Les Lumières

Games and problem-solving

2011-09-23T09:28:00.000+10:00

A while back, I heard Jane McGonigal give a TED talk about how we could harness the competitive, co-operative, heroic, and puzzle-solving passions of computer gamers to solve real-world problems. Collectively, gamers spend three billion hours a week playing online games. Imagine those hours being directed towards surviving in a world without oil, or with limited fresh water and food.

When I first heard it, I thought, "Yeah, maybe. But it'd be hard to design a game which both (a) resembled the real world closely enough that in-game solutions could apply to the real world, and (b) didn't suck."

But now it's reality, kind of. As reported this week, an online game has helped determine the structure of an enzyme that could pave the way for anti-AIDS drugs.

False analogy?

2011-08-26T22:39:00.002+10:00

Week by week, I give talks on mathematics. The talks are based on a big textbook; we look at it together, and I make some pertinent comments along the way.

It's a mixed crowd. Most of them are in some sense mathematics 'insiders' — they more or less like my talks, or at least they like the vibe of our mathematics club enough to sit through the talks. They've been coming to mathematics talks for years, and have a good handle on the basics. Many of them just need mathematics for everyday life — simple functions, some stats, a bit of algebra, and so on. They're happy to put up with a bit of more theoretical stuff from time to time, though. There's also the odd keen bean who's done a lot of study in mathematics. It's tempting to cater my talks to them, but I've worked out that they're mostly interested in the titillation of novelty — they've kind of lost sight of how useful mathematics is for everyday life. Across the spectrum, many of our club members are also mathematics teachers themselves, in one way or another — they help their kids with their homework, for example, or a few of them are volunteer tutors at the youth drop-in centre.

One the other hand, each week there's a handful of mathematics 'outsiders'. Some learnt a little bit of mathematics at school, but mostly they don't really get mathematics at all. Generally they come along because they've been brought by an insider. It might be because they've seen that their insider friend really loves mathematics, and so they guess there must be something to it. They're genuinely curious. Others have just been invited to the talks so often that they feel guilty and have finally said yes, even though they're not that interested. Talking with some of them, they're sceptical that mathematics has any relevance to them at all; some are actually quite antagonistic towards it.

I know at some mathematics clubs, they tailor their talks to these outsiders — 'dumb them down', so to speak. But that just makes it a bit dull for the insiders. There are only so many times you can explain something safe and simple (like long division) before your regulars stagnate and lose their enthusiasm for mathematics.

So I don't do that kind of teaching. I don't think it's that hard to cater for both the insiders and the outsiders at the same time. After all, they both need the same thing: mathematics. That's what it's all about, whether it's subtraction or or primes or Fibonacci or set theory or probability or e or homotopy extension, it's all just mathematics. So that's what I teach, week in, week out.

Bullies: counting the cost of not fighting

2011-08-23T15:56:00.000+10:00

Often when we see the potential for conflict, we have to count the cost. Is it really worth having this fight? Am I just doing it to justify myself or to satisfy a desire to win at others' expense? Do I have a reasonable chance of success (i.e. winning not just the argument, but the other person), or will this just burn a relationship for no good outcome?

When we ask these questions about conflict with a bully, the cost seems pretty high (i.e. we're likely to cop more abuse; it's hard to take on a bully — that's part of what it means to be one), the chance of success seems pretty low (i.e. for many bullies, they have an entrenched behaviour pattern which is reinforced every time they get their own way — it's hard to back down from that; if they fear losing their position, they might fight harder and dirtier), and my motives are likely to be mixed (I've been hurt).

This is compounded further when the bully is a Christian leader. We know that accusations against leaders shouldn't be made lightly; we're all the more likely to think that the problem is us and not them (they're a leader endorsed by the church, after all); we've all heard stories about leaders closing ranks or covering up when one of their own is accused.

And so we're tempted to count the cost and decide it's not worth it. We slink off quietly (and perhaps find another church). And when we find another victim of the bully, we commiserate with them and talk about our shared experiences: it no longer seems like gossip when we both know about it.

But the fact that there's another victim points us to a different cost: the cost of not fighting. There's a cost when we don't stand up to bullies (and in a church context, when we don't then take two or three others with us, or when we don't bring it before the church). There's a cost to the bullies' future victims, and there's a cost to the bullies themselves (because their behaviour is self-destructive, too).

And so love for others should teach us that it's worth fighting with bullies. Carefully, yes, because vengeance or self-righteousness can easily tinge our concern for others, and because we might get hurt more, and because we may not win. But it's worth fighting nevertheless.

A refreshing word from John Dickson

2011-07-23T13:29:00.000+10:00

At A Fresh Look at Mission, John Dickson outlined a thrilling vision for his church (MP3 link), and suggested that elements of it might be taken up in the diocese more broadly.

Drawing on the picture of the church in Acts 2, he says he wants his church to be:

apostolic — devoted to the Apostles' teaching;
pious — open to emotion;
communal — a 'social movement' involving fellowship, breaking bread, and giving to those in need. The church should be committed to the good of the local community;
increasing — growing numerically (and planning accordingly);
favoured — winning the approval of the broader society because of its good deeds and generous engagement in the public sphere (instead of, say, a bunker or victim mentality).

His focus on doing both creation and redemption work well was very heartening, as was his generosity towards those outside his Anglican tradition. This is a call back beyond denominational distinctives to a vibrant, evangelical life. It sounds like the kind of church — and the kind of church movement — I want to be part of.

Evangelism is more important than (Part 5)

2011-07-22T10:03:00.001+10:00

Finally, I want to argue that when redemption and creation work go together, they build an explained model of the future.

That is, when the Christian community does both creation work and redemption work well, we build a great witness to what God has done in Christ Jesus. We are able to both show and tell how good it is to belong to and follow Jesus.

And we can provide a glimpse of God’s future kingdom. By this, I don't mean that we provide the building-blocks of the new creation — that the road we build today will necessarily persist into the new creation. Rather, the work we do today is more like an architect's model of a future building. The model is not the foundation of the real building, but it really does provide some sense of what the building will be like. And yet it is an incomplete picture, an impression.

So when Christians do creation work well, what results is a testimony: we show that the world is real and good, and yet fallen, and we work to mitigate the effects of the Fall. We explain that the future is good, and why.

At the same time, we are able to show a glimpse of that good future: one of the purposes of doing good works is so that unbelievers may see them "and glorify God on the day he visits us" (1 Peter 2:12; cf. Matthew 5:16). It's interesting that the Scriptures don't dwell on the details of the new creation. But we know there'll be no more sin or mourning or crying or pain, and we'll once more be in the presence of God (Revelation 21:1–8). The way that we live now bears witness to and provides a foretaste of that sinless future — as we rejoice in our forgiveness in Christ, resolve conflict, share with one another, seek the good of others, and work for the Lord.

Again, God's people provide an explained model of the future. Without an explanation, no new people can know how to enter the life that is being modelled. But if there is no life being modelled, there is nothing to explain, and any attempted explanation will just sound hypocritical.

The ideas in this post are drawn from the Groundwork module Good Work: a labour of love

Evangelism is more important than (Part 4)

2011-07-21T10:03:00.002+10:00

Redemption work and creation work go together when we think not just about individuals, but about a Christian community. The New Testament does not tend to rank gifts by importance; its emphasis is on the diversity of gifts and the need for us to use our gifts together for the common good.

And so rather than nominating one set of gifts as ‘more important’ and trying to wedge everyone into those, we should improve our understanding of how the various gifts God has given our communities work together. We should learn to depend on each other in order to bless those around us: how can we together create the conditions which give rise to the opportunity for people to hear about Jesus Christ?

As soon as we start to think about the relational context in which people usually hear about Jesus, this diversity of gifts makes sense: some of us are better at organizing outings; some of us are better at including socially marginalized people; some of us have houses and cooking gifts that make it easier for us to do hospitality; some of us are better at initiating relationships with many strangers; others are better at sowing deeply into the lives of a few friends; some are gifted at public monologues; others have insight and experience to know how to bring the Scriptures to bear on the details of everyday life, and so on.

The ideas in this post are drawn from the Groundwork module Good Work: a labour of love

Evangelism is more important than (Part 3)

2011-07-20T13:06:00.000+10:00

To round out this series on evangelism being 'more important' than anything else, I want to talk not just about evangelism, but all those activities which are specifically Christian — that is, things that only Christians can do, including:

praying;
speaking and applying the word of God (whether to believers or unbelievers);
living as a community of God’s people in such a way as to show his grace and reconciliation;
setting up organizations specifically geared for redemption work.

For the sake of convenience, I'll call this 'redemption work', as opposed to 'creation work'. Creation work is that work which is common to all humans, Christian or not — building bridges, pulling teeth, raising children, painting murals, and so on.

Some will claim that redemption work is 'more important' than creation work, but as I said before, this is an error because both are necessary.

More than this, however, saying one is 'more important' than the other obscures the actual relationship between them. Creation work and redemption work are not opposed: they work together, and even depend on one another:

Without redemption work, there would be no church to do either creation or redemption work. And without creation work, there would be no people at all. Man does not live by bread alone, but he does live by bread.
Much redemption work depends on creation work either directly or indirectly. Directly, your evangelistic meeting requires a building, a sound system, and payment for the speaker — all products of creation work. Indirectly, many of the guests at your event have come because of relationships with church members. These relationships were forged in the context of creation work — as colleagues, or at a play group, or in a sporting team.
Redemption work should give rise to better creation work. That is, the redemption work of teaching God's word should equip the saints for works of service (Ephesians 4). So as people better learn from God's word how to live as his people, they will do better creation work as employees, spouses, parents, citizens, and so on.
In turn, this better creation work might give rise to more redemption work. As people notice the difference in the way Christians live, they catch glimpses of Jesus and may want to know more about him (Titus 2; 1 Peter 2:12; 3:15).

The ideas in this post are drawn from the Groundwork module Good Work: a labour of love

Yowayowa camera woman diary

2011-07-14T22:23:00.001+10:00

I've been following this blog for a few weeks. The title is cool enough to make me want to subscribe, but I also love the shots. She says she does up to 300 takes to get the right levitation effect.

Serving the city together: a juxtaposition

2011-07-12T10:54:00.001+10:00

I blogged recently about some Tim Keller talks, and one of my favourites was on 'Movement Dynamics' (MP3 download link). In it, Keller outlines his view of open-handed 'catholicity' — that is, working together with Christians of different stripes to serve the city.

It's not that he works with any group which calls itself Christian: he has come up with a doctrinal statement which expresses a gospel core (five points or so) to determine who he can work with, but this leaves room for quite a lot of difference outside those core beliefs. In the case of his church, Redeemer, this has meant providing funding and training for churches very different from his own — not just other Presbyterians, nor even simply other Reformed evangelicals.

Part of the logic behind this is that different churches can serve different kinds of people. However many Presbyterian churches you plant, they've got a certain Presbyterian feel, which is going to be attractive to some people and repellent to others. Ditto for Baptists or Pentecostals or house churches. To serve the whole city, you're going to need a whole range of churches with different vibes.

The vision was for me compelling and energizing, and has started us thinking more purposefully about how we in The Joshua Tree can concretely work with other evangelicals in the Inner West.

In contrast, I've just listened to Michael Jensen's talk (MP3 link) from 'A Fresh Look at Mission', in which he outlines what he sees as the positive distinctives of Anglicanism. He concludes that it's not enough to say that "Anglicanism is a good boat to fish from"; rather, "being Anglican is the best way to be evangelical in Australia in the 21st century".

It feels like a very different tone and direction from Keller's vision.

EOFY checklist

2011-06-30T16:01:00.000+10:00

Things to do before the end of June:

Have baby (complete)
Finish the next draft of the work module for Groundwork (complete)
Get one toon to 85 on World of Warcraft (complete)
Write some blog posts (pending)

Welcoming Raphaël

2011-06-28T18:34:00.001+10:00

At 4.20am on 20/6, Raphaël was born by caesarean section. The labour up until the pushing part was far easier than for Eloïse, but unfortunately he just wouldn't budge. We are very thankful for his safe arrival, and thankful once again that we live in a country where you can get extraordinary medical care for free.

We're also thankful that Eloïse coped very well with being looked after by various people while Suzanne was in hospital, and that she continues to be delighted with her brother — stroking him, kissing him, saying, "Hi!" excitedly, and playing peek-a-boo with him, using a spew rag.

Suzanne has been home for a few nights, now. Feeding and sleeping are going well, thankfully, and she's moving a lot more easily.

There are more pictures here.

Distilled Keller

2011-06-15T11:39:00.000+10:00

I've been enjoying listening to these talks from Tim Keller at the London City Mission. It's a distillation of his thinking on a whole range of topics — church planting, preaching, movements, contextualization…

If you're a Keller devotee, there may be nothing you haven't heard before. But it's great to have so much stored in one place!

Iain Provan is coming to town

2011-06-14T17:32:00.000+10:00

Iain Provan, a Scottish-born Old Testament lecturer from Regent College, is coming to Sydney next month. He's being brought out by Gospel Conversations. I love his work on Ecclesiastes in particular, so I think I'll go and check him out.

He's doing some free public lectures, but his main series will be at Robert Menzies College, 15–16/7 and 29–30/7. At $15, it seems too good to be true.

Evangelism is more important than (Part 2)

2011-06-09T15:34:00.000+10:00

If we say that evangelism is 'more important' than, say, social action, it can imply a list of competing priorities. That is, it makes us imagine that there is a list of things that we must do; we put them in order; we work our way down the list, not doing the 'less important' things until we've done the 'more important' things.

But as I said before, this isn't the way the world works. There are all kinds of necessary things that we must do. Let me give one Biblical example. "Is evangelism more important than caring for your family?"

Paul would answer, "No." Certainly evangelism in the home is necessary. For example, we should speak with our children about Jesus: this is part of what it means to "bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). If we don't do this, we are living like unbelievers.

