Saturday, 25 December 2010

Season’s Greetings: Fit For a King

A sermon based on Matthew 2:1-12

image

According to legend, Theseus was the son of the King of Athens, who volunteered himself as a human sacrifice. Every nine years, the city of Athens was forced to send a tribute of seven men and seven women to be given as food to the Minotaur of Crete, a horrible monster, half-man, half-bull. Each decade, the flower of the youth of Athens was lost, and Theseus was determined to make an end to the Minotaur.

Through courage, inventiveness, and his spunky good looks, Theseus won the heart of Cretan princess Ariadne, and won victory over the creature. When his ship returned home, there was understandably great rejoicing in Athens, for they were free of their terrible burden.

They commemorated Theseus’ victory by preserving the ship he sailed in – for centuries, according to the ancient historian Plutarch. Over the years, however, the ship began to rot away – so as each plank grew unsound, the Athenians would replace it with a fresh one.

But this was Athens, the city of the philosophers, and it wasn’t long before someone wondered: if every plank of the ship had been replaced, was it still the Ship of Theseus? Or was it a new ship altogether?

The Ship of Theseus is one of the world’s oldest paradoxes. There are books written about different opinions on the matter. In the end, though, it’s fairly academic. It was only a boat.

But tonight we remember another paradox, of similar antiquity, but much greater significance. It’s the paradox of one king holding court from a feeding trough, while another king is caught with his nose in it. It’s the paradox of the first Season’s Greetings being offered by dumb animals. It is, as we saw, the paradox of Christmas.

There is much about the first Christmas that appears to make no sense – either to us, or to those who were there to witness it. And tonight, as well as tomorrow morning, we’re going to explore the paradox by seeing how different people reacted to the news – what kind of greeting they offered the season of the Christ’s birth.

We’ll start with the wise men. We sometimes sing about them as three kings, although the Bible never calls them that. It’s ironic, because what we are told is that they have come to worship a king. They’re foreigners, from somewhere in the East, which makes their visit an unusual occurrence. Dropping in on your enemies – well, that’s what neighbouring countries always were by default in those days – dropping in on your enemies to wish their new king well…it’s pretty remarkable.

You’d have to think it’s safe to assume that these guys didn’t travel the world offering gift packs to every royal heir who was born. They’ve come to see this one, this one especially. That’s what they call him – ‘the one’, the one who has been born king of the Jews.

These guys have worked out that this one matters. And because he matters, they want to treat him that way. They’ve come to worship him, to recognise his worth, his importance. It’s just what you’d expect the appropriate greeting to be if the king of the world had been born. Their actions are fit for a king.

What’s more, there’s a joke that Matthew’s included at Herod’s expense. When the wise men turn up looking for directions, Herod’s research unit finally provides the answer by quoting the prophet Micah, specifically the second verse of chapter 5. If they’d mentioned the third or fourth verse, they’d have read out Micah’s prediction that the arrival of Israel’s promised king would be marked by … you guessed it … the arrival of people from outside Israel to acknowledge him.

And if they’d read the first verse, there’s one more indicator: that the current king of Israel would be the recipient of a slap on the cheek.

Well, there’s an excuse to see how Herod takes the news. ‘Disturbed’ is the word that Matthew used to describe his reaction. He’s a bit churned up over it. He needs to know more, so he calls his crack team of researchers together. And this, in itself, is an indictment of King Herod. The core responsibility of a Jewish king was supposed to be that he would know his Bible well, so that he could his people in obedient lives that honoured God. Herod should have had no difficulty in finding the words from Micah himself. Indeed, given how violent his reaction is, you’d have to suspect that if he’d ever read Micah before, he’d have noticed this passage and taken preventative measures.

But instead, he’s taken completely unawares – and we all know what it’s like when that happens. We call it being caught off guard, because it’s the time when you don’t guard your response. Just the opposite, you end up reacting purely on instinct, responding how you feel. Like, for example, if someone gave me a terribly ugly necktie just before the service tonight, when I wasn’t expecting a present, and then asked me straight out whether I like it. What do you do? I’ve got no prepared answer; I don’t have the luxury of sending a thankyou note where after three hours of racking my brains, I’ve been able to thank them for the tie because it matches my Hawaiian shirts. So you end up saying the first thing that comes into your head: oh my goodness, that’s awful!

Herod’s caught just like this, and his response shows his true character. He doesn’t manage the fitting response; instead, he has a little hissy fit of his own.

But here’s the thing that I noticed; yes, it’s appalling that he orders the massacre of Bethlehem’s sons to protect his throne; yes, he’s a lowlife with little imagination for trying to trick the wise men into leading him straight to Jesus; but the thing that really gets me is that he calls them secretly to find out when Jesus was born. Secretly. He doesn’t want anyone to know that his murderous orders have a reason behind them. He’d rather that they just think him bonkers.

