Monthly Archives: June 2013

A thought starter on church

Leave a Reply

In a specialty shop I expect to find people with working knowledge of their products. In a family-oriented park I expect seats, public toilets, and no one driving cars. In an aeroplane I expect seatbelts and a safety demonstration.

In each place, expectations shape the whole experience – and guide my behaviour too.

So what are the right expectations to bring to church? Our understanding of church will direct the way we decide to live.

Here’s an exercise I did with some people from church. We had to complete the following sentence, after filling in the blank with the various options: If church is like … then this is how I behave …

  • a business
  • entertainment
  • spiritual retail (a shop for god-stuff)
  • a spiritual public service (like a hospital or employment agency)
  • a family
  • a club

I won’t unfairly influence your thoughts by listing what we said! But I am interested in what you think. What insights jump out for you?

 


 

The lego kids’ talk series

Leave a Reply

At our church, we include a children’s talk in almost every Sunday service. Most of the time the talk is from the same Bible passage that the sermon will be on. Recently, we did a seven week series on Song of Songs. I decided not to try kids’ talks on this beautiful and sensual poem! Instead, I did my first ever kids’ talk series: seven weeks just for them, on a theme, with consistent ‘props’.

It was my lego kids’ talk series. Here’s a breakdown.

Talk 1 used Acts 7:50/Isaiah 66:2. The initial point is that God made everything. It’s a little like when we make something, such as the lego ‘creature’ (below). From this point, I noted two linked ideas. Firstly, that God is in control of everything. Secondly, that God loves world – he made what he wants. With my and my lego beast, I was in control of choosing its colours and shapes. And I assembled the pieces just the way I like them.

image

Talk 2 used Romans 1:22-23. The creature pictured above made a second appearance. We then recapped the points from the previous Sunday (and the kids’ surprised me by remembering in detail). This week’s point was an important reality check. Because God made all we should  thank him & love him. But instead we choose to love & thank things he made. I described sin as loving something God made more than we love God himself.

Talk 3 used Romans 5:12. The series so far had reached the reality of sin. Now what happens? We learn that sin has definite consequence, the punishment of death. To show this, In this, I broke into pieces the lego creation. I wanted the content to leave the impression here, not some scary presentation style. So I went gently in words, and also in how I broke the lego apart. No theatrical violence, this is serious and sad!

Talk 4 used 2 Corinthians 5:17. By this time the kids knew the lego would soon appear. I was encouraged by their mock groaning (‘Not that lego again’), because they the complaints were just fun – they definitely engaged in the talk and questions. The talk stated with loose lego pieces in view. In this talk, we spoke about Jesus. The point was this: because Jesus’ death instead of us, we are re-created. The phrase I used a few times, ‘Jesus died to fix us up.’ As  made the point, I re-assembled the broken creation. I might be wrong, but it felt profound to hold up a re-created block object and declare, ‘Jesus died to fix us up.’

Talk 5 used 1 Corinthians 15:20. Time for a new item. As well as the block creature pictured above, I added a second one as shown below. They were identical in shape, but the second had well-organised colour. It was the same, but more attractive. This lego work represented the risen Lord Jesus. I mentioned: Jesus is alive; Jesus can never die again; Jesus has everything just right. My point was that what Jesus is, all his followers will become (even if we are a bit untidy and messed up now). Jesus’ resurrection guarantees resurrection life for all who trust him.
image

Talk 6 used Hebrews 1:3. Jesus sat down at Father’s side. Therefore we cannot see him, but his still active. Jesus is ruling the universe by his word! For this one, the two lego shapes – representing us and Jesus – started in public view. While all were watching, I ‘hid’ the Jesus block in a bag and said, ‘There is only one block here.’ The kids automatically yelled out that of course there were two – just that we can’t see one of them. From this, I underlined that the risen Jesus is real, though now we can’t see him.

Talk 7 used Acts 10:42. Jesus, whom we cannot now see, will appear again. When he does, all we know that he is God’s appointed judge. He will divide people on the basis of those who trust him or reject him. So trust him today! The photo below is from the end of this talk. I started with just the Jesus figure, and said he will appear again. Then I poured all my loose lego pieces in one confused pile. Sorting the pieces into colours (like Jesus, and unlike Jesus) gave the kids the hint as to what Jesus will do: divide people. What’s the difference? Trust in Jesus, or rejection of Jesus. Since that is what will happen, let’s all trust him now.

image

 


 

When people can’t hear Christians

Leave a Reply

Working in emergency services and seeing life in all of its manifestations, how have you personally dealt with the difficult side of the job, ie. patient grief, trauma and death? Have these experiences ever made you question your own faith?

The sign of Christianity is the cross, a reminder of Jesus’ unjust suffering. The suffering in this world is so real that God himself chose to suffer in order to offer hope and forgiveness. Thus, for me suffering is not an intellectual problem. The problem is that suffering is hard! Watching pain, sitting with grief, not knowing what to say. There are many helps for me, including prayer, talking about what troubles me, getting good exercise, time with my family, and being disciplined to have days off.

The above words are from an interview in which I was the one giving answers. The NSW Ambulance Service used their regular staff magazine, Sirens, to highlight volunteers in the organisation. I was one of the volunteer chaplains to ‘feature’. There’s an on-line copy of the chaplains’ interviews here.

This article is a positive piece about Christian minsters. They openly asked us all about our faith, and its challenges. They are encouraging about chaplains having a role in the ambulance service. I hope you catch my emphasis: this was positive!

