Monthly Archives: September 2012

Church is like a flag

2 Replies

It’s not news to tell you that, as a minister, I think about church.

Some thought is theological (what does God say about church?). Some is social or cultural (what does church look like in Australia?, what do my neighbours think when they hear ‘church’?). And some is pragmatic (what should we do this Sunday?, how can we better help our leaders do what they do?). These categories overlap, of course, but it helps to know about the different angles or perspectives we can take.

This is a pragmatic post about church: I suggest a way to think about what church does.

My suggestion: we should think that a church service is like a flag. Specifically, a military flag, a battle standard.

(If you click on the image, you can buy your own modern reproduction of a Roman standard. Perhaps every church should have one. No – I’m not spruiking for them!)

As an admitted military innocent, allow me to consider the use of a flag on the battle field.

A flag doesn’t really do anything. It’s not a weapon (except in desperation?). It issues no orders. It does not analyse the ebb and flow of battle. It provides no materiel. It fails to function as a medic. But it does reduce your fighting force – a bloke has to carry it about.

For all that, the military standard appears important. It does not flight, but those who do fight co-ordinate themselves around it. The flag stands central to the battlefield, defining what the war is. Its appearance is a message of motivation: this is who we are, and this is also why we fight. If the flag-bearer falls, it’s imperative that someone else take his place.

Without the flag, soldiers risk being scattered about the field. They can end up expending heaps of energy but to no good purpose. And remember, war is dangerous. It’s cruel to ask people to risk hurt without purpose.

And church?

Church doesn’t really do anything, either. Except exist as church. It sometimes looks like nothing more than a bunch of people gathering repeatedly out of habit. There’s a sameness about church – just as there should be (after all, the theology of church hasn’t changed since the first century AD).

Church does not have a profit motive, like a company board of directors. Church does not aim to win a premiership, like a training squad. It does not even seem to be as useful as other Christian group activity: going door-knocking; visiting the sick; establishing an orphanage.

But for all that, I am convinced that without church Christians would do nothing. Church is a central signal of who we are are whom we follow. Church is necessary, encouraging, motivating, challenging, painful, joyful. The people of God should love the church God has given us.

Who is it that hates church? It is those who hate the military standard on the field of battle: the enemy. I must ask God for strength not to become a traitor to the flag of Christ’s people, the church of which Christ is the head.

 


 

The Slippery Slope

Leave a Reply

The trouble with the slippery slope argument is that it is sometimes true.

Sometimes. True.

There are times when one smaller step leads to a larger step. We can become desensitised to crude language, or casual mockery of the opposite sex. And it then we do these things in increasing measure.

  • Because sometimes true, we cannot brush aside the slippery slope argument.

Yet there are times when this argument does not apply. Plenty of people know how to enjoy a beer without falling into drunkenness. We know how to befriend someone without personal compromise, even with profound disagreement regarding God, politics, family life, etc.

  • Because sometimes true, we must be wary of applying this argument to every situation.

 


 

Jesus’ words on in-group bias

Leave a Reply

In-group and out-group are not part of my everyday conversation. Yet I keep seeing these terms. They were in my relaxing cycling reading. We can find scholarly papers on the topic. And it’s such a simple idea that, once implanted in the mind, it’s easy to think of examples all other the place.

Here’s a definition: in-group bias is the simple tendency to favour one’s own group.

Which group? Any group!

Some groups are arbitrary (I follow the Tigers while you follow the Panthers). Some are intrinsic (sex, skin colour, disability, etc). Some are fluid (at different times, an individual can participate in both sides of ‘pedestrian versus car driver’). The behaviour that accompanies in-group bias can be awful. A famous illustration is the movie Blue Eyed, in which groups are formed on the basis of eye colour. A simple idea – the subsequent behaviour is disturbing to all, participant and viewer.

And so to religion. Faith commitment is a prime candidate for in-group bias and all the ugliness that can follow. What about Northern Ireland? What about last week’s Muslim protests against an internet video? Is violence inevitable, or can we find a solution?

