End of year fun at the Lavington Velodrome.
December 2011: and time for the annual senior race on junior bikes (clockwise, to spice it up), as well as snail race (winner is the last to cross the line).
Lavington velodrome
Leave a Reply
Monthly Archives: December 2011
Worship to the end
There’s plenty to say about worship. Like many others, I can’t stand the label worship leader applied to the person who leads singing. It’s as if ‘worship’ and ‘sing’ are identical in meaning, with no remainder. They’re not!
Consequently, I don’t bother reading the content of Worship Leader, Worship Leader Insights, or Worship the Rock. They start in the wrong direction, so what’s the point?
Among those who avoid the obvious mistake, there is much still not settled. Can we call church, or other Christian gathering, ‘worship’? What is worship? And while we’re here, what should we do in church anyway?
There’s one facet I have seen too little of in worship discussion. (That could be because I’ve looked in the wrong place, of course!) The missing factor: the difference between now and the end.
There is a very important similarity between what we experience now before Christ’s return, and what worshippers will experience forever after. Right now, Christians have come to the heavenly assembly (Hebrews 12:22-23). Most significant! Yet there is also difference, and this difference has practical implication.
Here’s an attempt to note some of the differences between now (before Jesus’ return) and then (after).
| Now | Then |
|---|---|
| edify | be like Christ |
| worship is solo or gathered | worship is gathered |
| gathering is partial and inconsistent | gathering is permanent and perfect |
Here are two ways this is important to us.
Some point out that ‘you don’t have to come to church for the purpose worship’ (for example, here). There’s a very important point in this: the reminder that every believer is always a worshipper. Yet I think it is unhelpful: it somewhat disconnects gathering from the purpose of honouring God.
After Jesus’ consummation of the kingdom, I’m convinced we will be gathered worshippers – and that the gathering is essential, not incidental. That is, integral to the eternal glory of God is the benefit of being brought together into his kingdom and family. In other words: eschatologically we are gathered for the purpose of worship. So, I believe, discussion of present-day church needs to make room for this truth.
A second area it’s important is deciding what we do when we gather now. To replace worship language, with all its abuses and confusion, I’ve seen ‘edification’ suggested as the right category. Note, this is not merely saying that we should edify one another – that’s given – but that edification encompasses all that local church is about.
My fear is that edification places present-day church too strongly in the present day, and not strongly enough in the day to come. Christians speak of living in the ‘now and not-yet’, simultaneously. This world and the world to come. I see edification as a task for this world and not the world to come. Who needs to be built after God finished his reconstruction task on us? Therefore, ‘edification’, I believe can only be a partial expression of the purpose of local church.
Now, perhaps I’m off on an irrelevant tangent. Possibly distracted by the flowers as I wander through the field of theological discussion. If so, please be patient with me! In which case also I can tell you the main point I’d like to make in this blog post: that worship discussions have not made enough of the now v. not yet reality.
What do you think?
Leadership: both weak and strong
A Pentecostal friend said to me, ‘Leadership is the problem, and leadership is the solution.’
He was speaking about church life, and he represents the current abundance of material out there on Christians and leading. As usual, I’m slow out of the blocks. Here’s an effort to make some contribution.
Here are a couple of common starting points for leadership development, and both are useful. Each also has a point of warning.
flickr user xianrendujia
Weakness?
Where do we fall down? What systems fail? What people skills are missing?
One way of growing in leadership is to ask questions like those above. The aim is to identify weaknesses, to redress problems, to correct error.
For instance, a leader might find out he’s poor at following up visitors – but that he can learn. Or a planning group can see that it has neglected youth ministry – but it’s not too late to start.
Advantage
This path to developing leadership is honest. It is not afraid of confronting personal or collective failure. It is not too proud to admit deficiency. Don’t we need leaders who are as honest as this! It’s always wonderfully refreshing when we give up pretended competency and finally ask for help. Such an admission is basic to being a Christian (‘Help me, God, for I cannot help myself’), so it should also be part of Christian leadership.