But the Apostle also says, "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Timothy 5:8) If you create competition between 'evangelism' and 'caring for your family', then you present me with a dilemma: do I live like an unbeliever, or worse than an unbeliever?

One way we might slip into this competitive framework is if we think that evangelism (and the rest of the Christian life) primarily consists in attendance at church events. Now, suddenly, there is competition, because there are only so many events a church can host and only so many resources (time, money, effort, staff) that can be put into hosting them.

Within this framework, then it's true that you're going to have to decide whether to host explicitly evangelistic events, or marriage conferences, or Fair Trade stalls, or kids' clubs, or...

But this isn't the only way to do evangelism and the rest of the Christian life. In fact, most evangelistic opportunities arise in the course of ordinary life. I'll explore that futher in another post.

Evangelism is more important than (Part 1)

2011-06-01T16:42:00.003+10:00

I know it's late to drop in again on my 'more important' series, but I figured it was worth examining one more instance.

I've heard it said a number of times that evangelism is more important than anything else — more important than 'social justice', for instance. But this is a great example of 'more important' being a category mistake, because:

it suggests that one necessary thing can be more important than other necessary things;
it creates the sense of competing priorities, where in fact no competition exists;
it can relegate the supposedly 'less important' to 'unimportant';
it clouds the actual relationship between evangelism and everything else.

I'll explore a few of these in subsequent posts, but let me first make the case for why I think evangelism is not just 'really important', but necessary.

By 'evangelism' here, I mean the declaration that Jesus is Lord, specifically when this declaration is addressed to someone who doesn't yet recognize Jesus' lordship. This is the 'evangel', or 'gospel', or 'momentous news'.

Jesus' lordship isn't just abstract, but has implications for the details of life — how we spend our money, the jobs we take, the way we parent, and so on. Further, the statement, "Jesus is Lord," is not just true for those who opt in; it's true for everyone. We are held accountable for how we respond to this news — for those who welcome Jesus' rule, there is forgiveness and life and blessing; for those who reject it, there is condemnation.

Evangelism is necessary, then, for a few reasons:

it is God's chosen means of revealing himself to his creatures for his glory;
we who have been reconciled to God have become ambassadors of reconciliation; we who are redeemed should seek the redemption of others;
if we love other people and long for them to know God's mercy, we must speak the gospel;
if the gospel is momentous news, this implies that it should be shared;
it is commanded (Matthew 28:18–20).

But evangelism is not the only necessary thing. Other necessary things include caring for vulnerable people (James 1:27), doing good (Galatians 6:10), raising children (Ephesians 6:4), working (2 Thessalonians 3:10)…

It remains to explore how all these necessary things fit together. I'll get to that in a future post.

Learning how the culture learns

2011-05-31T13:33:00.000+10:00

It's MasterChef season, so again words like croquembouche, roulade, and chipotle are raining around the water cooler, while sales of butane blow-torches soar.

It's also time for MasterChef-themed parties, where people recreate various challenge dishes in a twist on traditional forms of social one-upmanship.

Meanwhile, people learn how to cook. This, for the moment, is what interests me. I want to know how people learn in our culture. A minority do well enough in the school system to be able to get a university degree. The bulk of Australians don't.

MasterChef seems to be a kind of learning experience — learning-through-entertainment.

How else do people learn?

New gospel community

2011-05-30T17:07:00.000+10:00

God's been very kind to us over the past 12 months in The Joshua Tree. We've had lots of opportunities to do good to one another and to others in our community. We've had opportunities to speak the truth in love to one another and to others. And we've consistently failed to do what we've said that we want to do, which has driven us back to grace and prayer.

Numerically, we've had some people join us from other churches, and we've seen some people come to know Jesus for the first time. This means that we're now too big for one gospel community — there are simply too many relationships for us to try to maintain. So, as Danny has recently blogged, we're looking to multiply.

It'll be interesting to negotiate this change for the first time. I suspect we'll get a bunch of stuff wrong. But we pray that God will continue to show us the same gracious kindness we've seen over the past year, and that what we learn this time around will benefit both us in future and others who might want to attempt something similar.

MTS branches out

2011-05-30T16:42:00.000+10:00

I was at the Ministry Training Strategy SPUR Conference (formerly known as Club 5) last weekend, and Ben Pfahlert and Archie Poulos announced a new MTS pathway.

There's still your regular, full-time MTS trainee option, but there's now also a study option, called MTS Hybrid. The idea is to spend half your time as an apprentice, and the other half studying. A number of study providers were there — Moore, SMBC, PTC, Timothy Partnership, Youthworks, Cornhill, and Groundwork (which is why I went).

I'm excited about this because I think study and hands-on training are complementary. If you're only an apprentice, and there's no formal means of pushing you theologically, it's easy to become process-driven: you just do what you do because that's what you've always done. You might not examine things with a theologically or methodologically critical eye. Similarly, if you just study full time, it's easy to lose sight of the pastoral and ethical implications of the things you learn.

I think both my ministry apprenticeship and my theological studies would've been more beneficial if I'd done them in parallel.

Another exciting element of the day for me was the great range of elective sessions (26 in total), which included some that seem predictable (Senior Pastor, school chaplaincy), but also Christian writing, outdoor ministry, and training tradies. It's a good indication that MTS isn't just looking to be part of a sausage factory.

Great night with Ben and Kate

2011-05-16T16:19:00.004+10:00

We saw Ben Folds at the State Theatre on Saturday night. I'm a huge fan of his music, but he's an amazing live performer. He's able to make a stadium feel like a living room. We also had an excellent view of his hands. Mesmerising.

He did a good range of songs from the most recent album as well as the back-catalogue (including my requests — 'Philosophy' and 'Army'). All the trademarks were there: standing up to play, kicking over the stool, audience participation, improv (including a lengthy three-man percussion session), parodic covers (including Kesha's 'Sleazy' — see a bit on YouTube), forgotten lyrics ("I thought I'd sing the last verse in Russian, but I couldn't remember the lyrics in Russian…")

As a delightful bonus, Kate Miller-Heidke opened for him. Loved. Enough, even, to buy her two albums on iTunes. Not a tough sale at $17 for the lot. Perfect warm-up for Ben — also quirky, irreverent, strangely heart-felt, and expletive-laden.

Andrew Cameron on Osama bin Laden

2011-05-07T08:20:00.000+10:00

The rule of law was once the secular West’s quiet euphemism for the subservience owed by governments to the rule of Christ. Cavalier rejection of the rule of law reflects a titanic pretension in human governance. If the U. S. now sanctions extra judicial assassination, it subscribes to only one ordering moral principle: U. S. interest. That in turn means that the United States Government has reduced ‘human rights’ to a nationalist hermeneutic, where the humans with rights are the citizens of the U. S. and its client states.

The extract above is a bit wordy, but the rest of the piece (PDF link) is quite clear. It's a very different assessment from most of what I've seen from the US this week. (Oh, and Andrew doesn't say that the US does now sanction extra-judicial assassination. It's just my link-bait.)

is more important than

2011-04-20T17:45:00.000+10:00

"You guys who work in the city need to be absolutely ruthless with your time, so that you can make it home early on a Tuesday evening for Bible study."
(Panellist at London Men's Convention, 2009)

"In your week, the most important thing you do is teach your Sunday School class. You work your 40, 50 hours in order to be able to share the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with the children on Sunday morning, or to be able to lead the singing in church, or to count the money afterwards, or to open the door, or to be the welcomer…that is more important than what you're doing the other 40 hours of the week…When my business interferes with teaching Sunday School, I really have to think about, 'Do I really want to climb the ladder of my career at this point?…I can do this job and have time to teach Sunday School and even go on beach mission, or I can take the raise and every second weekend I'm in Melbourne, or Brisbane, and so I won't be able to teach Sunday School.'"
(Phillip Jensen, Australia Day Convention, 2011)

Christians' lives have been bought at a great price. We no longer live for ourselves — for our own pleasure, comfort, or security. This doesn't mean we're ascetics; it does mean that we give money away; we give up time and we expend effort to serve others' interests.

In a pale way, we imitate the Lord Jesus who in humility gave up everything in order to become human, to live a difficult life of self-sacrifice, and to die for the sins of the world. That's what it means to be a disciple — to follow Jesus.

And so serving Jesus, his people, and his world becomes a priority — 'more important', if you like, than pursuing my own luxury, leisure, status, and so on. Jesus warns us of the danger of making other things more important than him — we can be led astray by trials and persecutions, the deceitfulness of wealth, the cares of the world and desires for other things (Mark 4:1–32).

Following Jesus is the most important thing to do. But this principle can be twisted to say, "Our church events are the most important thing to do." This happens when we start to measure our discipleship by our church activities — our attendance on Sundays or at Bible studies, the number of church rosters we're on.

During some talks at a weekend away, I spoke about how effective discipleship and mission rely on building solid relationships. One of the 'lay leaders' said to me, "I hear what you're saying, but I don't have time to build many relationships with non-church people. I'm serving at church four nights a week." It's an extreme example, but perhaps it reflects a widespread experience for 'keen Christians'.

We have a range of responsibilities as we serve Jesus: we must serve our biological families, our Christian brothers and sisters, people who don't know Jesus, and disadvantaged people of every stripe. Sometimes we can do this through a roster or an event. Sometimes we'll need to say 'No' to formal programmes in order to have time to serve people outside structures.

Picking up my opening examples, there may be excellent reasons to pursue a job which makes it impossible for me to teach Sunday School; I may have family commitments that prevent my attending an evening Bible study. As I follow Jesus, there may be many things that are more important than a particular church event.

is more important than

2011-04-18T10:34:00.001+10:00

In Revelation 4–5, the veil is drawn back and God gives us a picture of the control room of history:

Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the centre of the throne…[All creation] sang a new song, saying:
   “You are worthy to take the scroll
   and to open its seals,
because you were slain,
   and with your blood you purchased for God
   persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.
You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God,
   and they will reign on the earth.”

At the centre of God's plans for creation is the exaltation of the Lamb, Jesus Christ — the one who redeems humanity and the rest of creation. It is God's will "to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ" (Ephesians 1:10).

Without doubt, this is important. If this is what God is doing in the world, and if we are his co-workers and children, then we should be in that same family business; if we have known the delight of the forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ, then we should hunger to see others share in that. These great truths should shape and give purpose to our lives.

But there is a logical gap between the big picture ("At the centre of God's purposes is the exaltation of the Lamb.") and a spurious local application that I've seen a bit recently ("Therefore my Christian gathering/Bible study/conference is the most important thing happening in this town/suburb/city today.")

How could you know if your event is 'more important' (whatever that means)? God is not only at work through your event.

The charitable view (and what I hope to be the truth) is that this is simply poor theology; I want to reject the troubling possibility that underlying it is a certain self-aggrandizement.

London Fields

2011-04-13T16:14:00.001+10:00

My holiday read is Martin Amis' London Fields. There's a lot to love about it, not least the fact that it belongs in the category of 'barely bloody readable' and yet it got published anyway. Oh, and it contains bits of genius like the below.

(For those who like context, Guy Clinch is a wealthy Englishman on holiday who has broken down somewhere south of Madrid and has been forced to spend the night in an uncomfortable room in an impoverished village. He ventures out.)

…the wind just did its wind thing, not caring wherefore. Hot air rises, cool air fills the space: hence, somehow, the tearing and tugging, the frenzied unzippings of this sandpaper shore. In his tennis shorts Guy stepped off the porch and walked past the car (the car avoided his gaze) on to the tattered croisette. A motorbike, an anguished donkey shackled to its cart — nothing else. The sky also was empty, blown clean, an unblinking Africa of blue. Down on the beach the wind went for his calves like an industrial cleanser; Guy gained the hardened rump of damp sand and contemplated the wrinkly sea. It opened inhospitably to him. Feeling neither vigour nor its opposite, feeling no closer to life than to death, feeling thirty-five, Guy pressed on, hardly blinking as he crossed the scrotum barrier; and it was the water that seemed to cringe and start back, repelled by this human touch, as he barged his way down the incline, breathed deep, and pitched himself forward in the swimmer's embrace of the sea . . . Twenty minutes later, as he strode back up the beach, the wind threw everything it had at him, and with fierce joy the sand sought his eyes and teeth, the hairless tray of his chest. A hundred yards from the road Guy paused, and imagined surrendering to it (I may be gone some time), dropping to his knees and folding sideways under the icy buckshot of the air.

The limits of 'more important'

2011-04-12T13:03:00.001+10:00

NSW Christians: What happens in your congregation today is more important than what happened at the ballot boxes yesterday.

Facebook isn't the place for theological subtlety, but this status update caught my attention.

Leaving aside the questionable substance of this statement, the phrase 'more important' bugs me. Here we have two things: church attendance and voting. I'm not sure there's any relationship between them. If there is, I don't think the relationship is one of priority.

There are lots of ways two things can be related (cause-effect, cog-machine, husband-wife, antecedent-posterior-coincident, etc.). These relationships cannot necessarily be expressed also in terms of importance.

Priority has its limits:

'more important' is a bad way to try to distinguish between two necessary things: it doesn't make sense to say, "Shelter is more important than food." Both are necessary. Of course, in certain circumstances, the need for one might be more urgent than the other (e.g. "In the blizzard, I can live for two days without food, but only two hours without shelter"), but the fact remains that both are required for life.
'more important' can very quickly sneak in the assumption that the 'less important' is in fact 'unimportant'. "A pleasant work environment is more important than your salary," can imply that as long as your colleagues are nice enough, your pay is of no consequence.
related to this, 'more important' is a haven for false dichotomies. It can imply a conflict where none exists — that is, saying one thing is 'more important' than another means that you have to choose which of them to do. But both may be possible. Should we say: "It's more important to instruct your children in doing the right thing than to discipline them for doing the wrong thing" (or vice versa)?
'more important' conveys life as a list of priorities: a set of tasks which can be ticked off in order. But life happens in order of time, not just importance. So things which are 'less important' may need to be done first, simply because that's where they fit in time. And some very important things take a lot of time: they're not something that can just be ticked off the list. Does it make sense to say, "It's more important to build a happy marriage than to pay the gas bill"?