Love Your EnemyHere are three solutions frequently suggested. One religious and useless. One non-religious and handy. And a final religious but effective solution.

Solution: ‘there are no groups’
This religious solution honestly names the hatred that in-groups (‘us’) can generate against out-groups (‘them’). The solution is a form of ‘all religions are the same’. That is, we are all the same group – there is no out-group. A sweet idea, but foolish. It cannot be that God both exists and does not exist (theism versus atheism). It cannot be that Jesus both died for sin on the cross and did not die on the cross (Christianity versus Islam). It’s no solution to ignore reality, logic or history.

Solution: understanding
This psychology page not only discusses in-group bias, but also finishes with five ‘suggestions for tearing down some of those real and virtual fences’. They are all good mental and socials skills to practise: understand the other, put yourself in their shoes, be confident in yourself, etc. Useful stuff, but limited. The limit is that, while it admits difference, it has no power to break through the dangerous boundaries that form.

Solution: Jesus’ way
Jesus knew of the out-group. He called on his disciples to obsess on the out-group. By itself, that sounds dangerous. ‘Obsess on the outsider? OK, that way we can smash them!’ Not so for Jesus. He said:

“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”
Luke 6:27-29, 35-36

Look at all the bold outsider language Jesus uses. The reason for the obsession: to show love and bear a cost with no expectation of benefit. This is the way of God – ‘he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil’ – therefore this is the way of God’s children.

This is a stunning solution, for it is the solution God himself completed. God saves his enemies (Romans 5:10). God broke through real barriers to establish real relationship. To be committed to Jesus is to benefit from this love, and therefore to learn how to practise this love. Jesus’ way has honesty (there are groups) and power (God can unite those who hate each other).

For every disciple of Jesus: what a joy!, and what a challenge!

 


 

Quick review: pastors in the classics

Leave a Reply

Pastors in the Classics is a book about books. Specifically it concerns fiction works that include a pastor or minister as a major character. The authors are interested in what kinds of pastors, and what kinds of pastoral experience, are presented.

There are two major sections. Each of these two are, essentially, a list of books with some comment. Part 1 lists only a dozen books, with extended summaries and reflection, and a series of questions for discussion. Part 2 lists a further 58 novels, with quick precis and reflection.

Reading Pastors in the Classics gives a good sense of how Christianity and Christian ministers are perceived and portrayed. There are cultural stereotypes of pastors and preachers: devoted to service; unworldly; hypocritical; weak yet manipulative; drunkards; sex-obsessed; unmotivated; etc. The novels represented here are likely to be the reason these stereotypes persist (not forgetting, of course, that even clichés have basis in truth!).

Don’t read this book if you dislike plot spoilers. The authors state their assumption that we will have read the relevant novel first (I didn’t, and have only read two of the 12 featured works).

The list of works could provide a great basis for a Christian reading group. Even better, for a reading group of people doing ministry (paid or not) in order to reflect on life and ministry today. You could use the discussion questions from Part 1. Or, if you don’t want to read a book about reading books, you could just work through the list at your own pace.

If you are interested in this latter idea, here are the 12 ‘Masterworks of Clerical Literature’: The Canterbury Tales (Geoffrey Chaucer); The Scarlet Letter (Nathaniel Hawthorne); The Warden (Anthony Trollope); Elmer Gantry (Sinclair Lewis); Witch Wood (John Buchan); Murder in the Cathedral (T.S. Eliot); The Diary of a Country Priest (Georges Bernanos); The Power and the Glory (Graham Greene); The Hammer of God (Bo Giertz); Cry, the Beloved Country (Alan Paton); Silence (Shusako Endo); Gilead (Marilynne Robinson).

I read the Kindle edition of Pastors in the Classics.

 


 

FIEC annual conference 2012

Leave a Reply

In the last few days the family and I have been at the annual conference of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (www.fiec.org.au). Along the way, I jotted down some notes. These are not minutes or comprehensive, just some gleanings from all that we heard.

image

There was a reminder: any and every church or Christian ministry has the basic human need as its basis. This need and problem is not sin, but the wrath of God which all sinners deservedly face. ‘But now, the righteousness of God has been revealed … in Jesus Christ whom God presented as a propitiation’ (Romans 3:21-26).

