Be ABOUT Relationships

I came across this neat acronym in relation to ministry for young people (say, 15-25):

ABOUT

A = Acceptance: show it

B = Belonging: build it

O = Ownership: promote it

U = Understanding: foster it, and

T = Trust: anchors everything.

Now, apart from never liking the word 'ownership' in this context, I think it's a good guide.

"Ownership" might point to participatory engagement or responsibility for oneself in the fellowship group. This can take a lot of mentoring or discipling for young people in some cases, but a fine objective, particularly if the young person is a bit of a social outlier. 

If you are guiding an organization or group (i.e. having final responsibility for it) the meanings can be adjusted, such as:

A = Act to bring results (don't procrastinate, but don't rush)

B =  Build the team (keep developing -- discipling in a church context -- you work with)

O = Organize performance (define the mission, provide resources, equip the team)

U = Understand the job (know the objective, customers, competition, strategy and people)

T = Trust anchors effectiveness (never do anything to destroy trust).

Discussing God -- with an atheist

The term 'atheist' has wide usage these days. It can run from a doctrinaire and thoughtful person, to what I call the 'village atheist'. The person who has picked up a few quips that mostly stop most Christians in their tracks, but absent any real thought by them.

A younger Christian raised the discussion of dealing with such views.

It started with a comment on Social Media by a Christian who made a reference to 'God'. Some bright atheist, or para-atheist (the Village Atheist type) compared God in ontology to Harry Potter, the Fairy God Mother and the Easter Bunny.

How would you come back, presuming the person is interested in chatting, and not a "quip-dropper".

If they are a quip dropper, you might ask what they think about life, the world and any 'hereafter'. If they come back a 'materialist' or 'naturalist': naturalist meaning one who finds in 'nature' its own ontological basis, as distinct from one who is interested in 'nature' for its own sake.

For this person, a simple question might be: "How is anything a dust-bunny says worth anything more than the bunch of dust that says it?" 

But seriously, folks:

First question, of course

'Why do you think your comic-book trio is equivalent to, I presume you mean 'God' as viewed in the Judaeo-Christian tradition?

You might alternatively ask such probes as. What do you think people mean by 'God', or what do you really think about 'God' (with a hint of irony), 'what 'god-function' do you think your comic characters fulfil' or 'Christians hold that 'God' explains something about them and the world...what does your fairy story  trio explain?'

Next stop

'Let me guess, you think 'God' is a religious idea, and you don't take 'religion' seriously. Would that be correct?'

Answer is probably 'yes'. so

"Do you know what 'religion' is or the purpose it seeks to serve?"

Answer probably about 'crutch' to give the believer some sort of comfort in the face of life's vicissitudes.

I like Clouser's definition of religion: that which is independently real, or that represents what is independently real. He discusses it in his boon The Myth of Religious Neutrality. 

There's another way of thinking about religion generically, according to Westphal. He identifies three types of religion

Exilic: typified by Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Bhuddism. These have a godless, or ultimate impersonal monism that one gets absorbed into and becomes one with...but with no more self. It is identical to final annihilation. Here the real world of every day life is at base illusory.

Mimetic: typified by both ancient and modern paganism: earth worship, the ancient pantheons, and modern extremities of environmentalism. This world is also finally impersonal and has none but a mechanical connection with the individual. Modern scientism and dogmatic evolutionism sit here.

Either option means life is in practical terms dust! But no one lives this way...what has to be explained to take one into what is real, is personhood, the reality of moral judgements, that values are possible, than knowledge is real and persons have an ultimate connection with what is basically real: the personal self-existing and self-revealing communicating Creator, Yahweh 

The alternative is Covenental religions, of which there are two, but perhaps their heretical derivatives are also covenental, but I think are actually Mimetic in concept. The two are Judaism as the pre-cursor and Christianity as the fulfillment.

The result of Christianity is that it has real-world pay-offs: modern notions of human rights, education for all, equality before the law, the dignity of the individual, the meaning of justice and the very basis of modern material life: science, are true elements of the understanding of what is true. It underwrites knowledge as being instrumentally true, and, at the limit, ultimately true.

It also explains the disjunct between our experience of life and our ambitions in life, most prominently exhibited in 'suffering' and acts of evil, even within ourselves or are victims of. Whence evil? Cannot be answered in either Exilic or Mimetic religious frameworks. Both bring the insight of the earthworm to their contemplation.

Doing the talk

A small group from my church met today in our training centre to talk about talking about their faith to those outside the faith.

It was a short session on developing an approach to using normal language for the gospel.

It went well, but here's the astonishing thing:

I have been an active member of a Christian gathering in one place or another for over 40 years. In no church I've participated in across the four countries they've been in has anything similar been done!

All 'evangelical' churches, but evidently left the skill of personal gospel talk (1 Peter 3:15) to happenstance: so it mostly didn't happen, or it was up to the paid guy.

Now, a real evangelical church would be routinely helping people develop the skills and knowledge to communicate the gospel to their friends. So, I guess there are almost no truly evangelical churches! 

More thoughts on suffering and evil.

As I keep thinking on this, I'll keep on posting.

Here's a comment I recently made on a Capturing Christianity video:

1. The question of eternity. As an abstraction this means little to people, but your illustration brings it home. I've used a similar one. "It takes about 30 years to really get to know someone, your closest buddy (or your spouse). Let's say there are about a billion Christians ever, over all history taken together. So in the eternal New Creation, our first 30 billion years would be spent getting to know everyone. After that, I'm at a bit of a loss."

2. But on a more substantial note, I'm glad you brought in the effect of 'world-view', the conception of 'real reality' that a person holds.

Most people who seek to mount the misoantitheist argument (the argument from suffering/evil) do so from within their anti- or non-theist world view, or a world view that captures the 'god' into the cosmos, the domain of our life-world, to 'be nice' to us, cause we think we're worth it! Pride driven to the max.

But this is not Yahweh, the God who created, as you rightly point out.

This brings an utterly different conception of reality, and its frame of reference is given in the creation account: fundamentally, mankind is in God's image and so makes meaningful choices. The creation is man's domain (Genesis 1:26-28, 2:19-20a and Ps 115:16). Mankind has rejected fellowship with God (Genesis 3:17-19). Man will live for ever, either in fellowship with God facilitated by Christ and his gift of new life, or in enmity with him in rejection of Christ.

