Month: June 2012

Bookends of a lonely winter’s night – Messrs Heinz and Crane


I had baked beans for dinner last night. I haven’t done that for ages.

When I got home, I got changed and took the little noir wizard out for his walk. It was much drier and even balmy last night, so I had little trouble responding to the wild enthusiasm he showed when I got home.

The milder weather meant I was more prepared for him to take his time and I didn’t hurry him along. I was in my tracky, a really old jumper and polo inside and in my daggy walking shoes. When I got home, there was nothing in the fridge which tempted me and I didn’t want to change to go out. I couldn’t think of any place to go in my haute couture (I wasn’t in a mood for KFC or anything like that) so I settled for Heinz’ Meanz Beanz.

I sat in front of the tele, had a bowl of baked beans in one hand and the laptop on… well, the lap, as I checked emails and stuff, ate and watched highlights of the Euro 2012 games. I had added some sweet chili sauce to the beans so it didn’t go down too badly. When finished, I worked on my discussion notes for the Friday group (my real reason for staying in). I left the tv on and did three things alternately – read Packer’s book, typed some notes and watched George and company screaming at chef wannabes thrashing food in the kitchen of the Shangri-La in Sydney.

Shang thrashed, notes done and the wizard fed, I turned off the laptop, poured myself a glass of red and just watched tv some more. I was switching between Simon Reeve’s Indian Ocean green travelogue on SBS and the footy (league) on Nine. The Blues won in Sydney, the Greens didn’t in the Indian Ocean but the true champion was the glass of red in my hand, the second of which had me watch Frasier. It was the episode where Niles and Daphne finally fessed up – on the eve of the latter’s wedding. Poor Donnie. I had watched this episode a few times now but it was still funny. Daphne’s family (what was the name of the Aussie actor) was a riot. Ugly riot but still a riot.

Baked beans and reruns of Frasier – such is the lot of a man left alone at home on a winter’s night.

Related articles

Kevin DeYoung in CT – 10 Things


Kevin DeYoung|5:06 am CT

If We Believe All the Same Things, Why Do Our Churches Seem So Different?

Many Christians see the church world in black and white. You have liberals on one side–they are the bad guys who doubt the resurrection and don’t believe in the Bible. And on the other side you have the good guys who believe in the miracles, do not waver on the deity of Christ, and want lost people to be saved. We call these folks evangelicals or conservatives or Bible-believing Christians. Give them a checklist of doctrines and they will get almost everything right.

Liberalism is a problem, but squishy evangelicalism is the much bigger problem.

I do not write thinking that churches self-consciously in the tradition of Bushnell, Beecher, and Briggs will do an about face, or that those in the stream of process theology, liberation theology, or feminist theology will abandon ship. I may vehemently disagree with full-on liberalism, but I can respect that there is an ecclesiastical and intellectual tradition behind it.

The audience I have in mind are those Christians, pastors, and churches that continue to affirm the basic contours of evangelical faith. They’ve never read Fosdick or Tillich or Schleiermacher. They don’t read the Christian Century. They don’t know much about Deutero- or Trito-Isaiah and don’t really care to waste any more time with documentary hypotheses. They think Paul wrote Ephesians and John wrote John. They love Jesus and want other people to love Jesus. If you ask these Christians, pastors, or churches if hell is forever and people must be born again, they’ll say yes. If you ask them whether you can trust everything in the Bible, they wouldn’t dare say no. They have no problem with any of the historic creeds and confessions. The people and institutions I have in mind gladly affirm penal substitution, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and a real historical Fall. The folks I want to address are energetic about evangelism. They want to see churches planted and people come to Christ. They think small groups, accountability partners, and mission trips are excellent. And at least in private conversation they’ll tell you that homosexuality is not. These Christians, pastors, and churches are not liberal. They don’t seem like one of the bad guys.

The problem is they don’t seem like the good guys either.

Have you ever been talking to a pastor or someone from another church and it seems like you should be kindred spirits. The person you meet is obviously a warm-hearted, sincere Christian. They don’t have a problem with any of the doctrines you mention as precious to you and your church. They don’t affirm liberal positions on major theological questions. They nod vigorously when you talk about the Bible and prayer and church planting and the gospel. And yet, you can’t help but wonder if you are really on the same page. You try to check your heart and make sure it’s not pride or judgmentalism getting the best of you. That’s always possible. But no, the more you reflect on the conversation and think about your two churches (or two pastors or two ministries) you conclude there really is a difference.

And what is that difference?

That’s something I’ve thought a lot about over the past few months. I’m sure I don’t have all the answers, but here are ten things that distinguish between what I would call a vibrant, robust Bible-believing church and one that gets the statement of faith right but feels totally different.

