Category Archives: Ministry

Ministry aims, vision & plans

Leave a Reply
Image: Leeds Museum & Galleries, via Flickr

Image: Leeds Museum & Galleries, via Flickr

At our recent church Annual General Meeting my Minister’s report included some scribblings on our aims in ministry. And on why we bother with them. I thought this important to do – because I don’t believe our vision or aims come from the Bible. Not that these are against God’s word! Rather, targets are tools to help us.

I thought some of these ideas might be worth recording in a manner to share with those who were not at the AGM. So here’s some of what I wrote.

Our church vision is not new, but worth remembering. We pray that by 2020, and in God’s goodness, for ABC to have 500 people meet with us for church each week and for ABC to be involved in two church plants.

ABC at the moment can pretty much roll on in its current format: we’re running ministries and paying our bills. It would be easy to think that the kind of church we want to be is the kind of church we are. Or to think that this is the church God wants. Our vision is to point us to the white harvest fields about us (Matthew 9:37-38), and to do something as workers.

The vision also helps us think through our ministries. If we head towards 500, what kind of meeting place is required? How many small group leaders do we need to train each year? And how many Sunday school teachers? What should be our budget? I hope you can see that our vision is very practical.

That vision is for a few year ahead of us. We’ve noticed a gap between that vision and the present day. For this reason we have set some ministry aims for 2014. Here’s what I had to say about them.

There is also, however, a practical gap. We have 2020 in mind – but what should we do now? This is why we’re launching our 2014 ministry aims. These are four aims that, we think, will help us move towards the 2020 vision.

Aims are our tools and therefore can change (unlike our church values, which express what it is to trust God). To reach the aims does not prove our faithfulness to God. To fail to reach them does not prove that we have failed God.

Aims are testable. We set them up to know what success will look like. To be testable is required so we can learn if they are good aims or poor ones.

Aims educate and inspire. Anyone should be able to look at them and say, ‘Now I know what ABC is doing.’ Or – most importantly – ‘Now I know where I will put my prayers and effort.’

If we reach these aims, praise God. It will only be by his Spirit. If we do, we will all still need to reflect and consider what was the reason – the aims are to help us learn our own ministry setting.

On the other hand, if we do not meet these aims, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Failure is a great teacher: perhaps the aim was right but our method was wrong; perhaps the aim was wrong and we need to shift focus.

Over to you, then. What do you think are the pro and con effects when churches have specific vision and aims?

 


 

Christianity & mental health

Leave a Reply

Mental health problems are real, and therefore a real pastoral matter. And also deeply complex!

So, as a Christian but not an expert, how can I care well for people?

I have three main ideas in mind when it comes to Christian care. I hope they are helpful. I need to know if they’re wrong. So please comment-criticise-correct-reinforce. Your understanding will help me keep learning.

  1. The Christian message makes sense of a world where mental health problems are real
  2. Christian teaching and beliefs can directly help some cases of mental illness
  3. Christian teaching shows us that no mental health problem is ultimate

 


 

Quick review: connect

Leave a Reply

Connect: How to Double Your Number of VolunteersConnect: How to Double Your Number of Volunteers by Nelson Searcy

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The major encouragement I found with this book is a simple point: Christian service is a wonderful and good thing, therefore helping more people serve more is also a wonderful way to help their growth in godliness.

It’s not a drag to serve, or ask people to serve. There’s no need to apologise for providing opportunity, not for expecting believers to contribute. We follow the Lord who came to serve, and who taught that the greatest among us will be the least.

This is a reminder I needed.

Searcy’s book is largely practical in outlook. It is a ‘how to’ as promised by the subtitle. He has some theological and biblical material – and helpfully insists that the starting point is to clarify our theology of ministry. But most of the book is about systems, and tips on using those systems.

He writes of getting people to make the first step of service, of the need for clear expectations, of ‘ladders’ of service from the simple to the most dedicated, of celebration and thankfulness, and of many other practicalities.

The systems might work in your church setting, or they might not quite fit. In either case, reading Searcy’s principles and practice should help you reflect productively on your local situation.