I might explore a few specifically Christian examples of the 'more important' fallacy later.

Too little redemption now

2011-04-11T15:18:00.002+10:00

Having noted that some Christians draw too much of the future into the present, it's worth saying that there are others who have too low expectations of what redemption means for us in the present. Al summarized this position well: "5 years ago…I thought that the world was going to hell in a hand basket and that I needed to have my soul rescued for heaven."

Having held these beliefs myself, I think the biggest influence on my thinking was classical and Enlightenment philosophy: the idea that we are essentially rational creatures, that our bodies and the rest of the material order are ephemeral, irrelevant, or simply bad. It's a common enough view in Sydney — what Michael Jensen has termed 'an eschatology of separation'. More recently, influenced by people like Tom Wright, Oliver O'Donovan, and Tim Keller, I've come to what I hope is a more Scriptural view.

On this question of, "How much redemption now?", answers frequently differ only in emphasis. The weird thing is that these small differences in confessional beliefs — what people would state, and what they would deny — end up with huge functional differences in how we live and how we view God, the world, and the Christian life. There's a skein of related issues, here.

Here are a few examples of potential pitfalls for those who put the emphasis more on the fallenness of the world than on its goodness, who focus too much on those aspects of redemption which are still to come and too little on what is already achieved for us:

we are likely to think of ourselves merely as 'miserable sinners': we have no expectation that God's forgiveness achieves anything much in the present — we do not expect to be able to resist any sin. That is, 'salvation' is largely abstract or metaphysical. We are saved from sin's penalty (in the future), but not its power (now);
we see the world as the locus more of God's judgment than of his redemption, leading either to asceticism (because there's nothing good out there) or licence (because it doesn't really matter what we do out there);
we focus on personal or private piety (Bible-reading, prayer, going to church) rather than whole-of-life discipleship 168 hours per week;
'church' becomes primarily a gathering of believers coming out of the world, rather than a community of salt and light loving one another and loving others together in the world;
the Christian life involves proclaiming the lordship of Jesus (again, abstractly) more than living under that lordship in the details of life (i.e., concretely);
the (concrete) details of what we do in our work are fairly unimportant, as long as (a) we do it with a good (abstract) attitude; (b) it allows us opportunities to evangelize, and (c) we don't let it interfere with Christian discipleship on Sundays;
so we've thought about how our work might become an idol, but we haven't thought about whether it does any good.

The difference between Apple and Motorola is...

2011-04-05T09:09:00.000+10:00

H/T: Dan Moren

Too much redemption now

2011-03-30T11:51:00.000+11:00

Some Christians overplay how much we should see Jesus' rule today. They see the promises of a glorious future, and want to draw them all back into the present. They believe that all suffering can end now. This comes in various forms:

all illness can be cured. But this doesn't seem to be, say, the Apostle Paul's experience. When Epaphroditus was sick, it seems that Paul (and the Philippians) expected him to die, and saw his recovery an act of mercy (rather than just run-of-the-mill; Philippians 2:25–30).
all brutal régimes can be overthrown. But this seems to be at odds with the New Testament view that evil governments will continue to trample their people until Jesus returns (e.g. Revelation 18). This is not to say, however, that all government is bad government — it's not. There is also good government, instituted by God to keep order (Romans 13:1–7). (As an aside, for those who want to bring the future into the present, there is often too great a reliance on politics and government as the [primary] means of bringing about Christ's rule. While I think it's important for Christians to engage properly with political power and to call leaders to recognize the Christ from whom their authority derives, it often seems to turn sour when the church puts itself in the governmental seat.)
all poverty can be made history. But Jesus famously said that "the poor you always have with you" (Mark 14:7) — not least because as long as sin and bad government persist, there will be poor people!
all sin in the life of the believer can be quashed. There are no positive outcomes of this view: either believers despair, because they see ongoing sin in their life, and so think that they need to work harder or need more faith, etc., or they start to explain away their sin, eventually justifying any actions they may take according to the syllogism: believers can't sin; I am a believer; therefore anything I do is not sin. But the writer of the letter to the Hebrews implies that sin will court us throughout our lives, and we need to remind one another daily of the truths of the gospel (Hebrews 3:12–13). 1 John 1:8 puts it bluntly: "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."

All of these positions end up demanding of God something that he has not promised. Indeed, what he has promised we'll receive is persecution (Mark 10:30; 2 Timothy 3:12). This observation has led to some Christians having a rather more defeatist attitude, but that's a story for another time.

An already-and-still-to-come redemption

2011-03-29T18:23:00.001+11:00

Again, the world is created good, marred by sin, but the beneficiary of redemption. I promised I would note some problems with too pessimistic or too optimistic a view of redemption (and I will get to those), but let me outline first the positive case for redemption.*

When Jesus died and rose, he conquered sin and began his rule over the world (Matthew 28:18; Romans 1:1–4; Hebrews 2:6–18). But we do not yet see his full-blown rule: sin is still in the world, people oppose Jesus, and the world is decaying. We look forward to a glorious future: when Jesus returns, there will be a spectacular transformation, as the firstfruits of our redemption are replaced by a full harvest. All sin and opposition to God will end. Every knee will bow to Jesus. Heaven and earth will be united again, as God dwells face-to-face with his people. (Revelation 21–22)

But in the meantime, we are not simply lost in our sins. As Messiah Jesus poured out his Spirit on his people, he to some extent brought the day of judgment forward: those who trust in Christ are freed both from the penalty and the power of sin (Romans 6). We are being transformed into his likeness (2 Corinthians 3:17–18): once, we had no choice but to sin; now, in the power of the Spirit, we can follow Jesus — we can live in a way that pleases God (Romans 8:1–15).

'Pleasing God' doesn't mean pursuing some monastic detachment from the world. Rather, the arena for our discipleship is everyday life. Colossians 3 opens with the extraordinary claim that we have been raised with Christ. The Apostle implores his readers, therefore, to “seek the things that are above…[and] set [their] minds on things that are above”. Here, we might say, is an indication that our current, earthly lives are fleeting and inconsequential. But this would be a complete misreading: as we set our hearts and minds on Christ, it transforms the way we live in the present — we are empowered to put to death ungodly desires and actions (verses 5–9), to live distinctively as the people of God (verses 10–17), which includes the very earthy spheres of marriage, parenting, and work (verses 18–22).

Once again, the end of the chapter provides a grand summary statement of how our hope for the future should transform our present: “Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.” (verses 23–24)

And so while we await the final efflorescence of Jesus' kingdom, the fact remains that something of his redemption has begun to bud: Jesus saves us not just from judgment in the last day, but also from persisting in sin now. (Ephesians 2:8–10) The way that we live now — resolving conflict, sharing with one another, seeking the good of others, being forgiven in Christ and forgiving one another, working for the Lord — bears witness to and provides a foretaste of the future.

*Some of this is stolen from the Groundwork Good Work module.

A good-but-fallen world

2011-03-28T18:18:00.000+11:00

I said before that the world is:

created very good
fallen and stained by sin
beneficiary of the firstfruits of redemption and awaiting a final setting-to-rights

I think these three elements are needed to make good sense both of our observation of the world around us and of the New Testament. I'll show what I think we lack if we lose sight of these truths. I'll hit the soft target first.

If we don't believe in a good-but-fallen world, it's hard to make sense of the beauty and terror of the world, or indeed the nobility and vice of humanity. We must echo Hamlet, with his observations about the "vicious mole of nature", and his musings to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern:

What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust?

Why is it that, as we watch the news, human beings can seem so loathsome as they pullulate across the globe, destroying one another and many other living things, and yet, individual humans are precisely what makes life not just bearable, but delightful? Why can we see in our own selves propensities both to selfless sacrifice and to egregious malice?

There are two errors here:

If we do not think the world is fallen — if we do not have a robust view of sin — then God seems impotent or evil: his creation is flawed and morally blameworthy. Or we may just choose to deny sin — to close our eyes to suffering and to do further dishonour to its victims. This saves us from having to believe in judgment (because there's nothing really to judge, nothing really to clean up), but it also robs the death of Jesus of any meaning.
If we do not think that there is any goodness left in the world, it makes it very difficult to understand Jesus's wholistic engagement with the world: his real and messy birth, his manual labour, his delight in food and friendship, his insistence that we render to Caesar what is Caesar's, his care for the marginalized.

When a decision is too big

2011-03-28T16:28:00.000+11:00

We'd agreed that whether we became parents would be "the single most important decision we would ever make together." Yet the very momentousness of the decision guaranteed that it never seemed real, and so remained on the level of whimsy. Every time one of us raised the question of parenthood, I felt like a seven-year-old contemplating a Thumbellina that wets itself for Christmas.

We need to talk about Kevin

'Big decisions' do seem somewhat unreal, partly because they force us to acknowledge that we're not sovereign: we can't know or even imagine all the consequences of this decision.

Of course, many decisions are like this (the decision to drive to the supermarket could be lethal), but 'big decisions' are those ones where we know that we don't know.

All the more reason to have some good lenses in place, to trust God, and to act with courage.

We need to talk about Kevin

2011-03-28T16:19:00.000+11:00

I see myself as something of a litterpicker of culture: too slow to catch the bandwaggon, I trail behind, collecting the varied detritus that is decomposing more slowly than the rest.

So I'm finally reading Lionel Shriver's We need to talk about Kevin. I love it so far: it's well written (there are some deliciously fresh images, despite a few tired clichés) and it's gripping.

The world is very good

2011-03-23T13:44:00.005+11:00

Some Christians seem to hate or fear the world. The world is a place full of sin and temptation to sin. It's best to withdraw from the world to avoid being tainted by it. God's judgment will fall on it in the last day, burning it all up.

But I don't think that's the Bible's picture. When God has finished creating the world, he declares that it is "very good" (Genesis 1:31). It's true that there is a Fall, where Adam and Eve reject the creator, and that judgment falls on them. The result is awful, and we see it all around us. With horror, we see it within us.

But even in the midst of this judgment, there is a word of hope: he promises that the seed of the woman will bruise the serpent’s head (Genesis 3:15).

We see God's ongoing commitment to bless his very good (though fallen) world in Noah (Genesis 9:1), and particularly in Abraham (Genesis 12:1–3). Through the seed of Abraham, God promises to bless all the families of the earth: he has not abandoned his world.

Above all, God shows that he is still committed to his creation in the person of Jesus. Firstly, the creation is affirmed when God enters into creation, becoming human in the person of Jesus. More than this, God vindicates the creation when Jesus is raised with a body. We can imagine circumstances in which Jesus was just translated into some immaterial realm. But he wasn't. After the resurrection, Jesus has a real body which people can touch. He eats fish.

This speaks a loud and unmistakable "Amen" to God's earlier declaration that the world is "very good". See the lengths to which he went in order to put an end to sin and to open up blessing! The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are evidence that God is still committed to bless his creation, and the promise that he will eventually set everything to rights — that he will undo the effects of sin which have so marred his world.

So when we speak of 'salvation', we're not just talking about a legal transaction in some disembodied, metaphysical realm. We're looking forward to the redemption of all that God has created (Romans 8:20–21). We're not just looking for souls to be saved out of the world, while we we wait for it to be burned up in judgment; we're looking for whole people to be saved in the world, while we wait for its renewal.

And so we need to celebrate and pursue the good of the world.

The Anti-Bogan

2011-03-22T09:45:00.000+11:00

Not sure what I think about this website, yet.

In particular, I'm not a fan of the title: there are plenty of positive elements of bogan culture (like warmth and honesty), and obviously not all bogans are repugnant racists (nor, indeed, are all racists bogans).

Anyway, for a terrifying snapshot of Australians lacking compassion, click through. (Warning: may also contain coarse language and élitist attitudes.)

New drink machine at school

2011-03-20T11:43:00.000+11:00

For $1, either the drink or the experience of watching it come out the machine would suffice. To get both for so small a fee seems criminal.

Jesus is better

2011-03-15T22:34:00.000+11:00

I said before that the gospel speaks both a word of judgment and a word of hope.

It speaks both of what we have been saved from (sin), and what we have been saved for (righteousness — see Ephesians 2:8–10).

This is true in the big picture, abstract, or metaphysical sense of sin. That is, the gospel promises that we can cease to be rebels against God, deserving of condemnation, and that we can become forgiven children, heirs of new life.

It is also true in the concrete details of sins. So, "Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer [judgment — saved from selfishness], but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need [hope — saved for generosity]." (Ephesians 4:28)

And we might say the same for anyone enslaved by any sin. For we are all tempted to live for something other than Jesus.

For example, we might be seeking our identity or self-worth in a boyfriend or girlfriend; we thereby elevate them to a station from which they can only disappoint us or abuse us. Jesus speaks a word of judgment against this idolatry, but also a word of hope: we can find our identity and self-worth in the fact that he has made us and loved us perfectly, in spite of our flaws. He therefore frees us up to love others for their good, not out of a desire to be thanked or a fear of others' opinion of us.

So yes, we turn away from sin because it deserves judgment and is bad for us. But we also turn away from sin towards Jesus, because Jesus is better.

A word of judgment and a word of hope

2011-03-13T21:55:00.002+11:00

The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18–19)

We're reading Hebrews together at the moment in The Joshua Tree. The original readers of the letter appear to be Jewish people who, perhaps because of persecution, are tempted to abandon Jesus and go back to the Judaism they used to know. And so the writer is at pains to show that Jesus is better: he is a better messenger, a better Moses, a better priest, a better sacrifice, and so on.

There's a double movement: on the one hand, he shows how the old covenant is inadequate; on the other, how the new covenant is perfect. On the one hand, a word of judgment on the old; on the other, a word of hope regarding the new.