Herod’s beyond the pale, really – he’s so far from any of us (I hope!) that we don’t pay much attention to him. He’s the nut job that you read about to feel better about yourself.

But there’s one more group in the story that we haven’t looked at. Matthew tells us that when the Magi arrived with their questions, Herod was disturbed… and, he adds, all Jerusalem with him.

The whole city heard the news. We often think of Jesus’ arrival as coming in pretty much under the radar. Small town, hidden in somebody’s backyard, only a few shepherds to spread the story. But here’s evidence that the story broke widely. The whole city of Jerusalem got wind of Jesus’ birth, and so then they…

What?

Matthew doesn’t say. But I’m guessing that the answer is they did nothing.

They kept their heads down and got on with their lives. It’s a pretty common response, I think. You know, you steer between the two extremes…those wise men, well, they’re like stalkers, aren’t they? Tracking down an infant to present him with wildly inappropriate gifts, hanging around for photos with the family…it’s all just a bit too intense…sure, it shows they’re committed, but maybe they should be committed. And on the other hand, there’s the off-the-scale opposition of King Herod. He’s not just disturbed by the news of the Christ child, he’s disturbed, period. Off his rocker.

It’s not hard to see why many are attracted to a safer middle course. Yes, we pay our respects to Jesus, but from a distance. You don’t want to get too close. What kind of welcome do we give him? No cheers and whistles, no booing either, just a polite round of applause, not too loud or too long.

But think back to the story of Theseus again. He was the son of the King, accustomed to a life of privilege and comfort. But he gave that up to stand with his people. He was prepared to sacrifice his own life, if necessary, to free his people from their bondage, to save them from repeating the same deadly sacrifice time after time. Stripped of his royal power, he took on their monstrous enemy and defeated him with his bare hands.

It’s not too far from describing what Jesus did, in taking on human flesh, being born amongst us, taking up the battle against the forces of sin and death, and beating them, that we might no longer fear death.

When Theseus returned to Athens, he became king in his father’s place. The people honoured him then, and continued to do so throughout their history. He was their saviour king, and his people loved him.

How then should we greet the birth of our saviour? We may not have seen any star in the sky, but we know him to be the star of the story. We might never get named as wise men, but we know what is wise to do. Like them, we have come tonight to worship him. Perhaps, like them, we should make a careful search for the child. For our true king has come to us, and calls us to come to him.

Thursday, 16 September 2010

It’s a Bit Quiet Around Here…

image

I’ve been planning my version of 2011, and noticed a happy conjunction of dates.

Easter occupies the last Sunday in April. Not particularly good for those looking for a holiday after term 1, but there you are.

Mothers Day, as usual, is the second Sunday in May. I’m going to persevere with making this work for inviting mums.

That leaves us with the first Sunday in May sitting at something of a loose end. How fortunate, then, that Sunday 1st of May is the day before the 400th anniversary of the publication of the KJV. I’m planning to do a sermon on something to do with the doctrine of scripture – likely its perspicuity and our wealth of opportunity to read it! ‘The Ploughman’s Son’ is the title, referencing Mr Tyndale above.

(And it makes for some kind of link to ‘The Noble Wife’ the following week, where I think Marguerite of Navarre will be my worked example of Proverbs 31. Hopefully that will save me from cliché!)

 

There was lots of noise for Calvin last year – but I’m not hearing so much about 2011…

Friday, 10 September 2010

Defining Evangelicalism

It was asked, and a cut and paste was fairly easy.

My final year project at college examined the evangelical movement in post-WW2 English Anglicanism. I was attempting to assess whether things ‘went wrong’ and if so, how far; hence, a necessary step was to have a go at defining evangelicalism. I’ve never had a problem with self-confidence, and so after surveying all and sundry’s efforts, decided to come up with my own answer. I’m still quite happy with it, and it was really the only thing the marker liked in the whole project, so…

 

‘From the survey above, it is apparent that a blended approach is best, one that recognises that a definition of evangelicalism must incorporate both methodology and history in its essential features. Even given this, however, it is worth considering what controls the selection of components. The temptation to give this role to the priority of Scripture is strong, but at the very place where Stott might convince one of this, he goes deeper: ‘The hallmark of evangelicals is […] a submissive spirit, namely their a priori resolve to believe and obey whatever the Scripture may be shown to teach. They are committed to Scripture in advance, whatever it may be later found to say. […] They see this humble and obedient stance as an essential implication of Christ’s lordship over them.’[1] Beyond the commitment to Scripture is a recognition of divine sovereignty. Peter Jensen has described this as the key to a sharp definition of evangelicalism.[2] What is common to most of the attempts at definition already mentioned is their foundation in the sovereignty of God. This is literally the quintessence of Bebbington’s quadrilateral. To be even more precise, it is the sovereignty of God in the gospel: biblicism reflects God’s sovereignty in the revelation of the gospel, crucicentrism his sovereignty in its focus, and conversionism and activism in humanity’s response to the gospel. Similarly, Stott’s commitment to Bible and gospel – both tied to divine sovereignty – leads him to the Nottingham theme of obedience to Christ.[3]