Disadvantage
This approach can, at times, place too much focus on the individual leader – or even a group of leaders – rather than on the whole body of Christ working together. God equips all to serve Christ. I don’t believe that means leaders need to possess ability in all areas.
Another problem here is that major effort to improve a relative weakness might stop a leader from growing in his or her strengths. It’s good to improve weaker areas, but better to improve in gifted areas. And, in my opinion, one of the toughest points of leadership is taking people away from the good and towards what’s better.
flickr user jimgoodwin
Strength!
What’s going well? Where is this leader specially gifted? What lead can our church uniquely provide to the local Christians?
Such questions seek to clarify strengths in order to build on them.
For example, a pastor might find encouragement in his continuing ministry to the grieving. Or there can be recognition of how good a job has been done in connecting with a local school community.
Advantage
The great part of this approach is that, at its best, it’s full of thanks. It says, ‘Look what good gifts the Father has given – let’s thank him by using the gifts.’
A further advantage is the move away from competitiveness. Looking at weakness usually needs comparison – we are weak in relation to that church – and comparison might lead to antagonism. The strength approach finds it easier to say, ‘Thank God for their kids’ club, and thank God for our nursing home ministry.’
Disadvantage
In this approach, leaders can become a bit molly-coddled: protected from criticism by a form of ego-stroking. This can lead to a leader’s self-identity being tightly tied to leadership tasks. (‘I am a great encourager, which shows I am a worthwhile person.’) A tight link between identity and job is always a danger in ministry – rather than knowing our identity is in Christ, Phil 1:21 – so we need be very careful when increasing the temptation!
In sum, both forms of leadership development are needed, I think, because Christian leaders are both weak and strong. What I’d like to ask you is this: what further advantages and disadvantages are there for each technique?
Let me do your thinking for you
Perhaps I could start a category called, ‘Odd stuff Christians do’. What I describe here would certainly be part of the list.
Christians keep thinking for other people. And it’s rude, so stop it!
Frequently I’ve heard explanations for action (or inaction) that are simply excuses. ‘If I were a visitor, I’d feel …’ ‘If a non-Christian were to receive this invitation, it would only offend.’ ‘I can’t speak to them, because they aren’t interested.’
All very nice, of course. (You’re right. I’m not using ‘nice’ to be complimentary.)
While cleaning out years of paper from the office, I came across a striking example. Ages ago, I attended a talk that clearly explained why Jesus is so important. The evening had good food and good music. The talk addressed the problem we have with God (our wrongdoing deserving God’s just judgement), as well as God’s amazing grace (God’s just judgement poured out on the cross offers forgiveness).
All in all, the talk was so good because it was not trying to be clever-clever. It simply spoke about problem and solution.
I found the comment cards, and the two complaints. Both Christian.
‘I felt that you gave fire and brimstone, if I was not a Christian I would have fled! God loves these people dearly and it is because of his love not anger that he sent his son.’
From my seat, I saw no mass exodus of guests. People hung around for ages afterwards. It was a great night.
The organisers obviously thought of others: tasty meal, well set-up room, entertainment, etc. The organisers arranged a guest speaker so those interested in Christianity could think for themselves.
I reckon Christians do better when we let people use their own minds, make their own decisions, and live like the adults they are. And it makes things simpler for Christians: because we don’t need to double-guess possible reactions and outcomes, we can concentrate on truth and love.
The real atheists, ii
Weeks ago I published part one of this mini-series. Here’s part two, the final part. Just to re-cap: part one showed the Bible’s claim that, apart from being Christian, we are all atheists. Atheism is not to be brushed off as irrlevant for Christians – it’s a category we should have great interest in, as well as compassion.
If all non-Christians are atheist (without God), that leaves one group to discuss: Christians. Guess what. Christians are atheist, too.
In the second century, a Christian philosopher called Justin wrote to the emperor (and a whole bunch of Roman addressees) to defend Christianity (‘those of all nations who are unjustly hated and wantonly abused, myself being one of them’). The text is here.