The gospel always speaks both a word of judgment and a word of hope — a word of judgment condemning our sin, and a word of hope which promises that we can be freed from our sin.

I'll flesh this out a bit more later.

Teaching one another the gospel

2011-03-09T16:48:00.000+11:00

Eloïse isn't very good at sharing. If someone comes near a toy she feels possessive about, she can get quite distraught and admonish them with a loud, "No!"

It's been good to be forced to think through: why do we want her to share?

Of course, it's antisocial, and there are less noble motivations (like the fact that it's embarrassing when your child doesn't share — in that moment, it's easy to care more about how others perceive me than about what's good for her).

But there's a deeper reason: the earth is the LORD's, and everything in it. We have no right to be possessive. Moreover, we should reflect his generous character: even as he has given us good things, so we should share those with others.

So now when Eloïse shoves another child away from her pram, we remind her that the earth is the LORD's, and everything in it; he gives us good things to share. This isn't all we do (we also do role-playing to instruct her and encourage sharing through various carrots and sticks), but it's an important part of the undertaking.

I've also realized that this process of grounding concrete ethics in the gospel is really good training for us adults: we need to keep practising and refining how to teach one another about who Jesus is and how to follow him in the details of everyday life.

Dangerous juxtaposition

2011-03-04T23:16:00.000+11:00

I would've been fascinated to ride the train out to Sydney Olympic Park last weekend. Simultaneously hosted were:

Ultimate Fighting Championship
All the brawn, all the gore, as brutes deface one another. It's artistic sport, man.

Armageddon Expo
A chance for über-geeks to dress up as their favourite manga character and meet Tux Akindoyeni — you know, the guy who played Agen Kolar in Revenge of the Sith.

Next weekend: Hyena housed with baby farm animals.

Voice memos

2011-03-02T19:38:00.001+11:00

I've replied to a few e-mails recently with voice memos. It's a feature of the iPhone that's seldom touted — an app which records your voice, and allows you to e-mail or MMS the resultant file to whomever you please.

I can type at about 65 words a minute, but I can comfortably (and intelligibly) speak at about three times that rate. What's more, e-mails always take even longer because I feel the need to be more precise and more conscious of tone.

I can almost always find 8 minutes to do a long reply to an e-mailed question, but I'm rarely going to feel like it's a good investment of half an hour to write an equivalent e-mail. (A phone call would likely take half an hour, too.)

Obviously it's only useful for certain situations, but it's very useful for those.

Wisdom and guidance

2011-02-28T17:14:00.000+11:00

This whole discussion of wisdom started as a discussion on guidance. In my original post, I noted two errors in guidance: the "I have a feeling" view and the "not-sin" view.

I followed up by saying that I think the normal way that God will guide us is by growing us in wisdom by the power of his Spirit. He transforms us by the renewing of our mind, such that we're able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:1–2).

The view of wisdom I've outlined in these last few posts should make it clear that wisdom is not always a simple thing. Right action often requires careful thought. It takes time to learn how to observe the world and integrate theology. Some will be more gifted than others.

But I hope I've made both theoretical and practical space for wisdom in the life of the disciple. Contrast this with the erroneous views:

The "I have a feeling" view of guidance often has no theoretical place for wisdom (because God just tells us directly what to do)
The "not-sin" view often has no practical place for wisdom (because it's "just wisdom" — if you haven't contradicted the Scriptures, you haven't sinned).

Where love requires wisdom

2011-02-25T09:34:00.006+11:00

Loving people means (at least) doing good to them. Having our hearts in the right place isn't enough, because the fact that I desire to love someone doesn't guarantee that I know how to.

This is true on a very basic level: if I want to love you by buying you a hot beverage, I need to know what kind of hot beverage you like. With the best will in the world, I might buy you a soy flat white, but if you only drink long blacks, then my attempt to love you has failed.

Most of our relationships and many of our moral transactions are more complex than this, however.

I'll give an example of an individual, but imagine how much more complicated this becomes when we are talking about a group of people, e.g. "How can we help Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory solve some of the problems in their communities?"

But here's the (details-changed-under-poetic-licence) case of Yalda, a Pakistani woman who has recently fled her husband, claiming that he was abusive. She and her son are hiding with a friend in another suburb. She would like a secure her own place to live, but she has no means. Her English is not good, so it is difficult for her to negotiate the social security system. Her friend has told her that Allah is punishing her for her lax life, and so Yalda has become more devoted to Islam since leaving her husband. She has started coming to a local play-group, and some of the other mums there claim that she has been manipulating them and has abused their charity.

It's not immediately obvious to know how to love Yalda. Her circumstances are complex. There are many lenses to consider in working out how to love her:

God loves the vulnerable, and we should have especial care for the poor and widowed.
We don't know the circumstances of her marriage. If she has been abused, what kind of abuse was it? Should her husband be charged? Has she embellished the details? Is their marriage really over, or is there some chance of reconciliation? How could we even find out — how could we contact her husband or anyone else who knows them without putting her in further danger?
Is she still in danger from her husband, their families, or others within the ex-pat community? How can she best be protected?
Should we help her to get accommodation? Can we afford to? Where?
Are the other mothers' accusations of her manipulation true? Is it just a cultural difference? If she is abusing people's charity, should we be willing to be abused? What if we're just enabling her to commit further folly?
What should we tell her about her devotion to Islam?
What is the disposition of her heart: that is, what is driving her actions? What does she live for? How does Jesus offer her something better?
How much do we need to know before we act?
Can we help her son with his needs for friends and schooling? How?
If we dally because we're unsure about her story, and her husband or other relatives find her and force her to go back, would we be complicit in any further harm that befalls her?
etc.

Wisdom and lenses*

2011-02-24T09:17:00.000+11:00

Wise action, then, requires both theological and observational insight, coupled with the courage to take action.

Sometimes when we talk about making decisions, we use binary metaphors: “Two roads diverge in a wood,” and so on. It is as if we have two commendable options in front of us — an apple in one hand, a pear in the other — and we have to choose one of them. We might as well toss a coin.

But this is inadequate for two reasons: firstly, this does not properly describe the way we make complex decisions; secondly, decision-making is not primarily about resolving dilemmas, but about ending the uncertainty of thought by coming to the point of action. As Oliver O’Donovan puts it, what is decided “in the normal course of events is not which of two alternative courses of action to take, but simply to take some action.” He outlines how he thinks this works:

I want to suggest that our process in reaching decisions is one of increasing clarification: increasing understanding of ourselves, which is … like bringing something more and more into focus. So, we start with a very blurred picture, a very vague large-scale map of what it is that lies before us, and as we go we are constantly trying to sharpen the focus, to see more detail, until the picture of what is before us and what we can do becomes sharp.**

We might extend O’Donovan’s metaphor of the picture coming into focus, and suggest that we view the world through various lenses. These lenses are the factors or considerations relevant to the decision we have to make. They will usually involve both theological and circumstantial observations. It is as we apply these lenses appropriately that we gain a clear view. A good decision involves thinking about individual lenses, but also then how those lenses work together. There is no point pursuing a course of action where four lenses are clear, but the last lens is the cap!

I'll give an example of this in a future post.

*This post is adapted from Good Work: a Labour of Love, a course which Tim Adeney and I wrote last year. You can download a sample from the Groundwork home page.
**cited by Bruce Yabsley.

Wisdom and observation*

2011-02-23T09:26:00.002+11:00

Knowing how to live wisely is not about a blanket application of rules: it's about taking principles and applying them deftly into various situations. More than half the battle is describing circumstances properly. That is, wisdom requires not just Scripture, but observation of the world.

I want to be careful, here. Some will feel like I'm attacking the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture — that the Bible isn't enough for us to know how to live in God's world. The thing is, the Bible doesn't describe my circumstances. It doesn't tell me which job to take, or which person to marry, which shoes to buy, or which mission initiatives to pursue in 2011.

Even taking a step back from these specificities, the Scriptures might tell me to look after my children well, but it won't give me techniques for discipline, nor discuss what kind of schooling they require, nor what their diet should look like.

So while we might want to say that Scripture is sufficient, exegesis is not.

Rather, we need to learn to describe the world accurately, and to bring Scriptural principles to bear on it. We need to become keen observers of the world, and to practise integrating theology with life. To borrow a question from Tim, why is it that it is okay to cut your fingernails, but not your finger (since the Scriptures appear to be silent on both counts)?

It's here, of course, that the great volume and diversity of human enquiry — into natural sciences, organizational psychology, the behaviour of markets, the beauty of arts — is invaluable. Humanity in general has an awe-inspiring capacity to describe parts of the world.**

Naturally, the task becomes more difficult as we come to consider issues on which the Scriptures say very little directly. We need to be even more careful to describe reality accurately, and to be sure that we're applying the correct Scriptural principles. For example: Does it matter what kind of organization I work for? How can I determine what a good organization is? Or: What should we make of dating? What's a good way to find a spouse?

*This notion that observation is necessary for moral reasoning comes from Oliver O'Donovan. See, for example, 'Christian Moral Reasoning', in Atkinson and Field (eds.), New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology (Leicester: IVP, 1995)

**Of course, accurately describing parts is often not enough: they need to be integrated. If you like, moral knowledge (or wisdom) is not just about having good moral bricks, but appreciating the way the bricks are ordered in the whole edifice. (O'Donovan again. See, for example, Resurrection and Moral Order: an outline for evangelical ethics (2nd ed.; Leicester: Apollos, 1986, 1994), 88.)

Wisdom: using God's gifts properly

2011-02-22T09:37:00.000+11:00

Everything we have is a gift from God (James 1:17). And he determines the nature and purpose of the things he gives us.

That is, God has stitched the creation together in a certain way. For example, he creates plants "according to their kind" and "for food" (Genesis 1:12, 29). Living wisely seems to consist in understanding the nature and purpose of God's gifts, and then using them in a way that pleases him.

For example, food and wine and celebration are wonderful gifts from God (Ecclesiastes 10:19), but the foolish twist them into gluttony, drunkenness and debauchery. Similarly, we are created in God's good purposes to enjoy our work and the bonds we build through it (Ecclesiastes 2:24, 4:9-12), but if we lack wisdom, we idolize our job to the detriment of our families and other relationships, or we develop an unquenchable thirst for money or status.

If we want to live wisely, we need to ask about the nature and purpose of things: "What is it? What is it for?" What is marriage, and what is it for? What is sex, and what is it for? What is money, and what is it for? What are children, and what are they for? (Perhaps this sounds strange, and we should ask, "Why does God give us children?")

Often this is a difficult task. Whatever our surrounding culture, it has its own narratives to answer these questions (e.g. "Money is for status, security, and luxury.") If we don't think about it, we're likely just to adopt others' values — to everyone's detriment (it is easy enough to see how poisonous a society grows when it thinks that money is for status, security, and luxury).

Thankfully, we're not alone in this difficult task. For wisdom itself is a gift God bestows on those who ask for it (James 1:5). It is part of the work of the Spirit of God in us, who transforms us by the renewing of our minds so that we can test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will (Romans 12:2).

It's not just sharks you have to fear at the beach

2011-02-21T11:45:00.000+11:00

Mainly for British readers, I thought you might appreciate this. Our country's so dangerous, just going outside can kill you.

Wisdom as a summary of right living

2011-02-21T11:13:00.000+11:00

When we ask, "What does it mean to live as a Christian?", perhaps the first thing to come to mind is 'love'. Jesus's teaching is laced with encouragement to love, and his summary of the Law is to "love the Lord your God…and love your neighbour as yourself" (Mark 12:30–31; cf. Romans 13:8).

I don't want to downplay this, but there's another strong theme running through the New Testament that we often miss: wisdom. For example, Paul says, "Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise" (Ephesians 5:15; cf. Colossians 4:5). James 3:13–18 summarizes right living this way:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbour bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.
But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

Jesus himself is the ultimate wise man and the very wisdom of God (Matthew 12:42; Luke 2:52; 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Colossians 2:3).

Of course, this is picking up an important Old Testament motif which aligns wisdom and righteousness. Indeed, wisdom literature often equates the two (see, for example, Proverbs 1:3; 10:31; 23:24; cf. Psalm 37:30, Ecclesiastes 7:16, 9:1). Perhaps the most memorable image comes from Proverbs 9, where two ladies, Wisdom and Folly, call out to us. Wisdom calls us to a righteous life (verse 9); Folly calls us to death (verse 18).

If wisdom is such an important theme in the Scriptures, it needs to have both a theoretical and practical place in the way we follow Jesus.

What I'm listening to: update

2011-02-15T18:19:00.000+11:00

Some time back, I posted a list of podcasts I listen to. I've added two American ones which I'm quite enthusiastic about:

This American Life — Self-described as "like movies for radio", This American Life takes a theme each week and explores it through dramatic autobiography. For example, a recent episode had the theme 'slow to react', and included the stories of a man who courted a woman over a period of decades before she agreed to marry him, a man who planned to kill the person who raped him when he was a little kid, and a woman who's been living with Stage IV breast cancer for 18 years. Great stories, skilfully told.
Radiolab — An accessible WNYC programme which tends to focus on that flirtatious boundary between science and philosophy: memory, ageing and death, language acquisition, chance, emergence, time, sleep, and so on. Although it can be slightly scientistic at times, it doesn't degenerate into the kind of reductionistic dogma of many science programmes. The slightly annoying production style is overcome by the great content.

Cruise ships and lifeboats

2011-02-14T15:50:00.000+11:00

Pete Hughes has come up with a great metaphor for two different styles of church: cruise ships (which have a definite plan for where they're headed, and encourage others to get on-board with what they're doing), and lifeboats (which go out to help people where they are).