Thus, if we accept that being evangelical means holding a Christian faith that responds to God’s sovereignty in the gospel, one more advantage is apparent. As the antithesis of sin, it is clear that nobody can hope to be perfectly evangelical; there must be a grey area that gives ‘room to move […] without resorting to disenfranchising one another.’[4] Evangelicals of different generations can be recognised as such, despite their different emphases, because these emphases consistently arose from their recognition of God’s authority. Different lists of evangelical essentials can be drawn up, as long as they emanate from this central point. Treating God’s sovereignty as it particularly relates to the gospel generates the evangelical method of the primacy of Scripture. And finally, the value of evangelical tradition can be weighed from this same perspective. Accordingly, the standing of the evangelical movement in the Church of England can be measured in terms of its faithfulness to this fundamental conviction.’

[The reference to Nottingham is to a gathering of evangelical Anglicans that’s usually thought to mark the point at which they strayed. I’d argue that they continued down a path already begun.]


[1] Stott, Essentials, 104.

[2] Peter F. Jensen, unpublished address, given at the 75th Anniversary Celebration of the Sydney University Evangelical Union, 8/10/05.

[3] Stott, What is an Evangelical?, 14.

[4] Thompson, ‘Saving the Heart’, The Briefing 151: 4.

 

So, that’s what I meant by a high view of God’s sovereignty. I think it’s what shapes who we are.

Thursday, 9 September 2010

New Horizons in Local Church Theology

St Peters Vertical LOGO

Sounds like an impressive book title. But no, I’m just working on next year’s preaching plans.

 

 

However, the new horizon bit is true. Our church has, in the space of the last couple of years, suddenly achieved a whole bunch of major goals that they’ve been working on for years. We now have a ‘rectory-standard dwelling’ next to the church (for us to live in, and it’s lovely), and come November, we’ll be made a ‘provisional parish’ (no longer a branch church of our neighbours up the road at Gerringong). 

In other words, in the living memory of some of our members, St Peter’s has grown from a half-dozen old ladies sitting up the back to a decent-sized church with a couple of congregations, and enough resources (people, time, money, property etc) to stand on our own two feet, metaphorically speaking.

It’s been a long time coming…and so now there’s a bit of ‘now what?’ floating around. All ambitions have been achieved. The last thing we want to do is sit back and cruise – this town is enough of a retirement village already!

 

So…it’s time to start looking for a new horizon – new things to aim at, under God. And I’m thinking that a decent chunk of a preaching program would be a good thing to get that ball rolling.

Here’s what I’ve come up with, thus far, in a very very draft sense. Comments welcome.

Being

9 weeks, 3 lots of 3

Weeks 1-3: Church

1. Who is the church? Where is the church?

2. What is the church for? Why is the church?

3. When is the church? How is the church?

(OK, so the grammar is a bit stilted, but you can get some sense of it)

Weeks 4-6: Our Church

4. An evangelical church (not just as a theological persuasion – but saying, who we are is based on the first three weeks and how the gospel shapes a church). But I’ll use the Douglas-Bebbington quintilateral to describe things: activism, biblicism, crucicentrism, conversionism, all held together by a high view of God’s sovereignty

5. A church for the Heads – ie all of our local community. We’re the only mainline church in town, so I figure I can claim it without controversy. Church should work for people of all ages/stages etc.

6. A church for all – not just our own patch, but also seeking to be for the Shoalhaven region/mission area, to be part of our diocese/local evangelical scene, and to be part of our world (ie ‘mission’)

Weeks 7-9: Us

Less developed, but basically growing out of the D-BQ (TM) – activism implies serving each other/others; crucicentrism a willingness/expectation to suffer rather than look after our futures; conversionism a personal commitment to God and his people; biblicism a love of the Word and obedience of it; sovereignty a dependence on grace expressed in prayer and more.

Friday, 27 August 2010

The Heisenberg Unpleasantness Principle

I'm doomemed. It’s Simone’s fault. Or mine, for talking too much. Somebody with so much to say is an easy victim.