God in his desire for man to return to the joy of knowing God has not hidden our plight from us, but allowed us to be engulfed by it, but with many mercies of relief and ultimately in the greatest mercy: the option to turn to him in belief and repentance.

Suffering tells us the state of nature we are in, evil shows us who we, as mankind, really are. This is us!

They represent the siren of hope telling us that where we are is not right, it is not who we were made to be, and there's a way out. Like the fire alarm in an apartment tower.

In these terms, ponder Luke 13:4, Yeshua's answer to the 'problem of evil': repent!

Then I added an appendix:

Just another thought came to me as I was watching a marvelous lecture: "Shakespeare is civilisation" by Andrew Doyle on the Ideas Matter channel. He mentioned Shakespeare's way with words and, having just made the above comment, these lines sprang to mind, from Macbeth:

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,

Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,

To the last syllable of recorded time;

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools

The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!

**Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing**.

This is mankind confronted by its own limitations despite all effort that we might make. A great marker that we are incapable of resolving the very problem we seek to lay at God's feet: the problem of evil, or suffering, that has its apotheosis in death.

There is no resolution within our domain and by our effort. Nothing we can do staves it off and all our gestures, summarized neatly I think in Sartre's 'Being and Nothingness" are a nullity in our realm. This is all the power of mankind gives us: despair! It requires external intervention; and in Christ it is the creator who intervenes: the one rejected is the one who saves!

Did we make **this** 'god' in our image? I don't think so!

Couses of course

One can attend endless of those ceremonial speeches that are given at church gatherings -- you may know them as that performative art-piece 'the sermon'. You know, the 20-40 minutes of words you most likely forget as soon as you leave the auditorium in which it was given.

Well, the church I am part of has stepped past this massive error in Christian discipling ('education' or training or equipping) by conducting courses for those interested in upping their skills and/or knowledge in living the Christian live.

Here are the three courses on offer this term:

1. Telling your story: how to 'give one's  testimony'.

2. Reading through John's gospel with a friend using a specific app for shared reading, and

3. Running a 'Beyond Hope' session/s for your friends or neighbours.

All good starting points.

BUT

I'm more than a little concerned at (1), not having attended it yet. I may do a report on it in a few weeks time after I have.

Most 'testimonies' are boring, unless spectacular, like Paul's, or David Wood's, inevitably self-centred if not self-serving and irrelevant.

As one apologist points out, the 'testimony' the old-time mainstay of 'witnessing' is that it is personal, and in being personal, largely sending an inherent subjective message. What we do need to be able to do is give a reason for the hope within us. 1 Peter 3:15. Peter didn't say 'give a tesimony', now, did he?

So, far better if we 'workshopped' 1 Peter 3:15 the way we would give an account for the hope we have in Christ to our friends.

Like I've written before, one needs a set of three formats for this:

1. the 'elevator' pitch. A short, punchy couple of sentences.

2. the 'coffee chat'. A longer duration set of ideas that you can weave in to a chat, and

3. the 'dinner discussion'. Here you  prepare the sort of road map for a longer discussion, with a few of the obvious by-ways, shortcuts and diversions that might spring up.

All in 'everyman' language of course. Not a theological word amongst them.

My basic approach to "Why are you (a) Christian?" is to adopt Greg Koukl's approach crossed with Francis Schaeffer's.

Christianity gives the best explanation for the 'way things are' and for the resolution of the human dilemma.

This invites two questions:

1. "What do you mean/what is 'the way things are?' ", and,

A: we all have a sense that things are not the way they should be: they are 'broken' in some way...nothing is not only perfect, but most things are not at all good.

[This relates directly to the suffering we all see and experience, the frustrations of life and its misdirections ( 'fate' as some may call it). That it is not 'natural' to us as if it was, we would not detect it, it 'just is'. If someone takes this view, they are looking at life's dilemmas and disasters with blank, impassive non-comprehension, lying to themselves that it is of no matter.]

2. "What is/do you mean by 'the human dilemma?" Schaeffer calls it the manishness of man: that man is both noble, and cruel and life is both of great sadness and great joy.

A We all know that there's something wrong, we have shortcomings and endlessly do things we don't want to do, or wish we hadn't done, and the inverse, we don't do things we want to do. We live in a world of frustration, of evil, of suffering that we deeply rebel against. Why? 

Christianity also deals with this realistically, in terms of the real world we know in two ways: our humanity is real, and our despair is real.

Christianity is direct about our personhood, its significance and its reality: it is really real!

Every other construction of the world fails to do this. Maybe not overtly, but always at least implicitly. 

1. They regard the world, and/or the dilemma as illusory, or can only be resolved by denying our nature with final anonymous absorption into the impersonal divine (or in half-baked nostrums such as Buddha's). (Westphal's 'exilic' religions, e.g. Hinduism.)
2. They regard mankind as subservient to the world, continuous with it, it being a impersonal 'force' of some sort. (Westphal's 'mimetic' religions, e.g. Paganism, in modern and ancient forms.)
3. We are integrally continuous with the material world and can only truly be described materially; our human-ness being an abstracted, if not illusory subservient phenomenon on and derivative of the material reality. Modern doctrinaire and informal atheism and agnosticism of convenience rely on this, as does hedonism. Again, reality is at base impersonal.

None of these give humanity a true grounding that is consistent with our life-world and our being in this world. None can ground personhood as a basic constituent of reality and as true: we have true and valid experiences of the world which is truly there, we can make decisions that have real and substantial consequences for both us and (usually) others, and the world is truly there and is intelligible to us. We can produce knowledge that is true knowledge and can communicate it to others with congruent effect.

The grounding of personhood, and of our real reality is only in the description of creation in Genesis 1-3:8a. Personhood is significant, enduring and personal...as is our Creator.

All other conceptions of reality fail to grant the person 'connection' with reality. The person is either ultimately absorbed into 'the one' and de-personalized, ground into dust (materialism/evolution) or a pawn of fates/destiny (most pagan and neo-pagan vague conceptions).

It is only the Genesis description of Creation that gives mankind robust and enduring identity that is directly connected to and an echo of (in the image of) the self-existing creator. 

