clearly and winsomely, he is also a very clever Christian polemicist—by which I mean that he is highly skilled in the kind of debating that we Christians find appealing: polite, disarming, and slightly self-deprecating, with plenty of Bible quotes thrown in.

A case in point was Bishop Wright’s seminar/debate with Bishop Paul Barnett on ‘Fresh Perspectives in Paul’. At one point in the discussion, the two men were asked about their views of the place of Christian behaviour or good works in justification at the last judgement.

Bishop Wright’s response was as follows:

“My view of the place of good works in justification at the last judgement is I hope exactly that of Paul in Romans 2:1-16, and in Romans 14 and in 2 Corinthians 5, where it is quite clear that the things that Christians do in the power of the Spirit in obedience to Christ in the present will be part of the evidence submitted on the last day. That has nothing to do with works-righteousness in the usually fashionable sense—nothing to contribute to justification by faith in the present, as the thing which constitutes the Christian in the present as dikaios (righteous).

“Interestingly we had a big discussion about this at Rutherford House a few years ago [2003]; the papers of that conference are in the process of being published, edited by Bruce McCormack from Princeton, and anyone interested in that topic might well be interested to see how that discussion played out. Because there is a fear among many in the evangelical tradition that to say there is anything to do with works in relation to anything to do with justification is to creep back into synergism.

“By the way the first word of 2 Corinthians 6 is sunergountes—being synergistic with God—in exactly this context, working together with God. It is not that we earn our salvation—in Romans 2, Paul says very clearly: ‘those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory, honour and immortality, to those he will give eternal life’. So I am simply pinning my statement there on Paul’s precise statement in Romans 2:1-12.”

The position being taken here is disturbingly close to Roman Catholicism, in which our justification on the last day is based not only on Christ’s atoning death but also on the good works which we have done in cooperation with the work of God’s Spirit in our lives (sometimes referred to as ‘synergism’). The good works are part of the evidence that results in justification.

Now, it would hardly have been very wise for Bishop Wright to preface his answer by saying, “My position on this question is essentially that of the Council of Trent”. Instead, he begins by pleading that what he is about to say is only what Paul himself “exactly” says in three passages. (Don’t shoot the messenger: I’m only saying what Paul says.) He then throws a bit of rhetorical dust in the air by saying he is not talking about “works-righteousness in the usually fashionable sense” with respect to how we are justified by faith now in the present—which is a distraction because it’s not the question at hand. And then he executes a classic ‘straw man’ manoeuvre, by raising the supposed fear of evangelicals that “anything to do with works in relation to anything to do with justification is to creep back into synergism”.

Now evangelicals are rightly wary of creeping back into synergism, but I don’t know any evangelicals who think that “anything to do with justification in relationship to anything to do with works” inevitably leads us to synergism. Evangelicals have been talking about the relationship between justification and works for centuries. We think it’s vital to understand the relationship properly. We just happen to think that synergism is the wrong answer.

I’m not sure whether the polemical skill had its desired effect on the crowd. It certainly didn’t fool Paul Barnett. His response was as follows:

“I think we have a difference here, Tom. 2 Corinthians 5-6 is about Paul’s apostolic ministry not about his specific relationship with God but how he exercises his ministry as an ambassador of Christ, and as a Holy Spirit-empowered co-worker of God. I think the Romans 2 passage sets out the necessary theory of the righteousness of God as being the basis of all judgement—God is impartial and he will not have favourites in terms of judgement. Then I think as the letter unfolds further he is saying that there is therefore in Christ no condemnation. Justification by faith is complete. I do however think that there is a doctrine of the evaluation of the justified in terms of commendation—commendation given and commendation withheld. But that is I believe of those who are justified by grace who in Christ do not face any condemnation, since Christ himself has borne that condemnation in our place.”

This is a classic expression of biblical Reformed Protestantism—that whatever part our good works play in the final judgement, they do not secure our escape from condemnation (that is, our justification). That is achieved completely, finally and fully on the ground of Christ’s atoning work on our behalf.

Bishop Wright then responded:

“I’m happy with that. Although I could perhaps just comment that Romans 8—no condemnation—goes on with a sequence of gars: because this because that because the other. And one of those gars is because by the Spirit you now actually do what the law requires. I mean I know it’s a controversial verse—to dikiaoma tou nomou in Romans 8:4.”

To diminish the sense that he is saying anything unorthodox, Bishop Wright firstly avers that he’s “happy with that”, even though Bishop Barnett has directly contradicted him. But then to show that he hasn’t really changed his mind, he cites a contentious reading of Romans 8:4 in support of his earlier position, namely that condemnation is avoided by us fulfilling the righteous requirements of God through the work of the Spirit in us (synergism again).

Judging by the murmurs and chuckles of the crowd, and by the fact that no-one followed through on this, it seems that many of those present found Bishop Wright’s answer satisfactory. Just goes to show what a bit of charm and polemical skill can achieve.

Thursday, June 01, 2006

An Article from Couldn't Help Noticing


Touche from Couldn't Help Noticing 29 May 2006 AD

It seems that Rev. Gordon Cheng is not the only Christian apologist beavering away in the nation’s letter pages. An alert reader spotted the following exchange in the pages of The Australian:

“Tim Saclier (Letters, 23/5) has summed up beautifully the old cliche that religion is a triumph of superstition and blind faith over reason and logic. My own epiphany came at the age of 12, when my Sunday school teacher, in reply to my asking who created God, informed me with a straight face that God had always existed. I refused to attend further religious instruction on the grounds that I was being taught by idiots. My Sundays were then spent happily playing in the local swamp, where I observed many of the creatures from which I had actually evolved. Peter West, The Vines, WA”

To which came the following riposte:

“Peter West (Letters, 24/5) reminded me of my old science teacher, to whom, at the age of 12, I posed the question, “Who caused the big bang?” He answered me, with a straight face, that nothing caused it, to which I promptly replied that something must have because it obviously happened. It was at that point that I had an epiphany: my science teacher could not give me an answer that was either reasonable or logical. My Sundays were then happily spent attending Sunday school and learning about the God who created me. Bruce Newberry, Mansfield, Qld.”

Noticed by Tony at 10:32 AM