So now I have to find ten things that make me happy, and in the process feel less happy about it. Frankly, I’m surprised. This is a form where you fill in your own numbers. She should have known better!

1. That God consistently deflates my ego. And doesn’t mind spending an eternity doing it.

2. Those times, once every few years, when the kids sleep through the night, and I wake up before them, having slept late. Small miracles are still miracles.

3. Thinking. I’m obsessive about it. I’m not claiming anything profound here – just that I can be having a conversation while the analytical corner of my brain is performing some kind of combinatorics exercise. Without distracting me too much.

4. Genuine time off – no chores to do, just completely discretionary time. Particularly if it’s enough to…

5. See  a movie. It needn’t be fantastic, but it’s nice to inhabit a different world for a couple of hours. But the best kind are by…

6. Alfred Hitchcock. Because he’s never boring.

7. Competing. Board games, trivia, anything that requires no genuine ability below the neck.

8. The totally novel, as in never-before-in-my-life, idea that it might be possible to increase my general fitness and wellbeing while exercising, and enjoy it. Courtesy of the new bike that I bought for Father’s/birth/Christmas/anniversary Day last week. It goes really fast. Even with me on it. And not just due to the effects of gravity when falling over.

9. Cheesy pop music. Not all of it, thankfully. But a strong keyboard, or a ballad, or Bono…and I’m a goner.

10. Reading the Bible, and finding once again something new, thereby demonstrating that God is not just cool but also eternally satisfying. And far better than Hitchcock!

 

Not too painful, then. That means I can tag people with a clear conscience. Well, the only active readers here that I’m aware of are Byron and Rach. Though I doubt Rach will be adding to that particular blog… And I’ll tag Andrew too, seeing as Simone didn’t!

Sunday, 22 August 2010

An Affair to Remember

An Affair to Remember

A couple of years ago, Moore College did their School of Theology on the book of Exodus. The book version is a cracker, with some wonderful and original work. This series arises from Richard Gibson’s ideas about preaching Exodus.

 

July 18 • Exodus 1-2

God Looked On

Even before Israel was a nation, they faced a crisis of faith: if God was watching, why was he waiting? Should a God who’s on the sidelines be sidelined?

July 25 • Exodus 3-4

Is It Not I?

Prophecy has in inauspicious birth—but there are other ominous signs of oncoming disaster. ‘For love is as strong as death…’

August 1 • Exodus 5-11

The Ruler of Egypt

‘…Many waters cannot quench love; rivers cannot wash it away…’ There can be only one ruler of Egypt, and he will rule through his minions. But what sacrifice will he demand?

August 8 • Exodus 12-13

Total Recall

God remembered his covenant with Abraham; his people were to remember this day. ‘In days to come, when your son asks you, “What does this mean?” say to him’ … what?

August 15 • Exodus 13-18

Road Trip

‘Come away, my lover…’ We follow Israel as they travel between a hard place and a rock, with God drawing them to the place where they will meet.

August 22 • Exodus 19-24

The Pre-Nup

‘Who is this coming up from the desert leaning on her lover?’ It has happened: God has brought his people to himself. The question now is whose people they will be?

August 29 • Exodus 25-40

Home Beautiful

‘…If one were to give all the wealth of his house for love, it would be utterly scorned…’ The interior decorations in this place are simply divine!

September 5 • Exodus 32-34

The Green-Eyed Master

‘…Its jealousy unyielding as the grave…’ We know that God told Moses his name—but do we know what it means?

 

Yep, Father’s Day for the last one. And we’re reading 1 Peter with Exodus, reaching chapter 3 just in time…

The ♥ of the Gospel

I’ve preached this series before (well, planned it and shared it with a few others), and this time around I’m even less convinced of the sermon titles. But, for what it’s worth…

June 13 • Ephesians 1:1-14

Bank On It

The gospel finds its origin in the extraordinary generosity of God, and in this generosity lies a security that goes beyond the financial realm…

June 20 • Ephesians 1:15-23

Seeing Some Interest

…but God’s investment in us is ongoing; we are a term deposit that continues to grow until we reach maturity…

June 27 • Ephesians 2:1-10

From Out of Bankruptcy

…for God has paid out our debt, and we are his…

July 4 • Ephesians 2:11-22

The Merger

…and not us alone, for God is at work all over the world, building a company of richly diverse yet complementary assets…

July 11 • Ephesians 3

Whose Profit?

…until finally, the glory of God’s grand design is revealed, and we fall at his feet in praise and thanksgiving!

Friday, 28 May 2010

Well, Yes, It Was Quite Tasty

Zeal for your house will consume me.