He concludes:

Both types of churches are good, but you can’t be both at the same time…Knowing which boat you are will determine how structure of the church works, how staff is worked out, how much time you get to spend with them, how people are welcomed and included into the community…

My 10 favourite DVDs of 2010

2011-01-15T12:25:00.003+11:00

I didn't get to the cinema much last year, but I did watch quite a few films on DVD (mostly acquired through Quickflix). A disappointing year for my favourite genres (horror and romcoms), as they scarcely rate a mention. Any road, here are my top 10 (some of them were re-watches):

1. Waltz with Bashir (2008)
Filmmaker Ari Folman is haunted by his inability to remember his involvement in the 1982 Lebanon War. It's an animated documentary, as Folman interviews friends, COs, and journalists who might be able to jog his memory. A heart-breaking introduction to an event I knew nothing about.

2. Crazy Heart (2009)
Director: Scott Cooper; Stars: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Bad Blake (Bridges) is a washed-up country musician who falls for single-mom reporter Jean (Gyllenhaal). You think you know what happens next, but you don't, and that's why this is such a great film. (Well, that and the fact that the leads are superb. And this is Cooper's first feature, dammit.)

3. An Education (2009)
Director: Lone Scherfig; Stars: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard
Set in early 1960s London and based on Lynn Barber's memoir, this film charts the awakening of Jenny (Mulligan), a student doing her A-levels who is seduced by an older man (Sarsgaard). The affair is both more ordinary and creepier than it sounds. Excellent performances from the leads and some memorable supporting rôles.

4. Secrets and Lies (1996)
Director: Mike Leigh; Stars: Marianne Jean-Baptiste, Brenda Blethyn, Timothy Spall
Hortense (Jean-Baptiste) is ostensibly a Caribbean-English optometrist. After the death of her adoptive mother, she goes in search of her biological parents. To everyone's surprise, she finds Cynthia (Brenda), a working-class white woman who as a teenager had given Hortense up for adoption. As the two develop an uneasy relationship, Cynthia decides she wants to introduce her to her longsuffering-but-made-something-of-himself brother, Maurice (Spall), and the rest of the family. Having been told that Happy Go Lucky (2009) was Mike Leigh's 'happy film', I was surprised at the uplifting tone of Secrets and Lies. With its painful study of English class, race, and family conflict, it promises all of Leigh's trademark grimness. In several awkward scenes, Leigh allows the camera to linger on his outstanding actors long enough for us to look away in embarrassment. But in the end, the characters are warm and brave, and they won't allow us to pity them.

5. Vier Minuten (4 Minutes) (2006)
Director: Chris Kraus; Stars: Hannah Herzsprung, Monica Bleibtreu
Jenny (Herzsprung) is a violent delinquent and a brilliant pianist. In a juvenile prison, she begins to take piano lessons from the elderly Frau Krüger (Bleibtrau). Excellent performances drive the characters' stories forward, as each gradually discloses to the other the secret wounds which have led them to this curious juncture. The final scene alone is worth the price of admission.

6. The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Director: Joel Coen; Stars: Tim Robbins, Paul Newman, Jennifer Jason Leigh
Hudsucker Industries is a huge and profitable business. When the president kills himself, the board decides to drive stock prices down so they can buy it out. They decide to appoint as the new president Norville Barnes (Robbins), a gormless mailboy. Amy Archer (Leigh) is a hard-nosed journalist seeking to expose Barnes as a putz, or a patsy, or something. Enter love twist. In the 'kooky' rather than 'Grand Guignol' Coen basket, the film has some gorgeous visuals and some amazing set pieces.

7. The Boys (1997)
Director: Rowan Woods; Stars: David Wenham, Toni Collette, Lynette Curran
Brett Sprague (Wenham) has completed his prison sentence for assault and is returning home. He corrals his brothers to finish the job on the man he assaulted, to the despair of his mother (Curran— an exceptional turn), his girlfriend (Collette), and his brothers' partners. Wenham is the anti-Diver-Dan, here, and thoroughly terrifying. It's not quite Animal Kingdom (2010), but a worthwhile entry in the genre of Australian-psychotic-ex-con films, not to mention a painful look at Australian attitudes to gender and violence. (Oh, and the sharp-eyed might see a pleasing connection between the characters Anna Lise Phillips plays in The Boys and Animal Kingdom.)

8. Zombieland (2009)
Director: Ruben Fleischer; Stars: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin, Emma Stone
Just another Zombie Apocalypse film set in the US, with smart-talking teens and unhinged Harrelson. It's also a road-movie, rom-com, and bromance, and it looks great. Reviewed a little more thoroughly back here, I actually enjoyed it more the second time through. But I wish I hadn't shown it to my ESL class — quite a lot of gore and bad language.

9. The Singing Detective (1986)
Director: Jon Amiel; Stars: Michael Gambon
Philip Marlow (Gambon) is a crime novelist (get it?), incapacitated by both writer's block and psoriatic arthropathy. A threefold narrative develops: Marlow's present, as he convalesces in hospital (with a range of other patients and staff); Marlow's past (as we slowly understand something of what has made him what he is), and; Marlow's hallucinatory imagination, where he is rescripting his most successful novel, The Singing Detective, and populating it with real characters from his past and present. Written by Dennis Potter, this is perhaps his chef d'œuvre, and well worth the 400-odd minutes of runtime.

10. A Simple Plan (1988)
Director: Sam Raimi; Stars: Bill Paxton, Bridget Fonda, Billy Bob Thornton, Gary Cole
I'm not sure if this kind of film has its own genre, where a smallish problem snowballs as incompetent, unlucky, or greedy characters try to cover their tracks (think of Fargo, No Country for Old Men, Burn After Reading, Very Bad Things), but I love it. Here, three men in rural Minnesota find $4 million dollars in a crashed plane, presumably undiscovered because of snow. Hank (Paxton) offers to hold onto the cash until the Summer, when they can move away from their town and divide up the cash. But it doesn't work out so simply.

Honourable Mentions (all four-star films for me)
Docos: The Yes Men, Pumping Iron
Australian: The Black Balloon, Last Train to Freo, Beneath Hill 60
Kids': How to Train Your Dragon, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, The Goonies
Drama: Un Secret, The Reader, The Informant, The Lovely Bones, Julie and Julia
Comedy: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Beetlejuice, The Men Who Stare at Goats, Kick-Ass
The rest: Shutter Island, Zombieland, Escape from New York, Unforgiven, Vanishing Point, The Nightmare Before Christmas

Complete this sentence

2011-01-15T07:57:00.003+11:00

When I really need to get something done, I…

Introducing Cédric(que) Gulliver

2011-01-10T18:03:00.001+11:00

You know you're a second child when it takes a long time for your parents to upload a scan to the blog.

Any road, welcome, Cédric(que).

Shorter teaching prep

2011-01-10T10:31:00.000+11:00

At the end of last year, we did some Bible storying. I couldn't call it an unqualified success, but there were some things to be thankful for.

Leaving aside the learning, the preparation was much shorter for me. I spent more time in the text, as much time in the commentaries, but a whole lot less time working out exactly what I was going to say. (This is true of any dialogue teaching, but I felt it here, especially — perhaps because I was scribbling on the text, rather than typing notes.)

For a 45–50-minute session, instead of a 15-page manuscript, I just had this:

An idea for this year's carols

2011-01-08T23:01:00.000+11:00

Around where we live, there were heaps of carols, both in local parks and in churches. I noticed a lot of buoyant Facebook updates about how many people had turned up to various carols — especially people who don't normally attend church events.

They were of variable quality. I heard of one event where a church had partnered with the council and some local businesses to put on a really good show. They had camels. In contrast, one we almost attended looked more like some unholy union of the von Trapps and the Royles. We lasted 30 seconds or so.

It gave me an idea for how carols could look different this year:

We could aim to hold fewer, better-quality carols. Work with other churches. Involve the local community. Celebrate well. Carols are twee enough: they don't need the added lameness of ineptitude;
With all the time, money, and effort saved, why not encourage everyone in your church to have a meal in November or December with at least one person who wouldn't normally attend a church event? I suspect it might lead to a more lasting blessing to the community.

Season's first chocolate eggs?

2011-01-08T22:48:00.000+11:00

Spotted at Coles this evening.

The taste of the country

2011-01-08T22:44:00.000+11:00

Why no MSG?

Two big finisheds

2010-12-24T21:17:00.000+11:00

Much of my discretionary time over the past couple of months has been devoted to finishing off some material on work for Groundwork. We finished our first draft last night, and I've sent it off to a few people for critical comment. I'm thankful and relieved to have it done.

I've also finished the Groundwork seminars that I was running up in Pennant Hills. It was a long trek every Monday evening, but it was a good experience for me to see how the materials would go in a fairly normal Sydney church setting.

Any road, I look forward to finishing off a couple of series that I left half-baked here. We're leaving Sydney for the week, so I probably won't have a chance to post anything for the rest of the year. I might do some composing, though :)

Thanks for reading and commenting, and I hope you have a lovely end of year!

Redeeming celebration

2010-12-14T20:33:00.000+11:00

A couple of years back, after hearing Michel Onfray, I wondered if Christian wowserism might be in part to blame for the plausibility of the new atheists. That is, Christians have a reputation as killjoys, and perhaps it's deserved.

One way we can foster this reputation is to stand on the outside of culture and rant at it. Christmas is a great example. There are plenty of reasons to hate it, but lots of people don't. So maybe the better path is not to be all élitist, but to enter into other people's celebrations and to share their joy.

I think Naomi's recent post is an example of how this can be done well. She's made the effort to redeem the good elements of Christmas that people like (festivity, relationship, community spirit, decoration), without feeling the need to be all truculent about consumerism or the loss of the festival's Christian roots.

It's a much better witness to the character of the God who entered our world and celebrated with sinners.

30% of women have poo on their hands

2010-12-14T20:16:00.001+11:00

Every now and then, I wonder if my stashes of hand sanitiser (at work, at home, in the man bag) might be a sign that I'm going all Howard Hughes. But then I hear a report like this, and realize that I'm only being reasonable. An extract:

The grimy truth, in fact revealed by a study of commuters' hands spanning the length and breadth of Britain, is that up to 30% of women in some parts of the country have hands that are covered in faecal bugs. [...]

We were absolutely flabbergasted so many people had faecal bugs on their hands. If these people had been suffering from a diarrhoeal disease, the potential for it to be passed around would be greatly increased by their failure to wash their hands after going to the toilet.

I'd hate to see the stats for France.

Guidance: a metaphor

2010-12-08T11:20:00.000+11:00

I really love J. I. Packer's metaphor for wisdom in Knowing God. Although Packer is here talking in the context of wisdom, I would want to appropriate the image to speak of guidance. He describes what it is like to be taken into the signal-box of York railway station:

…you will see on the longest wall a diagram of the entire track layout for five miles on either side of the station, with little glow-worm lights moving or stationary on the different tracks to show the signalman at a glance exactly where every engine and train is. At once you will be able to look at the whole situation through the eyes of those who control it: you will see from the diagram why it was that this train had to be signalled to a halt, and that one diverted from its normal running line, and that one parked temporarily in a siding…

Now, the mistake that is commonly made is to suppose that this is an illustration of what God does when he bestows wisdom: to suppose, in other words, that the gift of wisdom consists in a deepened insight into the providential meaning and purpose of events going on around us, an ability to see why God has done what he has done in a particular case, and what he is going to do next. People feel that if they were really walking close to God…then they would, so to speak, find themselves in the signal-box…

[But wisdom] is like being taught to drive. What matters in driving is the speed and appropriateness of your reactions to things, and the soundness of your judgment as to what scope a situation gives you. You do not ask yourself why the road should narrow or screw itself into a dog-leg wiggle, just where it does, nor why that van should be parked where it is, nor why the driver in front should hug the crown of the road so lovingly; you simply try to see and do the right thing in the actual situation that presents itself. The effect of divine wisdom is to enable you and me to do just that in the actual situations of everyday life.

This extract is from the chapter 'God's wisdom and ours', pages 114–116 in my edition (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1993).

The limits of cultural analysis

2010-12-07T14:24:00.000+11:00

I love cultural analysis. I'm really looking forward to reading Hugh Mackay's latest, What makes us tick?

Cultural analysis is also in vogue with various Christian movements, and I think it's a good thing for Christians to be involved in shaping the culture of the broader society.

But while general observations and trends have their value, they break down when it comes to actual people. No one ticks all the boxes of any given stereotype.

I think I've noticed this more keenly in The Joshua Tree than in previous church experiences. We have no 'air war' — we don't do any public preaching; we don't have any other programmes that seek to serve people in an undifferentiated mass.

In the end, we have to love people, not people groups.

What I'm listening to

2010-12-07T13:26:00.003+11:00

Between walking, driving, and end-of-day public transport, I have a fair bit of down time in a week. I usually listen to podcasts. Here's my current list (with links), in the order it appears in iTunes.

Anything else I should be subscribed to?

