Tag: God

Don’t like the menu? Next church please


United now has just a 3-point margin with the next home game against Chelsea, second on the table with plenty of steam and luck. There are just 3 games left to play. It’s good to be in a dog fight of this nature at this time of the year.

“This time of the year” – it’s May already. A third of the year is gone. LifeGate, the new church, has started to settle into some rhythm. The merger was first broached officially at board level, maybe October/November 2009. In September 2010, members of both ICC and Oakley Cornerstone voted for the merger. We have been working since to work at the joints and put things together, always mindful that we are simply laying the groundwork to be prepared for whatever God wants to use this church for. We know it is to fulfil the Great Commission and to bring glory to His name. But exactly what the strategies and activities are towards that end – we’re still working on those, putting together the numerous pieces.

I’m still on the church Board. It is only a temporary Board. Its tenure is for no longer than 1 year. I hadn’t wanted a role in this capacity. I was going to do my studies quietly and be an ordinary but active church member. It was incumbent on me however, not to make things harder than they already must be for the pastor and his new team. People of similar maturity and seniority were turning down roles or at least indicating their desire to “step down”, such has been the bristling effect of the last days of ICC leadership. I could not say no without feeling I will be but adding to the challenges already facing pastor, perhaps thus aiding the enemy. So I said yes, thinking I can become that ordinary member after the tenure of the current board.

But being in the Board entails hard work and shouldering responsibilities. The work of spending time with people, thinking through and communicating issues, praying and seeking the Lord for direction, reading the Scriptures to be certain the church is not departing from its teachings, identifying concerns and needs of members and doing whatever possible to address them, attending long late meetings – all these are hard work.

The hardest challenge is recognising that no matter how hard one works and no matter how well intentioned the leaders may be, the church cannot meet every single need of every single member. But the comfort is in knowing that the church doesn’t have to. All it has been asked to do is to build each other up and it can do no more than lay the path for members to seek the Lord themselves. Each must discover how he or she is to serve, and all the leaders want is for members to show a commitment towards the church.

In the context of Australia, I am discovering the truth of the consumer approach to church meaning Christians who look to church as outlets peddling services. If a church offers something I can consume then I’d be there. The catchphrase is “for a season” – ie at a particular phase of my life, this church meets my needs, so I attend this church. This church provides goods and services suited to my needs for now, so I am there. I attend its services, contribute my time and least mentioned but often pertinent, my money also goes to this church. It is a consumer approach – as long as the products and services are those which suit me, it has my custom. The phrase “for a season” is often used by Christians who want to adopt the consumer approach and move on – albeit temporarily – to the “next outlet”. I accept some Christians uproot for more fundamental doctrinal or similar reasons but I believe moves for these reasons are far outnumbered by moves motivated by a consumer mentality.

To be fair a consumer approach to church attendance is not entirely wrong. After all, the church is there to meet the needs of its members – to help build each other up. The ugliness lies instead, in the lie which is based on this half application of the truth of building each other up. Building each other up is what the church is there for, but church attendance is not based on just it meeting my needs. It is also based on me building up the church so that it can meet the needs of others. In that sense it is more a co-operative than a consumer model.

I believe commitment is what makes it more a co-operative styled model as opposed to a consumer approach. A consumer approach means I am there to “consume” what the church has to offer. If the menu for the day is not what I am looking for I move on to the next outlet – “for a season” – which offers that which I need or want. This model cannot be an ongoing, sustainable one for church life because the building up entails a mutual edification which must work both ways. A relationship is a two-way traffic. The two-way traffic involves both giving and receiving by every member. Everyone gives. Everyone receives. The timing may vary – ie I may be a contributor today, this week, month or year but I may then be a recipient in the next cycle or at some point in my church life. Or, at any one time, I give more than I receive, or vice versa. It cannot be a case where I am looking only to contribute or receive and if I can’t do either I move to the next church and so on. That is a model which is contrary to the very essence of church.

Hopefully more on this at a later entry. For now, it is time to ruminate United’s chances. For this season – 🙂 – I had sought at the start, only to give my support as a life-long supporter, with no expectation of anything in return. It has already given me much more than I had expected. I didn’t like the team make up – the menu – but I stayed, as I have for so many years, and will continue to even long after Sir Alex decides to call it a day.