Sometimes I found the practical bent unduly influenced the theological reflections. For instance, Searcy noted that human bodies have systems, that people are made in God’s image, and therefore God loves systems. This is backwards Bible-reading (humans image God therefore God images humans).

So don’t be naive about the theological rationale offered – a true warning for any writing! – but benefit from Searcy’s love of getting people involved in humbly serving the Suffering Servant.

View all my reviews

 

 


 

God’s shepherds

Leave a Reply

The Bible is full of sheep. And shepherds.

Many leaders were actual herders. Abraham had plenty of livestock (Genesis 13:2). Jacob, while caring for the flocks of his father-in-law Laban, received abundant ovine blessing (Genesis 30:43). Joseph labelled all 12 sons of Israel as shepherds (Genesis 46:34). Moses spent forty years herding (Exodus 3:1, what is it with caring for the father-in-law’s sheep?). And king David famously practised to defeat Goliath by protecting sheep (1 Samuel 17:34, being unmarried David worked for his father).

Being familiar with sheep farming, Israel understood shepherd imagery applied to God. Even in the Bible’s first book God is named shepherd (in this case, of Jacob Genesis 48:15). God as shepherd appears in many places that are not even that famous psalm (I’m trying to avoid the too-obvious reference), for example Psalm 80:1 or Ecclesiastes 12:11.

Yet the Lord is not the only figurative shepherd in the Bible. God regularly calls the leader(s) of his people by that same term.

God summarises the job of the judges in a single command: shepherd my people (2 Samuel 7:7). David, even before he was king, was a shepherd of Israel (2 Samuel 5:2). Supremely, Jesus is the good shepherd (John 10:11-16). The privilege of Christian leadership is to be a sheep who serves the chief shepherd by shepherding other members of the flock (1 Peter 5:1-4).
Farm feeding tour
Shepherding problems
As far as I can see, there are two major problems regarding sheep-shepherds. The two, sadly, end up with the same ill outcome.

First, sheep might be neglected – sheep without a shepherd. Moses prayed that, after his death, Israel be given a leader to avoid this problem (Numbers 27:15-17). Jesus was full of compassion precisely because he knew the people were shepherdless sheep (Mark 6:34). Without shepherds, the sheep are aimless and hopelessly lost.

The second problem is abuse of the sheep by those who have oversight. Ezekiel delivered a sting to the self-serving shepherds of Israel (Ezekiel 34:1ff). They were using the sheep, but not protecting them. The shepherds fed themselves, and starved the sheep. Unfortunately, the shepherds of Israel developed immunity against prophetic stings – there was no reaction at all.

In the time of Ezekiel, this second problem morphed into the first. Abusive shepherding led to sheep being scattered from safety (see verse 6). So the abused flock also became a neglected flock.

In light of this, I return to Peter’s instruction to church elders. This is how they are to care:

Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

Peter steers us away from the two errors. First: be a shepherd, willingly, in accord with God’s will. Second: don’t abuse your position.

Since this post has circumnavigated a large area of Bible, I think it’s only fair to end with an attempt at summary.

  • If you’re in the flock, follow a good shepherd. Jesus certainly is that. And Jesus has appointed under-shepherds for good reason – we need them
  • If you get to do some shepherding, then do it. Don’t back out of the responsibility, and be intent on leadership that does not harm the sheep

 


 

Generalisations, stupid & sensible

Leave a Reply

While at theological college I learned heaps. Mostly this was gradual and grain by grain. There were few ‘light bulb’ moments when a whole new thought clicked into place.

But I remember one light bulb experience.

It concerns generalisations. A fellow student, disgruntled for some trivial matter, shared his general view. “The trouble with all the rectors of Sydney is …”

What an insight this was for me – that a young student believed he had enough knowledge to generalise about well over 200 senior ministers. He knew! My flash of learning: what a stupid thing.