Bible School -- an Equip-meet curriculum.

New believers and young Christians need to be properly instructed, trained, about the Bible.

Let's see how we could do that in 10 monthly half day-evening sessions.

Before dinner is the first segment, with the second segment after dinner, and optional conversation following over Port and cigars (only kidding).

February

1. Old Testament overview and textual history

2. Old Testament archeology and historical context (this might include intertestamental period)

March

3. New Testament overview and textual history

4. New Testament archeology and historical context (this might include the early church)

April

5. Pentateuch/Torah

6. Concept of 'God' in the OT

May 

7. Synoptic Gospels

8. John's Gospel 

June

9. The Former Prophets

10. The Latter Prophets

July

11. Acts and Romans

12. 1 and 2 Corinthians

August

13. Pre-exilic Writings

14. Paul's shorter letters

September

15. Post-exilic Writings

16. General Epistles

October

 17. Revelation

18. Who is Christ--who is God? 

November 

19. How does Salvation work?

20. Basic Christian Questions (intro to basic apologetics, but this would be the ground work for a weekend seminar the following February) 

On the following Sundays' gatherings, participants could be invited to, in pairs, give their reflections/thoughts on the material they had on the prior Saturday. 

Who's next?

My local church has run into a problem.

The guy who organizes one of our ministries: teaching English to new migrants who have no English, has become too unwell to continue.

He randomly asked a couple of the more able teachers if they would take over his role jointly. Big surprise (to them and to him): they said no.

The organizer called this 'succession planning'.

I'd call it a panic.

This is how 'succession planing' really works.

Take my business example.

I had 9 direct reports managing a total of about 80 staff in professional services in a multi-billion dollar operation.

The one who was obviously most on-fire: competent, energetic, knowledgeable, insightful I spotted as soon as she started working in the division. I kept her close: asked advice, bounced ideas off her, shared the development of some projects...I even loaded her up a little with some of 'my' work. She thrived.

That was 4 years before I moved on. I moved on. She was able to step into my role (thanks KH). That's succession planning. It started 4 years before I needed to activate it.

There were two other staff who had potential. I started developing them immediately. For one younger woman I made the position of 'team leader' for a small group. She thought it was just 'window dressing'. I didn't push back on that idea with much energy, because it wasn't, and I subtly loaded her with more responsibility and gradually expanded her remit and the pressure she was under. Not heartlessly, but in a manner calculated to see her make decisions.

At one time I gave her an assignment and started to say..."Gisele, if you run into any dead-ends..." she cut me off with "I know, bring you solutions, not problems".

I replied: "Not at all, if there's a dead end, or you find a challenge that you are not sure on, drop in to my office and we can chat about it, then work out what the options might be". Never strand someone: help them grow, not sink.

Another staff member, Simon, was a 'quiet achiever'. Not that quiet, as always ready with a good idea or amusing but positive contribution. There we no slots for quick advancement for him, but I sent him on an Executive MBA program. His next step, in a couple of years,  was 'UP'.

So that's succession planning; it's long term development of people, bringing them into the decision-responsibility circle and supporting their growth.

It is not a 'knee-jerk'.

Knee-jerks never work. 

The atheist who has no belief!

Greg Koukl and Amy Hall have a great podcast on this topic.

The topic was dealing with an atheist who clams to have 'no (particular?) world view' 

 Ask for a response to this statement, there are only three possible answers:

    1. Affirm

    2. Deny (affirms that God does not exist)

    3. Neutral/withhold (God may or may not exist: so how do you test that position?)

The statement is: "God exists!"

They lack a belief in God, because they have a belief about God: that he doesn't exist. Thus they have no belief in his existence/in him.

What does lack of belief in God mean for any objective (or actually, any) morality.

Evolution cannot provide an objective morality, or any real morality of any type as an 'ought' cannot be derived from an 'is'. Hume's guillotine. 

World View:

1. Ask what they think a 'world view' is?

2. Ask what they think reality really is.

There are three obvious options: It is illusory (an exilic religious/world view, such as Hinduism); it is self-sustaining/existent (a mimetic or pagan religious/world view, such as materialism) or that there is an independent God who defines what is really real (a 'covenental' religious/world view, that could extend to include deism, but not theistic evolution, which is more like a mimetic view). 

The issue is how does an atheist explain 1. the evident coherence of the world and our existence in it, with the 2. obvious discontent that existence in the world produces.

A belief: a mental attitude by which one holds that something is so. They can be true or false. So a belief can be false, or true.

Knowledge is a subset of belief; indeed, a true justified belief. This has to be tested.

A collection of beliefs about what is, sums to a 'world-view'. The atheist claim to no particular belief or world view, seems to seek to avoid the burden of proof and dump it on the other side, without having to answer for their beliefs intellectually.

Another tack is to ask if the person believes the underpinning reality is basically material, or basically mind.

If material: how does material produce information: the chemically carried language that governs life. How would this be the basis for any transcendental function? Functions that dominate our mental life, for instance in our constant desire to set, pursue and achieve things of 'value'. Axiology: the final dilemma for the naturalist. 

  

Measuring church performance

I saw a podcast on this topic recently.

I suggest that mere numbers, or changes in numbers of attendees, or the size of the offertory, tells us little of value.

Here's what we might measure instead:

1. The Hebrews 5:11 test: how many of the congregation are able to teach?

2. How many people are the hired help training and coaching to teach?

3. How many people do the 'Talking the Talk' workshops, or whatever you call your workshops on how to deal with the common questions/challenges made to Christians.

 

This tells you about sustainable discipleship actually happening. You want the biggest number in point (3), the smaller number in (2) and the smallest at any time in (1). Long term sustainable spiritual growth.

My church is in real trouble. Here's what happens

1. What Paul calls for in 1 Corinthians 11-14 where we meet to edify each other, and different people contribute, has turned into a sermon show. No one can test their understanding or thoughts by asking questions, and having the answer discussed in the congregation.

2. Prayer is a rote performance, prepared beforehand and given by one person. We don't get to collectively undertake prayer for each other.

3. We think that the songs we should use to teach one another are 'worship'. But no one talks about discipling in true worship (Romans 12:1-2, James 1:27). In fact, there is no discipling, nothing that leads one to spiritual growth in the company and encouragement of older saints...but maybe there are no such 'older saints'. Songs of course have a function that's never mentioned, except by Paul: Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16.