1. The mission of the church has gotten sidetracked. Recently I stumbled upon the website for a church in my denomination. Judging from the information on the site I would say this church thinks of itself as evangelical, in the loose sense of the word. Their theology seems to be of the “mere Christianity” variety. But this is their stated missional aim: “[Our] Missions are designed to connect people and their resources with opportunities to respond to human need in the name of Jesus.” A church with this mission will be very different from one that aims to make disciples of all nations or exists to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples.

2. The church has become over-accommodating. I’m not thinking of all contextualization (of which there are some good kinds and some bad). I’m thinking of churches whose first instinct is to shape their methods (if not their message) to connect with a contemporary audience. And because of this dominant instinct, they avoid hard doctrines, cut themselves off from history and tradition, and lean toward pragmatism.

3. The gospel is assumed. While the right theology may be affirmed in theory, it rarely gets articulated. No one believes the wrong things, but they don’t believe much of anything. When pressed, they will quickly affirm the importance of Jesus’ death and resurrection, of penal substitution, of justification by faith alone, but their real passions are elsewhere. What really holds the church together is a shared conviction about creation care or homeschooling or soup kitchens or the local fire station.

4. There is no careful doctrinal delineation. Theology is not seen as the church’s outboard motor. It’s a nasty barnacle on the hull. You will quickly notice a difference in message and methods between the church whose operating principle is “doctrine divides” and the one that believes that doctrine leads to doxology.

5. The ministry of the word is diminished. While preaching may still be honored in theory, in many churches there is little confidence that paltry preaching is what ails the church and even less confidence that dynamic preaching is the proper prescription. No one wants to explicitly pooh-pooh preaching, teaching, or the ministry of the word, but when push comes to shove the real solutions are structural or stylistic. How often do those engaged in church revitalization begin by looking at the preaching of the word and the role the Bible plays in the practical outworking of the congregation’s ministry?

6. People are not called to repentance. It sounds so simple, and yet it is so easily forgotten. Pastors may call people to believe in Jesus or call people to serve the community, but unless they also call them repent of their sins the church’s ministry will lack real spiritual power. And this should not be done by merely encouraging people to be authentic about their brokenness. We must use strong biblical language in calling people to repent and calling them to Christ.

7. There is no example of carefully handling specific texts of Scripture. People will not trust the Bible as they should unless they see it regularly taught with detail and clarity. Churches may still espouse a high view of Scripture but without a diet of careful exposition they will not know how to study the Bible for themselves and will not be discerning when poor theology comes along.

8. There is no functioning ecclesiology. If you put two churches side by side with the same theology on paper, but one has a working ecclesiology and the other has a grab-bag of eclectic practices, you will see a startling difference. Careful shepherding, elder training, regenerate church membership, a functioning diaconate, purposeful congregational meetings–these are the things you may not know you’ve never had. But when you do, it’s a different kind of church.

9. There is an almost complete disregard for church discipline. If discipline is truly one of the three marks of the church, then many evangelical congregations are not true churches. All the best theology in the world won’t help your church or your denomination if you don’t guard against those who deny it. If we are to be faithful and eternally fruitful, we must warn against error, confront the spirit of the age, and discipline the impenitent.

10. The real problem is something other than sin and the real remedy is something other than a Savior. The best churches stay focused on the basics. And that means sin and salvation. Sadly, many churches–even if they affirm the right doctrine on paper–act and preach as if the biggest problem in the world is lack of education, or material poverty, or the declining morals in our country, or the threat of global warming. As a result we preach cultural improvement instead of Christ. We preach justice without Jesus. We lose sight that the biggest problem (though not the only problem) confronting the churchgoer every Sunday is that he is a sinner in need of a Savior.

If you read through this list and think you have everything down already, don’t be haughty. If we get all these right and are proud about it, we’ll rob ourselves and our churches of God’s blessing. But my prayer is that somewhere out there in the frozen tundra of the internet a pastor or a congregation or a church leader will read through these ten items and think, “You know, this may be what we’re missing.” The evangelical church needs depth where it is shallow, thoughtfulness where it is pragmatic, and conviction where it has become compromised. A casual adherence to a formal set of basic doctrines does not guarantee real unity and does not ensure genuine spiritual strength.

 

Winter Work


Tress left for Malaysia last Friday night. I got home and stayed up to watch the European championship match between Poland and Greece, with the little furry ball next to me. I didn’t get to bed till almost 3, and slept in the next day.