Of course, editing was needed to fit into the magazine. The editor tidied up some of my answers. I looked more coherent because of good editing.

Now, look at the above question and find the part that was edited out. (Don’t cheat by reading on!)

The final version lacked mention of the cross. Everything before Thus. (“The sign of Christianity is the cross, a reminder of Jesus’ unjust suffering. The suffering in this world is so real that God himself chose to suffer in order to offer hope and forgiveness. Thus…”)

In the whole interview, those two sentences were the most personal and significant to me. They were closest to my heart and thinking and motivation. The cross is everything.

And yet, in a positive piece about chaplains, they were the lines cut out. Cut out, I believe, not with any malicious intent – but because they seemed the least relevant.

What a difference of view: the cross as most important, or the cross as least relevant.

This illustrates a problem for Christians as we try to share the gospel of Jesus with people: many people simply cannot hear what Christians say.

Try as we might to point to the centre of our faith – the life, death and resurrection of Jesus – we will frequently fail to communicate.

It’s not (always) because of ill-will towards Christians. This interview is an example of a positive conversation in which the most important is edited out.

We know there are spiritual causes: the false god of this age does blind people to God’s truth (2 Corinthians 4:4). Hence, we always pray because communication depends upon God.

I believe there are also cultural and communication causes. People have an idea of what Christians are about even before we talk with them, and it takes a long time to overcome errors. It sometimes looks like churches are just another political group (speaking up on matters of legislation). Or Christians are viewed as people whose interest is doing good (the Salvos, speaking up about gambling addiction, supporting asylum seekers, etc). Even our public failures suggest we’re about morality (witness the scandal of child abuse in churches).

So when we say, It’s not my behaviour, it’s all the work of Jesus, we often don’t get through. This real gospel message does not match the imagined message people expect from us. It’s as if our hearers correct us in their minds: ‘When he said that Christians cannot earn salvation, I’m sure he meant they can earn salvation.’

We can’t blame people for this, nor become irritated. So often we Christians have been muddled or unclear! Personally, though, I find it helpful to recognise how hard it is to hear the message of the cross and grace. It’s difficult – therefore I need to say it more often, more clearly, with more patience, and with better appreciation for my hearers.

Next interview, will I mention the cross? Absolutely!

 


 

Sex talk

Leave a Reply

Song of Songs 4 is very clearly a poem of intense sensuality. It is a wonderful example of a man’s pleasure in his wife.

The man starts at the top and moves downward. He does not reach her feet. There’s something about her middle that he enjoys! It’s sensitive and tender sex talk. (Her words of invitation in the second half of Song 4:16 indicate how welcome she found his words.)

When I spoke on this passage at church, I explained what I think are five types of sex talk. I thought I would repeat them for a blog readership.

Not
The first type of sex talk is non talk. Avoidance, embarrassment, and red faces.

The Bible, however, does not shy away from sex. There’s the beauty of Song of Songs. There’s affirmation of marriage and warnings against immorality. It openly admits awful sexual failure: David’s adultery with Bathsheba (leading to murder, 2 Samuel 11); the rape of Tamar by David’s son Amnon (2 Samuel 13); etc.

In short, God is in favour of sex talk. If we neglect it, we’re not caring for the whole person.

Direct
There are two kinds of direct sex talk.

The first is, typically, medical or educational. For example, sex education at home, or asking for pastoral help for sexual dysfunction.

This talk is direct because it openly names the anatomy and sexual behaviours. And it is a direct type of talk that is necessary.

The second type of direct talk is far less helpful. This direct communication is the porn ethos. It reveals all and leaves nothing to the imagination. We are meant to see, and to desire to see again. The lights are glaring, the cameras capture every angle, and instant replay is expected.

Unfortunately, this ethos can infect our speech and thoughts. It might be crude jokes. It could be offensive abuse between sports teams. Or it might be speaking of sex as if it involves hardware, not people: screw, bang, poke, …

This is a long way from the tenderness of Song of Songs. It’s selfish in getting sex, or getting noticed. Sex that should be part of a life-long covenant relationship is reduced to a bodily function. It’s not healthy direct talk.

Indirect
Again, this type of talk has two expressions.

The first kind of indirect sex talk is innuendo and smuttiness. While not being explicit, it twists vast swathes of normal conversation into sexual reference. Normal words become codes for bodily parts, or for sexual activity. It’s Benny Hill, Carry On Eye Rolling, Nudge Nudge Wink Wink. Often accompanies by supressed giggles and knowing looks, it also creates an in group who know the codes and need to look to each other for constant affirmation (‘that’s a reference to breasts – see, I am still with you’). Necessary? Useful? No.

The second type of indirect sex talk is precisely that of Song of Songs. It’s honest about sex and refers to a real person, one’s spouse. Yet it remains sensitive to honour that spouse and enjoy all his or her qualities. It does not hide sensuality, yet without treating sex like a forensic examination. Being poetic, I believe it opens up our appreciation for sex instead of narrowing it down to a few brute physical facts.

To gain a feel for this poetic opening of reality, read through the Song of Songs and consider how the senses are evoked. The lovers not only see one another, but also hear, touch, smell and taste. Then read again and consider where the drama of their love is played: house and city, forest and field, plains and mountain. All of nature is their playground.

So, learning from the Bible’s pattern, there’s good sex talk and damaging sex talk. Have I missed any other categories? Let me know in the comments below. We all can learn how to better employ language in this significant area of living as God’s creatures.