4. There is nothing to teach new Christians. For instance, our Community College runs a class on the Bible (its called 'Ancient Texts in the Modern World) and while a bit liberal, it gives a really good overview of the structure, history and content of the Bible. We don't get that at our church.

5. No one seeks to develop our skills in speaking in public so we become more effective gospel-talkers. Only the paid performer does the speaking. Sure, he's trained, but his job should be to train and coach others.

6. It's all oldies who 'conduct' our gathering, which we call a 'service' as though we are in a pagan temple. No young people are being nurtured into the body life of our gathering.

7. The Lord's Supper has been reduced to a meaningless shot glass of grape juice and a crumb of cracker. I thought 'supper' was a meal. Like in Corinth, although Paul had to correct the selfish ones.

We really need to return to the practices of gatherings enjoined by the NT.

Suffering and evil: anything to do with us?

Answering the "problem of evil/suffering" charge made against the God who is love is often seen by Christians as a great difficulty.

How do we explain how the God who people understand to be 'all-powerful' (omnipotent), "all-loving" (omnibenevolent), and "all-knowing" (omniscient) can also allow we his creatures in his image to experience suffering and to do evil.

For a start, lets get rid of the philosophical terms, and stick with the Bible, the 'all' descriptions seem to place evaluative criteria over God, instead of seeking to understand the God who is: Yahweh. We end up with the 'god of the philosophers' instead of the living God.

So, there's a disjunct between what we would like, or think our experience indicates and the world as we would like it to be, or how we think God has or 'should have' arranged things...mainly for our comfort, it would seem. 

But why?

First, God created us for (a) meaningful fellowship with him, see Genesis 3:8a; and to take charge of the creation (Genesis 1:26ff...and I'm still puzzled about ruling over the fish!!). See also Psalm 115:16,

Then we, in Adam, rejected fellowship with God and sought to live in opposition to him; with that our stewardship crumbled.

Rather than destroy all, because God still had the objective of fellowship with us, he provided the resolution of this adversity in Christ: we can be in Christ renewed and restored to fellowship with God, and adopted into his family! But that's in the future, nevertheless, despite adversity in life, we are now in Christ, and our suffering is in that context.

Nevertheless, God in Christ meets us in that suffering: he meets us where we are and calls us to him. Our only sensible response is to believe him and turn to him in repentance. 

The basic answer to the 'problem' is Luke 13: repent! Sounds glib, but the reason for suffering is like the reason for a fire alarm in a high-rise: get out while you can. Without suffering the consequence of a world disconnected from its creator we would not know our plight.

Furthermore, one of the 'functions' of suffering (and evil) may be to tell us/show us who we actually are, inescapably! Someone said, it may have been Frankel, that the Nazi guards at death camps were ordinary people, just like us! (Or it might have been Solzhenitsyn, and different guards.) We should all remember, 'but for the grace of God go I' To put another complexion on that saying.

We are people full of pride, selfishness, greed...(Sermon on the Mount makes this clear, I think) who can't even manage their home: natural 'disasters' and are in the grip of death.

When we complain about suffering and evil, we seem to think it's nothing to do with us...but it is!

 

God has dealt with it...we just don't like the result and prefer to wonder why we have to experience the result of our meaningful choices when they are choices in repudiation of who God is. To live as though we are with God, while we are agin him, would deceive us that there are no cosmic effect of our choices; but our choices are truly meaningful, cosmically. 

Dust or Delight?

When we meet an atheist, or an aggressive agnostic (someone who doesn't claim that there is no god, but who claims they merely don't believe in god, seeking thereby to escape the obligation to defend their claim), it is easy to default to their world-view, which they insist is the true default. We are then left to defend when it is really their obligation.

There is no 'default' world-view.

They might claim that we 'worship' a 'sky-daddy'.

What has rarely occurred to them is that they worship a 'cosmic dust-bunny'. They, if materialist/naturalists, which most Western moderns are, hold that dust particles is the final reality. If they are more sophisticated they might say that either space or energy is the final reality, but similar questions apply. 

The trouble with this position, is that it brings nothing with it. As J. P. Moreland has put it:

Intellectually responsible naturalists cannot merely deny God’s existence. Additionally, they must provide an account of what ideas naturalists ought to hold regarding epistemological commitments, a broad creation story (the Grand Story) about how all entities have come-to-be, and a resulting ontology such that all entities can be located in the Grand Story as certified by naturalist epistemological commitments. 

Moreland, J. P.. 2023. A Critical Assessment of Shafer-Landau’s Ethical Non-Naturalism.

Religions 14: 546.

https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14040546

What does a 'minister' do?

A congregation  decides to employ a paid staff person. Let's call him or her 'the minister', even though we all always 'minister'.

Unfortunately in most congregations this role is regarded as a 'leadership' role, and not a service one.  

In a fully functional congregation however,  it is a service role to assist the elders as a sort of coach and skills builder for them and with them for the congregation at large.

Most are not, so we get a Hebrews 5:12 situation in too many congregations.

The minister is like the 'head' coach of a team. Not a player, but the one who equips, encourages, coaches and, of course, trains.

The main role would be the monthly equipping seminar/gathering. The "Equip-meet".

One way this could work, is every month, except perhaps December and January, and moved to avoid a clash with Easter an Equip-meet is held.

This might be a Saturday afternoon and evening, with a simple meal.

It could cover Bible topics, a book study overview, apologetics, church history, or other special themes, or specific skills like explaining your faith to typical questions, and so on. It would be programmed to allow people to come and go: perhaps there would be three separable sessions: early afternoon, after coffee, then after dinner...with discussion trailing off into the later evening perhaps.

Its format would be content segments (talks based on or springing from an article or book chapter that had been read beforehand), table-group or open discussion, or Q and A, and opportunities for participants to talk about what they have learnt. When people can put their lesson into their own language, they truly learn.

At other times this minister might help with teaching segments in youth ministry, coach and guide the people who do youth and children's ministry or are learning to do the 'teaching' segments. Hesh (he/she) might also help equip those with pastoral gifts to support newly weds, those with young children, those is difficult circumstances, and those who are becoming frail and dependent, etc.