Apple Keynotes — seeing Steve in action is always better than just reading about it.
Classic Poetry Aloud — fairly hokey production values, but a great way to revisit some beloved favourites as well as discovering some newies. (This is how I first heard 'A Poison Tree'.)
Dr Karl's Great Moments in Science — Dr Karl tackles myths about such things as hyenas and feminine loquacity, as well as explaining how to impress your friends by skimming stones.
The Ethicist — Randy Cohen's New York Times column responds to reader's questions in an amusing and insightful way.
Radio 4 Friday Night Comedy — currently doing the rather dull The Now Show, but soon we'll be back to The News Quiz.
Mars Hill Church — sermons from Mark Driscoll in Seattle.
Movie Time — news, reviews, and interviews from Julie Rigg and Jason di Rosso on ABC Radio National.
Ockham's Razor — 13-minute monologues on something to do with science (and often public policy).
Philosopher's Zone — Alan Saunders on Radio National takes a slightly-more-technical-than-layman's view of philosophers and their thoughts.
Philosophy Bites — a brilliant set of interviews with contemporary philosophers. The hosts make it real: they are excellent at asking their interviewees to give examples and concrete applications of their thinking, so it doesn't all remain abstract.
A Point of View — 10-minute monologues from Radio 4 by a range of interesting folk, including Clive James and Sir David Attenborough.
Rear Vision — A Radio National programme which gives the background of contemporary news events so that you can understand what's going on in, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Panama Canal, or US mid-term elections. Interspersed with fascinating topicals on things like the history of coffee, or consumer credit.
The Science Show — Radio National's one-hour programme on the world of science. I dabble with unsubscribing because a lot of it is boring preaching on climate change, but there are enough gems in there that I persevere.
TED talks — ideas worth spreading. Can't recommend them enough. I've listened to all of them, now, and they've really changed the way I look at various parts of the world.
This American Life — Self-described as "like movies for radio", This American Life takes a theme each week and explores it through dramatic autobiography. For example, a recent episode had the theme 'slow to react', and included the stories of a man who courted a woman over a period of decades before she agreed to marry him, a man who planned to kill the person who raped him when he was a little kid, and a woman who's been living with Stage IV breast cancer for 18 years. Great stories, skilfully told.
Radiolab — An accessible WNYC programme which tends to focus on that flirtatious boundary between science and philosophy: memory, ageing and death, language acquisition, chance, emergence, time, sleep, and so on. Although it can be slightly scientistic at times, it doesn't degenerate into the kind of reductionistic dogma of many science programmes. The slightly annoying production style is overcome by the great content.

Guidance and wisdom

2010-12-06T10:49:00.001+11:00

The two problematic views of guidance which I outlined before both neglect what I think is a more Biblical view: wisdom.

That is, I think the normal way that we discern God's will for our lives is by growing in wisdom. As James puts it, God gives us wisdom when we ask, so that we may persevere in faithfulness (James 1:2–6). According the Proverbs, wisdom will allow us to have "a disciplined and prudent life, doing what is right and just and fair" (1:1–7).

Wisdom requires hard thought. This is what the faulty views of guidance wish to avoid. The "I have a feeling" view acts on instinct, however imprudent; the "not-sin" view is satisfied with a course that doesn't directly sin, however imprudent. Both can lead to painful, ineffectual lives. Against this, we should hear Romans 12:1–2:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God — this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Again, this doesn't mean that it is simply an effort of our will and cleverness. Wisdom is spiritually imparted — God renews our minds, and wisdom is a gift from God.

'Guidance' is an issue of how we lead the Christian life — of how we walk with Christ as Lord. I think we can draw an analogy from how we first come to follow Christ. That is, the 'normal' way that people come to know Jesus is that the Holy Spirit works miraculously through the simple speaking of the gospel. Of course, there are unusual circumstances of visions, dreams, and Road-to-Damascus epiphanies. But we shouldn't despise God's usual means, just because they are less impressive.

In the same way, the 'normal' way that God will guide us is by the Holy Spirit miraculously transforming our minds and helping us to apply the gospel in our circumstances. (I'll say more about this in future posts.) This doesn't discount the extraordinary circumstances of direct words of instruction, but I expect these to be rare (given how infrequent they are in the Scriptures). Again, we shouldn't despise God's usual means of gracious guidance.

Reimagining paid church work: serve where you are

2010-12-05T12:22:00.001+11:00

There has been an assumption underlying the principles of growing elders and paying for what you need: we should serve in the church and community where we are.

That is, I don't think there's an undifferentiated call to 'paid church work' as an especially significant form of service. Rather, I think there's a specific call to 'serve where you are', whether in a paid or unpaid capacity. That is, given where God has put you, how can you serve? The way you serve is dependent on such things as:

the needs of the community around you;
the shape of the mission of your church;
your particular gifts — that is, talents and circumstances (e.g. married/single; male/female; wealthy/less so; relational networks, etc.).

If we abandon this relational focus (serving the people where we are), and prefer a functional focus (taking on a particular rôle so that we can serve some unknown people somewhere else),* I think we potentially strike a number of problems:

We find it hard to share lives. Christian leadership involves modelling, which requires living closely with others. It's too painful to do this if we're always going to move on shortly.
I focus on my gifting, rather than on how we can serve together. That is, if I think I'm gifted at preaching, but there's not much need for preachers where I am, I as an individual might decide to go off to theological college for the sake of some future service somewhere. In so doing, I may well neglect the needs of my current community — the body of Christ's people where I am, and the broader community in which we live.
We gut strong churches, especially in the country. When I was at Bible college, one country church of around 200 people sent eight of its leaders to college in Sydney in a period of about five years. None of them ended up back there. I can't imagine the cost to local discipleship and mission in that town.
We focus on a particular rôle, rather than a set of people. This is almost inevitable: after three or four years of Bible college, we face the necessity to take a job somewhere — anywhere. Our general call to paid church work, which seemed so noble, can easily become a call to pay the bills, even if it's in a rôle and a setting to which we're not particularly suited. Similarly, when we've been in a church for a while, there's every chance it won't need us for the same paid rôle any more, because of how it's grown. (For example, people who are very good at leading a church of 80 might not be competent to lead a church of 250.) In such circumstances, the paid church worker will often leave in order to take up a job elsewhere. But this means their whole life changes — and so does their family's.

*Of course, I'm all for churches developing genuine partnerships and sharing resources according to needs. The principles I outlined in this series on global mission equally apply to other settings.

A Poison Tree, by William Blake

2010-12-05T09:30:00.000+11:00

I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe;
I told it not, my wrath did grow.

And I water'd it in fears,
Night and morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with my smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.

And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,

And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree.

What makes a good worker?

2010-11-29T22:02:00.001+11:00

I know I've got two contentious series started with the paid church work and guidance questions. I'll get back to those shortly. At the moment, though, I'm focusing on meeting a deadline for this book on work Tim and I are writing.

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on what makes a good worker. What are some things which make colleagues (a) a joy to work with or (b) a pain in the bum?

Guidance: two errors

2010-11-24T10:44:00.000+11:00

I've been having a few chats about guidance recently, so I thought I might throw up some quick thoughts. It seems like the options before us are unpleasant:

1. The "I've got a feeling" prison

Some people want God to tell them exactly what to do with their life. Or at least, what to do with the 'big decisions' of whom to marry, where to live, and what career to pursue. People pray earnestly, and then act in line with their feelings. A great range of phrases can be used for this:

I feel that God…
I've had a word…
God told me that…
God gave me a heart/burden for…
I have peace about…
God has called me to…

What's good about this view is that it shows a reliance on God. It sees people praying and expecting that God will answer them. It shows a vibrant belief in the power of the Holy Spirit. The problem is, it can lead people to rely on promises God never made.

That is, I don't think the Scriptures give a 'wishy-washy' view of guidance, where God leads me by giving me certain feelings or convictions. The God of the Bible seems to speak unambiguously, using words. If he addresses an individual with a plan for their life, it's generally to someone who has a unique rôle (like the Old Testament prophets or the Apostle Paul).

Of course, there can still be unambiguous messages from God (like Agabus in Acts 11, or the kinds of stories you hear of people having visions about where to find out about Jesus, particularly in Muslim countries). But that seems very different from the vague leanings or even strong convictions most people report. Their experiences are still ambiguous.

Pastorally, there are any number of pitfalls. Some people pursue stupid or hurtful paths, justifying their actions with pious talk of God's calling on their life. At its worst, this view of guidance becomes a prison (as Mark Dever briefly explains). People are paralysed while they wait for a word from God. They fear missing out on God's best plan for their life, because they didn't listen carefully enough to their intuitions — as if God were some cruel guide, whispering directions just out of ear-shot, and blaming you when you fall in a ditch.

2. "Not-sin" dumb freedom

This view largely seems to be a pastoral response to the first. It rejects the "still, small voice" view of guidance, and majors on God's sovereignty: God has mapped out your life for you — for his glory and for your good. He has given you guidance in the Scriptures. As long as you don't sin, you have freedom to choose between good options. Whatever happens is God's plan for you. So, for example, you are free to marry whomever, as long as you've ticked the Scriptural boxes of them being (a) of the opposite sex, (b) not a close relative, (c) not already married, and (d) a believer.

What's good about this view is that it expects God to speak to all of us in the same way as he's spoken to most of his people throughout history — that is, through the Scriptures. It takes the focus off us, and puts it back on God in his goodness and sovereignty.

But pastorally, there are several problems:

It can lead people not to "enquire of the Lord", either arrogantly (because we don't need to), or pessimistically (because God has spoken only in the past, and is not interested in our lives today);
Dumb or hurtful decisions can be justified by saying, "I didn't sin. Show me a verse in the Bible that says I sinned.";
It leaves us open to taking the 'safe route' — following our world's desire for security (say, with a white-collar profession and a mortgage in a nice area) rather than dreaming big about how we could serve God, his people, and his world.
It leaves us with a dreary view of the Christian life, as if the goal was to 'not-sin', rather than to live positively for God's glory;
As a corollary of this, it fails to describe the world properly. For example, making a good choice of marriage partner involves many factors other than those which are 'sin issues'. While this second view will allow for 'wisdom', it's often described as 'just wisdom', and not given much content.

There has to be a better alternative.

Reimagining paid church work: pay for what you need

2010-11-24T10:01:00.001+11:00

Having sketched a need for elders, I haven't touched on the question of pay.

In churches, we have many people exercising their gifts voluntarily, but the amount of such work they can do is limited by the fact that they have other responsibilities (such as loving their friends and family and providing financially for themselves and others). If we paid them, they would have more time.

When churches think of paying people, our normal pattern seems to be to pay a full-time generalist to begin with. As we get more money, we might look to employ some part-time specialists (a children's worker, women's worker, youth worker, administrator). Or we might eschew the specialists for the sake of getting another generalist.

Each full-time generalist we hire represents a massive jump in required finances. Therefore if our church growth relies on full-time generalists, it will necessarily be slow. Further, they can sometimes seem like a solution in search of a problem — that is, they represent 40 hours of additional labour that didn't exist before, and they need to do something with that time.

So while I can imagine circumstances where hiring a generalist might be the best course of action, it seems strange to me that this is almost exclusively the pattern churches follow.

What if we thought of a church like another organization? Organizations will generally hire people for specific tasks. It would be strange to outlay $100,000 on a person and say, "We have in mind about 8 hours of responsibilities a week for you. For the rest, go make your own work."

So we might approach the question from the other end, and asked, "What does our church need to be able to love people better? What's holding us back in our ability to serve one another and the broader community?"

I suspect that in many cases, the answer would be that there are opportunities for people to use their specialist gifts — that is, to keep doing the things they're already doing, just more so. Paying them would allow them to take some time out of their paid jobs, rather than out of their relational time with family and friends.

These part-time paid rôles might be for such things as:

Managing a building project;
Networking with the local council and chamber of commerce;
Running an op-shop or an after-school club or ESL class;
Administration;
Facilitating discipleship and mission with city workers;
Meals on wheels.

What we paid for would depend on gifts and needs.

In The Joshua Tree, we're not paying anyone at the moment. The first thing I can imagine us paying for is for someone to take more teaching responsibility (say, a day a week). At some stage (say, if we had three gospel communities), we might want to pay someone a day a week to help manage us and run the organization — not someone theologically trained, necessarily, but someone who knew how to run things.

Time will tell.

Vountary work

2010-11-23T15:34:00.000+11:00

A while back, I wrote that our work should be good work — that is, inherently valuable. In contrast to this, our society often measures the value of work in dollar terms.

(There are some notable exceptions. For example, we tend to think nursing and teaching are more valuable than the pay-packet suggests. But this just confirms the observation: we tend to say that such people are 'worth more' — that we would like to ascribe to them a cash value.)

But good work is good work, whether it is paid or not. Some of us (e.g. stay-at-home parents; retirees; independently wealthy) do almost all our work for free; almost all of us do some of our work for free. (Apparently, Australians even do voluntary work at their paid jobs, worth $72 billion per year, or 6% of GDP.)

This applies in a church setting. Most of us volunteer our time and effort in various ways — cooking meals, having conversations, helping people move house, managing finances, setting direction, writing Bible studies, and so on. (Many churches also have a number of formal ministries that require volunteer workers.)

What limits the amount of voluntary work we can do is the fact that we need to live. I could volunteer full-time to serve some cause for a few months before I went broke. But if you paid me to work for that same cause, I could do so indefinitely.

So it's not the pay which suddenly confers value on the work. Rather, the pay allows someone to do good work over time (as well as blessing others with any excess money they earn). I'll apply this to paid church work in the next little while.

One dying man's view of euthanasia

2010-11-23T10:53:00.000+11:00

Nicholas Tonti-Filippini, a medical ethicist, is dying. His letter to SA Premier Mike Rann outlining his objections to that state's euthanasia bill is published here. Some extracts:

I cannot speak for all people who suffer from illness and disability, but think I can speak more credibly about suffering, illness and disability than those people who advocate for euthanasia presenting an ideological view of suffering and disability. Facing illness and disability takes courage and we do not need those euthanasia advocates to tell us that we are so lacking dignity and have such a poor quality of life that our lives are not worth living.

[...]

The Bill would not benefit South Australians who suffer from chronic illnesses. Instead it would make protection of their lives dependent on the strength of their will to continue. The fear of being a burden is a major risk to the survival of those who are chronically ill. If euthanasia were lawful, that sense of burden would be greatly increased for there would be even greater moral pressure to relinquish one’s hold on a burdensome life and to remove that burden from the lives of others.

New development across the road

2010-11-16T22:44:00.000+11:00

We've just received a letter inviting our comment on a proposed development that would go up just across the road from our house in Lewisham. All the details are here, and the site plan and designs are here (PDF link).

I haven't looked at it too closely, but on the face of it, it seems excellent. It'll provide additional accommodation in an area that needs it; from our point-of-view, it'll be great to have shops right across the road, along with a bit of a community hub.