I only woke around 9, did the laundry, let the little noir jedi out, dropped off and picked up my shirts at the dry cleaner’s, did grocery shopping and then went to Myer for their stocktake sale. All I wanted to find was a suit jacket to replace one which picked up a tear on a sleeve. I found the one I was looking for but they all come with 2 pants. I didn’t want to end up with one suit jacket with 4 matching pants so I wandered around looking at all the wonderfully reduced prices of a huge range of items.

I ended up getting a coffee machine, which after all the discount, ended up being nearly half price. I was really happy with it and over the long weekend I made myself quite a few cups of really nice coffee. I washed the old coffee percolator and kept it away in a box.

On Sat night I went to a really nice restaurant with a few others. One of Tress’ friends had wanted to shout her to this place so it’s kind of sad she was away just as everyone else could make it. I had gone home after shopping, did some house cleaning and then went to this dinner in the city. When we got home I stayed up again for more football.

I slept in on Sunday morning, then went to a christening service in a catholic church in Doncaster. There was then a lunch at Canterbury and finally, I went to a couple’s home for a steamboat dinner. Then it was more football game.

Yesterday morning I stayed home, cooked brekky, watched a DVD and then went out for a bit to go someplace warmer. It had been so cold. It’s kind of a quiet way to have the last public holiday before a long period of continuous working, till Melbourne Cup comes around! I guess it’s time to really put my head down and just work…

Stuffed like never before


The trains, not yours truly. Today’s actually a better day in that I could actually get into the train and find a spot to stand, read and write. Most days all I could do is listen to something on the iPhone so I opt for something (usually) by Phillip Jensen or Stuart Townend. That way, a train stuffed like never before can be a good thing too…

20120607-175725.jpg

Voting – Going With the Tide


(Reposting, with the final two bullet points added)

· Thankfully, voting is not done very often in most churches. This is because the matters the church is principally concerned with have very little to do with the democratic process. When members of a church are asked to vote, it is often driven by extraneous and unusual (i.e. infrequent) reasons. Voting therefore cannot be a tool to communicate any principles or a medium to promote any characteristics. It does however provide an opportunity for members to engage each other in a manner which best reflects what a church is, which is the family of God.

· The church is called to be holy – “called out”/”separate” because God is holy. The manner in which a church seeks to use every opportunity to demonstrate its “separateness” or difference, will set itself up to live in obedience to the scriptures. We are asked to not conform to the world but be transformed by the renewal of our mind. It is a constant challenge to look at everything we do and ask ourselves if as a church, we ought to be choosing options which best reflects who and what the church is and demonstrate this difference.

· The process of identifying persons to serve as members of a church board varies and depends on factors which range from very fluid considerations (such as the state of relationships between members) to very objective ones such as legal and logistics requirements or considerations. In our church, we are required to elect our board members in a members’ meeting. This election requires every member to be given the opportunity to “personally” vote. There are no prescriptions beyond that.

· Hence as a board member I have a duty and discretion to consider the manner of electing board members. In so doing, I looked at the normal voting process adopted by (1) churches; (2) comparable organisations in terms of size and activities; and (3) generally for organisations which require election of board members. I also looked at what a church is and what it can do to best reflect the nature and characteristics of a church.

· Historically voting is by a show of hands. This convention has continued to this day. Companies, sporting and community clubs, associations and political parties all practice this method of voting. However, as this manner of voting is transparent, it is subject to threats and intimidation, coercion and such other elements where voters come under the undue influence of parties with an interest in the outcome which may not be shared by the voting members. To overcome such influence, secret ballot is often adopted. It allows voters to vote free of such undue influence. Secret ballots are particularly useful and effective in Australia at union elections, where the practice of undue influence abounds.

· There are pros and cons for either process. As a board member, I recognised that secret ballot provides members with greater confidence in expressing his or her choice. This however, comes at the cost of engagement by the voting member with the person being elected as well as with the general body of members. The Board considered the advantages of providing members with confidence of expression and the challenge of using an opportunity to facilitate an engagement which reflects what the church ought to be, i.e. a family where there is a genuine relationship and members seek to build each other up.

· In particular, I urged the Board to encourage members to put aside the comfort which secrecy provides, in exchange for a truthful engagement with the aim of building relationships. In some ways, this can be considered a step up in the sense that it challenges members to engage the candidate and other members at large, should his or her choice entail that.

· The Board recognises that a member faced with a show-of-hand form of voting, may vote in a manner which does not truthfully represent his or her choice. Such a member however, has a choice of either voting in a manner which avoids the issue (by voting contrary to his or her true intentions) or remaining true to his or her intention and proceeding to engage the candidate as to the reason for his or her choice.