It’s not that generalisations are a problem. It’s that some generalisations are a problem. There are sensible generalisations and there are stupid generalisations. That day I decided I could not trust this student’s generalisations. But I immediately thought of a number of friends whose generalisations I trust.

generalisation T-shirtGeneralisation T-shirtI hear people make all sorts of general comments. They can be about men, women, single people, child-raising, churches, atheists, journalists, sports people, musicians, … I try to be careful, even wary. I want to know why do you say that?, how did you reach your that conclusion?

Many relationship issues arrive packaged as a generalisation. ‘My kids never listen.’ ‘My Bible study leader has a grudge against me.’ ‘My boss hates women.’ ‘My wife has no interest in sex.’

Church conflict shares the same packaging. ‘This church is not friendly.’ ‘No one trusts the pastor.’ ‘All the men are lazy.’ ‘The music team isn’t trying.’

What to do?
I suggest the best way to avoid stupid generalisations is to delay making sweeping statements. Before drawing wide-ranging conclusions, stay with the messy specific details. Listen first, speak later, and really delay anger (yes, it’s James 1:19).

Take the above example: ‘My kids never listen.’ That’s the generalisation – it’s one that can hurt both parent and child. The parent treats it as a universal truth, and might give up trying. The child will pick up what’s going on and likely conform to the expectation.

It’s usually more helpful to deal with specifics. Asking, ‘Why do you say that?’ might lead to: his room is still messy though I told him to clean up; during dinner I asked her about school but she didn’t really acknowledge me; it’s a busy month, so I need to make most of our time together, but it’s not working. Listen to the person, listen to the situation, listen to the details. There might then be a specific way to change.

Just this year I stumbled over the same idea expressed slightly differently. In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge warns against the ‘leap to abstraction’. With concrete evidence of short, impersonal staff meetings we might abstract a conclusion that the manager dislikes people. What we did not know is that she has a hearing problem made worse in group settings. Senge says to beware the leap to abstraction. Deal with the concrete as much as possible. Good advice.

 


 

Responding is teaching

Leave a Reply

Who of you fathers, if his son says, “Hey moron, give me a drink”, would not give him a clip round the ear?

If my children were as rude to me as the above imaginary comment, there would certainly be a ‘serious father-child moment’!

I admit I’ve twisted what Jesus said (see Luke 11:11-13, Matthew 7:9-11). But the above is what I thought after overhearing the following exchange:

Daughter: “[Screech, moan, whine, fake tears. Accusingly pointed finger.]”
Mum: “Well you stood up. He can sit there if he wants.”

That is, there was a conversation where whining behaviour counted as words. And both participants behaved as if this communication was perfectly normal.

How does such a pattern become normal? It’s not normal when the whinger whinges. It becomes normal when the responder responds normally. The reply determines where the conversation will go. In my mind, the power in conversations lies with the person who replies.

That power can be used poorly, or with great effect. When my kids grunt at me, obviously thirsty or hungry, I could choose simply to give them what they want. My power of reply teaches, ‘It’s OK when you grunt – keep doing it.’ You can guess what they will do next time hunger strikes.

Or I could choose to say, ‘I will not get that for you until you use words.’

How I respond teaches what is acceptable. Responding is teaching.

Sometimes this raises a difficult dilemma. The perfect illustration of this is in Proverbs 26:4-5. Both pieces of wisdom are true, but you may only choose one way in a given situation. Nevertheless, the principle holds: responding is teaching.

Where this works out extends to many places. It’s not simply a parent and child pattern. It’s also:

  • How we listen to the boss at work
  • How we treat the referee or umpire
  • The active or passive response we make to advertising
  • Our tone of voice to the teacher
  • The learned dynamics of a Bible study group
  • The way we gain attention (or reward people) in churches
  • How we behave when driving

To go again to the book of Proverbs:

To make an apt answer is a joy to a man,
and a word in season, how good it is!
(Proverbs 15:23)

So now the power is in your hands. How will you respond?

 


 

 

 

Church video September 2013

Leave a Reply

The Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC) has an annual conference for its member churches and other interested people. To help us catch up with news, churches produce a short video. And you can tell which churches happen to have video professionals among the congregation! Albury Bible Church is not one of those …

Here’s our video for the September 2013 conference (with thanks to Nahum for camera and helping the edit).