He or she might also help coach those up and coming teachers/prophets to contribute in the gatherings and work with the elders to conduct coaching sessions with that group, also with supportive discussions so the elders can minister to the 'minister' and discuss the general health and organization of the congregation.

Next time your church wants to hire a minister...discuss this with them.

20 church actions

Points from a video by Matt Dabbs at Revolution of Ordinaries, a YouTube channel by a Churches of Christ minister, from what I can gather. But, I like the guy. He makes good sense in most cases.

 My comments.

00:16 - #1 - Biblical teaching without smoke machines

And this means: not a 'sermon'. Sermons aren't how we teach practices and how we truly learn and grow in true knowledge, knowledge we incorporate into our thinking world.

How we do this is by discussion. Discussion for learning-teaching is not a free for all: see Stephen Brookfield's work on this. It might start with pre-reading of a passage, not necessarily constrained by the chapter-verse coordinate system we have, and some pointed questions and cross references to consider. Then as a group we discuss. Then the teacher gives a summary talk to bring it all together, and Q and A following, perhaps while still seated, but with some refreshments. Maybe at tables, like a cafe or a banquet.

00:55 - #2 - Participatory worship

Of course, he means participatory gatherings. Worship is what we do all the time as our minds are transformed and we are caring for our brethren in need (Romans 12:1-2, James 1:27).

As per 1 Corinthians 11-14, each has something to contribute: more a 'round-table' discussion circle than a one-person lecture all facing the front. 

And our singing is to teach each other: Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16. 

01:24 - #3 - Preachers who know the people

He means teachers/prophets, of course. Yes, this is a thing of the gathering of the saints, not a dislocating rant or ceremonial address that has nothing to do with relationship. It is the members of the gathering who do the teaching/prophesying (encouraging biblical reminders).

01:48 - #4 - Holy Spirit back in charge

Our church needs to be prayerfully conscious of being in the hands of the Spirit. Church means the body of Christians together. Not merely the building we use to meet in or the times of meeting in that building.  

02:26 - #5 - Make Disciples

This marks the biggest failing of the entire Western church! We don't make disciples. We grab every new believer and shove them into a pew, perhaps having urged them to read the Bible, or given them a study book to work through; perhaps a couple of meetings with a counselor (I mean a mature Christian to encourage and teach, not a head-doctor).

Not enough. It should be at least a year of careful coaching and instruction, in groups if possible. This should cover the foundations: what the Bible is, its organization and textual history; biblical theology, basic church history, study of a gospel, Acts, a couple of shorter letters, Genesis, Job, and selected 'episodes' from other OT books. It should also include simple apologetics, such as the 7 basic questions and the 7 Muslim challenges.

Some instruction on basic heresies and heretical cults could also be important. 

Then, the new Christians should be drawn into the community with hospitable inclusion in the life of the church: being invited for a  simple meal or coffee in your home, go to movies, concerts together, etc.

Finally, they should be invited to participate in giving: volunteering in ministries they are suited to or interested in; talk about their 'journey' in the gathering or small group, and their reflections on their journey so far.

General on-going discipling is important, so people can become teachers where so gifted, conduct groups, organize functions or ministries, be trained in public speaking, and the pragmatic side of church life as well. 

03:36 - #6 - Plant churches

Carefully and wisely. Thorough research on the local area and support from the sending group.

05:02 - #7 - Make communion central

I don't think the early church had a 'ceremonial' or 'sacramental' communion. It was part of their 'love feast' or meal together. 

06:02 - #8 - Play together

Go out together, not in cliques, but in assorted groupings: to entertainments, picnics, conferences.

07:18 - #9 - Fasting

An inconvenient practice...that's why we need to get back to it. 

07:46 - #10 - More hearing the Bible

Not just snippets, but, in the right context, whole coherent passages. We also need to train and practice this craft so that its worth doing and worth listening to. 

08:48 - #11 - Healthy accountability

Sure, but not intrusive:always kind, supportive, in love, and seeking the others' (or mutual) growth. 

09:31 - #12 - Less clock, more connection

Besides, we need to have longer more varied gatherings. If your church has a building, turn it into a whole Sunday thing:

Classes in the morning

Morning tea

Large meeting for edification: 1 Cor 14.

Lunch together, maybe a talk and some discussion

Skills workshops

Casual chat-around (people come and go)

Supper

Evening gathering: sharing and singing, prayer. 

10:06 - #13 - Teach on sin

Avoid legalism and casuistry. Sin is 'anti-God', anti-love, pride in action. It is not of the New Creation.

10:31 - #14 - Spiritual community engagement

Connect with the local community, real connections, join local groups, be known as Christian, and genuinely interested in the group. Get involved in various relief efforts for local and distant disasters. 

Be seen on the street and in any fairs with community booths for organized stand-up evangelism; and don't be corny, be real. 

11:41 - #15 - Less programs, more training; training as the consistent theme of the gathering body.

As per #5 above. 

12:18 - #16 - Spiritual leadership

Expunge the modern usage of  'leadership'. Replace it with 'communityship', serving each other with one's gifts and skills and Philippians 2:1-17. 

12:53 - #17 - Kingdom vision and goals

Know that we are working to the New Creation in all that we do. But do it with careful thought based on real opportunities, needs, challenges and know the barriers to overcome.

13:18 - #18 - Privatize giving

All giving should be top-secret. 

14:06 - #19 - Engage community leaders

Connected with #14 above. Get your senior brethren (that is those with specific relevant responsibilities) to connect with civic authorities.

14:41 - #20 - Don't rely on "tech" 

Good pointers in the video: that is be personal, not 'automated' by web services. But in the fine detail, do technology well. 

Make sure any use of equipment, IT or otherwise is skilled and tested. Set up sound gear professionally (no tapping a microphone asking if it is 'on'. You should have done a sound check with the panel operator/producer before delivering). Have people trained and skilled as 'producers'.

Nevertheless, do your best to make your equipment serve, not lead. If you have no illustrations that add to a particular presentation, talk, speech, training session, don't use PowerPoint! 

Talking it up

A suggestion I made to our local public High School Religious Education teacher (funded by donations, but accepted by the school).

 The school exec. is reluctant to approve a lunchtime meeting of Christian pupils, as part of a network of such groups across the country.