· This may cause many other levels of interaction such as between the voting member and the candidate’s family or members close to that candidate. Such interaction however, can be a positive thing which ought to be encouraged. The alternative is to rely on the protection of secrecy and ridding the need for engagement. Just as importantly, a showing of hands also allows the candidate to approach the voting member to seek engagement with a view of correcting any flaws the candidate has but may not have seen for himself. It allows the member to share his or her view with the candidate in this regard. The secret ballot also denies the candidate this opportunity.

· In making preparation for the general meeting, the board considered the above matters and decided to adopt a show of hands as the form of voting. Unfortunately there wasn’t the opportunity for the above matters to be shared with the other leaders of the church, prior to the general meeting. This meant the very real challenge of open engagement as a core objective, was not presented to leaders to be shared with members, prior to the general meeting.

· At the general meeting, some members chose to exclude themselves from the voting process altogether. I do not know if this was because they did not like an open expression of their choice. A leader expressed her opinion in that general meeting that she didn’t agree with the process adopted.

· The board in reviewing the general meeting, felt that as a result of that opinion expressed in that general meeting, there was a need to respond to members generally. Following that meeting cell leaders were asked to invite feedback from cell members. This feedback extracted more opinions of preference for the secret ballot method. The board’s reason for adopting the show of hands method was never presented outside the board safe for some explanatory comments made in response to the leader’s question raised in that general meeting after the voting had taken place.

· In considering future general meetings, the board considered that it needed to have a concerted effort to communicate the reasons for its initial decision, in a manner which engages the members in general and the leadership team (including cell leaders) in particular. Absent this effort – for whatever reason – persisting with its decision would lead to the possibility of members (including leaders) becoming disengaged and even disenfranchised.

· Considering all of the above matters, the board decided to not persist with its initial decision. It would accordingly, recommend a secret ballot method of voting for the next general meeting.

Fun and Free Form Fog


I was making a little survey on policies adopted by different denominations in relation to marriage celebrants.

As expected, they all make the underlying assumption that a celebrant was to be a minister.

It really is the coherent, logical and dare I say theologically consistent thing to do. A marriage is a union of 2 persons, and it is in many ways, a spiritual union other than a physical one.

If we were to recognise God as the centre of such a union why would we allow a role created by the secular world that wants the form of a wedding ceremony but denies the authority of God by discarding the institutional form that represents him, to perform this function in place of one recognised as the representative authority?

I must be missing something here…

Weird While Wonderful Wedding Weekend


It was a weekend without a whole lot of time to do our usual things. There was a Sat morning teaching session on in church. We were late for that as there were the usual errand which had to be done in the morning. We ended up showing up just after 9.30 and the thing didn’t finish till just after 1pm.

Tress and I went to lunch after that then we had to pick up some stuff from Knox. I had my suit slightly torn on a sleeve and it costs too much for an “invisible repair” and I didn’t have too many suits to go around so we had gone to Knox on Thursday night to pick something out. Some alteration was required so we had it done and we had to go pick it up on Sat afternoon. We got home just after 4, and I took the little black jedi out for a longish walk. He missed and deserved it, after a few days of walks in the dark and pretty missed a couple of days too.

Yesterday after church we went to a wedding at the Glen Waverley police academy. The chapel was a beautiful place but the acoustics were very challenging and it was hard to make out what the celebrant and minister were saying. Coupled with my attempt to reconcile in my mind the idea of a lay celebrant officiating the wedding who is a member of the same church the couple are from, and the minister is also a minister of the same church but wasn’t officiating the wedding… it was a wedding unlike most I have attended.

Most of the weddings I have been to had the minister officiating. Some weddings I attended were those of non-Christians so a marriage celebrant officiated at those weddings. It was a bit weird to be at a Christian wedding where the couple and a large proportion of guests were from the same church, as were almost all of the people playing any sort of roles, but a lay person who was a licensed celebrant (he was licensed when the church did not have a minister) officiated whereas the minister merely gave a short message. There’re theological and practical issues emanating from this apparent laissez faire approach to solemnize a marriage but I guess it is just another side of the Aussie influence on the church – let’s just do what pleases us and what everyone’s happy with.

It was, that faux pas (to me) aside, great to see two young people who obviously love each other, are committed to each other and enjoy each other’s company, getting married. The dinner reception was very nice, with some very touching and beautiful speeches.

We got home just a touch after 10.30pm and shortly after that Tress and I got on the Skype with Kiddo and we chatted for a bit before deciding we absolutely had to go to bed. It was not the ideal way to spend Sunday night but it was great to have celebrated with friends and fellow believers and then chatting with Kiddo to finish up the weekend.