 

Setting church Bible readings

Leave a Reply

When it comes to organising the Bible readings at church, I have a few ideas and principles. Perhaps they are good ones – perhaps not. Almost certainly there is something I’m overlooking. So to share what I think, and gain more guidance, here is a series points about the important-mundane: setting church Bible readings.

Devoted to reading
Paul told Timothy to be devoted to the ‘holy writings’, the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:14-15). This touches personal devotion, and is often preached in order to spur individual Christians to personal Bible reading. That’s good, though limited. Timothy was not simply ‘a Christian guy’, he was a church leader and teacher. Continuing in the scriptures also describes what Timothy was to do in ministry.

If I’m right, Bible reading was a primary ministry and church activity. There’s evidence for this in 1 Timothy 4:13, Paul’s threefold to-do list for his ministry protégé. The three: read, exhort, teach. The underlying Greek is simpler than most English translations on the first point – it just says ‘to reading’. ‘Reading’ obviously refers to the scriptures, which most translations make clear.

Timothy’s high priorities included reading. Therefore in any church, reading must also be on the top list of things to do.

I am disappointed to visit churches where the reading is regularly no more than a few verses. Or where reading is a slave to a ‘greater’ priority: what the preacher wants to say, what the liturgy prescribes, … Reading must be central to our meetings. Reading the Bible does not derive its authority from anything else – everything else derives authority from the scriptures we read.

One Bible, two testaments
The one message of Jesus is divided in two by the person of Jesus. There’s the lead-up to Jesus: our Old Testament. And there’s the record of Jesus: our New Testament. In simplistic terms, preparation and proclamation.

The difference (not contradiction) between the two is notable is style, but it’s also theological. ‘These are the scriptures that point to me’, said Jesus (John 5:39-40). ‘I have come to fulfil them’, he said (Matthew 5:17). So I want church to include two readings, both Old Testament and New Testament.

The more we know of the preparation, the more we value the fulfilment. The more we know of the proclamation, the greater desire we have to drink from the promises.

Sermons & the Bible
Our standard pattern of preaching is from books of the Bible. Topics are an exception, they’re a special treat like dessert: good in moderation. And we will always read the passage that the sermon is from. This is so deeply ingrained in my thinking that I almost didn’t bother to note this. But it’s deeply ingrained because I think it’s important! We wish to let God set the agenda, even if he sends us to passages that make us feel uncomfortable.

In general, we alternate between Old Testament and New Testament sermon series. In New Testament, about half the time is in Matthew-Acts and about half in Romans-Revelation. For Old Testament series we usually cycle through the four subdivisions of the Hebrew Bible (law, former prophets, latter prophets, writings).

Non-sermon readings
Reading both testaments means we will have a non-sermon reading. I like to use two different ways of relating the two readings. I use one method for a whole series (of up to two months).

Firstly, we choose two linked readings. In this case, the non-sermon passage will have some thematic link to the sermon-passage (for example, Genesis 14 and Hebrews 7). This is good to reinforce the unity of the Bible.

Secondly, we have two stand-alone series of readings. If preaching through a gospel narrative, we might also read a series of poetry from the Psalms. Of if preaching through an Old Testament prophet we might progressively read one of the New Testament letters.

On the day
All these choices occur before we get anywhere near Sunday. Putting together a church service is a major topic in itself, but there are a couple of things to say regarding Bible readings.

If we’ve chosen two readings that go together, it’s generally best to read them together. I’d always read the Old Testament first, even if that is the sermon passage. It can be needlessly confusing to hear the New Testament expand on an Old Testament passage before we hear the passage itself.

If the two readings are not linked, then we’re free to hear them at different times in the meeting. Perhaps the non-sermon reading would be a perfect lead-in to prayer, or to a particular song. Maybe we could get one strong reader to read all of these readings over a few weeks – this could be a great lesson in the power of simply hearing God’s word read. In this set-up, I prefer to keep the sermon reading very near to the sermon. Ideally, they’re adjacent, not even separated by a song.