Justin mentions the existence of philosophers who taught atheism. Christians are not like these.
Justin then mentions the activity of evil demons who lead people on into wickedness. These were then called gods. Socrates himself decried such divinities, Justin claims. And Christians decry them as well.
in obedience to Him [Jesus], we not only deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of virtue.
The accusation then levelled at Christians: you are atheist. And Justin agrees.
Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.
‘Yes, we are atheists. Not in relation to the one true God – but concerning the abundance of false gods in this world.’
Atheism in practice, then, is not so much believing in no god. It’s not believing in my/our god. The whole world is atheistic, from someone’s point of view. Atheism is being an outsider in regard to core beliefs.
I’ll leave Justin to his appeal for fair and just treatment so I can make one final point. Christians will – should – be seen as atheists, because we do not follow the gods others follow. Any true Christian will hear some form of the following accusation of atheism: ‘You Christians just don’t believe what we believe, nor follow what we follow.’
We must, we Must, we MUST be progressive
Following journalism on the Labor Party’s same-sex marriage policy is an exercise in watching blindness.
Those purporting to be journalists are so enmeshed with the ‘progressive policy’ that they can see nothing else, nor appear to understand those with whom they disagree. And so they move from reporting to lobbying.
Here’s an example from today. It’s by The Age‘s national affairs correspondent, Katharine Murphy. She calls the push for policy change ‘the enlightenment’ – somewhat grandiose, no? She places all the opposition to the view under the convenient title of religion.
Image: Salvatore Vuono
Plenty of the disagreement comes from Christians, and other faiths. But it’s not unanimous within churches or other faiths. And not all criticism of same-sex marriage issues from believers. (The reality has been covered much better by the ABC’s religion page, with far more understanding of the shades of points of view. Check out this screen grab for a range of views in the titles. Well done to them!)
Murphy, in dissecting Julia Gillard’s view of same-sex marriage, looks (to me) to genuinely want to assume the best of the PM. That I can certainly commend. Here, however, Murphy twists into knots and effectively says, ‘I will be so generous to the PM that I will call her a hypocrite.’ Murphy’s words:
I’m going to give her [Gillard] the benefit of the doubt and believe she believes it [same-sex marriage] in any case.
Hmm. ‘I’d love the PM to be a lying hypocrite – much better than believing that marriage is between a man and a woman!’
There’s the whole gamut of accusation against those – like me – who continue to hold that marriage is a man-woman thing: ‘the sanctity of their prejudice’, anti ‘equality’, ‘state-sanctioned discrimination’, being against ‘fairness, consistency and decency’. It’s the usual heavy-handed stuff.
But Murphy can’t hide the fact that there is more nuance in this, despite her withering dismissals. She mentions that the Howard government held to man-woman marriage and allowed superannuation inheritance for gay couples. Don’t wait for her to note that this disproves the silly arguments of prejudice.
Unsurprisingly, I’m still convinced that the legislative description of marriage is useful for caring for people. Also that changing it will soften our collective resolve to persevere in (real) marriage. Such change will hurt many people, men and women, straight and gay, kids and adults. I’d long for Murphy to have engaged this real concern!
If the laws change, it won’t hurt me. It won’t be the end of the world – no one has argued that it’s that important. But it will hurt people, and therefore be unloving to our neighbours.
Cycling habits
I have particular habits when cycling, I have noticed. Here are three. Are they yours? Or are they odd?
Counting
I find myself counting pedal strokes. Sometimes by whole revolution, sometimes by half revolution. Usually to 20, then starting again. Almost always when suffering a tough bit of road (like this).
Leaf attack
If I see a fallen leaf on the road, I try to run it over with both front and back wheel. The double-crunch of a dead leaf is especially satisfying.
Pick the spot
When I hear a vehicle approaching me from behind, I try to pick the spot at which it will pass me – without looking! I explain it to myself as a safety exercise. Perhaps. It still seems a bit weird to me.
Those are my admissions. How much did you laugh/cringe? What are your equivalent secrets?