Melinda Gates on spreading the gospel

2010-11-16T14:26:00.000+11:00

In this TED talk, Melinda Gates talks about what not-for-profits can learn from Coca Cola's operation in the developing world. Her gospel is about the Millennium Development Goals, but there's something for churches to learn, too. Here's a summary:

1. Tracking real-time data
Coca Cola measures its progress and feeds those data back into its system to make improvements. So if you're running Coca Cola in Namibia, you know where every can of Coke (or Sprite or Fanta) was sold, whether in a corner store, a supermarket, or a pushcart. If sales are dropping, you can find out why and attempt to fix the problem.

Of the three principles, this is perhaps the most difficult to apply to churches, but we still need to measure things. Some things are easy to measure, e.g. how many people come to events. This can help you know whether that event is worth running. (Measuring is only half the job: you still need the courage to stop doing things that aren't worth the effort, and the insight to start worthwhile things that you're not currently doing.) But event-attendance is not the most useful metric: more than events, we want to know about relationships — the normal context for actual discipleship and mission. Harder to measure, but more useful, so worth the effort.

2. Tapping into local entrepreneurial talent
In the developed world, Coke has centralized distribution systems which rely on infrastructure (e.g. trucks carrying loads of Coke on reliable roads). These things don't exist in the remoter areas of developing countries. What Coke discovered was that local entrepreneurs were doing their distribution for them — buying Coke in bulk, then taking it to hard-to-reach places by bicycle, donkey, or wheelbarrow. Coke decided to train these people and provide them with small loans to improve their existing distribution talents.

Here the application for churches is clearer. In a society where people will come to your centralized 'gospel distribution network' (i.e. Sunday church gathering), then distribution is not too difficult. But in our culture, where 80% of the people won't come to our church buildings, we need to be training and resourcing people to use their gifts to take the gospel to hard-to-reach places — their neighbours, workplaces, parks, pubs, and so on.

3. Marketing
Coca-Cola's success depends on the simple fact that people want Coca-Cola. They are very clever at working out local marketing: what do people aspire to, here? what is 'happiness' in this culture? They then target their marketing accordingly.

Again, churches can learn from this. The product we are marketing is Jesus — to some, the aroma of life; to others, the stench of death. Some might say that people need Jesus, so we don't have to work so hard at getting people to want him. But experience speaks differently — about Jesus, and about, say, basic sanitation: people need it, but in order for them to do it, they still have to want to.

The primary form of marketing we do is showing what it means to follow and belong to Jesus. People need to see how good Jesus is — how he enables us to resolve conflict, to be generous, to overcome addictions, to stop finding our self-worth in other people's opinions, to let go of our anger, to love our spouse and children properly, to work competently without being enslaved to our job. We fail to market Jesus properly when (a) our shared community life simply isn't visible to anyone else, because we haven't invited them into our lives, or (b) we peddle the Christian life as unattractive — "Just like your life, only without fornication or a Sunday morning sleep-in, though you do get to go to heaven when you die."

Coles pudding win

2010-11-11T08:39:00.000+11:00

I loathe many things about Christmas, but I do like fruit mince tarts and Christmas pudding, which we tend to buy half price in the New Year.

I was surprised, then, when Suzanne brought me home a Coles Christmas pudding. Firstly, it wasn't on special; secondly, it was Coles brand. I don't believe in buying inferior quality when it's a once-a-year treat.

But I found it delicious. It has a strong alcohol flavour, it's moist, and there's no scrimping — it's like a ball of fruit held together with cake. At $6, it's a no-drawbacks delight.

Groundwork update

2010-11-09T17:31:00.001+11:00

We're really thankful for how Groundwork has gone this year. We'd seen it as a bit of a trial year, to work out how it would run in various contexts in Australia. We've had over 100 enrolments in three states and across a number of denominations and independent churches. We've got a number of students enrolled in a Certificate IV in Christian Ministry and Theology (30772QLD).*

So we reckon there's more than enough interest to ramp things up next year.

Based on feedback from existing modules and the creation of some new modules, we've modified the syllabus slightly. You can find the details and some sample chapters (including some from our work module, currently being road-tested at Kirkplace) at the website.

*For the purposes of Certificate IV accreditation, Groundwork is part of the Australian College of Ministries training network RTO # 90965.

Bible storying

2010-11-09T16:54:00.000+11:00

In the lead-up to Christmas, I'm experimenting with some Bible storying in our fortnightly Joshua Tree gatherings. (Bible storying is a method of teaching the Bible which involves telling the stories of the Bible. You can see some examples here.)

We're going to do the first four stories in Luke, finishing with the birth of Jesus just before Christmas.

I haven't done this before, and I'm not a natural storyteller, but I think it's a good thing to try: most of the Bible is story, and yet I almost never use stories when I'm speaking to people about who God is and what he's done. One reason for this is that I don't know the stories well enough. I also hope that it will tie in with our broader aims for gospel fluency. I'll be interested to see how the children find it: I suspect they'll be better than the adults at remembering and retelling the stories!

Here's what we did last week on Luke 1:1–25:

2-minute monologue followed by Q&A on the prologue (verses 1–4).
Used the line "the things that have been accomplished/fulfilled among us" to show that Luke's narrative fits into a broader Biblical narrative
Gave people five minutes or so to rehearse the big narrative of the Bible, so that we could place Luke's narrative in that context
I told the story (verses 5–21) twice (no notes, no Bibles open) — about 6 minutes
The group repeated the story back — 5 minutes
With Bibles open again, I asked the group to discuss the characters and their arcs: who are the characters, and what changed for them from the beginning to the end of the narrative (including some application) — 10 minutes
More general Q&A about the passage, including some applications — 5–10 minutes
More pointed application: how could we use this story to encourage believers in Christ, or to describe who God is to people who don't know him? (This was about 10 minutes; it might need to be longer in future — the applications are really varied when you allow different parts of the text to carry their own emphases. These included such things as trusting in God's sovereignty and goodness, even when it seems slow or improbable; praying as if you expect God to act; creating present priorities in work/family in light of the future.)

There are things to improve for next time. We'll see how it goes.

Comments enabled at The Joshua Tree.

Good preaching

2010-11-05T21:37:00.000+11:00

Suzanne and I have been listening on and off to Tim Keller's Prodigal God talks (available free from here). Keller's brilliant at describing grace. Each talk thrills me with the goodness of God and makes me want to tell others. Like now.

Resolving conflict

2010-11-04T22:16:00.000+11:00

While I've been writing this work project, I've tried to streamline my in-box by not showing blog posts there. I've been catching up periodically.

Having mentioned resolving conflict earlier today, I figured I should link through to Cathy's series on the topic. It's one of those areas where the Christian community should so obviously be different — we who have been forgiven much must also forgive others. And yet it's an area where we easily fail.

I certainly know those grudge-holding tendencies in my heart.

Windows scam?

2010-11-04T20:48:00.000+11:00

I've had a couple of calls from people purporting to be from 'Windows operating system technical support', offering to help me with my slow computer.

Now, I imagine there're a lot of Windows users who don't know how to maintain their installations, and whose computers therefore very slow. Were I one of those ill-starred users, I can imagine that the call could well capture my attention (leaving aside the Big Brotherishness of Microsoft calling me at home).

I haven't had the patience to keep them on the line to see where the conversation goes. Given how many people get viruses from naïve computer use, it's a small step to think some of that same gullibility might lead to some falling for this scam :/

Reimagining paid church work: growing elders

2010-11-04T16:40:00.001+11:00

For this first post in what will be a brief series, I want to talk only tangentially about paid church workers, suggesting instead that we might not need such a high staff-to-congregation ratio if we were better at growing regular Christians to maturity.

Often when we speak about paid pastors and their rôle, we begin with 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. I think that this can end up conflating the categories of 'staff' and 'elder'. This might lead to (at least) three problems:

Firstly, it encourages us to value formal educational qualifications over actual godliness. (For example, when running a seminar and the question of parenting came up, people with adult children who are following Jesus deferred to me, simply because I have a theological degree. Frustrating.)
Secondly, it inculturates us to think of 'elder' as a full-time paid position — we pay a single person to take authority, rather than having authority shared across a group of volunteers.
Thirdly, when we think about staff, it only allows us to use the category of 'character' (even if we don't carefully interrogate it), and so it doesn't do business with the real needs of church leadership.

The characteristics of an elder are what we would expect all Christians to display and grow into over time. Therefore we should expect churches to grow multiple elders who can take the kind of responsibility for leadership that we see in the pastoral epistles. Key to this is that they apply the Scriptures in their own life, in the life of their family, and then in wider church family. (A theological degree is neither a necessary nor even a sufficient condition for being able to apply the Scriptures in this way.)

We have a neat pathway for entering theological college, but I haven't often observed a pathway to Christian maturity. (Or better, perhaps, we imagine that attending weekly church events will suffice.) I think it requires a commitment in our church community to speak the truth to one another in love. It requires intentional discussion and modelling of godliness in every sphere of life — work, marriage, parenting, and so on. This implies not just weekly events, but a shared life.

Imagine a church culture in which 'growing to maturity' was a core value, and where we worked out concretely what that might look like in our context. It might mean, for example, that we would be consistently praying for one another, that we grow in specific areas of godliness. We'd be counselling one another, encouraging and rebuking one another from the Scriptures. We'd have strategies in place to see individuals and families move forward in Christ. Maybe we would even have some criteria to measure, or at the very least be able to ask one another about how we've grown in specific areas of godliness over the last six or twelve months.

As we did so, we would presumably find a number of people who would be shouldering responsibility — in their workplaces, in their families, in the church community, and in the wider society. These would meet the criteria of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They wouldn't be paid. No one of them would be expected to look after everyone else. The loss of any one elder wouldn't paralyse the whole church. No one elder would be a bottle-neck for decision-making, nor the chief determiner of how to spend the church's resources — time, gifting, and money. And across these people, we might find the range of gifts needed to lead a church. (More on this soon.)

In The Joshua Tree, we are conscious of attempting a model that requires fewer staff, but more leaders. So we're intentionally starting training before we need to. This happens 'along the road' as we think about and do daily life together. We're also building in some structured theological input with Groundwork courses. We continue to be prayerful that some older, wiser Christians will join us (and we're thankful to those in other churches who are generously giving us time to talk things through — it's not as good as sharing life, but it's something). In the meantime, we're slowly learning to gospel one another and prompt one another to maturity.

Detailed application

2010-11-04T16:30:00.001+11:00

…if you go to a church that preaches the Word of God in it's integrity, meaning it rightly preaches law and gospel, and that offers the sacraments in their integrity, then you have come within the circle of God's means of grace. Think of the means of grace as a water sprinkler — as the Word is preached and the sacraments are administered they are like water going out from a sprinkler and every blade of grass, or individual, who falls within the circle of that preaching and administration of the sacraments gets dripped on and soaked by the grace of God.

So said the JollyBlogger.

I think I want to push his metaphor a little further to say that while preaching might be a sprinkler that's good for greening grass, it's not really adequate for growing trees. I feel like somewhere along the line we've lost the idea that the Word of God should be applied in detail to real life. This cannot be done very well in a weekly monologue to a crowd; we need to apply the Word to one another in everyday life (Hebrews 3:13; Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 4:15).

Interestingly, the JollyBlogger's post starts with just such an instance — a one-on-one conversation where he encourages Bill to bask in the goodness of God.

My guess is that most people will agree with this in principle. It's just in the detailed application that we'll have disagreements. So let me suggest some circumstances in which I might want you to ask me some questions, help me examine my heart or ponder the best course of action, and perhaps apply a gospel-shaped word of rebuke or encouragement or wisdom:

You see me shouting at my children.
I buy a brand new car.
I have an incompetent employee who is damaging my business.
I'm always busy.
I make a major decision — or one which affects our fellowship — without discussing it with anyone in my church community (e.g. changing jobs or houses; going away for two weeks' holiday; asking someone out).
I am worried about the shape of my career.
You've noticed on three occasions that I've snapped at my spouse.
I never have any money at the end of the month.
My children don't obey me.
I feel dejected (or smug) after a school reunion.
I hold a grudge or fail to resolve a conflict properly.
I never confront anyone and avoid conflict altogether.
I complain about my colleagues or boss.

Thinking and speaking about euthanasia

2010-11-01T15:33:00.000+11:00

At some point, I'll do some proper thinking about euthanasia and express a nuanced view. I think I could summarize my current gut feeling as, "I'm not opposed to it in theory for particular cases, but I am broadly opposed to it in legislated practice, because of all the unintended consequences."

The Social Issues Executive has set up a page of useful information, including:

recent talks and articles by Andrew Cameron and others;
some brief reflection on the Dutch experience;
guidelines for contacting parliamentarians.

There's nothing there about running a new poll, however, asking a better question than the dodgy Dying with Dignity one :/

UnMaclike

2010-10-27T16:04:00.000+11:00

My new PTOB commentary on Hebrews has been made available on Logos. It came with instructions.

Here's how I normally install things on a Mac: drag the icon to my hard disk. Or, at the limit, double-click on an installer icon.

Logos has developed a six-step procedure which forces you to go into the bowels of your Library — somewhere most Mac users never need to go (and which normal Mac search features ignore). Despite this, the instructions have a chatty tone and use the word 'just' (as in "You just need to…") five times, vainly trying to reassure you that this clunky procedure is entirely normal.

Structures and giving blood

2010-10-27T10:13:00.000+11:00

I've written a fair bit about structures before, but I've noticed another illustration for their importance in the last few weeks: giving blood.

I think it's a good thing to give blood, and I actually quite enjoy the experience itself: you get to have a little rest, you get some free food, and I love watching the blood flowing out of my body and into a little bag. But I haven't given blood in almost a decade.

It's not that I don't want to, and it's not that I don't know how to. It's just that it's quite complicated.

When I gave blood before, it was when the mobile blood van came to uni, and it was really easy to go and do it. Since then, I mostly haven't been working or living anywhere near a blood bank. The structures and circumstances of my life have just made it too hard to do the good thing of giving blood.