Regards,Ian

Sent from my iPhinity (and beyond)

Related Articles

Glory Glory? Not quite there… Yet


An Englishman, a Mexican and a Korean. When you have a common purpose, no differences matter.

United is now in the semi finals of the Champions Leage and FA Cup, and sits atop the domestic league with a 7 point cushion, albeit having played a game more than the team just below them. Not and for a team which isn’t quite the strongest huh?

In 99 we saw the great Dane retiring and the treble sewn up. In 2011 we have a great Dutchman in VDS retiring. Dare we dream another treble in the works? I must start a lookout for tickets to Wembley…

Related Articles

Church can be relevant and alive


There is a current stream of discussions concerning the decline of evangelicalism. A number of factors have brought the steady flow to a head. Recent missteps by prominent evangelical leaders, political leaders’ alignments with evangelical groups and the increasing disconnect of the twenty-something generation from evangelical churches have all conspired to paint a stodgy, out of touch and irrelevant and even hypocritical image of the evangelical church.

I have colleagues here in our very own Melbourne who when they start a family and want to return to church, look to orthodox churches instead of evangelical ones. These are couples in their late twenties to early thirties, educated and bright and have the world at their feet. They will soon be leaders of society. Young people in evangelical churches have also voiced their frustrations with too many instances of church leaders, pastors and teachers who don’t provide a good grasp of the bible and theology and have sought orthodoxy as a solution. So while the discussions may be taking place mainly in America, the experience and phenomenon that is the crossroads of evangelical churches is a real issue here in Australia too.

The evangelical churches of today are not attracting young people and the young who grew up in these churches are leaving – either for other (orthodox churches) or the church altogether. They would deny that they have left Christianity – they still profess the faith and still have deep connections with that part of their lives which seek to have a relationship with God, and it is the institution of the evangelical church which they are turning away from. One can convincingly argue that such apparent connection is flawed as a real relationship would compel fellowship thus church attendance but the disconnect experienced by this group is very real. They would probably want – long for – fellowship with other believers but would probably loathe association with any element of the institutional church.

One therefore is often confronted with groups of young people who don’t like anything which smells of large church. They would be happy to be meeting in small groups in homes or small school halls or anywhere informal. They don’t like the building, the boards, the governance structure, the legal and financial baggage, the governing theology, tradition and creeds and all the ensuing rules and regulations which come with this stodgy sounding components.

I think it is the duty of those who have been trained, not to discard these components but to unpack them in a way which is honest, vigorous, relevant and applicable to them. The gospel of the saving grace of God is and will always be relevant because it is real, it is necessary and it is entirely within the plan and purpose of God.

Related Articles

Preaching – Pole Position


When asked if he thought the contemporary evangelical Christian tends to have a lazy mind, John Stott said he agreed. He continues: I

t has been characteristic of much evangelicalism (but even more of Pentecostalism). There are notable exceptions, and thank God for them. I think we need to encourage each other in the proper use of the mind.

Preachers are still the key people; the church is always a reflection of the preaching it receives.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the low standards of Christian living throughout the world are due more than anything else to the low standards of Christian preaching and teaching.

If we can recover true expository preaching as being not only exegesis but an exposition and application of the Word of God, then congregations will learn it from us preachers and go and do the same thing themselves.

We need to help our congregations to grasp and use the hermeneutical principles that we are using ourselves. We need to be so careful in the development of our evangelical hermeneutic that the congregation says, “Yes, I see it. That is what the text means, and it couldn’t mean anything else.”

The worst kind of preaching allows people to say, “Well, I’m sorry, I don’t agree with you. I think you’re twisting the Scripture.”

Related Articles

More on Rob Bell


I was still mulling over whether to get Rob Bell‘s ‘Love Wins” on the Kindle, half thinking Paul’s ethos of becoming “all things to all men so that by all means some may be saved“. Maybe, from the perspective of reaching out to certain demographics, this book may turn out to be a gem. Yet, what is the gospel Paul’s ethos was directed at, and is this the same gospel “Love Wins” seeks to share?  I have read about half a dozen reviews on Amazon, scan through Witherington’s chapter-by-chapter response and I think it is a book I can ignore for now.