I suggested this  course of action:

Would a visit from you and the chairman to the Exec for a 'get to know you/how are we doing here/how can we further contribute to the school community?' meeting help open the way for ISCF, perhaps?

We might add that our key objective is to give young people a life-grounding that is non-materialistic/consumerist, community oriented and focused on living for the benefit of others. This, we think would reinforce values that contribute to a positive school environment.

ISCF helps to advance this using time tested approaches (I mean here the whole approach to Christian formation), that include programs to build social capital through small group training in and practical development of leadership, relationship-building, and growth experiences in self-development.  (Supported in vacation house-party opportunities-if these still happen).

This type of framing approach might open some positive avenues.

 Note, that unlike most Christian approaches to secular groups, I've talked about 'benefits' to them, and not 'features' of Christian faith.

That is, I've used their language and conceptual framing, not ours.

I wonder how many such approaches by Christian groups think this way. 

What is your church doing to evangelize?

A friend asked me this recently.

The church I am part of has a number of corporate activities to connect with the community:

Special Religious Education at the local primary school. Although this could be developed by making positive connections (meetings, seminars, etc.) with parents and school staff.

We have youth activities weekly and at school holidays; mainly for the children of church families, but non-church friends are welcome and do come. The connection with external parents is, I fear, yet to be fully developed.

A community gym operates on weekends.

Classes for new speakers of English are offered. 

There are special community activities for elderly people: mid week gatherings with lunch monthly, exercise class twice a month, with lunch once a month, a bridge club.

I don't think any of these are really connected to 'next step' offerings to bring people close to knowing the Christian faith. 

Christmas and Easter include some community connections, but could be better developed.

OK. What's missing?

Person to person direct evangelism (with appropriate back up activities)

For instance we could have a stall at the monthly service club market, just of coffee and conversation; we'd have to charge for the coffee to avoid the ire of commercial operators.

We could do street work: a stall on the pavement, with council approval, of course, handing out leaflets, Bibles, having conversations. Here we'd need Bibles with adequate plain English introductions to books, and a real table of contents, not just a list of the contained books. A good index too.

Visits to nursing homes, hospitals, aged care homes? Maybe.

But people need skill here.

In another blog I'd described a teaching/training program for a local church. Now, that was ideal for a large church, but probably better done jointly with a group of churches. And maybe just one weekend session a year.

This would run for Saturday and Sunday with options in the afternoon. It would cover basic apologetics, Christian conversation approaches, and skills for 'positive evangelism' or street work. People who wanted to could get involved in active outreach with a mentoring program. This might include local door knocks as well for both evangelistic and pastoral needs.

10 tough questions for Christians

This is based on a video interview by Sean McDowell with Doug Groothuis

It deals with 10 prominent, supposedly 'tough' questions that Christians might be asked.

These are the time stamps for the source video with some notes after each.

1-- 0:57 - How can a loving and good God allow so much evil in the world?

The 'evil' in the world; let's call it suffering, tells us what we are like, beneath the veneer of self-righteousness, pride, convenient niceness, and basic selfishness. We can break through these from time to time, usually for short periods, or with an eye to 'duty', but look at the general suffering: Our world, and we can't mange it for universal benefit. Look at the evil that people do, in their simultaneous dignity and corruption: we are people. Evil? It's what people do.

Refer to Luke 13:4: our basic response to evil is to repent. Turn from the world we shape to the world to come and its king, Christ.

Also to Romans 7:14-25.

2-- 5:49 - How can a loving God send someone to hell?

People who repudiate life with God and love their life of alienation from him will not be forced to love God against their will; their will will be 'respected'. The Bible assures us that there is ample reason in the created world to know God. In our fallen vanity we avoid this knowledge. 

3-- 11:18 - Why is God so hidden? 

Only to the obdurate. He has shown himself firstly in the creation, then in Christ, and now, with those, in the church universal and its proclamation of saving hope. 

4-- 15:18 - What about those who have never heard (of God)?

God is just, so all will be dealt with justly. 

5-- 19:12 - If Christianity is true, why is there so much abuse and damage done through the church?

Christ came to save us from who we are, with the gradual transformation this brings; and to help others to see him...also see 1 and 3 above. 

6-- 21:30 - Isn't the cross an example of divine child abuse?

The cross is the culminating demonstration of God saving us. This started in Genesis 22 where, instead of child sacrifice (and Isaac was a 'youth') God provided and guaranteed the sacrifice. The token of God provides, and man cannot 'save' himself. In the Cross, God is the sacrifice. Jesus was God, creator, taken on human flesh and limitation. So, no! 

7-- 25:43 - Is Christianity racist since the Bible was used to promote and justify slavery?

You misunderstand chattel slavery with ancient indentured service one could enter to avoid penury and death.

See Exodus 21:16 and Deut. 24:7. 

8-- 30:38 - Is Christianity homophobic and hateful towards the LGBTQ community?

Leaving aside the tendentious elephant hurling of the terms, Christ came to save we sinners. He hates all sin because it degrades our creational humanity. Any person who turns to Christ is a broken person, but is on the path of recognition of that, seeking its repair in new life aligned with our creational origin. 

9-- 35:05 - Is Christianity at war with science?

Christianity, or rather the world-view of the Bible, framed in Genesis 1-3 shows why science is possible at all. It shows we are in a real world of which we can and are called to make sense. The real enmity is between the dehumanizing doctrines of materialistic naturalism and the various colours of humanism,

10-- 39:00 - Is Christianity sexist?

No. The church often as been as it apes the corrupt culture of the fallen world, but, Galatians 3:28 sets the scene for being 'in Christ'. 

Who are your leaders?

The favourite job in a Christian group is 'the Leader'. Apparently we need more of them. 'Leading' is the preferred skill.

Yet our Lord throws some cold water on this in Matthew 23:8-10:

But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your father, he who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for one is your leader, that is, Christ.

Hard to argue with.

Paul's view in the list of giftings seems to differ as well, from our modern hubris:

1 Corinthians 14:39 sets the record straight:

Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy.

There are plenty of other roles called for as well. Roles, not titles. Romans 12:6-8 covers it. But we have to be wary here, the word sometimes translated 'leads' is proistēmi.