Heard it before? John 2:17, or Psalm 69:9. John takes the psalmist into a future tense though…

I think in the past I’ve been too metaphorical in how I’ve read this. Consume doesn’t actually mean ‘keep me interested’ or ‘be a priority’ or ‘occupy quite a large percentage of my attention’. It means ‘eat’.

It actually fits the context better to take it literally – in the psalm, and in John. Jesus’ concern for God’s house, for a meeting place between God and humanity, led him to the cross. On trumped up charges, of course, but they were based on what he said a mere two verses later.

He was consumed. And so the one who tabernacled amongst us became the one who was the temple, permanently.

 

Now, the really odd thing was how I was led to this thought by myself. Well, sort of. It was an accident. But something I wrote ten years ago (on this passage, without having understood this element properly) sent me off down the path less travelled, and it brought me out into a better place.

I can be a little slow sometimes.

Good Will Hunting

image

Insert random mathematics textbook to justify blog post title. Done.

Raise topic. What are we trying to do with Bible studies? Done.

(make sure everyone got the joke – Matt Damon was a maths genius in the film, remember? And complex analysis could be what we do in a Bible study, or what I do in a post. Done)

Right, to the point. I was sitting in Bible study the other night, dissatisfied with being dissatisfied. I’ve always felt the weakest component of any study I lead is the application bit – where you take whatever principle you’ve extracted, and then say, so what? ‘How do we live this out in our lives?’ And discussion ensues, of course.

Being troubled about having had a great time correcting our understanding of a significant passage, and still feeling like the study had ‘failed’ for lack of obvious ethical application, my will rebelled. (Check you got the ‘will’ reference in the title. Done.)

I know it’s OK to just have a theological application…but it’s always felt like a concession to our cerebral style in this part of the world. But I wonder…is the desire to have a ‘go do this’ application wrong?

I think we like it because it puts holiness within our power. We simply need to exert our wills, and it’s done. The trouble is, I’ve never found my will very compliant. Just because I decide I should do something doesn’t mean that it happens that way thereafter.

And reflecting on it, I started to come to the conclusion that the vast majority of my growth as a Christian has actually been led by my mind, not my will. It’s only as my brain shuffles its priorities so as to get a clearer theological picture that my behaviour follows. So, for instance, my practical activity at church is driven – and I mean driven, not just subtly nudged – by my ecclesiology.

So, the question: should we in fact aim for a theological application as the default in Bible study…and raise the practical thing less often? Or am I merely justifying the thing I like?

Ah, navel gazing. Must have been a great study!

Wednesday, 28 April 2010

Coulds, Woulds, and Wills

Richard made a nice pickup in Bible study tonight. We were looking at the cross as it reveals what’s going on in the Trinity, working our way through Matthew 26.

In the Garden, of course, Jesus prays ‘Not my will but yours’. He submits his own desire to please the Father he loves. This, we kind of expect. He’s a good Son.

But the fact that he prays it is suggestive. Could he have been more insistent and got out of the crucifixion? Would the Father have honoured such a request?

The answer comes soon afterwards. v. 53:

Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

The Son could, it seems. And the Father would. The Father would submit his own desire to please the Son he loves.

It’s a marvellous moment – when we realise that the Son is prepared to serve the Father, just as the Father is prepared to serve the Son. Not for our sake (though this is also true!), but for the sake of the other.

Either of them could pull the pin. The other would submit to it. And the world, the whole of creation, would miss its moment and be lost.

But neither did, because neither willed it. The love within the Godhead spills over into a love for that which lies outside the Godhead.

Yes, I Think I Know Why…

…this book was marked down.

Capture

In the world of publishing, it’s just so important to get the right title, isn’t it?

To be followed by So That’s Why They Call Him the Lord of Hosts: Sacraments and All That Stuff. After the markdown, it won’t cost a whole lot of dough.

Monday, 12 April 2010

When the Absurd Obscures the Embarrassing

In the wake of the kerfuffle over John Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at this year’s Desiring God conference, I’ve noticed that there has been some criticism of Warren’s Easter services featuring the Jonas Brothers to bring in the crowds. If you’re in doubt, here's the press release.

 

I’m sure it worked. But frankly, it seems bizarre. Only in America, as they say. And hopefully not often.

 

But here’s the thing that gets me: Tim Challies and the Pyromaniacs both mention the Easter thing…and neither of them act surprised that Saddleback’s Easter festivities seem to overlook something…just a small thing…Good Friday! No wonder Warren had no trouble preaching on Elijah for his Easter sermon – if you’re going to ignore the cross, the resurrection might as well go too…

Friday, 19 March 2010

An Open Letter to Tony Abbott

Who am I kidding? Like he’s going to read this! But perhaps the email will reach him.