Incidentally, the following extract was from one of the Amazon reviews. I think this reviewer summed it up in funny way…

Several times he asks how can we be punished for the mistakes of a relatively short period of time (our life on earth) for all eternity? How can God be loving? How can God be fair? In answering, I’ll point out that the book makes no mention of Original Sin, and I believe that’s his undoing. When you short-change the significance the wholesale betrayal by our ancestors, then yeah, God’s judgement comes off badly. I describe Genesis 3 as spitting in the face of God, open defiance and shameless rebellion (shame followed soon enough) and anyone less merciful and loving and kind that God would simple snap his fingers, type control-z on his cosmic keyboard and undo the 6 days of Creation. No big deal, the Trinity was harmonious before Creation and we’ll be fine without those thankless twerps. Good thing I’m not God. No, God pursues us for bloody, harrowing centuries with steadfast love and his infinitely costly master plan to restore his creation to order.

Related Articles

Rob Bell – A Ear Tickler?


If you view this video by Rob Bell (sort of a promo to his book Love Wins) you’d probably be compelled to either buy his book and read it, or wonder all over again about the universalist view.

I’d just try and forget about it. I feel like I should read the book at some point but I’m also reminded of 2 Tim 4:3

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”

I’m sorry but isnt it true to form of a pastor of a mega church to initiate something like that and create all the facade of being communicative and engaging to the young people of today, instead of preaching the word in season and out of season – ie whether it is fashionable or otherwise – as the Scriptures command us to?

He may stir and make people ask questions but he is also bringing disrepute – not glory – to the name of the Lord, at least for now.

 

Related Articles

Sarcasm in theological academe


I can’t believe that having enjoyed myself in a deliciously instructive and educational treatise on the imminence of the Kingdom of God, Joel B Green et al (including I. H. Marshall no less) punctuated the discussion with this: “It is not therefore an exaggeration to say that sometimes the parables have a polemical tone in addition to their usage to illustrate the kingdom of God“. I would have thought: “like duh…” but it is nice to have an almost dead pan sarcasm in such work…

If only I could read on all night.

Related Articles

Malkuta di Elaha


That is the Aramaic phrase for “Kingdom of God“. If you know Malay, and bearing in mind Kingdom of God often imports threads of throne of God, doesnt this strike you an amazing web of connections that is language? It also beggars belief why the Malaysian government thinks Allah is an exclusively Islamic word.

Mahkuta di Elaga or malkut shemayim means Kingdom of God, emphasising God’s activity of reigning.

Related Articles

Second Experience? Hmmm


We have been doing a series on fundamental Christian beliefs in church and a couple of weeks ago we looked at the topic of the Holy Spirit. Unsurprisingly, the issue of a second experience (of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit I guess) came up, albeit cursorily. I was thinking about it when preparing some thoughts for cell discussion on Friday and continued thinking about it on the periphery. A short while ago I came across these statements:

1. The baptism with the Holy Spirit occurs the moment a person is saved. It is not the same experience as salvation but happens at the time of salvation. It is not a second experience following conversion.

2. God has given believers everything in Christ. When we are saved we are complete in Him. We lack nothing. There is nothing else for Him to give to us.

3. Nowhere are believers commanded to receive any second blessing that would give them power. All power is already available.

4. The power of the Holy Spirit working in a persons life is something that should be desired. Some who have legitimately experienced the Spirit’s power label the encounter as the baptism with the Holy Spirit whereas the Scripture calls this experience the filling of the Holy Spirit. previously mentioned, everything has been provided for us upon conversion. We only need to appropriate what God has already done for us.

I think I agree with these statements and am reasonably at peace with not having a second experience, although who is to limit God – He can show me otherwise.

 

In the meantime, I have to contend with the historicity of the Messianic Jesus seen through the incident of the Triumphant Entry…sigh indeed….

Related Articles

Infallibility and Inerrancy – The Chicago Statement


In catching up with MST work, I had to go through the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. This statement jumped out at me: “…the sequence of revealed messages ceased. Henceforth the Church was to live and know God by what He had already said, and said for all time”. This was in the exposition section at the end of the 19 Articles. It goes on to say this: “No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again“.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was signed in 1978 with signatories which include J.I. Packer, R. C. Sproul and the one I admired immensely, John Warwick Montgomery. In my still lay mind, I cannot find any reason not to subscribe to this statement – every one of the 19 Articles. I understand there may be some issues with autographic texts and the resulting implications but the exposition has addressed this too. It stated that th authority of the Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies which are available are not entirely error free.

Much work is needed still to get on top of this issue but I am very happy to start with this Statement.

Related Articles