It has a range of meanings: to be a protector or guardian, superintendent, to give aid, to care for, give attention to. Hardly the modern 'leader' which is acted out as the Greek 'archon'. Not a happy term in a gathering of Christians.

What should we do with 'titles' then? 

Here are a few that we can use:

• Moderator
• Organizer
• Convenor
• Coordinator
• Minister
• Worker
• Helper
• Assistant (that could be a quite high 'rank', come to think of it)
• Teacher
• Facilitator
• MC/Master of Ceremonies (for formal gatherings)
• President/Chairman (committees)
• Administrator
• Coach
• Counselor (as in Summer Camps)
• Speaker.

 But above all...let everything be done in love...do not be conformed to the world...

Son of Man?

As a younger Christian I was much puzzled by this term. Not helped by the poor Christian education provided by my church, of course.

One minister, RS, offered a suggestion that it had something to do with the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13; and this has some weight, I think.

Perhaps it was merely the human-like form of the vision, that attracted the title, but even here, it seems to denote something of greater significance, a sort of summative title.

The son is usually the inheritor, so what does the 'son of man' inherit?

I think it might be that, as the incarnate (to be, in Daniel) God...the Son, he inherits all that man as created was to be, pre-fall. He also, as the Lamb of God, inherits the consequence of the fall for man as created. This bears out both his conduct on earth pre-resurrection, but as the divine adopting human form, and his accepting the punishment given for sin (the repudiation of God-ness, and of God himself): death, despite him not meriting it. He accepted it to defeat it.

Also check out this video from the Bible Project. 

Not the words I use

In his article "Christian Apologetics" in Hooper's anthology: C. S. Lewis "God in the Dock", Lewis put his finger on the problem of communicating the gospel to non-churched people.

He listed words that have either no meaning, or a mistaken meaning to them:

Here's a selection. I've updated some of Lewis' explanations.

ATONEMENT

People have no idea what this means.

BEING

This may or may not be understood as 'person', as 'human being'. For example the Holy Spirit as a 'being' may not be understood as a person: a 'centre of consciousness'.

CATHOLIC

The Roman church, rather than the church universal.

CHARITY

An organization that helps people for no charge, instead of 'love in action'.

CHRISTIAN

A nice person, a person who is ordinarily 'moral' or 'nice'.

CHURCH

A building they'd never step inside, rather than a gathering of saints.

CREATIVE

Description of an artist, designer or sometimes writer or film-maker (photoplay maker: I like that older term).

CREATURE

An animal.

CRUCIFIXION, CROSS

A ceremonial religious emblem rather than an instrument of cruel torturous death.

DOGMA

Unreasoning and stubbornly held statement of opinion.

MORALITY

Being 'good', rather the general behaviour category of values.

PERSONAL

Applicable to oneself exclusively: my personal wardrobe, computer, equipment, tools.

PRIMITIVE

Not fully developed as in 'primitive man' uses sticks for weapons and stones for pillows.

SACRIFICE

Something you give up, usually at tolerable personal cost.

SAINT 

A super-spritual person, usually related to episcopal church usage for special religious people.

SPIRITUAL

Immaterial, usually related to aesthetics or emotions. 

The lesson? In talking to people outside your church circle, use common language that communicates meaningfully to your listener.

Get 'em in!

I came across this church website: St. Swithuns (sic), but not in England, In Oz. That may explain the odd spelling.

This is a 'brochure' type site, with info about the church programs, etc. OK as far as it goes, but just how far does it in fact go?

I clicked on Hope25, because this looked like something I should  know but clearly don't. That means its addressed to an 'in' crowd. 

OK, so its a special activity. I'll screen shot it because it will disappear after the event, I guess.

The special activity advertised these 'gripping' themes:

The Sermon Topics

11 May: Hope for the Despairing

18 May: Hope for the Stressed

25 May: Hope for the Lonely

1 June: Hope for the Ageing (that's all of us!)

We'd love to welcome you to any of these services. If you'd like a friendly church member to be looking out for you and/or sit beside you, please contact Andy on XXXXXXX or by email XXXXXX

Observations

1. The "sermon". This is 'in-talk'. What's a 'sermon' to most people? Either no clue, or a boring discourse on some irrelevant topic or a moralistic exhortation without an argued basis.
2. The topics are framed to attract people who self-identify as some sort of 'can't cope' loser. Or I may be wrong, a whole lot of people from the community will say to themselves, 'heck, I'm despairing after the recent elections, I'll toddle along'. Not.
3. If you need a 'dial-a-pal' we'll supply one.

It really seems to be an anti-advert. Framed for the weak-at-heart, and not for adults with serious challenging questions of our common lot.

I predict it will attract no new person along. It may even discourage a few of the regulars who don't want to be marked as 'despairing', 'stressed' (and not on top of it), 'lonely' (and therefore unpopular), or not able to deal with the inevitable aging.

The 'dial-a-friend' service would be about as attractive as admitting that one dates paid 'escorts'.

It also suggests that the church has no confidence in the capability of its doormen or ushers.

The topics themselves are real issues, but to attract those who might be interested, the titles have to be affirming and encouraging, not deprecating.

Perhaps less pointed language:

"The challenge of despair" our human lot.

"Success and its stresses"

"Alone again, naturally: we all go there sometimes." 

"Dynamic aging"

Not brilliant, I'd admit, but I'd call them 'themes' not 'sermon's, and include structured interviews with 'successful' people who would deal with the topics. And optional 'focus' groups to follow up.

Natural Theology: its place and purpose

For those who say NT is not a 'salvation' issue.

From Bray, 2012 God is Love: A Biblical and Systematic Theology, p., 27

"Natural theology has its importance and is taken seriously in the Bible,  but it is a preparation for the gospel and not a substitute for it. It gives people enough knowledge for people to be able to respond to the message of salvation, but not enough to work it out for themselves."

Emphasis, mine.

The days of Genesis do this by placing creation and God's direct action in the history that we are in and showing that God is close, active in history, communicative, and personal. And we are connected to him by his word.

Salvation by diagram

I found this neat diagram to explain salvation to the average Joe. Only I don't like it. Penal Substitution cuts no ice with me (or the NT, more importantly). Nowhere is Christ 'punished' for our sins in a pen-sub manner. He takes the punishment that we are under, he even takes our sin. But he is not punished for it, he conquers it.