I attended an event today where the leader of the Opposition came at the invitation of the local Federal member ‘to personally thank’ community service organisations. And I just sent him the following…

Dear Tony

(presumably via one of your staff!)

I realise it’s unlikely that this will get to you; perhaps it will help to state up front that I expect this won’t be like most of the email you receive.

I was among the crowd at the Nowra School of Arts this afternoon, and have an observation to make about the way you spoke at the event. On the whole, you were gracious, polite, prepared to admit fault – all commendable things. However, there was also the refrain about ‘we delivered $x million dollars so you could have y facility’.

My point is this: is it not possible, just sometimes, to also talk about how money has been expended on somebody other than the audience? I realise that welfare doesn’t go over well, but still, can we not raise the debate above the usual appeal to self-interest and parochialism? If I’m looking for leadership, that’s what I’m looking for – preparedness to do something because it’s right, not because it polls well. I know you can’t look like one of those lefty Labor types (!) … but I’m sure there are still some areas where you can challenge your hearers to be glad somebody else got prioritised: the disabled, or orphaned kids, or the struggling aged poor.

I’d love to see you have a go at it, anyway! And thankyou for reading.

Wouldn’t that be nice?!

Good Housekeeping

House

…means you keep your blog looking clean and fresh. But it’s also the title for our next sermon series on 1 Timothy…

March 28 • 1 Timothy 1:1-11

The Son He Never Had

Paul writes to his dear friend, and says the second-nicest thing he can, calling Timothy his son. But even more valuable than that…

April 2 • 1 Timothy 1:12-20

Stating the Obvious

Sometimes, the simple truth needs to be said. Even in the old old story, there’s something new to be found.

April 11 • 1 Timothy 2:1-8

A House of Prayer for All Nations

Take the Eight Verse Challenge: what on earth holds all of this together? To figure it out, you’ll need the wisdom of Solomon!

April 18 • 1 Timothy 2:8-15

Living the Quiet Life

Nothing controversial here, right?

No, seriously, we all know relations between men and women are totally straightforward.

Of course they are…

April 25 • 1 Timothy 3:1-16

Curriculum Vitae

So Timothy receives the letter from his mate Paul, and starts reading. He goes from pleased to perplexed to plain old bored. Why does Paul harp on about all this?

May 2 • 1 Timothy 4:1-10

Fighting Fit

The difference between cantankerous and courageous is …

May 16 • 1 Timothy 4:11-16

Watching Yourself

… knowing how to keep your own house in order.

May 23 • 1 Timothy 5:1-16

The Widows Might

You’re tempted to wince as you read Paul digging himself in deeper and deeper. Wasn’t chapter 2 enough?

May 30 • 1 Timothy 5:17-6:2

I Submit, Your Honour...

If all of this was being taught in your church, you’d want to have good elders too, wouldn’t you?!

June 6 • 1 Timothy 6:3-21

False Profits

Money talks, and some people listen. But the cost is too high. Where do you place your trust?

 

There’s a gap for Mother’s Day – we’ll do something special for that, once I remember the good idea I’ve had and already forgotten! But just because I like it, here’s the descriptor for the day:

Come brother, sister, daughter, son,
Make sure she has a day that’s fun -
So here to church your mum should come!

I’m plagiarising the metre and some of the opening line from somewhere – feel free to submit guesses. Perhaps I could offer some of my points from Byron’s blog as a reward (Byron, here’s your chance to get on your own scoreboard!)…

Monday, 15 March 2010

On Music in Church

Short of telling parents how to raise their kids, music must be one of the best ways to start a squabble in church. Or cyberspace. But if I’m to be true to this blog’s proclaimed purpose, this should be here.

 

I’ve been prompted to think about how music is best used in church. I’ll aim at expressing how I think it’s best used in church – I have more chance of hitting that target.

So, if I’m running a music ministry for a contemporary context, I have these things in mind…

New Music vs Old Favourites

I’ve got three agendas running here, in my mind – these are comments on the songs’ newness, apart from whatever good they do by their particular lyrics/style/themes etc.

1) I like to try to have a ‘theme song’ for each sermon series. The idea is that we can use it to help us get into the right headspace for hearing whatever the theme(s) of the series is. Let me give an example: in 2008 I did a series looking at Jeremiah. Jeremiah is unremittingly miserable for almost the whole time. You can’t avoid it. But I wanted us to be able to look at a hugely significant book, rather than dodging it forever. We learned two ‘theme songs’ during the series: Blessed Be Your Name and The Voice of the Lord. The first of these acknowledges the likelihood of suffering but doesn’t go off and sulk about it – it teaches a healthy response, and this is helpful in facing up to what’s happening in Jeremiah. The second of these is about the power of God’s word – probably the key theme of Jeremiah – and looks forward to how God’s word will do all sorts of wonderful stuff in the future. Together, they meant we could engage with the theology of Jeremiah, while not losing sight of our hope.