How could we in FIEC ever be content with so many people unaware of and uninterested in the gospel that offers free and just forgiveness?

One topic central to the conference was the nature of church.

Part of thinking about church is perceiving how Christians and churches are viewed in Australia. There was a suggestion that Christians now viewed in a new way in Australia: not simply wrong, but evil. I’d not heard that before. Do you think it’s true?

Within church circles, evangelical Christians are accused of having no doctrine of church (or ecclesiology). And also accused of being too congregational. It cannot be both, surely. Underlying this criticism, really, is a different view of church.

To do church well, including planting new churches, we do need to be sure of what Bible says about church. We should also be aware current ways the English word brings many non-biblical meanings. We might be the ones who need to admit a need to change.

For the specific doctrine of church, we benefit immensely with reminders of God’s big plan. Obviously, God’s overarching plan encompasses all other plans, including church ones. God’s plan: uniting all things under Christ (Eph 1:10). In this we certainly see individuals saved. Yet more commonly the Bible explains this as church formation. God brings peace for one new humanity (Eph 2:14-16). Jesus has everything under his get for the sake of his headship over the church (Eph 1:22).

Since all true unity is gospel unity, a number of consequences follow. We need to ensure, for example, that the structure of church never trumps the gospel. We must be wary of loyalty to the FIEC, for instance. As long as FIEC exists, we should aim to be characterised by discussion of and contention for the gospel (much more than discussion of and contention for a structure!).

There was more, of course. I hope these snippets give some sense of the conference.

What now? Firstly: I have many ideas to share with folk at church with the aim of growing what we do in Albury. Secondly: I encourage anyone who wants to find out about the FIEC to get to the annual conference (and that includes the Albury leaders – not naming names …).

 


 

Church options in Corinth

Leave a Reply

When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, he highlighted many decisions they had made. Made badly! They frequently chose the wrong option. even when there only two choices. Paul urged the church to ask themselves, ‘Now which way will we go?’ Here are some of the pairs.

(All quotations from the English Standard Version. Verse reference included in brackets.)

World’s power – God’s power
Paul preached the weak and shameful message of the cross. ‘Christ died’ unveils the power of God. The world’s idea power does not include a king submitting to a humiliating and cursed execution.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
(1:10)

Division – unity
It seems the Corinthian Christians were active in choosing to join the best groups so as to be on God’s escalator. ‘Peter/Paul/Apollos is the leader of greatest blessing.’ But this was simply human boasting. The truly great way is to join in unity with all who trust Christ.

If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.
(3:17)

Inaction – action
With an immoral brother, the church was proud of doing nothing. It showed how accepting they were. Instead, they should have roused themselves into action that purified God’s church.

Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
(5:7)

Wrong – right
Christian meals deeply express the Christian life. We thank God that he feeds us physically with bread, as well as spiritually with Christ. We love our brothers and sisters in the faith as we live out the unity of the Spirit. And we are strengthened for lives of love. Except if we do it wrong. As in Corinth. The church was called to do right as they ate, and to cease doing wrong.

For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgement on himself.
(11:29)

Acceptable – much better
The extravagantly gifted Christians of Corinth had plenty of people to contribute to church life. So many gifts-so little time. So, Paul says, do what builds up the church. There is stuff that is OK and even builds up an individual. But why would you choose that when you can build up everyone? It’s an easy choice!

Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.
(14:5)

Lie – truth
Corinthian ideas and action messed around with truth that Jesus rose from the grave. They were sliding towards a lie about the resurrection. Paul reminded them of the necessary truth: Jesus is alive.

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
(15:14-15)

Not every decision in church life is the same. It’s not always truth versus lie, or bad versus good. The decisions remain important, nonetheless. Corinth took a surprising number of bad options! May their errors stand to teach us of the better way.