So that’s what I have in mind. Some decisions based on conviction. Others are pragmatic. Others probably no more than preference. What do you think? What could we add? I’d love to read your comments below.

 


 

The disgrace of Christian outreach

The whole Bible shows God’s concern for the whole world.

The first three quarters of the Bible maintain focus on one people: Israel. The final one quarter is where God’s word goes out to all, freely offered to all cultures, languages and people.

Why the difference? And what made the change? A short passage in Hebrews powerfully captures the switch. It tells me that God spent great effort establishing a system of imperfect honour so that he could trump this system with perfect disgrace.

Firstly, here’s some evidence for my first two paragraphs.

Whole Bible, whole world
Page one: God created the heavens and the earth. As Genesis continues, we run into those pesky family trees. We might find them tiresome, but they place the narrower Biblical story inside the story of ‘all people.’ When Abraham enters, his promised blessing is at once very personal and universal (see Genesis 12:1-3).

Abraham’s story narrows down again and again: it’s Isaac, not Ishmael; then it’s Jacob, not Esau. This narrow group of Hebrews dominates the limelight for the Old Testament. Even so, the world is linked to their fortunes. Israel is the Lord’s nation because the whole earth is his (Exodus 19:5). The glory days of Israel’s kingdom were a magnet for the whole world (1 Kings 10:23-25). Despite later sin and judgement, God promised a glorious future where the world would again make pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Micah 4:1-2).

Three quarters, one quarter
Despite this universal concern, most of the Bible covers relatively local events. We mostly stay in the land of Canaan, with the people of Israel. When the story goes outside of this (in the first 75%) there’s usually something wrong: drought, famine, judgement, military loss, … Jesus himself sent his disciples, but not to the Gentiles – they went on a Jewish-ears-only mission (Matthew 10:5).

It’s in the book of Acts that there is an explosive change. From Acts onwards, even Gentiles come to trust Jesus. Without having to become Jewish first! Gentiles who trust have exactly the same access to forgiveness as do Jews who trust. Hear the astonishment in the voice of Jewish Christians: ‘Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance that leads to life’ (Acts 11:18). Inconceivable!

The time we live in now is marked by an astonishing reality: Gentiles listen to the word of salvation (Acts 28:28).

Imperfect honour, perfect disgrace
To understand this change, here’s that paragraph from the book of Hebrews.

We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp. So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood. Therefore let us go to him outside the camp and bear the reproach he endured. (Chapter 13, verses 10-13)

Hebrews engages with many details of the old covenant, including priesthood and sacrifice. The altar of sacrifice was to be pure, and to provide purification. The place of sacrifice had many exclusions in order to uphold its holiness (no priests outside the tribe of Levi, no high priest outside the family of Aaron, no high-priests in the temple without blood of sacrifice, …). This system rammed home the truth about God: he’s pure, perfect, clean, holy. This is why sacrificial blood was brought into the holy place, but the unclean carcass was taken outside the camp. Holiness inside, uncleanness outside.

The tabernacle (later temple) was to be honoured highly by God’s people. And when the system was in ideal operation … it was a failure. Blood of bulls and goats does not remove sin (Hebrews 10:4). The centre of honour to the Lord in Israel never worked. Hence: imperfect honour.

But Jesus …

Jesus changed things. Jesus’ death, the perfect sacrifice, occurred in disgrace. He died as an outsider, and died outside the city gates. His death was administered by the world (Romans), not by an appointed priest. This moment of unclean disgrace, however, is the very working of God to save. It is perfect disgrace.

A world of mission
So why, after Easter, do God’s people now actively seek the world? Why is mission normal, for those who trust Jesus?

Because of Jesus’ perfect disgrace. Jesus, on the cross, went to the world. Jesus went to the place most alienated from the Father. Jesus outside the city completed his journey of love. How do we trust Jesus? We trust by going to him in that place of disgrace. We find Jesus ‘outside the camp’, as Hebrews says, not cloistered and hidden behind holy walls. We do not withdraw – we go out and suffer reproach.