The structures that organizations employ can make it easier or more difficult for them to achieve their aims. In a family, this might mean adopting a number of routines that make it easier for the children to be joyful, to be obedient, and to serve other family members, for example. In a church, it might mean adopting structures that makes it easier for people to get to know one another, love one another, and together love others.

What happened to peak hour?

2010-10-26T08:32:00.000+11:00

I've been driving up to Pennant Hills on Monday nights for a few months now, leaving home around 6.30 to arrive for 7.30. Back in July, I used to hit a few ugly snarls, but now I don't, and the trip is 15 minutes shorter.

The easing of traffic coincided with daylight saving. Is there a causal relationship here? Is it normal? As a new driver in Sydney, I'm confused.

Succession planning

2010-10-23T21:05:00.002+11:00

The rules by which Presbyterian pastors have nothing to do with identifying their successors has more to do with Scottish politics in the 19th century than it does with any biblical principle. It continues to create some sort of perception that pastors are visiting consultants rather than organically part of the Congregation [...] Succession planning should mean that leadership transitions, not lurches from one to the next.

So says Gary Ware at the end of a reflection on the 'multi-campus' model of church.

I'm going to begin a short series where I'll think out loud about reimagining paid church work. But this issue of succession planning seems to me to be a great microcosm of the some weaknesses in our current practice.

What does it say about our view of discipleship, mission, and leadership if a paid pastor can just leave to go to a new church (and that we then hire in someone else, usually from another church, which creates a sort of carousel effect of churches needing to hire in new leadership)? What does it say about a commitment to people and relationships? What would we say about a church member who decided to change churches like this?

In no other organizational context can I imagine this sort of lurching transition. If I were going to hand over my business to someone else, I wouldn't just leave and let someone else decide who to run it. If I knew that I was going to die and leave my family, I would make plans for them to be properly cared for. Surely we should also make such provisions in a church, in the regrettable circumstances of a paid pastor having to leave.

UPDATE: A friend pointed out that many workplaces do see this sort of transition — where an employee decides to leave to take up a promotion, or simply another job. If the job is almost entirely functional (e.g. flipping burgers), this causes very little disturbance to the organization. But the job of pastors is (should be?) primarily relational rather than functional, and so leaving can cause tremendous upheaval.

Is your work any good?

2010-10-23T05:59:00.002+11:00

You should get the job which pays the most money for the fewest hours, so that you can do as much ministry as possible.

This was the advice I was repeatedly given at uni, and it seems like I wasn't the only one. Setting aside the implicit bad theology of ministry, this advice doesn't lead you to ask whether or not the work you're doing is any good. It asks you to judge the value of work by its fruit (i.e. money) and context (i.e. how it fits into the rest of life).

But Christians are called to 'do good' — not just to live off the fruit of something which may or may not actually be good. We are called to bring order to creation and to love others. (This implies that there is bad work. Running a TAB, for example, is perfectly legal, but it isn't a blessing to anyone.) Salary and working hours may be good things to consider in weighing up two good jobs, but the prior question must be: "How is this work good?"

I recently asked a group of white-collar Christians to say how they glorified God in their work. Almost all of them spoke about the attitude they had at work, or about evangelistic opportunities. None of them spoke of how their work was a blessing to society — of the good they did to people as accountants, doctors, or software engineers.

In the material that Tim Adeney and I are writing on work, we have proposed some ways of valuing the good of work itself. Tim has identified the categories of (a) the blessing/order-bringing of the work itself; (b) the further work that your work enables; (c) other love/relationships enabled.

For example, a mechanic (a) mitigates some effects of the Fall by fixing your car, which (b) allows you to drive to work and (c) see your friends and family. An ESL teacher (a) helps students learn English, which (b) makes them more employable and allows them to work cross-culturally and (c) opens up the possibility of relationship with billions of other English-speakers.

Not all work will fulfil (b) and (c), but it must at least do (a)!

Tasks and relationships in work

2010-10-22T07:30:00.000+11:00

Work involves a number of tasks and responsibilities, which means it is inevitably relational (even if this seems culturally weird). This flows out of God’s design for humanity:

Then God said, "Let us make humanity in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."(Genesis 1:26–28)

Notice that embedded within God’s words here are responsibilities for both task and relationship. Created in the image of a relational God (“Let us…”), humanity is relational. And together, humanity can perform the tasks God has set them, of ruling, being fruitful, multiplying, ruling, and taking care of the world. In Genesis 2, this relational aspect is magnified: Adam could not achieve these tasks by himself. In the midst of a “very good” creation (Genesis 1:31), it was “not good for Adam to be alone” (2:18). He requires “a helper” to carry out God’s commission — a person whom God soon provides. And God himself blesses them, giving them the ability to carry out what he has commanded.

In an individualistic culture consumed with self-promotion, where we might be nervous to help others lest the glory go to them, we need to hear again God’s insistence that we are dependent not only on him, but also on one another:

Two are better than one,
       because they have a good return for their work:
If one falls down,
       his friend can help him up.
       But pity the man who falls
       and has no one to help him up!
Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm.
       But how can one keep warm alone? (Ecclesiastes 4:9–12)

This is extracted from the material Tim Adeney and I are writing on work.

Practical theology for men?

2010-10-19T13:02:00.001+11:00

I subscribe to a number of blogs which talk about how to live for Jesus in the everyday details of life. They're all written by women.

Are there any men blogging about this stuff? If not, what does that say about us?

Laissez-faire helicoptering

2010-10-18T13:27:00.000+11:00

Lenore Skenazy was recently out in Australia promoting her book, Free-Range Kids. (She also has a blog.) She describes how we cotton-wool our children from the outside world.

This led to a discussion with friends: what is it that makes our culture simultaneously:

overly controlling about the supposed dangers of the outside world, which means we don't allow them to learn to take risks safely and assume responsibility for others, and;
overly relaxed about discipline?

Naïve supporters of broken ministries

2010-10-18T13:02:00.000+11:00

Every ministry reaches a crossroads—where at some point you have a growing number of critics pointing out serious problems in your ministry. Only a precious few of those ministries will believe strongly enough in their own need to self examine and self correct (and make restitution) to do the right thing that will ensure their survival as a HEALTHY ministry. The vast majority has the same corporate human nature that we individually do. They choose a misguided notion of self-preservation over self-examination and correction.

Thanks to Al, I read this post this morning at Practical Theology for Women. I stayed and read some more.

The first step is to admit you have a problem

2010-10-18T12:56:00.000+11:00

The main problem with the church planting strategy is that it’s still too nice.

If inadequate churches are the problem, then we should have the courage to name them. To speak the unspeakable and instead of speaking in safe generalities, and name names.

So says Andrew Katay. His solution is to help turn around those churches named as inadequate — or twenty of them, at least. Sounds like an admirable desire, and perhaps those twenty could provide models for the 80%–85% of Anglican parishes that are stagnant or going backwards.

Under God, anything's worth a try.

Stonemasons and bricklayers

2010-10-08T12:54:00.001+11:00

According to The Seven Cultures of Capitalism (125-127), the difference between the American and Japanese factory systems may be described as the difference between bricklayers and stonemasons.

Bricklayers have standardized skills: they have a framework laid out, and they slot the bricks into predetermined spaces. In an American business, then, you hire a worker with a specific skill to fit a predesigned job.

In contrast, stonemasons take irregular lumps of stone, then shape them to fit together harmoniously. Stones are not specialized, but can be shaped for various purposes. Japanese workers, then, are hired with a view to developing not just one specialty, but various potential skills.

This has implications for teamwork and problem-solving. In a ‘bricklaying’ team, you put your one specialized skill to work for the overall framework. You are valued in accordance with how you fulfil that function. If problems arise, a new blueprint is required, and probably new staff.

In a ‘stonemason’ team, however, workers are valued for their versatility and the different roles they can play. Problems can be solved within the team as they arise.

Al asked recently: what comes first, the ministry or the person? Perhaps the question to ask is, is our church designed more for bricklayers or stonemasons?

Welcoming: more than a Sunday hand-shake

2010-10-02T11:56:00.002+10:00

Some gregarious Christian friends observed that it had taken them about two years to feel socially integrated into their new church.

"If it's taken us two years, why would anyone who didn't know Jesus want to make the effort?" they asked.

Good question.

Investing in social architecture

2010-09-28T11:10:00.002+10:00

Churches seem to raise millions of dollars with relative ease when they need to create new buildings. I often wonder how much gets spent on improving social architecture. This TED talk won't tell you how to do it, but it'll show why structures and social networks are important if you're in the business of sharing love and ideas.

UPDATE: Sorry, changed the link — I got the wrong talk before :(

The apostrophe song

2010-09-27T15:40:00.000+10:00

I'm not a grammar snob. Really. I'm not going to correct you on grammar, punctuation, syntax, and the like. And I'd be happy to get rid of apostrophes if we had another way of maintaining clarity.

But I don't know of any alternatives, and the rules really aren't that hard. I promise. I hope this song helps.

What if we believed in word ministry?*

2010-09-21T14:30:00.000+10:00

What if we really believed that the word of God was powerful? What if we thought that when the Holy Spirit spoke, his living and active word were sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart? What if we spoke the truth to one another in love — the truth which accords with godliness? What if we let the word of Christ dwell in us richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in our hearts to God? What if we acted as if Scripture were for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness? What if we taught it diligently to our children, speaking of Jesus when we sit in our house, and when we walk by the way, and when we lie down, and when we rise? What if we exhorted one another every day, as long as it is called “today”, so that none of us were hardened by the deceitfulness of sin?

What if we thought Jesus spoke a word of hope to consumerists, to self-harmers, to careerists, to soccer mums, to drug addicts, to farmers, to prostitutes, to accountants, to depressed and grieving people, and to those who've bought the house of their dreams?

If I believed it, I think It'd change the way I lived. (And I'd have to learn how to speak such truth a whole lot better.)

It might just change our city, too.

*I'm not referring to preaching. For the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that good preaching happens. 0.5%–5% of people in our churches will be trained as specialists to give monologues of 20 mins–60 mins a week. I'm interested in the other 95% for the other 167 hours.

Admitting our emotions

2010-09-19T21:55:00.001+10:00

Thanks to Al, I've just read Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats. De Bono outlines six modes of thought (facts, emotions, positives, negatives, new/lateral thoughts, and big picture). A couple of times, he says that "all decisions are emotional in the end", which largely seems to map onto my experience.

What's brilliant, though, is that his red hat (for emotional thinking) can provide a kind of shelter for expressing emotion, without having to justify it in the moment.

I think we can often hide our emotions when discussing decision-making, perhaps because we believe that decisions should be rational (and hence emotions have no proper place there), or because we are unable to explain or justify our emotions (and hence are a little ashamed of them). Christians in particular can dress this up in pious language: "We're just going to pray about it"; "We need to take time and counsel on this", and so on.

I think we need to admit that emotions are an important factor in the way we make decisions. Of course, not all emotions are equal: sometimes we just have a hunch; sometimes we are angry because we are misinformed; sometimes we are conservative because we are fearful; sometimes we are over-eager because we are selfish or greedy. So airing how we feel can help the discussion along: it allows us to get further information (if we are misinformed or we need to check out our hunch); it makes it easier to be selfless (if our desires are trivial or unworthy), and so on.

If we don't express them, they'll go on directing our decisions, without the ability for us to be influenced by a concern for reason or other people's good.

Running an organization: tasks and relationships

2010-09-17T12:02:00.000+10:00

It is instructive to note that while 74 per cent of American managers saw a company as "performing tasks and functions" as its primary purpose, 71 per cent of Japanese managers saw "people with social relations working together". The first vision is of things organized by rules. The second is of a web or harmony of particular persons.

The Seven Cultures of Capitalism, 110

I'll post soon on why work is relational. But it's interesting to see how eccentric that view can be in our culture.

Eloïse 9–10 months

2010-09-16T22:22:00.000+10:00

It's been a big couple of months for Eloïse, with a first word ('dog'; her parents are addressed as 'chopped liver'), first steps, a third tooth, and a fair amount of sand eaten.

I've recently got an iPhone, so we've got more footage of her, which hopefully I'll cut together some time soon. Meanwhile, here are some photos.

Hierarchies

2010-09-16T17:27:00.001+10:00

When we speak of 'hierarchy', we tend to think of a top-down, directive, and even coldly bureaucratic subordination. But that is not the only way to order authority. We might imagine a family (with elders taking responsibility for the welfeare of youngers), or feudalism (where those in authority have authority over, but also family-style obligations to their subordinates).

The Seven Cultures of Capitalism (96-98) describes Japanese authority structures as organic. The flow of information is not simply from the top down. Juniors bring concrete data (say, from their experience at the coal-face of sales) to their managers, who harmonize the information into coherent visions. Thus subordinates are not merely those who implement others' decisions; they are vital parts of the decision-making process.

So where a US-style hierarchy might create a propositional strategy and impose it downwards ("Have I got a great new microprocessor for you!"), a Japanese-style hierarchy might create an appositional strategy ("What kind of microprocessors would you like us to make?")

If churches have adopted a top-down view of leadership, we might be able to learn something from more family-like or organic models. For example:

If we prefer formal ministries and paid ministry, we might end up imposing ministry structures from the top down, and then be frustrated that no one steps forward to fulfil the prescribed roles. A more organic view of ministry might lead to us resourcing people based on gifts and relationships;
Anecdotally (that is, as I’ve had discussions with both church members and church leaders about Groundwork training), there can sometimes be a gap between what church members think they need (e.g. help with work, marriage, and parenting) and what church leaders think they need (e.g. exegesis, biblical and systematic theology, evangelism);
Our evangelistic strategies can be very propositional. We start with what we want to tell people; we haven't always listened first, so that we know how to communicate the gospel in an apposite way, that is, in a way they can hear and understand it.

Sell your possessions

2010-09-13T17:14:00.000+10:00

"Sell your possessions, and give to the needy." (Luke 12:33)

Why don't we?