So, I redraw the otherwise excellent diagram

Chosen?

I commented to a post on FreeGrace blog on Ephesians 1:

You wrote: "Verses 4-6 expound on how the Father is involved in the church’s salvation: He chose us."

They DO NOT. This passage is not about salvation, but about  the blessings from God by our position as saints based on our being 'in Christ'. This phrase or its analogue 'in him' is the drum-beat of the first chapter, and they are all showing that our blessings revolved around our being 'in him'.

The passage is about Christ not about us. It is about us, being regenerated we are 'in Christ' for the purpose that we would be holy and blameless being in him.

Correspondingly, we are not predestined for salvation, but being saved we have a destination previously set by God for those who would be in Christ: adoption as sons!

 Incidentally, if we are talking about salvation, the order of salvation is set out in 1:13, 14:

In him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

See the order: Listened--Believed--Sealed (regenerated).

We could set it out thus:

    "In him, you also, after

    listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also

    believed, you were

    sealed in him with the Holy Spirit of promise, ¹⁴ who is given as a pledge of our inheritance,

[For?]

    with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory."

 

Train, educate, or get out of the way!

Great video. I was one of those arrogant Calvinists! Happily no longer, so I know the feeling you are talking about.

What started me on the Calvinist path, many decades ago, was a Bible study group that an old (but not that close) friend invited me to join. In my church I was demographically and intellectually isolated. My friend's group was people of my age and all university qualified. Even here, though, the Calvinism was trickled. Firstly by recommending books (the tedious Puritans), and finally a Bible college where I did some summer courses and made some friends, including with the principal and his son. But what distinguished this church to mine was an emphasis on knowledge, on reading theology and 'pious' conversations about what we read.

My church was intellectually  barren. One deacon in discussion vowed to read the italics in his Bible with due emphasis, not being aware that italicized words were translators' additions. An elder, when I asked about a Schaeffer book, told me it had 'too many big words' (it didn't). In this church I was given youth teaching and 'leading' roles for which I was unequipped and given no training. In fact, no one was trained for anything. This intellectual (knowledge) vacuum made me ripe for not only Calvinism, but would have made me ripe for any cult that promised knowledge of the Bible. It also rendered me useless for the roles given. Note, this was way before the Internet age and resources were hard to find and expensive...and I was not even aware that they might exist.

Here's what I now would expect for all new Christians, or Christians from the age of, say 16: a one year course of maybe fortnightly sessions during school terms on Bible basics, an outline of church history, and a thorough grounding in soteriology, if not Christology at the appropriate level. It might also include 'workshops' on the basic questions Christians get asked. A couple of weekend 'consolidation' conferences could be added in.

Similar, but shorter courses should have been available, perhaps at the denominational/conference level on Sunday School teaching and youth ministry. These being ubiquitous and constant needs in 'volunteer' ministry.

The fact that most churches rely on either a weekly 'talk' (aka the sermon) and other forms of osmotic learning is a real derogation of the duty of the church to make disciples. Our biggest effort should be training to 'make disciples' rather than no training, which makes for ineffectiveness or complete passivity.

How you say it.

My church has started some well thought-out training seminars, brief, but targeted, to help people fine-tune their skills in talking about our faith.

The announcement at this morning's assembly was along the lines of: "we are having a training session for people who are not so confident in communicating the gospel. Please put your hand up if you are planning to attend."

Three people did.

I made the observation to the convenor that no one is going to nominate themselves as lacking confidence. I suggested that playing to people's presumed strengths would be better.

Something like: "We are holding some short seminars to help people fine-tune their skills in gospel conversations. If you could contribute your experience and attend that would be wonderful."

This presumes expertise and experience from the get go, rather than presume a deficiency. Anyone who nominated to attend would feel like they were experts giving a hand and not gormless newbies, lazy for the gospel.

Chance and Necessity?

In a useful article on Wikipedia, this is written about Jack Monod's 'Chance and Necessity':

Chance and Necessity: Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology (French: Le Hasard et la Nécessité: Essai sur la philosophie naturelle de la biologie moderne) is a 1970 book by Nobel Prize winner Jacques Monod. Aimed at a general audience, the book describes the basic characteristics of life, reviews findings of modern biochemistry and molecular biology, and argues that life arose by blind chance guided by natural selection, could not have been predicted, and does not have a higher purpose.

It may seem odd, but Isaiah also writes about Chance and Necessity:

But you who forsake the Lord,
Who forget My holy mountain,
Who set a table for Fortune,
And who fill cups with mixed wine for Destiny

                                                             Isaiah 65:11

Now, let's look at some words.

The word translated 'Fortune' in Isaiah is 'Gad', a Babylonian deity, the 'god' of 'fortune'.

'Destiny' in the passage translates 'Meni', the Babylonian 'god' of 'fate'.

Israel forsook Yahweh (the great I AM) for Babylonian imposter gods: demons, perhaps.

Today, modern materialistic naturalism adds a third 'god' Cronus, or Chronos: 'time'. But rather than Chronos representing the destructive ravages of time (see for corroboration Romans 8:18-24, where the creation is subject to corruption and, by implication the ravages of time), it produces benefits!

Here's the connection: modern evolutionary speculation couples 'chance' and a form of 'necessity'* over time; but the great deceit is that here time, instead of  exerting its ravages, does the very reverse and brings about increasingly capable and sophisticated organisms, culminating (so far?) in mankind.

This perhaps represents the greatest vanity: a deceit that instead of time diminishing us (we all die) it paradoxically is the engine of idealist benefit. No 'one' benefits, but things are asserted to get better*. This inverts the ancient's recognition of the true effect of time on events and substitutes a deceit that time makes for the better, denying Sanford's 'genetic entropy', an observable decline to genetic catastrophe.

Now do you understand the parlous implications of Darwinian Evolution? 

Many thanks to M for his insight into this passage in Isaiah.

*Darwin's ideas were congruent with Victorian optimism that saw things inevitably getting better. He mistook the additive growth of knowledge, in line with mankind's imageness of God, with some form of ontological 'progress'. Thus I call his idea a 'mid-Victorian gross-morphology pipe-dream'.