Note that the link is to the series, rather than individual sermons (though of course I was deliberate about when we used each song) – they meant I could preach an individual sermon without having to go over the same ground each week – the songs could help me with that.

A ‘theme’ song will get used multiple times in a short space of time. A new song will get used multiple times in a short space of times. Makes sense to have a ‘theme’ song be a new song, I figure. Otherwise…

2) I’ve seen too many decent songs die from overuse. My feeling is that you need to have enough songs rotating through to get a balance between ‘we know the song and can sing it unself-consciously and therefore engage emotionally/cognitively/spiritually through it’ and ‘we sing this every second week, and I’m so familiar with it that I tune out most of the time’. My rule of thumb is that means singing a song roughly every couple of months or so – so when you do, you notice what you’re singing but aren’t distracted by it. Allowing for some ‘seasonal’ songs, that means you’re looking at a stable playlist of around 50-70 songs.

3) I also have been thinking this week about the value of novelty. Again, this is a balancing act. However, if churches basically stop doing anything new, it becomes a plague. Energy, passion, enthusiasm all die. On the other hand, if everything is always new all the time, people are constantly off kilter and unable to simply be there and do church and engage with God and each other. So I like using new songs to communicate that ‘hey, we’re not satisfied and complacent yet; church can be even better; we need to keep on changing just a little so that we’re always forced to stay focused on mission (ie reaching the lost) rather than maintenance (ie just keeping the wheels turning).’ Left to our own devices, I think we’d all prefer to get things to a place we like, and keep it there – but then autopilot goes on, and it’s all downhill from there.

Song Selection (what’s in our playlist)

I work from a playlist that has around 50 songs. I derived it basically from a combination of various sources that reflected what we were singing when we moved to this church.

Some culling was involved – there were probably a dozen or so songs that I ‘left off’ the list. Some of these were because they weren’t in regular use; some because I thought the music or lyrics weren’t the best, and we didn’t need to keep it on the list; some because I thought they had simply had their day.

So I’m working from a list of what I think we can use on a regular basis.

However, there have been occasions when someone has said ‘hey, what about this?’ and so we’ve done songs that are outside ‘the list’. That’s fine – a decent song that’s suffering from overuse can still work – because it’s so well known you could pick it up in twenty years and sing it note-perfect, so there’s no issue with bringing it out, and also because having been well-loved you can slot into using it congregationally quite well. But if that same song was coming in every 5-6 weeks, it would start to tire very quickly, and you lose it again.

There are some songs where I think the words are so bad that they just shouldn’t be sung. People may love them for various reasons; they may be able to interpret the lyrics so that what they mean when they’re singing isn’t dodgy (it might require a little verbal gymnastics, but you can do it). However, I feel bound by my role as a pastor to say that we won’t sing them, for the sake of the weaker brother/outsider/etc.

For example – there’s a newish song that’s starting to get picked up by churches all over the place. I’ve heard it a few times. The song is trying to do something commendable, but to my mind the writer has made such a total hash of the lyrics that they can mean almost anything, and unfortunately, one of the most natural readings teaches an absolutely abhorrent view of repentance. The music itself is quite good, so there’s a real danger of horrible theology working its way in via the music. I can’t think of any compelling reason why the song should be used when it has this massive drawback.

Song Selection (from week to week)

I pick five songs each week. Of these, there’d be a couple that I really want (for fit with sermon/service), and then the rest are chosen to balance things out. If a service leader or the musos need to change a song for some reason or other, there’s room for this.

Actually, the last paragraph began with an untruth. I pick five songs for each week, but I do the picking in big blocks – up to two months at a time.

The advantages of doing song selection this way, rather than just ‘what shall we have this week’, are that: you can cycle through the songs and give them all a go, rather than favouring particular ones; you can make sure that a song is used in its best week (rather than, oh, this would have been perfect, but we sang it twice in the last month already); and, as above, there’s a chance for some to-and-fro before you get to rehearsal!

As I go about picking the songs, then, I try to find the best couple of songs for a given weekend, in terms of matching the theme of the sermon/service, and then with the songs that are left over, I try to place them so we get a mix of tempos, moods, etc (so not all dirges, or not all ‘I- songs’ and no ‘we-songs’).

The disadvantage of the system is that it’s time consuming when you do the picking. I think it’s worthwhile enough to pay that price.

Songs + Sermon + Service

I’ve been a bit too imprecise in the past in how I’ve spoken in this area – I’ve tended to talk about ‘matching the sermon’, which isn’t quite saying what I mean.