Christians should be willing to go public and to be open in precisely the place where we are not safe. (So many times I have been part of the opposite, a comfortable conversation with ‘insiders’ in which we gently mock ‘outsiders.’)

There are many ways to ‘go public’ as Christians. The most important and fundamental, it seems to me, is evangelism. When we ask people to change and to trust Jesus we are most open about our disgraceful beliefs. When we refrain from inviting Christian belief we are most likely to be hiding the disgrace of a crucified Christ.

And now, my idea for a short post has become longer than I usually write for this blog. There’s so much more to consider … Unexplored: what disgrace can look like in daily life; how Christians tend to sanctify avoiding disgrace despite following the crucified one; the difference between reproach and being insensitive. A ripe field for comments and discussion (hint, hint).

In short: mission is placing our disgraceful beliefs in public, because what we believe was the public disgrace of Jesus’ cross.


 

 

Apostle Peter – proselyte

Leave a Reply

A proselyte is a convert, someone who adopts a new faith or religious life. In the Bible, there are proselytes to Judaism (see Matthew 23:15, Acts 2:11). It must have been quite a commitment to make such a change. Whatever else it involved, we know that the men needed to be circumcised!

The word proselyte comes from a pretty standard, non-religious, Greek word (προσερχομαι, proserchomai). This verb can mean to move towards, or to cross over. This seems to be the sense of proselyte: he or she is someone who has ‘crossed over.’

The New Testament includes major early church arguments about how to receive forgiveness from Jesus. In particular, how can Gentiles receive the blessings of Christ? Since Jesus is the Jewish Christ, it might be that non-Jews must submit to the Jewish law to receive Christ’s benefits. Some argued that the process for non-Jews looks like this:

Pagan → Proselyte → Trust Jesus

This makes some sense. God spent centuries teaching the Jewish people to be distinct and remain faithful to the law he spoke to them. How could the Lord so quickly change things? Acts shows the early Christians struggling with this. A serious test is in chapter 10, when God speaks to the Roman centurion Cornelius.

As the scene unfolds, God surprises everyone. Cornelius does not have to become a proselyte. In contrast, it’s as if the apostle Peter himself becomes the proselyte.

Firstly, about Cornelius. Upon hearing the gospel, God pours out his Holy Spirit directly on the Gentiles (verse 44). And the Jewish believers reacted with amazement that the Spirit was ‘even for the Gentiles’ (verse 45). God’s actions show the true process for pagans to come to Jesus:

Pagan → Trust Jesus

But what about Peter? How could he be said to be a proselyte? I think this is because Peter is the one who crosses over. Cornelius physically remains in his place (Caesarea) and Peter is sent by God away from the house he’s in. In some perplexity, Peter states to Cornelius that Jews usually don’t make this kind of trip (Acts 10:28). When Peter says it is unlawful for a Jew ‘to visit anyone from another nation’ he uses the proselyte verb προσερχομαι (proserchomai). But God made him do it!

This moment is a huge change for Peter, for the church, and for the world. From this point onwards, those who trust the Lord are ever crossing over to invite all people to faith in Jesus. Peter goes to Cornelius. Paul and Barnabas go to Crete and Asia Minor. And no one ever need become Jewish before bowing before the Jewish Christ.

It’s not that Peter changed his beliefs. He still announced Jesus’ death and resurrection, and that Jesus judges and forgives (Acts 10:39-43). Yet Peter – and all Christianity with him – had crossed over to become a faith that ignored cultural barriers. We have a ‘crossing-over’ type of faith and love for neighbour. In fact, it is against the work of God to grimly hold on to personal distinctives (see the word from God in the verse I quote below).

Peter became a proselyte to outreach, a proselyte to direct engagement and love, a convert to Jesus’ direct welcome of people of all kinds. Peter became a proselyte that we might become proselytes too.

What God has made clean, do not defile! (Acts 10:15)