Within a service, we have various elements – we hear from God (readings, sermon, for example), we respond to God (prayer, singing), we engage with each other (creed, perhaps; announcements; sharing informally before and after, etc). The idea is that overall, we aren’t skewed to any particular direction – and if you only did one of these categories, you can imagine how impoverished Sundays would be.

So when it comes to music’s part in this, I try to spread it through the different bits. We want to sing some ‘we-songs’ so that we’re encouraging each other (psalms hymns and spiritual songs!). We also want songs that are more personally addressed to God. We want songs that admit our sin, others that rejoice in salvation, others that praise God for his blessings, and so on.

What I mean is, music is really really good at engaging our emotions, and I want to make use of this for all the emotions that we should feel – both positive and negative. And I want us to be able to emotionally engage all the way through the service, so I like having the songs sprinkled throughout.

An interesting question is whether to begin a service with praise songs to get us off to a good start – not an uncommon practice around the traps. Let me preface my comment by saying what a good Anglican is supposed to say (before I go on to disagree!). Anglican services have deliberately made a habit of kicking off almost immediately with a confession. Week in, week out. The idea was it would teach the congregation that we’re sinners, and that coming before God is a huge privilege not to be taken for granted.

Obviously, this is about as far as you can get from starting out with a string of praise songs every week!

Now, I disagree with the ‘Anglican’ position, in our context, for a simple reason: we tend to only have Christians come to church. The Anglican services were written in an era when church attendance was literally compulsory, so you’d have bucketloads of unbelievers there. Confession up front made sense in that context, but ours has changed.

My preference is to be free to be flexible. For example:

Service X – the sermon is going to call us to repent. It makes sense then to open with songs that remind us of how good God has been. Then we hear the call to repent, know he has always treated us graciously, and can more readily admit our sin. Then we can sing a more downbeat song that reflects on forgiveness, for instance, then finish up the service on an up note again – hurrah for being forgiven.

Service Y – the sermon is going to provoke us to some positive action. It would make no sense to follow the sermon with a confession – that’s just saying we’re planning to change nothing. Nor do you want to go through the service without the quiet moment of confession/recognising our dependence on God, because then the sermon’s all about how we can do good works in our own strength. So in this scenario, the more reflective song might come earlier in the service.

There’s a random collection of thoughts in search of a conclusion. There’s more that could be said; I’ve really only focused on the practicalities and the theology that might lie behind them. But it’s a start!

Thursday, 4 February 2010

The Collapse of Roman Catholicism?

If you were expecting a serious comment here, I'm afraid you'll be disappointed. It's old news that Jesus and Madonna have a relationship. But apparently, it's all over. They've just got nothing much in common any more.

The last paragraph in that linked article, by the way, is surely a knock-down piece of evidence supporting the need to read things in context.

Monday, 1 February 2010

The ‘Ghost-Written’ Blog

In the interests of preserving interest in this blog for its three readers, I thought, ‘how might I generate content without having to do too much work?’ And struck on the brilliant idea of at least posting up the sermon series that I’m working on as they go by. That way, two of my readers might see something new and worthwhile here. They might, if it’s really a compelling series, comment, and that would be exciting.

So we kick off with the first big series of 2010, appropriately enough titled

“The Ghost in the Machine: the Holy Spirit in the Christian Life”

And then I copy and paste…

 

January 31 • John 3:1-8

The Spirit Absconditus

We begin with the problem: how do we look at God’s Spirit, when he seems to hide from us?

February 7 • Acts 2:14-39

The Doubly Promised Spirit

Promises, promises! The Spirit had always been something promised for the future, but the wait was getting ridiculous. This had better be good…

February 14 • Luke 4:14-30

The Man of the Spirit

… and for that matter, what would it look like, to live with that promise fulfilled?

February 21 • Psalm 104

The Giving Gift: Creation

The Spirit is a gift, but he is a gift that keeps on giving. First, there is the gift of being…

February 28 • 2 Corinthians 3:7-18

The Giving Gift: Conversion

… then, the gift of truly being …

March 7 • Romans 8:1-17

The Giving Gift: Sanctification

… and finally, the gift of truly being ourselves, ourselves as we are meant to be: men and women of the Spirit.

March 14 • 2 Corinthians 12:1-11

Given for the Common Good

With our annual meeting following a combined service, this makes the perfect time to consider the gifts of the Spirit. Who are they, and why ‘what’ is wrong!

March 21 • Ezekiel 37:1-14

The Giver of Life

Who is the Spirit? He is who he has always been, the one who breathes life into us, from cradle to grave. The one who engineers our humanity. The one who makes Life. Worth. Living.

 

There, that was easy!